republicans. voters said enough is enough. we want a fair chance to choose the person we think is best to represent us. i am confident that when districts are drawn fairly that the voters will have an opportunity to compare our candidates versus their candidate, and most of the time they will choose our candidates in a fair fight. >> three minutes left, id from "usa today." standards for policymaking for millionaires and billionaires have a platform. in a way, donald trump has established himself as a billionaire who cannot be bought. thread in common terms of the populism on that side of the question? rep. wasserman schultz: donald running aars to be

presidential campaign like a reality tv show. i am not sure -- it is hard to assess donald trump's actions on any given day. >> the government reform, the hunger. talking about that? rep. wasserman schultz: donald trump has focused -- has mentioned when asked questions stickst e -- popular themes, butc mostly has suggested not only should we build a wall with mexico, but we should also hold a wall with canada, we should close up shop and pull up the runway. close everyone in here. deny access to the american

dream for people who want to come here and make a better way for themselves. that is how he caught fire. he doubled down and made misogynistic comments about women and demonstrated how he truly feels about women. , i think it was yesterday, in an interview he had the nerve to make an outrageous comment about one of hisfellow candidates -- fellow candidate's looks. i'm not willing to give donald trump credit for credible substantive beliefs. he has not demonstrated those. judging why republicans are supporting him is for them. he has made some comments on policy, individually, that i -- arere popula

of stepic and out with where the republicans would be. i would not want to give him credit for believing that .ubtext should happen it is possibly more likely that what willhat is advance his candidacy. i'm not sure. back to wherego america is right now, having come through a very tough aonomic period and feeling lack of confidence on the ground they are standing on being very firm, whether donald trump's comments have appealed on their the and he makes them, and consistency in which our candidates focus on themes that ensure that you can really have firm ground and reach the middle class -- i think that is a high priority for american voters

right now. people want to have confidence in their government again. the republicans, the way that they have -- you have ted cruz, it was not enough to actually shut the government down and denying people access to health care, he is running for president. a number of them are locked into a fight to shut the government down over whether we fund planned parenthood. 28 male republicans signed a letter that they would not vote for a continuing resolution that included funding for planned parenthood, which absolutely would send us to a government shutdown again over denying women access to health care. all sorts of things as we move forward, that will be the campaign. >> we're out of time. for the colleagues that want questions, i apologize. thank you for doing this. rep. wasserman schultz: no problem. i appreciate it.

>> this weekend's newsmakers is where we will hear more about the debate on planned parenthood with republican congressman jim jordan of ohio who chairs the house freedom caucus. here is a preview. representative jordan: we have on video with this organization was engaged in a disgusting and criminal activity. they should not get your tax dollars, i tax dollars, and the dollars that i'm representing in the fourth district of ohio. if we make that argument that clear, we will take the money that was going to this organization -- which was engaged in what we now know they were doing -- wrong, terrible, and maybe criminal activity -- we will put this money over here

with the same level of funding. if the president things we will thisass that we insist on organization on continuing to get your tax dollars -- if they say that as more and -- more important than funding troops and women's health issues, they will have to defend that with the american people. that is such a common sense and logical position may need to make that case in a compelling -- and repetitive ways of the american people clearly know what is at stake. announcer: you can see that interview with representative jim jordan tomorrow on c-span. planned parenthood was the focus of a house judiciary hearing earlier on capitol hill. the witnesses included pro-life advocates and the director of the yield law school program for the study of reproductive justice. they testified on planned parenthood's abortion practices and undercover videos that

allegedly show employees discussing the monetary how you fetal tissue. this is 3.5 hours. good morning. the judiciary committee will come to order without objection. at any have recesses time. we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on planned parenthood exposed, examining the horrific abortion practices at the nation's largest abortion practice her. i will recognize myself. recently the nations attention has been drawn to undercover recorded by the center for medical progress, this has videos for planned parenthood over the body parts of unborn children to be used in research. any discussion of an abortion is -- in a discussion of abortion

is difficult because it is inherently the taking of a human life. that is more difficult when it turns to the monetary body parts of unborn children and to the prospect of exposing them to more painful abortions conduct did in different ways without the mother's consent to preserve the added value of their more fully developed body parts. these videos force us to engage in that discussion. one that this committee has been engaged in for some time, and which begins its phase a public hearing. there are questions regarding if there are gaps in the law that theld be filled to prevent types of horrors described in the video. there are questions if existing federal laws have been violated. the committee is seeking answers to these questions. there is no question that the videos are deeply disturbing at a human level. the director of new york

universities table of ethics that it is ethically very dangerous to change an abortion procedure for the purpose of collect the organs of unborn children week is then "you are starting to put the mothers help -- mother's health secondary. one on tape is i declaimed to sever his business relationship with planned parenthood. the head of planned parenthood herself has preferred to let her senior director of medical services said on the video as unacceptable and personally apologized. during a sitdown interview on the new hampshire union leader, democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton said of the videos, i have seen pictures and find them disturbing. when the leading democrat for president says she finds the videos disturbing i think we can , safely put to rest any allegation that the investigation is an -- is inappropriate.

some members have questioned why we have focused on the conduct of planned parenthood and not on those who obtained the undercover footage. part of the answer is that planned parenthood, unlike undercover reporters, receive huge amounts of federal funds. making it our business as members of congress, charged with controlling federal purse strings, to do what we can to ensure federal tax dollars are not contributing to this sorts of horrors uncovered by the video. the conduct exposed by the undercover videos may help inform congress on how to enact better laws or to see to it that current laws are better enforced to help protect innocent lives nationwide. to that end, the house has already passed the unborn child protection act, which would prohibit abortions with certain exceptions when women are entering the sixth month of

pregnancy. america is one of only seven countries on earth, including north korea and china, that allow elective abortions 20 weeks post fertilization. an overwhelming majority of just about every demographic group opposes this practice. the senate should pass the bill immediately. the president should sign it, and in doing so, ensure that the body parts of aborted babies cannot be sold because late-term abortions would not be permitted. in the meantime, the house judiciary committee continues to examine additional ways to protect human life and preserve the conscience of america. today's hearing is the first of a two-part hearing on this topic. of his hearing helps to shed light on some of the nations darkest corners so that the atrocities some would like to dehumanize can be exposed for what they really are. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. it is now my pleasure to hear from mr. conyers for his opening

statement. mr. conyers: thank you very much, mr. chairman. to the members of the judiciary committee and those here in the room, as this one-sided hearing title suggests -- by the way, i have a file on these unusual titles that come up from time to time. we will likely hear a series of allegations leveled against planned parenthood, one of the most popular organizations for almost 100 years that is based -- that it engaged in unlawful conduct based solely on a series of deceptive, undercover videos.

the center for medical progress, the entity that found these videos in which could answer significant and troubling questions about their accuracy and veracity is not here today. in addition, the majority chose not to invite planned parenthood, the target of today's attacks. hear from our witnesses, we should keep in mind the following points. to begin with, there is no credible evidence that planned parenthood violated the law. the videos wrongly implied that planned parenthood sells fetal tissue and organs for profit. that is not the case. the law governing fetal tissue research, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support

back in 1993, provides in part that no one can knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any type of fetal human tissue for valuable consideration. in short, for-profit sales of fetal tissue are in illegal. -- are illegal. similarly, federal law prohibits for profit sales of fetal tissue human organs.s of valuable consideration does not include covering certain costs orociated with fetal tissue organ donations. progress' for medical support videos do not

the allegation that planned parenthood sought profit from fetal tissue or organ donations. rather they show among other over paymentsions for costs associated with fetal tissue were organ donations payment that the law clearly allows. suggestos also wrongly that doctors at planned parenthood violated the law i authoring the procedures used to and preserveions fetal tissues or organs. there is no evidence that planned parenthood has altered methods. moreover, the statutory changing then timing, method, or procedures of an abortion to preserve fetal tissues applies only to certain federally funded research, and

such research has not been funded since 2007. in other words, the legal prohibition did not apply to planned parenthood at the time the center's undercover videos were filmed. finally, no evidence supports the suggestion that planned parenthood doctors may have violated the partial board -- the partial-birth abortion ban. partial board officials were for in tactials referred to fetal tissues and specimens in many of the videos is immaterial. to violate the act the physician must partially deliver a living fetus and have the intent to terminate that fetus after the partial delivery. shows anye videos planned parenthood official engaging in or suggesting the

use of such a procedure. in short, no reliable evidence demonstrates that planned parenthood violated federal law. what is troubling about the videos is the manner in which they were produced. the center for medical progress created a false tissue procurement company to use as a front in order to infiltrate planned parenthood facilities and to create the undercover deceivednd may have any number of state and federal authorities to do so. additionally, the center heavily edited the videos to present a misleading picture of the surreptitiously recorded conversation in order to suggest illegal conduct by planned parenthood and to maximize the

video's shock value. submitted toalysis congress has concluded that there are overview of these videos in consultation with qualified experts found that they do not represent a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict. it --en deal legend full a legit footage released by the center, and i quote, cuts, skips missing tape, and changes in , camera angle, as well as more than 30 minutes of missing video, and took it out of context so as to substantially and significantly alter the -- alter the meaning of the dialogue. finally, we must step back and look at the context in which this hearing itself is being held.

