children not to be born with one arm? >> let me think the chairman for

yielding and allowing those with a motion to present their views. i have lived through this community, starting back in the 1990's. a medical procedure that saved the lives of women called partial-birth abortion. let me say to the witnesses, i have the greatest respect for your viewpoint. grateful for your life. your passion. as an aside, let me say as a graduate of dale and being familiar with yellow school, i know the law school is one of the premier teachers of the constitution. recognizes the right of all people. and would venture to say there are individuals with different thoughts from you than i would imagine, professor smith. and therefore to my colleague,

yes, it produces individuals who have a concern for the constitution. let me begin my questioning by asking, would you join in a request for the national institute of health for convening a panel to look at fetal tissue research? would you join in that? >> i'm not prepared to testify whether i agree or not. >> do you think it is a good idea if we have 80 dispute about this, would it be a good idea? >> i served on a panel that history has proved was fallacious. >> you would not be interested

in having a review. i thank you for your answer. let me say and -- planned parenthood complying under president reagan, you may have been one of those that does not agree but the contestants -- consensus came out and the panel decided it was accidental policy to support fetal tissue and develop a guideline that said the research in question is intended to achieve medical goals. professor smith? is it not true, and this question has been asked but i think it should be asked again, out of this long journey of fetal tissue research, the impact in medicine has been overwhelming? dealing with measles, it has

helped these vaccinations? normal human development in order to gain insight into birth the facts? has this come to your attention? the tissue research in these medical sciences, this kind of productivity? >> absolutely. >> the proponent of these videos was trying to highlight the ugliness of what is misdirected. the harvesting of organs which was not the case. let me ask you this question. are you aware of how mr. dayton was able to engage in these false and misdirected, distorted and maybe criminal videos? >> i have been advised that this

hearing is not on that subject. the videos are in the letters sent by the republican chairs. let me say to you what he actually did. he stole the identity of the president of a feminist club at the high school. when he was asked to participate in a lawsuit, he invoked his fifth amendment right to refrain from self-incrimination. that does not sound like a man who has true to stand on. might i ask you, if you would come of the question was asked about whether planned parenthood does anything good with regard to women's health. would you recite that again to me? that is separate from the limited from the limited right to abortion?

do they not engage in women's health? >> the services include contraceptive services, wellness exams. cancer screenings. std treatments. planned parenthood serves millions of women. one in five women have visited a clinic. it is a beloved institution, not just by me but most americans because it is one of the few accessible providers of excellent, high-quality care. outside of the abortion area in addition to the limited number of abortions they do. >> i would like to put into the record and ask we not engage in this kind of member attack. i am putting into the record a state-by-state data that

indicates through planned parenthood with respect to health, through sunday 1000 cap tests. -- 371,000 cpap tests. services for women who would not otherwise be able to afford it. every state is recorder get rid helping these women get health care. another i would like to put into the record from a group that had indicated young people are less likely to have insurance and have low-paying jobs. i would like to submit this. finally, i would like to submit from the congressional research service the definition of fetal tissue and the amazing miracle that have come for fetal research. i'm not here to push abortion, i am here to push life and respect

for women and roe versus wade legality. i'm not here to defund planned parenthood which has now been presented by members of congress. >> break for order. >> who should be getting ready of -- rid of sequestration and not keeping women from getting health care. i think the chairman and i yield back my time. >> i know recognize mr. issa. mr. issa: i would like to have the time she yielded back. the gentlelady from texas cited the height of amendment. i served with henry hyde.

i think the hearing needs to be focused more on his legacy and less what i hear on each side of the aisle. where we are having a discussion be the scope of our jurisdiction. many years ago, henry hyde came to california. no surprise, he was well known for his pro-life position. the california right to life group asked if they could meet with him. he said, sure. we got together in a room of strident pro-life advocates in california. they asked him about overturning roe and every issue you might expect. henry more eloquently than i could redirected the

conversation to why he was pro-life and why it was so essential that congress take a position. what he said in my poor interpretation of henry hyde was a nation that does not provide respect for life is not a nation he or anyone else could be proud of. that the life of the unborn and the concern for their welfare come the life of a newborn, the life of the infirm and older lee, all were issues which a civilized society had to promote. they had to promote it publicly and privately. he never as far as i know supported broadly trying to reverse everything that was done but he did stand for a question of will we treat people with respect. i bring that up before asking

questions because the questions from what i have seen in these videos, however obtained, seems to have a question of our these individuals, not the organization, these individuals, do they have a respect for the sanctity of life. these are more than organs. these are now unborn who were hopefully providing life to others so they may live for research. it is legal. it is part of the process. but there it is a question about whether an organization and its employees are as efficient as they should become effective. as good of stewards as they should be. whether or not it is conduct that is inappropriate for the organization to allow. i would like to leave it at that. the important thing is with our

half-billion years -- dollars every year, including president bush, this group receives a large block of money. other groups receive money for similar outreach. these are funds the congress has decided with your taxpayer dollars will deliver for this purpose. i know you're long history in the pro-life movement. i'm going to ask you one question. assuming the half-billion dollars and other moneys are going to be spent, shouldn't we make sure they are spent to the best steward of the money? the most effective support of women's health? should we take an interest in

whether the organization and its employees are respectful and supportive of women's health and quality of life for they and their children to be born. thank you. >> that is the proper role of congress. there are hundreds, maybe thousands of providers who if the half-billion dollars was not received, -- are not associated by their association with abortion. i think everybody would be a lot more comfortable with that. resources would not be inadvertently diverted to support those activities. in the association would be term -- terminated.

>> i recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen for five minutes. mr.:: can you tell us what was incorrect in the portrayal of planned parenthood's activities and the use of fetal tissue? and the price there of? ms. smith? you don't remember. thank you, ms. smith. ms. smith: it is hard for me to tell from the videos what is correct or incorrect. i'm not familiar with the actual practices of planned parenthood. i'm not a lawyer for them. what i believe happened, according to the forensic -- team of forensic experts and their report, things are edited out of context and it made to

look like they were actually negotiating, haggling, about the price. as if they were selling body parts. i don't think that is true. i don't think they are selling fetal tissue. >> does the law allow them to get reimbursed for the cost? ms. smith: absolutely. the law allows that. the discussion was about reimbursement costs. even in the edited version, the official does say, we are not for the profit. i will have to check and see what the reasonable costs are. i understand there are other statements edited out that i have not seen. >> his comments made on some of the videos, he said, they raise considerable concerns they are

born alive and then killed for planned parenthood. >> i didn't see any evidence or here anything of a violation of the statute. if we are talking about pre-viable fetuses, i don't see any violation at all. >> he has raised concerns that it may be a setup for women to obtain an abortion where she may not otherwise do so. can you make a comment on such a convoluted statement? >> i know he number of women who have gone through the process of whether to have an abortion. fetal tissue donation doesn't seem to be something that would interest to their decision-making on that issue. i can't imagine that is happening. also, i understand consent and the decision to make the

abortion at a time separate from , given when one has decided to have an abortion, when one like to contribute, those decisions are being made separately. the 1988 report recommends that and i think it is appropriate. >> i would like to hear it again about some of the research being done with the use of fetal tissue to protect people and save their lives. ms. smith: there was an indication about the importance of fetal research to many new treatment areas including diabetes. common diseases like diabetes and uncommon ones like als or lou gehrig's disease and other

diseases we know little about. parkinson's. promising new treatments in those areas. >> as an individual who had polio. >ms. smith: the early polio vaccines came from fetal cell line research, i believe. >> i appreciate what fetal tissue can do. osiris is important to many american -- all timers disease -- alzheimer's is an issue important to many americans. ms. smith: it is good we are concerned about consent and consent is obtained from the woman properly. that the decision to donate be made at a time after one has decided whether to have an abortion. that is appropriate. against incentivizing abortion

somehow. i find it difficult to think this would change a woman's mind about having an abortion. they make the decision for all kinds of reasons. this is not seem to be one of them. it is something one would decide only one had made -- after one had made the actual decision. >> thank you, general mine. i will recognize myself or five minutes for questions. there is a lot of focus here by certain committee members related to just the fetal tissue portions of it, the legality. is it for sale. one thing that is pretty clear, if you look at the videos, these little body parts represent what once was a living human child. when they came to planned parenthood, they were living children.