the real purpose of the videos is to undermine one of the nation's leading providers of high-quality health care for women. planned parenthood serves 2.7 million americans a year, and one in three women have used planned parenthood services by the age of 45. the organization is nearly 100 years old, and some abortion opponents are attempting to use these videos as a pretext to end federal funding for planned parenthood. if successful, this effort would hurt those who rely on planned parenthood's services, and doing so would not prevent abortions. it is already the case that no federal funds may be used to pay for abortions, with certain

limited exceptions. instead, federal funding pays for planned parenthood's many critical health services, such as annual wellness exams, cancer screenings, contraception, and to further the study of sexually transmitted diseases. surely, we in the congress have better things to do than to spend our time helping to undermine an organization that provides such a vital health services, and a thank you, -- and i thank you, chairman. chairman: the chair recognizes the chairman of the constitution and civil justice league of arizona for his opening statements. mr. franks thank you, mr. : chairman. mr. chairman, the united states

of america is a unique nation. it is premised on the foundation that all of us in the human family are created equal, and that each of us is endowed by our creator with an inalienable right to live. yet, this committee is convened here today in a hearing titled "planned parenthood exposed, examining the horrific abortion practices at the nations largest -- at the nation's largest abortion provider" because numerous video recordings have been released that include doctors casually discussing their rampant practice of harvesting and selling metal -- selling little body parts for many of the hundreds of thousands of innocent babies are guilty of killing in their abortion clinics across the nation every year. these video recordings irrefutably reveal officers of

planned parenthood had going over the price of these little organs and body parts. and casually describing ways of killing these little babies, often using more painful methods like partial worth of abortion, to make sure the salable organs of these babies remain undamaged. one of these videos describes an incident where one of planned parenthood's employees calls a younger employee over to witness something "kind of cool." that one of the babies hearts -- that one of the baby's hearts was still beating. the older employee then read, -- then said, "ok, this is a good fetus. it looks like we are going to procure a lot from it. we are going to procure a brain." then, using scissors, the employees, starting at the baby's chin, cut upward through this child's face and pulled out the little babies brain and placed it in a container, so it

could later be sold. mr. chairman, i find it so crushingly sad that the only time this little baby was ever held by anyone in his short life by those who cut his face open and took his brain. have we forgotten -- it was not so long ago that authorities entered the clinic and found a torture chamber for little babies that defies description that defiesribes -- description within the constraints of the english language. or grand jury report at the time had ar. kermit gaza now simple solution for unwanted babies. he killed them. he called it ensuring fetal demise. the way he in short it was by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. he called it snipping. over the years, there were hundreds of snipping's.

s. hundreds of snipping ashley baldwin one of his , employees, said she saw babies breathing, and she described one as two feet long that no longer had eyes or mouth, but in her words was making a screeching noise, and it sounded like a little alien. and yet, the president of the united states of america, and many members of congress, have not uttered one single level -- -- one single syllable against these gut wrenching atrocities. for god's sake, is this who we truly are? the fact is, mr. chairman, that more than 18,000 late-term, pain capable babies were torturously killed without anesthesia in america in just the last year. many of them screamed and cried, but because it was him the other

-- but because it was amniotic fluid going over their vocal cords instead of air we could not hear them. in thehe worst atrocity united states of america. i know many of you on this committee will hold to the putdard line, and try to all of this in the frame of the freedom of choice, but i beg you to open your hearts and ask yourselves what is so liberating , about brutally does member -- what is so liberating about regally dismembering and maiming little helpless human abie's. noise, this is not a republican issue. it is not a democrat issue. it is a basic test of our humanity and who we are as a human family. of timerman, the sands should blow over this capitol plannedore we ever give

parenthood another dime of taxpayer money. in the name of humanity, democrat senators should end their filibusters against the pain capable act in the senate. passing it would prevent them evil actsity of these of planned parenthood that these videos have clearly shown to the entire world. i yield back mr. chairman. memberirman: the ranking , the gentleman from tennessee, mr.: for his opening statements. representative call it: -- : thisentative cohen issue divides this committee. i respect my republican colleagues, mr. franks in particular, with a strong held

position, but it is not my position. it is not the position of most of the women in this country. that is the position that women should have the right to choose. roe v wade, a united states decision in the early 1970's made that clear. it has been the law of the land for many years. this is not about the videos. the videos have been doctored and are not what they are supposed to be. it is show business. is about a woman's right to choose. many people, who for their honest beliefs, feel should be a litmus test of a politician's life and support for "life" and human beings. to outlaw abortion, and they will not be happy until abortion is outlawed in the united states of america. that is what this hearing is

about and if you will notice, the testimony has been about abortion. that issue is raised again. planned parenthood is simply a group that does 3% of its work abortion. 97% of its work is about health for poor women, health care, screenings, 2.7 million women a year get that health care. that is so important. my district is a poor district, and a lot of women in my district get their primary health care from planned parenthood. to cut off federal funding would deny them that health care. i know that won't make a big difference to many on the other side, since none on the other side voted for the affordable care act. even though it is a growth from people like teddy roosevelt who spouted it. none of them voted for it. the affordable care act helps women get health care.

some on the extreme side particularly in the south, , legislatures, governors, have not expanded medicaid to women who need medicare -- health care. they can do that at no cost and great fiscal and fiscal benefit to their state. they have denied health care to women. this would further deny health care to women. you cannot get -- planned parenthood cannot use, because of the law that has been on the books since the 1970's, any federal funds for abortion. with the exceptions of interest, rape, and life of the mother. nullity.lking about a this is the government takeover of health care. the benghazi of health care hearings. it is a way to get attention that these people want to highlight. i do not doubt their sincerity

and wanting to highlight it. it is wrong in 2015. we should be going forward and not backwards. to a lot of people who say we want to take back our country, they are saying they want the country of dwight eisenhower, before civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, before opportunities, opportunities independent of physical school characteristics or sexual orientation. it is a new america and you will not get that america back. i loved ricky nelson, but it is history. it is a new america. eliminating an overruling roe v wade. it is about partial-birth abortion and abortion theories. there are 43 people in labor liberties group that say that this hearing should not necessarily be held. they oppose the efforts to

defund planned parenthood and i would like to enter into the record a list of this group. value the republicans opinions. they are strong and i understand that. for me, planned parenthood is part of my dna. it is one of the finest organizations in the country. it helps women, women of color. , and it gives them choice, as the supreme court gave them choice. it is about upholding the law of the land. many would want more -- would not want the law of the land to be held up. like in kentucky where some woman refused to do with the supreme court told her and they made her a hero. i say this hearing is about abortion and i support roe v wade. i yield back the balance of my time.

members' all other opening statements will be made part of the record. i will begin by swearing you in. each of you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god. .hank you, you may be seated let the record reflect that the witnesses responded in the affirmative. -- ms hn a jensen gianna jennen survived an abortion when she was a baby. mr. james bopp, jr. has served as the national right to life general counsel since 1978. in 1987, he was appointed by the u.s. congress to the vital ethics advisory committee which advises congress on the ethical of issues from biomedical and

behavioral research. pp served on the national institute of health. he has testified before numerous legislative committees in hearings on pro-life issues and has argued before the united states supreme court. smith is thes director of the study for reproductive justice at the information society project at the yell law school -- at the ya le school. she was an attorney for reproductive rights serving as from.s. legal productive 2007 2 thousand seven and litigated cases nationwide. she writes on privacy reproductive rights. mrs. melissa ohden also survived

an abortion as a baby. she is a founder of the abortion survivors network. all of your statements will be written into the record in its entirety. i ask that you limit within five minutes. there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow you have one and it to conclude your testimony. when the light is red it signifies that your minutes have expired. we are pleased to start with you. want to push the button at the bottom and make sure it is on. ms. jessen: is it on? good morning. jessen and ianna would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify. my biological mother was 7.5 months pregnant wench you want to planned parenthood and they advised her to have a late term abortion. burnsethod of abortion

the baby inside and out, blinding and suffocating the child, who is then born dead, usually within 24 hours. there should be a photograph. this is what i survived. dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother's bloom i was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in los angeles on april 6, 1977. you can see a photograph as well as my medical records. my medical records state, born 6:00 a.m.ng abortion, victory. thankfully, the abortionist was not at work. if he had been he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or me to die. a nurse called an ambulance.

i was rushed to a hospital. doctors did not expect me to live. i did. i was diagnosed with cerebral palsy, caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving an abortion. i was never supposed to hold up my head or walk. i do. cerebral palsy, ladies and gentlemen, is a tremendous gift to me. placed intually foster care, and later adopted. hear me clearly, i forgive my biological mother. the first year after my birth, i was used as an expert witness in a case where an abortionist had been caught strangling a child to death after being born alive. , the founder of planned parenthood, said the following. the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its

infant members is to kill it. notned parenthood is ashamed of what they have done or continue to do, but we will have to give an account, as a nation, before god, for our apathy and the murder of over 50 million children in the womb. every time we falter, and fail to confront this evil, i wonder how many lives have been lost in our silence while we make sure that we are lauded among men? do not offend anyone. how many children have died and been dismembered, their parts sold, for our ego, convenience, and promiscuity? wereany lamborghinis purchased with the blood of innocent children?

cries to the lord from the ground, like that of the blood of abel. not one of them, ladies and gentlemen, is forgotten by him. i would ask planned parenthood the following question -- 38 years later -- i would ask them these questions, if abortions are about women's rights, what am i? you use the argument if the baby is disabled we need to terminate the pregnancy, as if you can determine the quality of someone's life. is my life less valuable due to my cerebral palsy. you have hailed in your arrogance and greed to see that it is often from the weakest among us that we learn wisdom. something is it our nation today, and it is our folly and shame that lines us to the

beauty of adversity. planned parenthood uses deception, the manipulation of language, and slogans like "a woman's right to choose" to achieve their monetary aims. i will illustrate how well they have employed this technique with this quote. the activity of the masses is limited. their intelligence is small, but the power of forgetting is a norm us. in consequence of these facts, all of effective applicant of must be limited to a few points and we must put these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. adolf hitler. we often hear that of planned werethood were defunded -- to be defunded, there would be a health crisis among women without the services they provide. this is false.