they died april death while they were there. you can't avoid that reality. with all the subterfuge and distortion, the bait and switch tactic, don't forget these were once little babies that were killed at the hands of planned parenthood. the first video released for the center for medical progress, the senior director of medical services described the factor of intent as playing an important role in the abortionist's use of the abortion method. she said quote the federal abortion ban is a law and laws are up to interpretation. some interpret it as intent. if i say, i do not intend to do this, what ultimately happens does not matter. i did not intend to do this on day one so i am complying with

the law. to believe the reliance on intent represents a valid legal approach? secondly, what would change if we had the unborn child protection law on the books? >> i think she was referring to the issue of partial-birth abortion. it has been the god by the pro-abortion side. it is only -- it has been the dodge by the pro-abortion side. that that is the process you intended at the beginning. the law does not work like that. the intent applies to each of those actions.

for instance, the intent to kill the child once the child is partially delivered. not whether this complete process was in tended in the first instance. secondly, the abortion act passed by this house of representatives, there is the potential that some of the children born in tact and potentially alive are produced at that time which would prevent that sort of activity. it could have an impact on obtaining fetal tissue. >> thank you, sir. i will turn to you. when you are asked to define infanticide.

your own words are when a baby or if it is killed. the act clarifies that babies born alive during an attempted abortions are afforded legal considerations given to all other persons. please tell me if you would support this, supporting these born alive infants by providing a requirement that abortion providers or their staff immediately call 911 for an emergency transfer to a hospital of the infant alive at the clinic. also to provide criminal penalties including present time and fines for individuals who do not provide medically appropriate and reasonable care to a born alive infant. ms. smith: if you're talking about a viable fetus.

>> i'm talking about born alive. ms. smith: you are talking pre-viable. >> i'm talking about born alive. i don't understand what you are not talking about. a child who is born and alive. is that hard to understand? ms. smith: the question is, is it a viable fetus? like the supreme court, i believe the proper line we draw is viability. >> whatever that legal term, viability. if they can do ballet. even though they are born alive, all of the sudden that transcends the whole question? let me ask you again. for a child born alive, born alive. that means breathing, moving around, a born alive child, do

you think that we should have amendments to our infants born alive protection act to ensure 911 be called? to provide a transfer to a hospital and have criminal penalties for those who did not provide medically appropriate and reasonable care to a born alive infant? >> i think our law already provides protection for them. >> you are not going to enter the question. >> if the child is born at five months. we will be specific to, five months. what should that child be afforded protection? but not if it is five minutes earlier? they are not afforded protection? if they are born alive at five months, they deserve attention.

correct? ms. smith: if they are a viable fetus. i think you are confusing to read if you are born alive and you have a viable fetus, they deserve protection. >> somebody are really -- arbitrarily says they are not viable, they are not protected? ms. smith: they will not survive. so whether or not you have a federal law, it will not protect them. >> you know if it is viable without medical professionals? ms. smith: i am not a doctor but doctors know. >> it is subject to whatever the doctor says. we will decide to let this one live or transfer this one for medical care but not this one. the schizophrenia of all of this --

ms. smith: you should be asking a doctor about viability. >> my question is, if the child is born alive at five months, should they be protected? you are having difficulty answering the question. ms. smith: i am not sure how many weeks and it depends on whether the fetus is filed. >> whether they are alive or not is not the issue. it is whether they are bilevel --file will read -- it is whether they are a viable. ms. smith: some are never viable . would you provide aid and comfort? >> appropriate and reasonable care. that is what we should do. with that, i will no yield to mr. king for five minutes. i apologize. i will recognize mr. johnson. mr. johnson: this hearing has

all of the hallmarks of a third world fourth rate nation show trial. the objective is to highlight for my friends on the other side of the aisle, or to make the case for defunding planned parenthood. the reason being or the stated reason that they give, that it is an abortion provider. it has horrific things that it does to effectuate abortions. therefore we should have a defunding of planned parenthood. that is what this hearing is about. i call it a show trial hearing because the accuser is not present. the center for medical progress. they are not present.

neither is the accused, planned parenthood. what we have is -- at a crucial moment in the affairs of the nation, we are coming up on september 30, the end of the fiscal year, we are not talking about funding government operations past september 30. we are talking about abortion and defunding planned parenthood instead. we have only got seven legislative days left in this month to put together a budget so this country can continue to operate past september 30. we are careening towards a government shutdown on the issue that is being addressed here today. it is a show trial. a lot of people scoring political points.

on this committee, only one female on the other side of the aisle. that is pathetic, the voices being heard are a voices from the other side of the aisle that one to continue the attack on women's reproductive health. that is what this is all about.

transcript released from these videos include words omitted from the released videos. mr. bopp, were you involved in the production of these videos. mr. bopp: i'm advised that this is not the subject -- >> i'm asking the question, were you involved in the production of the cmp videos, yes or no? mr. bopp: if the chairman permits me, i will answer the question. >> if the gentleman would like to answer the question, you can. >> you were not present at the time these videos were being shot him a were you asked and mark -- these videos were being shot, where you? and you haven't seen the videos in their unedited anti-ready? mr. bopp: no. >> based on your answers, you are telling us you are here to testify about a series of

videos that you can't confirm whether they are accurate or not. yes or no. mr. bopp: i'm not answering yes or no. this is the old -- >> if you don't want to answer the question, i've got questions. i've got questions for other witnesses. you are testifying, sir, to videos that you don't know whether they are accurate. mr. bopp: i've seen the videos. >> but you have not seen the unedited videos, correct? mr. bopp: that is correct. >> you want this committee to accept your opinions about some edited videos -- this is a show trial. mr. bopp: i am testifying based upon the videos. >> you are not testifying on unedited videos. you are testifying based on

edited videos. >> has the gentleman seen all the unedited videos himself? >> no, i have not. i've not even seen the edited videos, but my question is to this business -- this witness about his ability to testify in a way that people can accept his testimony with any credibility or not. i would venture to conclude that your testimony is pretty wortess here. but let me ask you this question, mr. bopp. you are a strong proponent of the death penalty, are you not? mr. bopp: i am a supporter of the death penalty in certain circumstances. >> and what about you, you support the death penalty also? >> [indiscernible] >> and ms. ohden? ms. ohden: i'm not.

>> you do not support the death penalty? ms. ohden: i do not. >> i give you an a for consistency. with that, i would yield back the balance of my time. >> i now recognize the gentleman from ayala -- from iowa, mr. king. mr. king: thank you. i think the witnesses for coming forward today and delivering your testimony. i know that sometimes reliving these things is a heavy burden. i'm always impressed that witnesses can deliver that message from the head and the heart. listening to the gentleman from georgia, and some of this doesn't quite fit with my worldview, but i noticed that ms. smith, he didn't ask you your position on the death penalty. i give you an opportunity to tell us. ms. smith: i'm against the death penalty. >> was your earlier testimony

that dismemberment of babies is not necessarily an inhumane way for those babies to die? ms. smith: my definition of baby is a baby that is born. if you are talking about fetuses -- >> but you acknowledge that testimony. you would not assert that it is inhumane to dismember this unborn baby. ms. smith: i'm sorry? >> you would not assert that it is inhumane to dismember an unborn baby. ms. smith: i would say it is not inhumane to perform abortion on a reliable fetus. >> that would be an unborn baby, would it not? you went through this with chairman frank. i think we've resolved that you have your language and you are sticking to it. and if anybody uses any other term that describes it differently -- ms. smith: i just want to know

what you mean by it. mr. king: let me ask another question. do you recall when it hit the news a few years ago that red china, the chinese, would bring criminals up on capital charges and through due process, the chinese due process, convict them of a capital crime, sentence them to execution, and on their way to execution, harvest their organs and use those organs in china? do you recall that? ms. smith: no. >> it happened. it does happen. i recall that america was appalled by the idea that a heartless, barbaric civilization like the red chinese would send someone to death under their version of due process, roll them through the operating room, and harvest their organs.

that was, i'll say, the harvest of the execution. we were all called at the, reality of executing someone and harvesting their organs. does that of all you? ms. smith: absolutely. mr. king: i thought it might. i wonder what the chinese might think of the united states of america to the mark yobe borrowm the chinese, send that money to planned parenthood, that money that flows through their system and sub being utilized on planned parenthood, but we are helping to fund an organization that is dismembering babies, harvesting their organs, and selling those organs on the market, and we heard them negotiating for the price on the market along with the methodology that would be used to harvest more organs. what do you think the chinese think of us if we are critical

of them for harvesting organs from someone who has gone through due process and sentenced to death? ms. smith: i have no idea what the chinese think of us. i do think the supreme court got it right when it recognized that the state has an interest in the developing of the fetus. mr. king: i would agree with that. i turned to mr. bopp and ask you that same question, would you care -- have you heard of the practice in china of harvesting organs? have you philosophically compared the two methodologies? mr. bopp: i am familiar with those allegations. and of course the chinese are using the same calculus that the abortion advocates here are using to justify the abuses that have been documented regarding collection of fetal tissue, such as professor smith.

as a person, it is not viable, so you can kill it -- the prisoner convicted of a capital punishment on the way to the executed is clearly not viable. viable being the ability for long-term survival. the way they treat human beings, or don't respect human beings, it would be perfectly acceptable to do what the chinese are doing. mr. king: the united states is virtually borrowing half $1 billion from china and funneling that money through to planned parenthood. the budget of planned parenthood is being used to commit abortions that are dismembering babies and selling their organs on the open market. i don't need an investigation to understand what is going on here. i hold those truths to be

self-evident when i saw the video. we are informing the public by this hearing. the justice department needs to investigate an act. if they see what i've seen, i believe that brings about prosecutions and eventually convictions. i call upon the justice department. do your job. you have testified that you are an independent branch of government not directed by the president. i'm saying there's nobody in this united states of america that should be compelled to pay taxes that are going to pay the interest on the debt to china so something like this can happen. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. chair, i'm outraged by the sensational nature of this hearing that makes no pretense of being fair or impartial. i'm outraged by the accusations made against an organization that serves millions of women in our country.

one in five women visit planned parenthood for health care in their lives. for some, it is the only place they can turn to for basic health care. when our economy fell into tough times, women turned to planned parenthood for affordable primary care services. they fill a vital gap that community health centers can't fill by themselves. the local affiliate in my district was one of the targets of these videos. the center for medical progress tried to discredit them with their heavily edited video. these five short videos, the ones that have been released by cmp, have at least 47 splices where content is edited out but the conversation appears to be seamless. critical context is omitted, including planned parenthood staff members repeatedly saying there is no profit from tissue

donation and should not be, that tissue donation programs must follow the law, and that is dental changes to medical procedures would not occur. we know for the longer version of the first video that the doctor said at least 10 times that planned parenthood affiliatesaffiliates do not prom fetal tissue donations, making statements such as, affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. they are looking to serve their patients. yet none of the highly relevant passages were included in the edited version excerpt that cmp released to the national media. and yet my four affiliates in my local area served over 27,000 women last year alone. they did thousands of exams, breast exams, tests to determine

sexually transmitted diseases, and cervical cancer screenings. by doing this, they save lives. the leading questions in these videos don't lead to these numbers. instead, the questions lead to a discussion about a legal fetal tissue donation program that our affiliates don't participate in for the most part. i'm calling out these videos for what they are, the latest attack on women's access to reproductive health care. republicans are saying we don't want to see the videos, but the truth is the opposite. we want to see the whole videos, not selectively edited versions. that is why i, along with 11 of my colleagues, sent a letter to chairman goodlatte today, saying that the full footage must be made available to us and the public. only then can there be a fair and complete investigation. without the full, unedited

source footage, it is impossible for there to be a thorough and transparent congressional investigation. professor smith, would videos like these have any evidentiary value? should we rely on these videos in our own investigation? do you believe the public would benefit from cmp releasing the full footage? ms. smith: absolutely. i think cmp should be required to release the full footage. the edited versions would not have evidentiary value, precisely for the reasons you stated. words are taken out of context and placed over each other out of time. the way world leaders are sometimes made to the singing posongs. it is that kind of technology. it is just as unreliable.

ms. chu: you talked about that research panel, that 21 people were appointed to this commission and supported the idea of fetal research. can you speak of at some of the safeguards lawmakers will put in place to ensure safeguards are working? ms. smith: as far as i can tell, the safeguards appear to be working. fetal tissue is not allowed to be sold. the incentives for the main actors in these situations are not -- it is not pushing abortion in any way. it is not manipulating people or coercing their choice. those are the factors i would hope would be in place. to the extent the committee appears to have concerns about

that, if the public appears to have concerns about whether this is being implemented properly, i think the appropriate response is another commission to investigate the issue. ms. chu: thank you. mr. chair, i would like to enter into the record two letters. first is a letter from 11 latino organizations in support of planned parenthood. the second is a letter from planned parenthood to the institute of health and medical research. >> without objection. >> a parliamentary inquiry. mr. chairman, i'd like to know whether the majority is in possession of the unedited videos. >> the unedited full footage of these videos is online. all you have to do -- is that incorrect? cmp has stated that they've released it online weeks ago. so i would only hope that my

friends in the minority would look. >> i believe those are the edited versions of these -- >> there's short videos that are heavily edited and then there's what cmp calls full videos, which have also been edited. this is in the forensic analysis report. nobody that we know of has these actual full footage videos. >> that is my point, whether or not the majority is in possession of the full unedited videos. >> the answer is no, we are not. but i would suggest that we are in possession of enough to indicate that living human viable babies are being murdered in planned parenthood and their bodies are being harvested. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. as the majority received videos

from this organization? >> we have looked at the ones available to everyone else online. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. as the majority communicated with this organization and sought copies of unedited versions of these videos? >> the answer is, we've not

received any additional footage from cmp. >> my parliamentary inquiry is whether or not the majority -- point of parliamentary inquiry. my inquiry, has the majority communicated with cmp in an effort to obtain unedited videos in connection with the investigation of cmp? >> they are not in committee records at this time. we've made no formal request for that. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> with that, i'll recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it seems to me this hearing is not whether there is a crime that has been committed or not. that is i think a decision for

the department of justice to determine later. even though my friend from georgia acted as a defense lawyer defending someone that has been charged in his entire questioning, the issue is whether or not taxpayers should fund planned parenthood. that is the issue before this committee today. i think the name is sort of interesting. planned parenthood. maybe it should be planned non-parenthood. as opposed to planned parenthood. but that is just my personal opinion. let me talk about women in all of this. i'm going to ask the ladies from the far left to the far right of the table and maybe ms. smith in the middle some questions. ms. ohden, just your opinion, is there any reason taxpayers should fund planned parenthood,

or are there other options where women can receive women's health care? ms. ohden: i don't have the statistics in front of me, but euros state is funding women's health at a higher level. i was reading something yesterday, that there is more funding than there had been in the past, despite the restrictions that have been placed on abortion facilities through different measures. i think that is a great example. the state of texas is still funding women's health services at an all-time high level. apologize that i don't have that specific information but i was just reading it on the plane last night. as a woman who survived an abortion, there is something wrong when health care and women's needs and women's empowerment is based on someone's life ending.