pregnancy resource centers are located nationwide as an option for the woman in crisis. their services are free and confidential. they can be reached by texting 313131.e to examsare access to vital besides planned parenthood. we are not without options. planned parenthood received taxpayer money to destroy and dismember babies. do not tell me these are not children. a heart heat proves that. so does ultrasounds. so do i. the fact they are selling human organs for profit -- do not tell me this is only a women's issue. it takes a man and woman to create a child. to that i wish to speak to the men listening to me. you are made for greatness. you were born to defend women

and children, not to use, abandon us, or sit idly by while you know we are being harmed. i am asking you to be brave. in conclusion, i am alive because the power of jesus christ alone in whom i live moves and has my being. without him i would have nothing, and with him i have all. thank you. for that thank you compelling testimony. mr. bopp, welcome. i have substantial familiarity with the subject. my chairman mentioned participation in the fetal research panel by nih on the question of whether or not fetal tissue transplantation research should be funded. the panel recommended the

.oratorium be lifted father james and i published a lengthy dissent. they used to use some of the arguments in that dissent. the bush administration continued the moratorium on funding research. based on the information that has come to light through this investigative reporting, it is apparent that planned parenthood fetal tissue procurement practices violate federal and state laws when applicable, ethical and moral principles, and their own guidelines and promises to their patients. this are reasons why happens, it is frankly inevitable. first, planned parenthood believes the unborn has no human rights and can be killed at will at any time during pregnancy with the consent of the mother. history tells us as soon as you strip human readings of legal

treatedpeople will be as commodities and abuse is inevitable. second, planned parenthood receives financial incentives for harvesting fetal tissue. the love of money supersedes other considerations. arehe videos, there reported incidences of babies born in tact and potentially alive after an induced abortion. because he or she had a heartbeat. the fetal brain was removed by taking scissors and cutting open brain.e to extract the this barbaric practice is true. if the child was alive, it reveals -- it rivals any documented abuses of human persons in medical research throughout history. it goes beyond any individual instance. planned parenthood's lust for tissueor fetal procurement, which can in some

cases equal or exceed the cost and charge for the abortion itself, has cost planned parenthood to change all relevant aspects of the abortion suture itself. a planned parenthood abortion physician explained, she would meet with tissue procurement the day'sore scheduled abortions and find out what tissues they wanted. she would target those particular abortions which might yield the fetal tissues. in doing, she made clear that she would change the abortion procedure to obtain the fetal onlye intact, save by crushing those parts of the fetal body that contained tissue not being sought. or, by trying to extract the

baby feet first to encourage and in tact to delivery. the abortionist starts her day with a shopping list, and spends the rest of the day trying to fill that list with fetal tissue . in other words, as she said, if i know what they are looking for, i will keep it in the back of my mind and try to, at least, keep that part in tact. rather than being on a search and destroy mission for the mother, the planned parenthood abortionist is on a search and harvest mission for their own profit. practices potentially violate federal and state laws, various moral and ethical principles, and planned parenthood's guidelines. first, federal and state law prohibits profitable consideration. there is a loophole that is forwing reasonable payments

the procurement costs associated with harvesting fetal tissue. however, even with this broad clearion, the evidence is that planned parenthood, even if they are complying with this, that it creates sufficient financial incentive for substantial abuse to occur. the evidence also demonstrates that they go beyond this broad perption to negotiate a specimen market price with no associated.e cost planned parenthood readily changes the abortion procedure to gain more fetal tissue to sell, which would violate fetall law for funding of tissue transplantation research, which admittedly, has not occurred since 2007, but

violates the promise planned parenthood made to their patients not to change the abortion procedure. the planned parenthood president has admitted to congress that is what they do. may not eventhood get consent to change the donations as required by many federal and state laws. there is evidence that technicians simply grab whatever tissue is available, regardless of the cost. finally, there is substantial evidence that children are born killed, alive, and are for their tissue. , throughaw prohibits partial birth abortion ban act, and the foreign alive infant protection act, prohibits killing live born infants after an induced abortion. even during delivery or after

delivery. 2000 fourassed in limited purposes. a child born alive after an induced abortion has the same legal rights as all of us. it is not dependent upon the desires of the mother. there is no right to a dead baby as the result of the abortion. that being viability born alive is a critical legal point. there's evidence both from cmp and otherwise they are not taking these protection seriously and a general criminal law is too blunt an instrument to provide protection to live-born infants when abortion clinics have financial incentive for live-born infants make it harvest for fetal tissue. this law needs to be updated to

ensure that live-born infants are not killed in -- killed and receive appropriate care like everyone else. smith, welcome. ok, great. i am an associate research scholar at yale law school where i direct the study for reproductive justice. i'm testifying today in my personal capacity and do not represent the institutional views of yale law school. i will make a few points. i'm open for questioning. i do not want to repeat the important points that have already been made by the members. i do want to point out a few things. first of all, this attack is part of a long campaign to discredit planned parenthood and

other abortion providers. it is an attack on the right to abortion. planned parenthood has been a specific target of many of these types of attacks. since the year 2000, they have been the target of 9 similar smear campaigns using hidden innuendos andwith soft claims. every time these allegations have been investigated and debunked. second, a quick comment on the videos. i am reluctant to rely on anything in these videos given the findings of a team of forensic experts that has been submitted to this committee that found the tapes have been distorted and misleadingly edited. this has been recognized in a report issued this morning by the house committee on energy and commerce, which felt there is no evidence that planned parenthood or its affiliates

have violated federal or state laws after conduct thing a thorough investigation questioning witnesses and reviewing documents. i can comment, however, on the statutes issues. statute doesissue ban the sale of fetal tissue, but it allows those who donate tissue to recoup reasonable reimbursements for cost, such as the cost of maintaining, storing, and transporting fetal tissues. these were adopted by the broad bipartisan support. officialsrenthood specifically state in the videos in numerous statements that were edited out of the short videos , thatere put on the web they are only seeking reimbursement costs. they do not make profits from fetal tissue donation.

in fact, they refused contracts offered to them that offered unreasonable costs. there is nothing in the tapes that indicate the violation of the fetal tissue law. also allegations that these misleadingly edited videotapes provide probable cause to believe that planned parenthood violates the partial birth abortion ban act. i was lead counsel in the case challenging the act. the supreme court upheld the law over my objections. they held that the law was narrowly interpreted to apply in situations to which intact ness is irrelevant. these are based on repetitions of intact in an allman this meant -- in an ominous manner, law and order style, in the

video. tness has no relevance. it is not sufficient or required to establish a violation of the act. all that matters is that at the outfit does the physician have the position to deliver a living fetus and perform a step to cause fetal demise? the reason it was so limited was because interpreting tomore broadly would apply many abortion procedures. i'm not surprised there is confusion about the partial statute because it was campaigned for in this congress, and to this congress, and people were convinced they had something to do with banning late-term, post-viability abortions, to which it does not apply whatsoever. sufficient evidence

that planned parenthood performed or procedures in a way outlawed by the act. that there are questions have been raised, generally, about the ethics of fetal tissue donation. when similar issues were raised during the reagan administration, a research panel of ethicists and scientists on both sides of the abortion issue. was on that panel. it was chaired by a former judge that was antiabortion. the decisive majority found tissue research was morally desirable because it held medical promise and could be accomplished without incentivizing abortions. it has done so. many medical advancements has come from that research. i see that my time is almost up. i want to skip to what i think is the really horrifying thing about this hearing. the horrifying thing is the

mismatch between the allegations and concerns about abortion, fetal tissue research, and what d ofing considered -- the planned parenthood's uses.ortion related access to contraceptives, which is a large portion of what planned parenthood does reduces unintended pregnant sees, furthers women's health, advances women's personal and professional opportunities, reduces the number of abortions, and helps break a cycle of poverty. the horrible irony is that defunding planned parenthood would reduce -- rather would increase the number of pregnancies

and increase the number of abortions necessary in this country. thank you. chairman: welcome. ms. oden: thank you so much for your time. 327,653. this is the number of abortions that planned parenthood's 2014 fiscal year lists as having been completed that year. 800 97 children will lose their lives to an abortion completed by planned parenthood each and every day. why do i find this horrific? because i actually have a lot in common with them. i was meant to be one of them. i should have been just another statistic, but by the grace of god, i am more than a statistic. i come to you today as a wife, a mother, a sister, a masters level social worker, and yes, and abortion survivor.

a child who lived. i have been called just about everything you can imagine. if you want to turn your attention to the screen, as you can see in my medical record from 1977, saline infusion for abortion was done, but was unsuccessful. in other times throughout my medical records, you will read statements such as "of the complication of my mother's pregnancy was a saline infusion." it has taken years to unravel the secrets surrounding my survival, to have contact with my biological family and even the medical professionals who cared for me. although there are still on -- still unanswered questions, what i do know is that my life was intended to be ended by that abortion and that even after that, my life was in jeopardy.

you wouldn't know it by looking at me today, but in august of 1977, i survived a saline infusion abortion. a toxic salt solution was injected into the amniotic fluid. the intent is to scald the child to death from the outside in. four days, i soaked in that toxic solution. on the fifth day, my biological mother, a 19-year-old college student, delivered me after her labor was induced. i should have been delivered dead as a successful abortion. in 2013, i learned that not only was this abortion forced on my mother against her will at the age of 19, but also that it was my maternal grandmother, a nurse, who delivered me in this final step of the abortion procedure at st. luke's hospital in sioux city, iowa.

unfortunately, i also learned that when my grandmother realize the abortion had not succeeded in ending my life, she demanded i be left to die. i may never know exactly how to nurses on staff that they found out about me, but what i do know is that their willingness to fight for medical care to be provided to me ultimately sustained my life. i know a doctor who delivered a child like me in 1976. she delivered a little boy after a failed abortion. she followed the superior's orders and she placed him in a utility closet in a bucket of formaldehyde to be picked up later as medical waste after he was left to die alone. a bucket of formaldehyde in a utility closet was meant to be my fate after i survived that abortion attempt.

i weighed a little less fan three pounds when i survived. i suffered from jaundice, severe respiratory problems, and seizures. one of the first notations in my medical records is that i look like i was about 31 weeks gestational when i was delivered. despite the miracle of my survival, the doctor's prognosis for my life was very poor initially. i was told i would suffer from multiple disabilities throughout my life, yet here i am today, perfectly healthy. i know it is not just how abortion ends the lives of children like me that isn't talked about in today's world. it is also not discussed what happens to children like me who lived. we are your friends, your neighbor, your coworker, and you would likely never guessed by passing us on the street that we survived what we did. through the abortion survivors network, i have had contact with

203 of these survivors. letters from other survivors have been submitted to this committee. i'm here today to not only highlight the horrors of abortions taking place at planned parenthood, but to give a voice to other survivors like me, and most importantly to give a name and a face to the other children who will have their lives ended at planned parenthood alone. i would urge you to remember my story and gianna's. we may not have survived abortions at planned parenthood, but the expectations that our lives would be ended are the very same as those who lose their lives there. i have long believed that if my mother's abortion had taken place at a planned parenthood, i would not be here today. providing 300,000 abortions a year gives them the experience to ensure that failures like me don't exist.

i deserve the same right to life and equal protection under the law as each and everyone of you. yet, we live in a time when not only do such protections not exist, but my own tax dollars and yours go to fund an organization that has protected the very thing that was and to end my life -- meant to end my life, and this must end. chairman: thank you very much, ms. oden. we will begin questioning the witnesses. i will begin by recognizing myself. we will hear a lot today about efforts to sanitize the discussion of what takes place with regard to late-term abortions, which were the subject of the videos that have been made public. but, ms. jessen, i would like to

review a statement from the video and then another statement offered by the center for reproductive rights and get your reaction to what i would call that sanitization. in the first video, a doctor describes an abortion saying, "so, i am not going to crush that part. i am going to crush, basically, below. i'm going to crush above." planned parenthood issued an apology for the doctor's tone, but a more clinical tone is used in a lawsuit brought by the center for reproductive rights against a kansas law prohibiting dismemberment abortion. in the suit, crr states that starting around 15 weeks, physicians performing abortions may use forceps or other instruments to remove the product of conception from the uterus, often in combination

with suction. usually, this brings fetal parts through the cervix. this is known as dilation and evacuation, or d & e. as someone who has survived an abortion, can you please tell us how these descriptions of an abortion make you feel? >> you can probably see on my face. it is horrifying, absolutely horrifying to hear such things, but i also will never, ever forget, for as long as i live, watching dr. nicotola eat a salad and drink wine, discussing so casually the dismemberment of children. i will never forget that. i find it absolutely appalling that we are even having to conduct such a hearing in the

united states of america. i hope that's sufficiently answers your question. chairman: it does. thank you. mr. bob, several years ago, there was a news story that came out of florida about an abortion survivor that was not rescued. the child was born alive in a toilet while the mother sought anxiously for someone at the abortion clinic to help her baby, but no one would help, and the baby died. are you aware of other evidence that some abortion survivors are not rescued? mr. bob: yes, and the example you gave was from 2006, when a live born infant was born in an abortion clinic in florida. what happened was the baby was put in a medical waste bag to die rather than provide treatment. there have been a number of

criminal and other actions taken in that instance. but the people involved at the clinic were not charged, however, with the specific death of the child that they clearly caused. you know, there's been other instances in the kermit gosnell case when of course he was killing born infants or partially born infants using a scissors, by thrusting them into the back of the neck of the child. you know, you don't do that if the baby's dead. you only do that if the baby's alive. and of course, we don't know for sure whether that was -- while the baby was still in the womb partially or was in fact outside of the womb. chairman goodlatte: thank you, mr. bopp. ms. smith.

in the precursor to the gonzalez case, the case of stenberg vs. carhart, justice kennedy dissented from the decision to strike down the partial-birth abortion ban. which was later upheld in the gonzalez case in a different ban. >> a different version, yes. chairman goodlatte: that's right. he described at length the testimony provided by abortionist leroy car hart about the alternative d&e method or dismemberment procedure. the fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process. and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. dr. car hart agreed that when you pull pout a piece of the fetus, let's say an arm or leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus, the fetus is alive. dr. carhart also has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with extensive parts of the fetus removed. and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not

always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born as a living child with one arm. at the conclusion of a d&e abortion, no intact fetus remained. and dr. car hart's words, the abortionist is left with a tray full of pieces. justice kennedy said the fetus in many cases dies just as a human adult or child would. it bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. ms. smith, do you believe this practice represents a humane way to die? >> let me separate which i think something that's getting confused here in this hearing again and again. which is procedures performed on previable fetuses and procedures that are formed on viable fetuses. both of the women here on this panel are here today because they were viable at the time the procedures were performed.

what you're talking about is previability procedures performed on a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb. chairman goodlatte: maybe not. justice kennedy talking about a child born alive with one arm because the other had already been pulled off during the abortion procedure. the question to answer is this a humane way to die? >> i believe for a previable fetus yes, a d&e procedure is a very humane procedure and protects the woman. and her health and safety more than any other procedure. and in fact it was substituted for the saline -- chairman goodlatte: i'm going to reclaim my mind and say that your view of humanity and mine are different. and i'll ask mr. bopp and ms. ohden very quickly, if you support -- because you've already answered this question. if you support the pain capable abortion act that's passed the house of representatives and is awaiting action in the united states senate?

mr. bopp? >> yes. it is necessary for a number of reasons. and pertinent to this -- chairman goodlatte: it would prevent many of the instances i just described to the three of you would it not? >> it would and it could also prevent some of the instances because we don't know for sure the gestational length of the child. in some of the instances in the videos. but it could also prevent some of them. chairman goodlatte: correct. ms. jestin. >> i'm speechless with ms. smith's reply. that she thinks that's a humane way to die. i support. chairman goodlatte: ms. ohden. >> yes, i support the pain-capable act but i want abortion to be unthinkable in our country and not to have a conversation about another act. chairman goodlatte: thank you. i agree. mr. conyers. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for his questions. ranking member conyers: thank you, mr. chairman.

and i thank all the witnesses for being here today. but i want to direct my discussion with ms. smith. you note in your written testimony that section 289-g, 2-a, prohibits the transfer of any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration. but that the videos do not explain that the law specifies that valuable consideration does not include reasonable payment reimbursing costs. would an individual watching these videos have any idea that the law excludes the reimbursement of reasonable costs? >> no, i think they would not. and i think they're very deceptive in that regard.

so that they juxtapose discussions of money with the text of the ban on valuable consideration. it makes it appear that the money that's being discussed is the "valuable consideration" that's banned. there's no mention of the reasonable payments provision in the act. and the allowance for reimbursement of reasonable reimbursement -- for reasonable expenses. and i think that's terribly deceptive in the video, yes. ranking member conyers: i think that's a very perceptive response on your part. what are some of the examples of reasonable reimbursement costs, ms. smith? >> transportation cost. processing. preservation. quality control. storage. those are all examples in the statute itself. and those are the things that would be appropriate. ranking member conyers: thank you. you note that fetal tissue research as provided innumerable

medical benefits and has saved lives. could you please explain what these medical benefits have been? >> yes. in fact, in addition to the early polio vaccine in the 1930's, that was actually a result of fetal tissue research. more recent examples. and the department of health and human services has called fetal tissue research vital to the improvements that are being made in some very important areas. such as retinal degeneration, parkinson's, a.l.s., infectious diseases, development disorders, schizophrenia, diabetes, so there are many, many areas in which fetal tissue research has proved important and we are actually seeing lives being saved because of it.

and lives improved because of new treatments. ranking member conyers: thank you. could you explain, please, ms. smith, the ram he have -- ramifications for women if their access to abortion services is further restricted or ultimately denied? >> yes. i think one of the things we're seeing recently is that new wave of attack on abortion access in particular. so a number of -- an unprecedented number of restrictions have been enacted in the last four years by state legislatures which have been designed really and have resulted in the closure of many clinics throughout the country. so texas in particular as has been in the news quite often has seen the number of clinics there close by half. there are states that have only one abortion provider for all residents in the state. like mississippi and north dakota.