>> thank you. my understanding is there's 732 qualified health care centers in texas and there are 38 planned parenthood centers in texas. the issue about videos, edited, not edited, it seems to me the discussion is on multiple things. do we have the full video? do we have all of the e-mails? do we have the side deals with the iranian nuclear agreement? we always seem to be missing something when we want to make a decision. and here we are wanting the full video. the issue is whether or not there should be federal funds for planned non-parenthood. ms. jepson, is it jepson? tell me a little bit about your knowledge of planned parenthood.

based on your background and your life experiences. you don't have to go into those, but what do you know about them? >> my biological mother went to planned parenthood, and they advised her to have a saline abortion. planned parenthood has had an enormous impact on my life. i have the gift of cerebral palsy as a direct result of a lack of oxygen to my brain from that procedure. margaret sanger was quite an individual. if i may reread this quote that i quoted earlier, she said the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

i just -- that is the woman that began this organization. >> do you have a problem with statues of her in different prominent places in america? ms. jessen: a little bit. >> do you think, just your opinion based on your life experiences, and i value you a great deal, do you think the taxpayers should fund planned parenthood, an organization that does harvest, if we can use the term, body parts of the unborn? ms. jessen: absolutely not. >> my time is expired. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i think the gentleman. i recognize ms. lockman for five

minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my apologies for having to step out. we had the secretary of labor meeting with us and i had to go over for 50 minutes to deal with that. however, i've had the benefit of reading all the testimony. of course hearing the testimony this morning. it seems to me that there are a lot of distortions in terms of how we are approaching it. the real agenda here is pretty obvious, which is to try and eliminate abortion in the united states. that is a right that women have under the constitution, at least in the first trimester. this is a thinly veiled attack

on that right that women have. ms. smith, you are at the law school. you've analyzed all this. i've got a list of the services that are provided by planned parenthood in my state, california. 117 centers. just over 800,000 patient. they could not be absorbed by the other clinics at all. none of the abortion services are funded by the federal government. it is only these other services, contraception, sexually-transmitted disease treatment, pap smears, breast exams, even sex education and outreach. i'm just wondering what the impact would be, if you had a chance to look at california's

impact, if these centers were defunded, what would happen to their patients? ms. smith: thank you for the question. i don't have the exact numbers, but what i know, and i think this is the terrible irony of this hearing and this idea of the funding planned parenthood, is that if you defund the important non-abortion related services that the government funds around this country, including california, what would end up happening is there would be a significant increase in the number of unintended pregnancies, and therefore also an increase in the number of abortions that would occur. that is just the impact on abortion rate alone. we are also talking about the ability of women, particularly low income women, to obtain high-quality services that simply cannot be absorbed by a community health center as has

been suggested. we were talking about wellness exams, cancer screenings, pap smears, std testing, all kinds of services. planned parenthood has become so popular, not because it provides abortion, but because it provides a wide range of services that women and men need to stay healthy. and it does so at reasonable cost and with very high quality. that is why i support planned parenthood and that is why the vast majority of the american people do as well. ms. jessen: in my community -- ms. lofgren: in my community, planned parenthood not only provides birth control and cancer screening and the like, but they provide pediatric care. whole families, not just women coming in. it is women and their children. they are getting immunizations,

getting -- ms. smith: that is an important point. the name planned parenthood, i would disagree with the member before. the name planned parenthood is very apt because planned parenthood is about helping people plan their families and take care of their families. ms. lofgren: just a final question. there's been talk of shutting the government down and that would somehow stop -- what would happen to funding for planned parenthood if we had a government shutdown at the end of this month? ms. smith: because i'm not an official at planned parenthood, i don't know what would happen with their funding stream, when it would come in. it would be medicaid recipients would not be covered i assume for their services.

and would be unable to go to planned parenthood clinics, and women would go without necessary -- and their children would go without necessary health care. ms. lofgren: but it wouldn't defund abortions.

i think we should be able to keep those things separate here as well. they are separate in reality. my time has expired, thank you mr. chairman. chairman: i think the gentlelady. >> thank you mr. chairman. can you describe the process of a partial birth, abortion so people have a better understanding of what it was banned. and a better understanding of what professor smith argued against the ban. >> defined under law, it is where the -- where a physician partially delivers the trunk and legs of the baby, leaving only the head in the birth canal. the baby is alive. and then takes an act to kill the baby at that point. usually, by thrusting scissors into the back of the school.

and then, he completes the delivery. it is a way of killing the baby when most of the baby has already, is already outside of the womb. >> were actually people who argued against banning that barbaric track this? >> oh, yes. many of those we are hearing from today are big advocates for the continuation of partial-birth abortions. they have to respect for human life, if they consider to be unborn or label it as a fetus. literally, anything is all right. >> let's go to that point. professor smith seems to draw a line, artificial as it may be, between the humanity owed to a viable fetus, and the lack of humanity owed to what she considers to be a nonviable fetus. who gets to draw that line of demarcation between non-viability and viability? >> that is a complex question.

number one, it is a medical determination on whether or not a child is a viable. it is a difficult one and there are many great areas. for instance, the statistics are, after 20 weeks, one in four can survive. we would consider that to mean that therefore, anyone born at that point in time should be considered viable. that many times, you simply do not know until later. i have not heard any people who work at abortion clinics are able to make that complex medical decision. >> i think professor smith, if i heard her correctly, situate not a doctor. it should be up to the doctors to make that decision. i did note the irony that it was nine lawyers who came up with the plan. none of them were doctors.

i also noted the irony of hank johnson wondering why there were not more women on our side of the aisle when they tend to target those who seek office as republican women. when roe versus wade was decided, there was not a single woman in the court. that is not seem to trouble him either. for those watching at home or here, doesn't civil law recognize the viability of even a pre-viable fetus when it comes time for the plaintiffs attorney to get paid? >> are many instances of wrongful cases in various states of wrongful death of the unborn of criminal law to punish -- >> let's just take with civil right now. i comes time for the trial attorney to get paid, we have a different definition of viability. >> viability is simply not relevant. >> exactly. you can be two weeks president

-- pregnant. and you have a cause of action on behalf of the child. smoke the attorneys have no trouble being paid for the life of the two week old. >> the idea of using viability as a standard is antiquated and most courts have gone away from that to just simply, at the point that, if the child is alive. >> it is hard to go away from viability when professor smith said, there is not any humanity owed a previable, she will not say "baby." a pre-fetus. did i misunderstand her? is there any degree of humanity code? --degree of humanity owed? you have been sitting beside her. >> as i understand her testimony, if the born alive

infant is considered to be not a viable, then we can do whatever we want. we can kill the live at will, harvested the tissues, whatever the case might be. of course, there is a concern about producing intact infants. which, it has been demonstrated in the videos, is of course, the possibility that these unborn children are alive. there is evidence that one of the intact babies born alive had a beating heart. that is the definition of being alive. >> that is why the videos are relevant to our conversation about partial-birth abortion. mr. chairman, i am out of time. i have two quick questions for miss smith. if we were to double the amount of money to the providers, but not give them to someone named planned parenthood, would you be ok with that? >> i would have to know who they

were going to end if they were qualified. >> anyone not named planned parenthood? >> not anyone, no. >> anyone who is qualified. >> if they provide qualified services to low income people, frankly, yes. >> you are ok with us defunding planned parenthood if it goes to somewhere that can do the most amount of good for the same amount of people. you are ok with congress defunding planned parenthood? >> not in the current environment weather is no one. >> if there was, would you be ok with it? >> if there were, then yes. but there is not. >> if we could identify service providers that the provide the care, you would provide the -- you would support us in defunding planned parenthood. >> i don't know if we would agree on who is qualified.