and in those states, women are just simply unable in -- and many women are unable to get abortions. they can't travel the distance required to obtain abortions. and the result of that is women with pregnancies that they don't wish to carry to term, some of them will suffer health and -- health impacts. and some of them, their lives will be endangered and they will get sick. but also abortion is also equally important because as the supreme court harris recognized, it protects the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation. as justice ginsburg put it abortion preserves a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course. and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature. and that's why i believe the supreme court got it right when it balanced the issues here involved and the interests in potential fetal life, and the interests of the woman in her

life and her health and her autonomy. and decided that abortion up to viability must be preserved. after viability, it can be in fact banned. but with exceptions for women's life and health. and one interesting note, in germany, for example, abortion, the courts there recognized a right of the fetus to life. but at the same time, they recognized that the woman who carries that life in her uterus and carries it through -- gestates it until it is fully developed, the woman has a greater right. and thus abortions are legal. in germany. >> i want to thank you very much for your response to my questions. and thank you, mr. chairman. chairman goodlatte: the chair thanks the gentleman. and before going to our next

member, i want to make available for the record letters from other abortion survivors and a letter submitted to the written record by americans united for life. without objection, these will be made a part of the record. and i also want to clarify something that ms. smith said about the energy and commerce committee. the report you referred to is a report of the minority of that committee. and is by no means reflective of the work of the majority of the energy and commerce committee. >> thank you for clarifying that. i just received it this morning. ranking member conyers: may i please introduce into the record the planned parenthood statement as well as the leadership conference on civil rights and human rights statements. chairman goodlatte: without objection, those will be made part of the record as well and

the chair now recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, for his questions. >> thank you very much, ms. smith. you've had a great deal of experience in litigating these questions. and could you please give the committee your definition of what constitutes infanticide? >> what constitutes -- >> infanticide. >> infanticide. i think infanticide when a baby is killed, an infant. >> now, assuming that the baby is born following a botched abortion, and is alive, do you think that either killing the baby by commission or killing the baby by omission is infanticide? >> i think -- i would have to do more research on the state laws in what -- >> we have a federal born alive act. >> federal born alive act.

i would say it's a violation of the born alive infant protection act. not to take actions to preserve the life of a viable child. but when you're talking about a previable fetus, and let's remember that the -- >> i'm talking about born alive. a previable fetus is not born alive. and doesn't fall under -- doesn't fall under this definition. now, i guess what you are saying is that both ms. jepsen and ms. ohden, if there were not sufficiently concerned nurses that found them after the abortionists have not killed them during the delivery or the partial-birth abortion delivery, then there would have been a crime of infanticide simply by abandoning the live baby and not taking care of it. am i correct in that? >> that certainly would be a violation of the current born

alive infant protection act. >> ok. well, that's what the law is now. so, i guess you are admitting that i am correct in this. >> i'm saying that it would be a violation of the born alive infant protection act. >> i think you're right on that. you and i agree. on that. >> that's the federal law, yes. >> that is the federal law. >> well, how come abortionists do not follow the federal law when they make a mistake and the baby isn't killed prior to being born? >> to my knowledge, they do follow the federal law. >> well, we have two examples sitting to your right and left of people where the law was not followed. and -- >> the born alive infant protection act wasn't in place -- >> i know it wasn't. >> when they were born. >> but started out by asking you to define infanticide and there were murder laws on the books even before born alive. >> yes. the most murder laws in the country require -- they -- if a

fetus is born alive. then it becomes a person. so then an act taking to in fact cause demise at that point would be murder. in most states. >> if they didn't do anything to save the child's life would it be manslaughter? >> i don't know if an act of omission would have qualified in those cases. i'm not familiar with the old cases on that. >> ok. >> and i don't think that they were very common. so i think we would have heard a lot more about it. if they were. >> ok. >> and certainly now -- >> well, we would be hearing a lot about it if -- when it happens now, and we have two witnesses who were born alive. >> in the 1970's -- >> infanticide laws were on the books in most states without the born alive protection act. and they're here. now, i guess my question is, as

you are a lawyer, you have been advising planned parenthood -- >> no, i never actually -- >> well, you represented their interests before the supreme court of the united states. >> i actually didn't. i was counsel for a different plaintiff in that case but planned parenthood was -- they were -- >> i'm sure planned parenthood didn't disagree with anything you said to the court. right? >> probably not. >> we'll assume that -- >> i hope not. >> we'll assume that for the sake of argument. now, whether or not planned parenthood broke the law when congress sets budgeting priorities, we have to decide what's important and what isn't. and which has a higher priority him and should be funded. and which has a lower priority and should not be funded in the age of a $19 trillion deficit. >> right. >> now, could you please tell us why planned parenthood needs to get over half a billion dollars of federal funding every year when there are other pressing

needs such as feeding hungry children that maybe we should put that money into? >> let's be clear. that planned parenthood is not getting any federal funding for abortions. >> well, money is fungible, ms. smith. you and i know that money is fungible. >> i don't believe that is true. >> so the question is, you know, whether congress should appropriate another half billion dollars plus to planned parenthood when we could be spending that money on feeding hungry children. this is a question of priorities. i would like to know what your priority is. planned parenthood or feeding hungry children? >> my priority, i think -- i think funding planned parenthood and the services it provides is equal to feeding children. because what planned parenthood does is preserve women's lives that are the mothers of those children. it provides contraception -- >> how can they be mothers of the children when children are aborted through planned parenthood?

>> even women who are obtaining abortions, 60% of women obtaining abortions in this country already have at least one if not more children. >> your priorities are different than mine. >> my priorities are funding planned parenthood's comprehensive health care services that go to low income women throughout this country. women who otherwise would become pregnant, unintendedly and who would then need abortions. so i would think as somebody who opposes abortion, you would in fact support as does judge cavanaugh of the d.c. circuit the funding of contraception -- contraceptive services to reduce unintended pregnancies. and to reduce the number of abortions. a no brainer and makes no sense not to fund knows services. if you want to reduce the number of abortions.

>> i don't think there's statistics that indicate that that is the case. >> there absolutely are. >> so i'll yield back. chairman goodlatte: the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. >> mr. chairman, first of all, before i begin my five minutes, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from 56 national faith-based and religious groups supporting planned parenthood. chairman goodlatte: without objection, they will be made part of the record. >> also. before i make my statement i want to clarify when the born alive infant protection act whatever we called it was brought before this committee i surprised people by saying that i saw no point to opposing it. that it was -- it was a deliberate trap designed to entice pro-abortion groups into opposing it. it was already the law of the

land. against murder. anyone who kills a child outside that has been born outside the womb and anyone who stands by and does not help it survive is guilty of manslaughter and no no questions asked, with or without the born alive infant protection act. and this is -- it was introduced simply to slander the abortion groups to say that pro-abortion people support infanticide. we do not obviously. mr. chairman, before i begin my questions i would like to express dismay at the title of this hearing. "planned parenthood exposed: examining the horrific abortion practices at the nation's largest abortion provider." exposing the practices of the -- it is wrong and should be beneath this committee to state its conclusion without a shred of evidence and before we receive even a word of testimony. perhaps the majority's conclusion explains why not a single representative from planned parenthood is here to testify about its practices. and they also explain why the chairman has chosen to ignore the request from ranking members

conyers and cummings to suspend these one-sided investigations until they include the so-called medical progress which made the videos about which we have heard today. of course, if we really wanted to hear about the practices of planned parenthood, we could have hours of testimony and the compassionate comprehensive and affordable health care services they provide women and families. but the majority is not interested in hearing that testimony. if you clear away the partisan rhetoric, it appears that chairman has called this hearing to examine how planned parenthood participates in fetal tissue donation. which congress made legal with almost unanimous bipartisan support in 1993. in the year since fetal tissue and cells have been used to make groundbreaking medical discoveries. if you want to find the cure for diabetes, for stroke or for hundreds of life-threatening illnesses fetal tissues and cells are a necessary part of the research toolkit. and a moral part. the law surrounding fetal tissue are simple and clear. planned parenthood has consistently and clearly demonstrated that the affiliates who participate in fetal tissue

research which represent about 1% of all 700 planned parenthood health centers in just two states comply with these laws. just as they comply with thousands of other federal state and local laws and regulations every single day. that should be the conclusion of this hearing. but instead before any inquiry this committee has already declared planned parenthood guilty. and chosen to capitalize on the sensational, unsubstantiated smears made in a series of unethical, possibly illegal videos. the goal here is clear. to smear planned parenthood. senator joseph mccarthy would be proud of this committee today. sadly, this is not the first time congress has been drawn into this charade. every time it follows the same pattern. extremists tried to entrap planned parenthood into unethical or illegal conduct and then makes sensationalist accusations. but in no time at all the claims are debunked and the investigations find no wrongdoing. this pattern is being repeated here today. mr. bopp, i would like to walk you through some of that history with you. were you aware, mr. bopp, that

in 2012, anti-abortion groups released videos claiming to show planned parenthood was conducting sex selective abortions? >> no. rep. nadler: you're under oath, mr. bopp. >> no place in my mind, congressman. rep. nadler: you're not aware of that? >> not aware of that. rep. nadler: then you're remarkably ignorant for somebody in the field. and it was not true. mr. bopp, were you aware in 2011 that anti-abortion groups released videos claiming to show planned parenthood condoned sex trafficking and statutory rape? >> no. rep. nadler: you're still under oath. and following the release of those videos, republicans in congress tried to cut off funding for planned parenthood and nearly shut down the government. are you aware of that? >> don't remember that they were connected in that way. rep. nadler: ok. but you remember that the two things occurred? >> you know, the older i get the harder -- i'm trying to answer your question. rep. nadler: yes or no, do you remember or not? >> i don't know what your question is. rep. nadler: do you remember that following the release of those videos republicans in congress tried to cut off funding for planned parenthood

and nearly shut down the government? >> i've answered that question. >> ok. the two things congress tried to cut off funding for planned parenthood and that government was nearly shut down, you didn't -- you don't remember they were connected? >> in that way, yes. rep. nadler: thank you. planned parenthood already reported the act as claiming to be sex traffickers to the f.b.i. so once again not true. so the list goes on. in 2010, videos falsely claims women were pressured into abortion, not true. 2009, false claims about clinics avoiding parental consent, not true. 2002, false claims about statutory rapenot true. and for a real sense of deja vu, in 2000, videos were released claiming planned parenthood was participating in illegal tissue sales. but of course when the man who made those videos came before congress, he totally recanted his testimony. and an f.b.i. investigation did not lead to any charges against planned parenthood. again, not true.

mr. bopp, were you aware of that hearing? >> i don't recall it. rep. nadler: ok. what is true is that the people who made these videos are liars in a long line of liars. it is true that if you had a shred of real evidence that planned parenthood was breaking the law, you would have taken it to a state or a federal prosecutor right away. but you didn't. mr. chairman, if you had even a bit of real confidence in the men who made these videos you would have brought him here to testify before this committee. but you didn't. and you don't have that confidence. the fact is this is all a farce designed to shame women for exercising the constitutional right to an abortion, to scare abortion providers into ending their services, and to eliminate options for women to access health services. this is all based on lies, knowingly based on lies. i hope the majority comes to its senses and realizes they have fallen into the same sad pattern of lies and lies that we have seen for more than a decade. i yield back my time.