>> let's just try. we will double the amount of money available, as long as it does not go to planned parenthood. how is that? >> planned parenthood today is the institution that provides the best, highest quality care to women in this country, across this nation, in cities, in low income areas where these services are unavailable. >> they also the target of videos that are barbaric, heinous, in subhuman. as long as we can get that same level of care and give it to an entity not named planned parenthood. >> that is the only reason you oppose them. >> you have no reason why. i was voting to defund planned parenthood before the videos ever showed up. >> i was not talking about the videos. >> i don't think we know each other well enough. >> probably not.

and vice versa. >> thank you, gentlemen. just to clarify. ms. smith, you said earlier in order to determine whether a child is viable, you need to ask a doctor. so consequently, would you support it at that if a child is born alive, the child be transported to a hospital that it can survive, if it is viable? >> if it is viable? >> i am saying that it can be transported to a hospital so medical doctors can ascertain that if it is alive. >> mr. chairman, is the intent to have a second round of questions because you are engaging? >> i would have to see the bill. i am not prepared to support or not support. >> i understand. miss gutierrez -- mr. gutierrez, i believe you are next in line.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank all of the men and women who work at planned parenthood. i would like to thank them for the incredible service they offer millions of women who would otherwise go without the kind of kind, considerate, compassionate, understanding service that i believe that women in this country need. it is not being offered and other venues. i think them because just this last year, 500,000 fewer pregnancies. that is the way to stop abortions. this should not be a question of who is for abortion or against abortion. everybody is against abortion. how do you stop abortion? how do you allow everyone to live in the 21st century? how do you allow women to live freely in the 21st century if they are not in charge of their reproductive system? i think that is key.

part of what is going on here is, planned parenthood has a direct association with the pill. with contraceptives. that fight continues to go on. we should not have that fight. the mass majority of women in america and across the world that have access take birth control. i will not judge my wife. we have two beautiful daughters that are eight years apart. why? because we had access to birth control. get access to birth control so we could determine what it was we were going to have children and raise those children. we could raise those children to be productive citizens of our society. when you show me that planned parenthood actually was selling body parts, then we are going to have a conversation about the future of planned parenthood. nobody has shown that. let's make it very, very clear. medical advances, vaccines for

polio, rubella, vaccines against immune deficiencies, cancer, and since -- parkinson's. we need to continue to have medical research. part of that medical research is because there is the ability, access of the fetal tissue's. if there is profitability of it, nobody has shown the profitability. there needs to be a way that we have medical research in this country. i just want to say, thank you to all of the women and the men, and all of those who labor in our health care delivery system across this country. he those that would provide that to women. 80% of the clients that receive birth control services. that is 105 -- 116,000.

20% of women in this country have visited planned parenthood one in their lives. -- once in their lives. i want to talk a little bit about the fact that, as much as we tried to have universal hair scare -- universal health care, we still do not. it is a not abou not about being antiabortion or pro-abortion. we have been very lucky and very fortunate in my family and in my own personal experience. even when we were pretty poor, to have access to health care for my wife. there were people out there that forgiving that kind of access. to kind of say that we are for planned parenthood because it received money is a little bit under the belt. this is really about women and

about what the law is. just two last points. there seems to be a question here of morality. i just want to say that, look. when you have members of the house of representatives proposing that have been divorced four times. we want to question. their knowledge or their sincerity about marriage. that was overturned by the supreme court. we have clerks that were married once, twice, three times. and that women -- and then men who get religion all of a sudden say they will not give a marriage certificate to those people, that is questioning morality. but you cannot question in the end is this congressman's right to defend his daughter's rights. i raise them, i give them the best that i could. i trust them. i will protect their rights and the right of every other woman

to make decisions about their reproductive system with their conscience. i raise them and give them the best values i could. i will just respect from now. i wish and a society we would have a system that respected all women and the decisions they have to make every day. i don't think we are in a position to judge them. i am certainly not going to allow others to promote legislation or promote situations that put that in jeopardy. thank you so much, mr. chairman. chairman: i recognize mr. labrador for five minutes. >> i am very grateful for the words of morality i just heard from luis gutierrez. this is a issue of reality. that is why we are here today. to me, it is not an issue of simply whether planned parenthood broke the law by

selling fetal body parts obtained through abortions. i don't know if we will ever be able to answer that question, or if it was illegal. the real tragedy is that we are confronted with today, is that human beings have been reduced to near commodities. federal dollars are contributing to it. i think that is immortal. i do not want to contribute to a person -- to a system that profits from someone's face. nor do i want to subject millions of taxpayers to this. people often boil this argument down to medical terms and ignore the real losses this nation faces when we choose to reject someone before he or she has been given a chance to live. like these two beautiful women here today for us and have testified so eloquently. i commend both of them for the courage to come before this

committee as living expressions for life's potential. i am certain life is not always been easy for them. i am incredibly grateful you were given the opportunity to live and that you are choosing to spend time with us today. i too could be said to be a survivor of abortion. my mother, god rest her soul, passed away 10 years ago this month. i love her and i love her most of all because at the time of her pregnancy, when she was a single mom, she was encouraged by people like ms. smith and others, to abort me. she was told that the only way she was going to have a life, a good life, was making sure she did not have me. she did make a personal choice. the choice that should be respected. she made the choice to give me life. not to just give me life, but to give me a good life.

to raise me to the best of my ability to become the best i could do. she made a deal with her god that if she was going to have this child, she was going to do everything in her power to make sure this child had a good life. even though she was a signal -- a single mom with no money. she gave me the best opportunities for me. when we talk about this in scientific terms, we forget that we are talking about children. we are talking about human life. we are talking about people that have a god-given potential to be the best they can be and to be everything that they can be. i hope we do not forget that. and when i watch those videos, i have to admit i could only watch two of them. i think there are seven or eight of them. i could not watch after the second. i was sickened to my core. to me, it was immoral.