>> the chair recognizes mr. forbes for five minutes. rep. forbes: i apologize for calling any witness that comes before this committee remarkably ignorant and i apologize for that, that statement. even though it wasn't made by us. i can understand the voices on the other side of this committee who would say please don't look at the video. this is not about the video. we don't want to talk about the acts. and like the wizard of oz, pay no attention to the man moving those levers behind there. what i cannot understand is that those same voices cannot say that there is no act that's too far. there's no act that's too brutal. there's no act that's not acceptable, even for planned parenthood. and they want to talk about dollars. ms. ohden, if you're correct on the number of abortions and they don't report these numbers, based on the best evidence we had, you're talking about $147 million for abortions last year. big dollars.

and what just startles me is when i hear mrs. smith say -- and i want to read this again. this is justice kennedy, what the chairman stated, this is justice kennedy's statements, not mine. he said he described at length the testimony provided by abortionist leroy carhart about the alternate d&e method for dismemberment procedure. this is what he said in court. and mrs. smith doesn't say that's wrong. she doesn't say that's inaccurate. here's what it says. the fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. dr. carhart agreed. when you pull out a piece of the fetus, let's say an arm or a leg and remove that at the time just prior to the removal of the portion of the fetus, the fetus is alive. dr. carhart has observed fetal heartbeat, via ultrasound, with extensive parts of the fetus

removed. and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born as a living child with one arm. at the conclusion of a d&e abortion no intact fetus remains and dr. carhart's words the abortion is left with a tray full of pieces. and then justice kennedy goes on. in a supreme court case. the fetus in many cases dies just as a human adult or child would. it bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. and to say that you support a woman's right to choose is one thing. to say that you might want to give health care to people is another thing. but for anybody to say that procedure and what you just described is humane, that that

doesn't go too far, that's not too brutal. that is humane and acceptable, just defies my imagination. i couldn't imagine that happening to one of my pets, much less an unborn child. and then when i look, mrs. smith, i know you state that your associate research scholar and law and senior fellow and director for a program for the study of reproductive justice at yale law school. and i know you're here in your own personal capacity today. but i just wondered, does yale have any study for the rights of individuals like mrs. jepsen or ms. ohden to be born without cerebral palsy? because it was a lot of questions when mr. sensenbrenner was raising those issues a while ago that apparently are unanswered. are there any such studies up there that would dare suggest the right of one of these children not to be born with one arm?

mr. chairman, that is what apples me about this. not that we had disagreements. but that net of those poisons -- voices don't look at this act can find no point that is not too far. no point that is too brutal. no point that is inhumane and then they dare suggest that we are extreme. with that i would thank you for this hearing and for our witnesses coming here today. thank you for being here today and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. forbes. care recognizes mrs. jackson lee for five minutes. >> i think the chairman for allowing thoser with a great deal of motion on this question to be able to project and present their views. thise lived through

committee for a. of years -- period of years. i have been through eons of these hearings starting back in the 1990's on a medical procedure that saved the lives of women that were called the partial-birth abortion. let me say to the witnesses. i have the greatest respect for your viewpoint and i'm grateful for you being here. grateful for your life in for your passion as an aside let me say as a graduate of yale -- undergraduate and being familiar with yale law school i know that the law school is one of the premier teachers of the constitution. it will recognizes the rights of all people and would venture to say their individuals with different thought from you, professor smith, an absolute -- and to my colleagues yes, yield -- yale produces individuals

with great concern for the constitution of this nation. let me begin by questioning and to ask mr. bopp, would you join in a request to the director of the national institutes of health that suggest convening an expert panel to relook at fetal tissue research? would you join in this request? >> i have not consider that question. rep. sensenbrenner; rep. lee: i rep. lee: i am giving it to you now. pardon me? do you think it is a good idea if we have such a dispute here about fetal tissue research, would be a good idea? >> i served on a panel but i thought fairly explored the issue. he came to conclusions i believe are not warranted and history has proven were fallacious. rep. lee: you would not be interested in having a review? i thank you for your answer.

let me say that -- i thank you for your answer. let me say that with planned parenthood complying with the fetal research commission under president reagan, you may have been one of those that did not agree. i would argue that the consensus came out in the panel found it was an acceptable public policy to support transplant research with fetal tissue and as well developed a guideline that said the research is intended to achieve significant medical goals. professor smith, is it not true -- i think it should be asked over again, that out of this long journey of fetal tissue research the impact on medicine has been overwhelming. of polio,th issues measles, rubella, rh disease, the use of fetal tissue cell

line, normal human development in order to gain insight into birth defects -- has this come to your attention? fetal tissue research in the medical science has generated this kind of productivity? >> absolutely. rep. lee: and the proponent of these videos was actually trying to highlight the ugliness of what is misdirected, which is the harvesting of organs. which was not the case. let me ask you this question, mr. bopp. dayton aware of how mr. was able to engage in these falls and misdirected distorted and maybe criminal videos? >> i have been advised by the committee staff that this hearing is not on that subject

and i should not comment. rep. lee: i'm not sure how they can tell you it is not on the subject because the videos are all in the letters sent by the three republican chairs of the committees engaged in this. let me say to you what he actually did. , stole, stole the identity of the president of the club at his high school. participateasked to in a lawsuit, he invoked his fifth amendment right to refrain from self-incrimination in response to this lawsuit. that does not sound the command to list any truth to stand on. , professor you smith, if you would, the question was asked about this planned parenthood do anything good with respect to women's health. would you recite that again for me? separate from the limited right to abortion under the row the weight, -- rowe v.

wade, do they help women's health? >> absolutely. cancer screening, wellness exams, sti testing, and std treatment. planned parenthood serves millions of women. five women in this country have visited a planned parenthood clinic. it is a beloved institution, not just by me, but by most americans because it is one of of few accessible providers excellent, high quality care outside of the abortion area. in addition to the limited number of abortions they do. >> regular order please. rep. lee: i would like to put into the record that we not engage in this kind of member attack. i am putting into the record a state-by-state data that

indicates that through the planned parenthood -- with papect to health, 371,000 tests and thousands of rest exams. this was done by landlord or two young woman -- two women who -- to women who would not otherwise be able to afford it. every member state is recorded year of helping these women get health care. i would like to put into the record from the young woman from unite young women gender equity the young people are less likely to have insurance and low-paying jobs. i would like to submit this into the record. i would like a cement into the record from the congressional research service the definition of fetal tissue, what is fetal tissue research, and the amazing miracles that i come out with fetal tissue research. i am not here to push abortion. i'm here to push life and respect for women in the rowe v wade mentality.

and i am not here to the fund planned parenthood, that is not been presented by numbers of congress -- >> regular order. rep. lee: and members a conversation not be stopping women from getting good health care. you not stop women from getting good health care. i think your -- single for the chairman's generosity and i yield back my time. >> i think the gentlelady. >> i would like to have the time yielded back. thank you, mr. chairman. the gentlelady from texas cited the hyde amendment. i would like to take a moment. i serve in this committee and on foreign affairs with the late henry hyde. i would like to take a moment to create a perspective for this hearing. i think the hearing with chairman henry hyde's portrait to your right looking down needs

to be focused a little bit more on his legacy and a little bit less on what i hear on both sides of the aisle where we are having a discussion beyond the scope of our jurisdiction and beyond the scope of what i think the chairman asked for. many years ago henry had came to hyde came to henry california and he was known for his pro-life position. and the california right to life group has to they could be with him. we were together for another reason and he said sure. they got together in a room with very strident pro-life advocates in california. they asked him about overturning rowe and about every issue you might expect. henry more eloquently than i ever could redirected 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 that a nation that does not provide respect for life is not a nation that he or anyone else could be proud of. that the life of the unborn and the concern for their welfare, the life of a newborn, the life of the infirm, and the life of the elderly all were issues which a civilized society had to promote. they had to promote it both publicly and privately. know,er, as far as i 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've seen in these videos, however obtained, seems to have a question of our these individuals? not the organizations. do they have a respect for the sanctity of life? these are more than organs. these were unborn, who are now hopefully providing life to others so they may live or research. it is legal. it is part of the process. but there is a question about whether an organization and its employees are as efficient as they should be, effective as they should be, as good as stewards of half $1 billion of our money, and whether not their conduct is inappropriate for this organization to further allow. i would like to leave it at that because i think the important thing for us to consider here today is with our half $1

billion every year under any president, including president bush, planned parenthood receives a large block of money. more than any other organization of its type. including clinics in my district who receive similar money for similar outreach to help women and families. these are funds that the congress has decided with your taxpayer dollars that we will appropriate and deliver for this purpose. bopp, i know your history. i would ask one question. assuming that this half $1 billion are going to be spent, shouldln't we make sure they are spent to the best order that money for the best support of women's health and shouldn't we take an interest in whether or not that organization and its employees are respectful and

supportive of women's health and the quality of life where they in many other cases the children to be born, not just children not to born? >> i think that is the proper role of congress. there are hundreds, maybe thousands of providers out there who with the half $1 billion was not given to planned parenthood could receive those funds for these beneficial services. that are not tainted by association with abortion. not tainted by the reckless practices in terms of procurement of fetal tissue. and i think everybody would be a lot more comfortable with that, that resources would not be inadvertently diverted to support those activities. and its association would be terminated. rep. issa: thank you mr. chairman. >> i recognize the chairman from tennessee for five minutes.