it was immoral, what i was watching on that video. we can have a discussion at some point about whether there should be abortions. you and i will disagree on that discussion. but i can tell you, at that point, when those videos were showing that abortion, this nation should really step back and decide whether we are a moral nation, or an immoral nation. whether we are willing to allow that to happen or not. i have a few questions for you, ms. smith. you have decided that federal funding for planned parenthood is not used for abortions. you said that the funding planned parenthood would lead to an increase in abortions. why do you only sate -- only associate abortions with planned parenthood in the case of the funding, but failed to recognize the connection when the federal government contributes money. ms. smith: i was saying that

when you defund planned parenthood ud fund their contraceptive services and the care they provide to women. >> if we give that money to other community health organizations, with that be ok? miss smith: if there were others that provided as high care. >> do you believe the only system that can provide this kind of care is planned parenthood? >> currently, it is the only -- there is a reason he will do not go to the others. there is a reason they go to planned parenthood. >> you have elaborated about the potential legal violations they will face, but what is the -- >> what is the question? >> you have elaborated that planned parenthood broke the law. even if they did not, are there

any justifications to continue to fund their practice? >> no. the reason there is no justification because even if the current laws are not violated, they clearly are committing abuses. but -- they are violating moral and ethical principles. they violate the safeguards. as wrong as the panel was about recommending this research, at least they talked about and proposed safeguards, like no financial incentives. when the laws were passed, it was passed by people who wanted to facilitate, and the level is written, by those who wanted to facilitate fetal tissue procurement from aborted fetuses. it frankly, went beyond what the panel would have limited it to. it could very well be that the current laws need to be adjusted in order to provide one, effective protection against these financial incentives.

and two, by providing the necessary protection for infants born alive. we've a witness right here before this committee speaking for the abortion industry. >> thank you, i give back my time. chairman: i will now recognize mr. deutsch for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today marks the first hearing after the link the august recess. how fitting it is that it be devoted to a bogus and politically motivated attack on women's health care and on those who provided. let's be clear. the entire premise of today's hearing is based on viral videos that have been dissect it, debunked, and discredited. or three years, antiabortion activists from chile cast -- fraudulent cast themselves as medical researchers. they finally got their moment that caught staff breaking the

law. after three years of deception, they failed to find it. what did these extremists do/ ? they edited the same to smear planned parenthood. conveniently scrubbed out with the parts where staff said no one should sell fetal tissue and the goal was to cover the cost of the donation process. in short, these videos are heavily edited and intended to deceive. wsso, why are we here. planned parenthood only do fetal tissue donation in a few states. the fetal tissue research was consensually obtained through legal abortions. that was legalized by congress in 1993 with bipartisan support. the plan private goal is to fulfill the wishes of those patients that decide to donate

fetal tissue to science. and perhaps, contribute to research that may someday contribute yours to alzheimer's, blindness, muscular dystrophy, and so many other ales. family planning is legal. and as many of our witnesses like to pretend otherwise, abortion is legal. yet, here we are. the deception has let congress to hold the several hearings. they plan to defund planned parenthood, a provider that one in five american women rely on in her lifetime. guess what? no federal funding goes to abortion. when you defund planned parenthood you are dusty funding the 97% of what they do that is not abortion. you defund pregnancy tests, birth control, screenings for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and others. you deny prenatal care.

what happens when you defund planned parenthood, the provider that serves over 2 million americans, you deny access to health care that has nothing to do with abortion. let me correct the record. planned parenthood does spend money on birth control that will prevent abortions. in 2013, they help prevent one million unintended pregnancies. that would have led to 300,000 more abortions that here. i honestly don't know why we are here today. here is what i do know. not a single one of the men sitting on this dais today ever had to cap a sentence about their financial aspirations with the phrase, unless i get pregnant.federal law already prohibits planned parenthood from using tax

dollars on abortion related care. i think women should have access to abortions, regardless of their means. it is an attack on the entire concept of reproductive justice. that is the idea that all women, regardless of their race or sexual orientation, or economic background, have the right to education about sexual health and the right to manage the reproductive health. that they have the right to delay childbearing until they become others. the right to central their fertility gives them a better shot to controlling their own destinies. this hearing mr. chairman, is an attack on the economy and therefore, on the dignity of women. i there for, will not dignify it with any questions in a guilt back the balance of my time. chairman: i am grateful. we now recognize mr. radcliffe for five minutes. >> thinks to the chair -- thank you to the chair for convening this.

i do not think it is necessary and the horrifying events that have prompted it. i would like to thank those who are spearheading this critical investigation. it is an investigation. that is worth pointing out. it is the beginning of an investigation, not the end of one. i did not come here to make conclusions. unlike some of the democratic colleagues of mine. they have been making conclusions from the beginning. in the opening remarks, he stated there is no credible evidence that planned parenthood violated the law. he said that before he heard a single word of testimony. the democrats in this rule, convey outrage. this is the obligation of congress. federal tax dollars are going to planned parenthood. we have in our belief in -- we have an obligation to determine if they are using the federal tax dollars to violate the law. my colleagues across the aisle

can be upset, but congress is doing what it should do here today. the gentleman before me just commented on the fact that congress has returned after one month of recess. i can tell you what the 700,000 people in east texas wanted to talk about. they wanted to talk about what they saw on these planned parenthood videos. again, my colleagues across the aisle can say be videos are not real. they are very real to the 700,000 texans i represent. i came here today to ask questions about that. i think the texans i represent, and americans generally, have been sickened by what they have seen on those videos. professor smith, referred to planned parenthood as a beloved institution. i do not know planned parenthood. i only know what i have seen on the videos and what the representatives have said. in

examining the footage, i do not see a beloved institution. icm organization that has a blatant disregard for human life. i know you have talked about how those videos are not reliable. that is not the same thing as saying they are not true. you are not here today under a post to say that none of those statements made by planned parenthood employees were not true. are you? ms. smith: certainly some of the words they uttered and the statements they said, they did say. i think the videos were edited to make it seem that they said things they did not. >> i'm not asking you to say that they are true. i'm asking you to say, would you please agree with me that if the words you heard on the video were true, there were outrageous statements made? ms. smith: we would have to talk about which statements, i think. >> let's talk about some of those statements. miss o'donnell said," it exactly. this is the most gestated fetus

and the closest thing to a baby i have seen. he tapped the heart and it started to beat. the nodes were still firing. i don't know if that means it is technically dead or alive. it had a face. it's nose was pronounced and it had eyelids. as the fetus was intact, she said, this is a good fetus. we can procure a lot from it. we can procure a brain. i am not asking you if the statement is true. i am asking, if it is true, would you agree with me that it raises questions about the legality of actions taken part at planned parenthood? ms. smith: which he is talking about is an abortion of a previable fetus in ways that are distasteful to many of us. i think the language is perhaps, is not sensitive to people and how they want to think about a fetus. we often equate fetus with baby.

many in this committee have done so repeatedly today. that makes us think about full-term, gestated babies. rather than fetuses in a very early stage of destination. that is what she is talking about. when you juxtapose those images in your mind, it becomes distasteful. when you are talking about a very early, undeveloped, -- >> let me reclaim my time. we are going to disagree. you use the term fetus and then i use the term baby. the statement i read does not give you reason to think congress should investigate whether or not the statement is true or violated the partial-birth ban. for the born alive law? ms. smith: there is nothing in that statement. let me talk briefly about -- >> we will just have to agree to disagree. and the enter sting thing earlier you said to the congressman was that you would be -- and an interesting things you said earlier today was that

you said you would be ok with congress defunding planned parenthood if they made the tax dollars available to other providers qualified to give health care to women in this country. ms. smith: if there was an institution that provided as high-quality care as planned parenthood does on as a consistent basis. >> that is not what you said earlier. ms. smith: that is what i meant. >> did you know there are 27 companies of care clinics for every one of planned parenthood. are you where that there are 13,000 federally qualified care centers for women in this country? ms. smith: yes and many of them provide much lower health care than planned parenthood does. there was an investigation recently and there was article that said the difference between planned parenthood clinics and other medical clinic's the care

is very good and compassionate. as compassionate as what you we saw in those videos? ms. smith: people trust him. >> we will have to degree to disagree. i would like to reserve some of my time to -- chairman: unfortunately, the gentleman's time has expired. i will recognize the chairwoman. >> it is unfortunate that the first business after the break is to launch another attack on women's health. already, they have voted to restrict women's health insurance. you know we are conducting a so-called investigation that is rigid in extreme anti-choice ideology rather than evidence and facts. it is shameful that this committee is legitimizing the extremists whose only real

intent is to intimidate women and their health care providers and to shatter planned parenthood clinics across the country. in washington we are already seeing the consequences of these irresponsible attacks. last friday, one of our planned parenthood clinics was the victim of arson, a senseless act of violence. this past time for congress to stop focusing on ideology and to start focusing on facts. the fact is, defunding planned parenthood would have a devastating impact on women's access to care. that includes well women visits, cancer screenings, immunizations, birth control and in fact, more than 90% of the services provided are preventative. we cannot allow the reckless actions of a few extremists to jeopardize the critical safety net provided by planned parenthood. with that, mr. chairman, i would like to submit a letter from 92

organizations, including the national women's law center, expressing support for planned parenthood. professor smith, we were just talking about comments that some of my colleagues have made that community health centers would be able to fill the void if planned parenthood was defunded. i would love to get your opinion on that. is it your understanding that some americans would be left without access to preventative health services if planned parenthood was no longer funded? ms. smith: that is right. i don't know the details. i have not studied all of the areas that are without community health centers. i know there are many places that simply do not have access to them. i also question the level of services that are provided in some of those centers as well. planned parenthood remains the only option for many people to obtain these services. that is definitely true. can i correct the record with one point? >> certainly.

ms. smith: it is something that mr. labrador said that people, like ms. smith encourage people to have abortions. what to correct the record and say i have never encouraged someone to have abortions. i have talked to women who are friends and discussed their options. i would never consider it -- i would never encourage someone or push someone to have an abortion. i water to make that clear. >> i just wanted to highlight in my statement that in washington planned parenthood has almost 120,000 patients. over 17,000 people have gone in for a pap test. over 17,000 have gotten for a breast exam. we are talking about preventative services that are critical. in your opinion, are there particular groups that would be impacted more significantly if planned parenthood services were not, preventative services, were not available? ms. smith: low income women,

women of color, those without insurance, those in communities that do not have access to high-quality services and those who do not have health insurance despite the affordable care act and all of the gains we have made there. >> as we talk about some of the attacks we have seen against planned parenthood, you talked about this in your testimony, there is a history of this. can you elaborate on that? ms. smith: there have been nine different, similar types of smear campaigns since 2000 using these videos, accusing planned parenthood of everything from statutory rape, to ever get all of the different ones. there have been a number of them. that has certainly gone on every time there has been a full investigation. there is a huge outcry about it and it gets into the press and everyone goes crazy,

congressional hearings are held. things are investigated and the claims are debunked. it is happened again, and again, and again. i will predict that that will happen again this time. >> thank you. it is unfortunate it is happening right now. thank you, and a yield back the remainder of my time. chairman: the chair recognizes mr. bishop. >> thank you mr. chair, and thank you for those who have showed up to testify. thank you. you have had to sit through this long bit of questioning. it is important to all of us. i take exception with the last exchange that i heard. terms like "smear attacks," or "attack on women's health." what would you have us do? all of us had to witness what we saw on these videos.

planned parenthood is funded by taxpayers. it is our responsibility as members, read publicans -- republicans and democrats, to address issues like this in this format. i figured we -- i think it would be easy to walk away from this and pretend it did not happen. but in this case, the videos were so apparent, -- the videos were so abhorrant, and so unconscionable that we have to get to the bottom of it. before we go on with the same old, and funding for the sake of having done it before. this is our responsibility and i want to make it clear i am not here on any witchhunt. i am a new member. i am not here as a republican or democrat. i am here because i am an american citizen and a taxpayer. i believe it is our

responsibility to marshal our resources and do it a way that is consistent with our fiduciary duty. that said, i am outraged and as a citizen, i want to be here and talk about it. i went to get back to, but about the diatribe. it is important. want to get back to a question that we begin with. that was the discussion we had about a consideration and whether or not any of this testimony, everything we have heard, the videos is in fact, illegal. what is valuable consideration, i offer that as a question to my legal counsel here, both of you. you suggested there is a gaping hole and it is for reasonable payments for reimbursable costs. whatever that means. i will read you a portion of this transcript, if i might. this is between one of the folks that set up the undercover

video. two individuals in planned parenthood. the actor that was there for the undercover video said, and we agree that $100 would keep you happy. correct? lauren replies that she, she is also the senior director of planned parenthood. i think so. the md for planned parenthood said, let me find out what other affiliates in california are getting. they are getting -- if they are getting substantially more, we can discuss it then. the actor says, yes. the doctor says, the money is not the important thing, but it has to be big enough that it is worth the time. the undercover person says, no, no, but it is something to talk about. it was one of the first things you brought up, right? the doctor said, hmm. the undercover person says, here

is another thought. if we could talk about the specimen. per specimen, per case. the doctor said, hmm if we are able to get a liver panel, maybe that is $75 per specimen. maybe that is mhm, i cannot tell with the transcript. if we have the liver, thymus, and brain hemisphere,. that protects us that we are not paying for stuff we cannot use. and i think it also may be illustrating things. the doctor said, it has been years since i spoke about compensation. let me figure out what others are getting. if it is in the ballpark, it is fine. it is still too low, we will bump it up. i want a lamborghini. the undercover person says, what did you say?

the doctor says, i want a lamborghini. i just read you a portion of the transcript of the video. i what to know how, if this appears to be a flat fee exchange, it appears as though they are at a restaurant, picking through a menu. is that not a valuable discussion they had. they were talking about reimbursable payment. >> that is why your last point was noteworthy. paying anything is a valuable consideration. the exception they are trying to exploit is for a reasonable reimbursement of costs. the reasonable reimbursement for payments associated with the procurement of the tissue. the cost does not vary based upon the amount of specimens you get out of a particular fetus.

what varies is how much money you will get out of it. what is noteworthy about the exchange is, where was the discussion or reference to, well, what does it cost us? when they are talking about how much. what she was interested in was, what was the market price? in other words, what is everyone else getting for this? not because of our cause, but because what are they getting. that conversation is about maximizing the amount of money obtained based on market considerations and based on per specimen. cost will not change based upon the number of specimens you get. not based on any idea of, what are the costs related to the procurement. >> thank you. i know my time has expired, mr. chair. but the video to which i referred to, and to which the

committee has repeatedly referred to is a material part of the discussion. at this time, i would like to enter the entire transcript, all of the transcripts, from these abhorrent tapes we have been discussing today. >> point of parliamentary injury? are those transcripts complete and full and unedited? do they contain all of the statements made? a review was done that noted the transcripts are inaccurate. we should have some affidavit ensuring they are in fact, complete, fair, and accurate recordings of what was actually said and the complete, unedited recordings. >> mr. chair, if i might respond. >> let's not compound injury upon injury. if we are going to admit to this

committee transcripts that are inaccurate, we have a responsibility to make sure they are complete. >> the gentleman is requesting the transcript the public video be made a part of the record? >> yes, these are the videos that appear? >> unlike any program that is made available to a news organization, that is what the gentleman is requesting. members can assign credibility to whatever part of it. >> you are just putting into the record, the public, the transcript of the public record. >> i would like to comment. it has been the policy of the committee to, putting anything in the record of evidentiary value. it is not my intention in the end to object. i would like to note that if we are going to agree with this, you must also include the

forensic report by the fusion group that analyzed the video showing that it had no evidence of value. >> allude be happy to put that in the record if there is no objection to that as well. >> that would be my request, mr. chairman. >> without objection, both of those documents are made a part of the record. i now recognize the gentleman from rhode island. >> i would like to think the witnesses for being here today and offering your viewpoints on this difficult issue. i know there is passion on both sides. i am still struggling with what exactly this hearing is about. issues have been raised with respect to the fetal tissue research. it is clear that there are established, scientific protocols that were followed. there is a correspondence in the record from august 27 that confirms that. there's been a discussion about late-term abortion prohibited under federal law.