smith, could you tell us what you think is incorrect and portrayal in the videos of planned parenthood activities and the use of fetal tissue? and the price thereof? >> i said -- >> i said ms. smith. tell is hard for me to from the videos what is correct or incorrect because i do not -- i'm not aot lawyer for planned parenthood. what i believed happened therding to the forensic -- team of forensic experts in ,heir report is that the video things are edited out of context. they are made to look like they

were actually negotiating, haggling. as if they were selling body parts. i do not think that is true. i do not think they were selling fetal tissue. >> does the law allow them to get reimbursed for the costs? >> the law does allow them to be reimbursed. the discussion was about reimbursement costs. even in the edited version the official does say, we are not in this for the profit and i will have to check and see what the reasonable costs are. i understand of other statements ever edited out of that version that i have not seen. mr. bopp, he said they raised considerable concerns that afters are born alive they been killed or harvester tissue. this would be a violation of federal law.

what is your response to that? >> i did not see or hear anything about a violation of the born alive statute. if we are talking about pre-viable fetuses, i don't see any violation at all. rep. cohen: mr. bopp has raised concerned that it might be an incentive for women to obtain an abortion or she might otherwise be conflicted and not do so. can you even make a comment on such a convoluted statement? i know a number of women who have gone to the process of deciding to whether or not to have an abortion. fetal tissue donation does not seem to me to be something that would enter into their decision-making on that issue itself. i can't imagine that is happening. also i understand consent and the decision to make the abortion to be happening at a time separate from the

discussion about whether given the fact that one is decided to have an abortion, would like to contribute to the enormous health and life-saving benefits that can come from fetal tissue. those two decisions are being made separately. i think the 1988 report recommends that and i think it is appropriate. rep. cohen: you have artie commented but i like to hear it again about some of the research being done. with the use of fetal tissue to protect people and say people's lives in the future. ms. smith: yes, it is concerning. nihcent indication from the about the importance of fetal tissue research too many new treatment areas, including uncommon ones like andor lou gehrig's disease other diseases that we know little about.

parkinson's, and there are promising new treatments in those areas. rep. cohen: an individual that had polio -- ms. smith: yes, the early polio vaccines came from fetal cell line research. rep. cohen: i appreciate would feel tissue can do. -- fetal tissue can do. alzheimer's is important to many americans. it will cost us so much in our budget, little and losing our loved ones. ms. smith: i do think it is are concerned we about consent in that consent is properly obtained from the woman . and that as the committee represented in 1988, or recommended, the decision to donate be made at a time after one is already decided whether or not to have an abortion. i think that is a very appropriate safeguard against incentivizing abortion somehow. i find it difficult to think

this would change a woman's mind about having an abortion. women make decisions to have an abortion for all caps of reasons. this does not seem to be one of them. it would be something one would decide only after one it makes the actual decision. rep. cohen: thank you there it i yield back. >> i will never recognize myself for five minutes for questions. there is a lot of focus here by certain committee members related to just the fetal tissue portions of it as to the legality or is it for sale. ,ne thing that is pretty clear if you look at the videos, you do see that these little body parts represent it what once was child.g, feeling human when they came into planned parenthood they were living human little children. and they died a brutal death

while they were there. you can't avoid that reality. with all the subterfuge and the do theion and trying to bait and switch tactic, don't forget that these are once little babies that were killed in the hands of planned parenthood. bythe first video released ,he center for medical progress the senior director of medical services a plan. describe the fact of intent of having an important role in the abortion method. "the federal abortion ban is a law and laws are up to interpretation." there are some people who interpreted as intent, so if i say and a one i do not intend to do this, what ultimate we happens doesn't matter. i did not intend to do sunday one so i am complying with the law.

i ask you to questions. do you believe the doctor's reliance on intent represents a valid legal approach. and what would change if we had unborn child -- the unborn child protection act on the books of the moment? >> i think she was referring to the issue of arsenal birth abortion and it is been -- partial-birth abortion and it is been from the pro-abortion side that the law is only violated if you intend at the very beginning birth partially delivered of a live child and in killing the child in the completing the delivery. that is the process you intended at the beginning. however the law does not work like that. the intent applies to each of those actions. that is for instance the intent

to kill the child once the child is partially delivered. not whether this complete process was intended in the first instance. the secondly -- secondly, pain capable abortion that was masked by this house of representatives, there is certainly a potential that some of the children who were born in are and potentially alive period that that would -- as a result they could have an impact on obtaining fetal tissue in those instances. rep. franks: ms. smith, i will turn to you. the rest to define infanticide. it's when a baby or infant is killed.

the born alive infants protection act of 2002 clarifies that infants who were born alive during abortions or attempted abortions are forwarded all legal protections enjoyed by other persons in united states. please tell me if you would support amendments to the federal born alive infants protection act to protect infants born alive into these incredible rollovers -- vulnerable circumstances that requiring abortion clinics call 911 for emergency transfer to a hospital of the infant born alive of the clinic. and to also divide criminal penalties and fines for medical professionals who do not provide medically appropriate and reasonable care to a born alive infant. >> if you're talking about a viable fetus -- rep. franks: talking about born alive.

i'm talking about born alive. ms. smith: you're asking about previable? rep. franks: i am talking about born alive. we are talking about a child who was born and is alive, is that hard to understand? ms. smith: the question is is it a viable fetus? if it's not viable. nothing will save it. rep. franks: -- like the supreme court i believe that the proper line we draw is that viability. rep. franks: whatever the legal term is, if the child can do ballet, if they have achieved the viability thing that even though their born alive all the -- thathat takes transcends the whole question? let me ask it again. for a child born alive. that means breathing, moving around, born alive child, do you think

that we should have some amendments to our infants born alive child protection act to require that 911 be called to provide a transfer to a hospital if the infant is born alive and provide terminal penalties for those physicians and medical professionals who do not provide medically appropriate and reasonable care to a born alive infant? ms. smith: i think our law already protects born alive infants. rep. franks: let me get more specific. ms. smith if a child is born ate months and the child is born alive, should that shall be afforded protection after they are born alive? ms. smith: yes. rep. franks: but five minutes earlier they are not afforded protection, correct? if they are born alive at five months and they deserve the protection, correct? ms. smith: if they are a viable

fetus. rep. franks: you said they should be protected if they are born alive. if you change your mind, tell us. ms. smith: i think you are confusing the. if it is born alive in you a viable fetus, they deserve protection yes, they are protected. rep. franks: if they are not viable, they are not protectable? ms. smith: they will not survive. whether you have a federal law to call 911 or not, i don't think it will protect them. rep. franks: how do you know if it is viable without medical professionals? ms. smith: i am not a doctor. rep. franks: you're saying if the child is born alive it is subject to what of the doctor says while the child is viable or not so we will decide one live we will transfer this one for medical care but not this one? that is the schizophrenia of all this, mrs. smith. ms. smith: you should be asking

the doctors about how to determine viability. rep. franks: my question to you ,as if the child is born alive at five months, should they be protected and are having difficulty answering the question. ms. smith: at five months i'm not sure how many weeks that is and it also depends on whether the fetus is viable. some are never viable. rep. franks: whether they are alive or not is not the issue, it is if they are viable. i understand -- i would like to understand. ms. smith: some fetuses are never viable. they might not have a brain. they might not live there it would you provide aid and comfort, yes i think you do. rep. franks: provide appropriate and reasonable care? that's what we should do? ms. smith: yes there it -- yes. rep. franks: i will yield to mr. king for five minutes. apologize, i will recognize mr. johnson for five minutes.

rep. johnson: this is all the -- of a fourth rate patient show trial. 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 is that it's an abortion provider. things thatorrific it does to effectuate abortions. therefore we should have a defunding of planned parenthood. that is what this hearing is all about. i call it a show trial kind of hearing because the accuser is not present. center for medical progress. they are not present. neither is the accused, planned

parenthood. -- at a crucial moment in the affairs of the nation, we are coming up on september 30 which is the end of the fiscal year. we are not talking about funding pastnment operations september 30. we are talking about abortion and defunding planned parenthood instead. we've only got seven legislative days left in this month to put together a budget so that this country can continue to operate past september 30. indeed, 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 are scoring political points. i will note on this committee

only one female on the other side of the aisle -- that is pathetic. the voices that are being heard are male voices from the other side of the aisle that want to continue the attack on women's reproductive health. that is what this is all about. it is nothing new. missionontinuation of a that the other side has been on since it's been in power in congress. it is a shame that it is engaging in show trials. let me ask this question, mr. bopp. investigatorsic have determined that the released center for medical progress videos have been heavily edited. cmnscripts released from the p videos also include words and phrases omitted from the

released videos. were you involved in the production of these videos? >> i am advised by the committee staff that this is not the subject of this investigation. rep. johnson: were you involved cmphe production of the videos, yes or no? >> he is not obligated to answer. rep. johnson: you are not president of the time these videos were being shot, where you? >> victim it not obligated but he is welcome to answer the question. >> no. rep. johnson: you have not seen these videos in their unedited entirety, have you? >> no. rep. johnson: based on your answers you are telling us that you are here to testify about a series of videos that you cannot confirm whether or not they are

accurate or not? no, i'm not answering yes or no. rep. johnson: if you don't want to answer the question, i have others -- i have questions for the other witnesses so i'll not argue. >> don't trust your lying eyes, right commerce been? -- congressman? rep. johnson: you are testifying about videos that you don't even know are accurate. you have seen them but not the unedited videos, correct? >> that is correct. in many of the statements -- rep. johnson: you want this committee to except your opinions about some edited -- this is a show trial. >> i am identifying waste upon the videos. rep. johnson: you are not testifying on unedited videos. you are testifying based on edited videos.