there has been a discussion about the central question of whether women have a constitutional right to make decisions regarding their own reproductive health care. you said, and you review these written conversations. they reveal many legal issues with the planned parenthood procedures and practices regarding fetal tissue procurement. he based it on your view of these video recordings. you were asked about a series of allegations that was may have been broken. federal tax laws, criminal laws, forgery. cetaceans, and the like. mr. dowdy, set in federal court that he intends to evoke his fifth amendment right against self incrimination. you said further that you were advised of the committee not to discuss the circumstances that

occurred in the production and editing and alteration and securing of these videos. is that correct? >> as you are aware, the purpose of the hearing, that is not the purpose. >> were you advised by the committee counsel not to discuss the allegations of criminal behavior in these videos? yes, or no? >> i am not answering yes or no to those questions. how can i say yes, or no. >> where you advised not to discuss how these videos were produced. whether it was done in violation? >> i was advised that was not the purpose of the hearing and that i should not comment. >> what this is, is creating an opportunity to defund planned parenthood. and to make it more difficult for women to have access to full reproductive health care. we know the value of planned parenthood. it provides the essential care to 2.7 million patients, men and women.

one in five women in the united states has visited planned parenthood once in her lifetime. 1.5 million people have visited fort reproductive health. health care information is readily available in english and spanish on the website. 700 clinics throughout the country provide 900,000 cancer screenings to women to detect cervical and breast cancer early. for hundred thousand cap tests, 500,000 breast exams and 80,000 of those cancer screenings detected early so that hundreds of thousands of children, parents, and siblings are still able to be with their loved ones because planned parenthood save their lives. i would like to refer to congressman deutsch and congressman gutierrez. the cruel irony is that an effort to defund planned parenthood, which is already prohibited from using federal

funds to provide abortion services, is the other 97% of their services that i just outlined would be compromised. and in fact, the incidence of unwanted pregnancy and abortions would increase. the funding planned parenthood is likely to cause exactly the thing that they claim they do not want. that is more abortion. ms. smith: that is right. one of the things this makes clear is the campaign against abortion goes beyond abortion. it is also a campaign against contraceptives. we have seen that campaign heat up recently. there is a number of, i just wrote a paper of this, not to promote my own research. it is called contraceptive comstock array. it is about the recent campaign that has revised the tactics, antiabortion, and anti-contraceptive advocates in the late 1800s. and into the 1950's. that continues today. >> it is very disappointing

because many of us had hoped that this issue had been settled and that the women have the right to full, reproductive health care. that the have the right to make decisions about their own bodies and consultations with their own positions and their own conscience. and that, to have our first hearing in the judiciary committee and other effort to make it more difficult for women in america two axes high-quality health care is incredibly disappointing. i yield back. chairman: the chair recognizes mr. collins from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chair. as i have said many times, as being a member last time on the last congress. and on this congress. after hearing everything, there are many times when you come to the point of really wondering the point of why we are here. i've able to talk about many different things.

ms. smith, i am not even sure, and they might get to you with questions. what i have heard a lot today from you is context. i am not sure how any of these you could put into proper context. i don't know how many ways you want to spin it. what was on those videos, there is no way you can put some of these in context. they are important. -- they are a portent -- abhor rant. you made a statement when you are opening. you talked about, and i have heard this. people have had a portions or have thought about abortions. i have served as a chaplain, pastor, and attorney. you said, if a baby is disabled, we need to terminate the pregnancy.

if someone on the outside can determine a quality of life, and that, frankly, in my position, mention even by a friend of mine. we disagree greatly on this issue. it is many times a mom and a dad who are facing a tough decision. just like we did 23 years ago. when my daughter, we found that she had spina bifida. wife and back to work. and in a time of much emotional turmoil, a colleague of hers said, in a very interesting way, i am being helpful. you have choices and you do not have to go through this. we were a young couple back then . she was starting to teach and i was starting to work. as you go along and you look at this, my wife finally figured out what she was trying to tell her.

she said, you can go kill your child and you will not have to3 worry about it anymore. when my wife understood that she said, you are talking about my baby, not a fetus. a baby. today, i think we miss this. this is what gets lost in the debate about quality of life. and other issues of when they are born. the two of you have lives that are so productive. you are not a failure. you are a failure of a misguided person who would want to kill you before you can say, you are killing me. the two are not a failure. cerebral palsy, levine said that. a blessing. -- i love how you said that. a blessing. i never thought to think that might daughter's first step would be rolling in a wheelchair. she texted me earlier today and asked me how my day was going.

i told her it was a hard day. i did not tell her how it was going. or was i was doing. she said, dad, whatever you are going through, i am praying for you. my child has a life. there are many in the abortion industry that are willingly telling people that, if you have a child, it has the most debilitating condition, or even up to spina bifida, even not have to go through with this. we forget in this argument today. i am so over context, i am so over clinics. we like our clinic in the other clinic. their other clinic up there that can help women. you may not like them, it is your choice. i am so over the fact that we missed the fundamental issue here. and that is life.

for me, i commend the hearing. i think it is something. i do not see a context that can be explained why, or who would want to. at the end of the day, let's stand up and ask the hard questions. even those who do not have a voice, if we do not let them have a voice, then they are silent. for many of us, we will never be silent because life is precious. and for me, they deserve a birthday. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. chairman: the chair thanks the gentleman. >> i do observe that there is a sad, cruel irony in those who say they are against abortion, trying to the front and organization that works so hard to prevent them.

and one of the points of planned parenthood is to the fund -- is to stop unwanted pregnancies. many people have said a number of things. were called out as taxpayers here. i want to a gui appreciate -- i want to let you know i appreciate what planned parenthood has done. to prevent stds, to provide contraceptive care, to provide cancer screenings for low-income women. the person who made the video is not here. in my experience, in law, that would be an important witness. i would say as well that, i ate knowledge and i agree that the discussion of these issues on the videos was disturbing and

insensitive. the issue for us in the judiciary committee is to look at what is legal. just on that point, i don't think anything today has shown that there has been something illegal here. if you want to test is that you can ask the opponents if they would agree there was a schedule of the amounts they would agree with reimbursement, as opposed to profit. they would never agree that $30 is the right number or $50 was the right number. that is not the issue. the legality is not the issue. this is an issue about abortion, the choice, and contraception. everything but the legality. i would also say that planned parenthood has not been accused of committing fraud, violating licensing laws, by letting the medicaid statutes. there is a legal issue with respect to carving them out for medicaid. that has been litigated in a number of states. any provider that provides these kinds of care, will of violated

these laws. planned parenthood has not been. any attempts to cut them off have all been fruitless for those reasons. i think it is illuminating in many ways to have this hearing. it has not really vent about legality. it has been about a broader issue. an issue we all thought would have been settled 40 years ago. have been settled 40 years ago.