>> the -- has the gym and of the unedited videos himself? rep. johnson: no, i have not. [laughter] rep. johnson: i have not even seen the edited videos. witnession is to this about his ability to come up. testify in a way that people can accept his testimony with any credibility or not. conclude youre to testimony is pretty worthless here. let me ask you this question, you are proponent of the death penalty, are you not? >> i am a supporter of the death penalty in certain circumstances. rep. johnson: what about you, miss jepson? >> in certain circumstances. ms. johnson: in this --

ohden? >> i do not. rep. johnson: i give you then i yieldfor consistency. back the balance of my turn. >> recognize it's a woman from iowa, mr. king. mr. -- rep. king i think: the witnesses for coming forward here today. i know sometimes reliving these things is a heavy burden and i am always impressed when we have witnesses they can deliver that message from the head in the heart from direct experience. listening to the gym and from georgia -- gentleman from georgia and some of who does not fit up with my worldview, you might be surprised to learn. i noticed that ms. smith did not as do your position of the death penalty so it give you an opportunity to tell us. >> i am opposed to -- opposed.

rep. king: was your earlier testimony that this never been of babies is not necessarily an inhumane way for this baby to die? ms. smith: my definition is a baby that is of baby that is born. if your talking about fetuses -- rep. king: you acknowledge the testimony? you would not assert it is inhumane to dismember this unborn baby? he would not assert it is inhumane to dismember this unborn baby? ms. smith: i would not say it that way. i say it is not inhumane to perform a dnd abortion on a nonviable fetus. rep. king: i will stop this exchange because you went through this with the the chairman and i think we are resolved that. you have your language and you are sticking to it and if anybody uses any other kind of term that describes it any differently -- ms. smith: i want to know what you mean by it.

rep. king: since we've established for you are on this with many years of practice and that do you recall when it hit the news of years ago that red china, the chinese would bring criminals up on capital charges and through due process the red chinese due process, convict them of a capital crime, sentence them to execution, and other way to execution harvest their organs and use those organs in medical practices in china? do you recall that? >> no. rep. king: it does happen. i recall that america was appalled to the idea that a heartless barbaric civilization like the red chinese was sent in some of the death under their version of due process, rolled up of the operating room on the gurney and harvest their organs. her kidneys, their hearts, their livers, the pancreas. whatever it was they thought

they could utilize at the time. that was the harvest of the execution. we are appalled at the immorality of that seeking someone and harvesting their organs. does that all you? ms. smith: absolutely. rep. king: it appalls me. i wonder what the chinese might think of united states of america to be borrowing half $1 billion for the chinese, send that money over to planned parenthood. the money they get flowed through their system ends up being utilized however planned parenthood decides. we're helping to fund an organization that is dismembering babies, harvesting their organs, and selling those organs on the market and we heard the negotiating for the price on the market a long with the methodologies it would be used in order to harvest more organs. i wonder what 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 but i think the supreme court got it right when a recognized that the state has an interest in the developing and potential life of the fetus. rep. king: i would agree with that in my clock is running. i turned to mr. bopp and asking the same question. have you heard of the practice organs? of harvesting have you philosophically compared the two methodologies in what the chinese might think of us? >> of course the chinese are using the same utilitarian calculus that the abortion advocates here are using to justify the abuses that event documented regarding a collection of fetal tissue. such as professor smith. the person is not viable, so

therefore it you can kill it at will. the prisoner convicted of capital punishment on the way to being executed is clearly not viable, but viable means the ability to have long-term survival. the way they treat human beings or don't respect human beings, it would be perfectly appropriate to do the chinese are doing. rep. king: if i can tie the sleep together -- tie this loop together. united states is virtually borrowing half $1 billion from china and funneling that money to planned parenthood. the fungible budget of planned parenthood i will say is being used to commit abortions that are dismembering babies and selling their organs of the open market by the evidence we seen before our very eyes. i don't need an investigation to understand what is going on here . i hold the streets of the self evident my so the video. is informing the

public by this hearing that the justice department needs to investigate an act. if they see what i have seen by watching the videos, i believe that brings about prosecutors and's and eventually convictions . i call upon the justice department to do their job. he testified before this committee you are an independent branch of the government that is not directed by the president. the president stood on the floor of the illinois state senate and said a woman who wants an abortion has a right to a dead baby. i'm saying there was nobody in this united states of america that should be compelled to pay taxes that are going to pay the interest on the death of -- debt to china so that some thing like this can happen. i yield back. ms. chu.d recognizem >> i am outraised by the pretense of this hearing. i am outraged by the accusations made against an organization that helps millions of women in this country. one in five american women visit

a health care center at one point in their lives. for some it is the only place they can turn to for the most basic of care. when our economy fell into tough times a few years ago women, especially loan can women, turned to planned parenthood for affordable and dependable primary care services. they fill a vital gap that community health centers cannot fill by themselves. the local affiliate in my district, planned parenthood pasadena, was one of the targets of these videos. the center for medical progress tried to discredit them with their heavily edited videos. these five short videos, the ones released by them 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 that there is no profit from tissue donation and should not be.

tissuefferent -- donation programs should follow the law and that substantial changes to medical procedures would not occur. we know from the longer version of the first video that the doctor said at least 10 times that planned parenthood affiliates do not profit from fetal tissue donation. making statements such as the affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this, they looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line. yet none of the highly relevant in passages were included the edited versions that they initially released to the national media. local affiliates in my area assertive or 27,000 women alone last year. of exams,housands breast exams, tested a german std's, and cervical cancer

screenings. by doing this they saved lives. the leading questions in these videos do not lead to these numbers. instead, the questions lead to discussion about illegal fetal tissue donation programs that affiliates do not participate in for the most part. along with my constituents i'm calling out these videos for what they are. the latest attack on women's access to reproductive health care. republicans are saying that we don't want to see the videos but the truth is the opposite. we want to see the whole video, not a selectively edited version. i along with 11 of my colleagues sent a letter to chairman collect today saying that the full footage must be made available to us in the public. only then can they be a fair in complete investigation. without the full unedited source

footage it is impossible for there to be a thorough and transparent congressional investigation. videos likeith, these -- do videos like this have any evidence year he values? should we rely on these videos in our investigations? do you believe the public will 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 for the reasons you have stated. words are taken out of context. and placed over each other out of time the way world leaders are made to appear to be singing pop songs. it is that kind of technique that is used on the internet quite often. it is used here in these videos and it is just as unreliable. rep. chu: you talked about that research panel that determined

the ethics of fetal tissue donation. that 21 people were appointed to this commission and supported the idea of fetal research. can you speak about some of the safeguards that the commission and lawmakers put in place to ensure no wrongdoing? ms. smith: as far as i can tell they are working. the safeguards appear to be working. fetal tissue was not allowed to be sold. women are consented to the abortion separately from the consent to donate tissue. the incentives for the main actors in these situations -- it is not pushing abortion in any way. manipulating people are coursing their choice. those are all factors i hope it be in place. the committee continues to have concerns about that and the public continues to have

concerned about whether this is being committed properly. i think the appropriate response of the another commission to address the issues and to investigate the issue. rep. chu: thank you. mr. chairman, i would like to enter to the record to letters. one is from a latino organizations that support planned parenthood of america. another is a letter from planned parenthood to the national institute of health on fetal tissue donation and medical research >>. >>without objection. >> parliamentary inquiry? >> i would like to know whether not the majority is currently in possession of the unedited videos that are at issue? >> i was going to address that. the full footage of these videos is online. all the have to do -- is that incorrect? cmp have stated they released it online weeks ago. the point is i would only hope

that my friends on the minority would ask a look at them. >> i believe those are the edited version of these videos. >> there are two videos that are heavily edited and with the cmp has called full footage videos which they themselves have also been edited. this is in the forensic analysis report that was submitted to the committee. seeny that we know of has the actual full footage videos. >> that is my point. is in facty imposition of the full unedited videos that are at issue in this hearing? >> the issue is no, we are not. suggest if we are in possession of enough of it to indicate that living human being murderedre at planned parenthood and the body parts are being harvested -- >> pointed parliamentary inquiry. has the majority received videos from this organization?

>> we have looked at the ones available to everyone else online. we've not received anything directly from the organization. >> point of inquiry. has the majority communicated with this organization and sought copies of unedited versions of these videos? >> the answer is we have not received any additional footage from cmp. .> that was not my inquiry

point of parliamentary inquiry. my inquiry is has the majority communicated with cmp in an effort to obtain copies of on edited video or in connection with the ongoing investigation of cmp? with respect to these videos? >> there are none in committee records at this time. we have made no formal requests for that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i recognize that settlement from texas for five minutes for his questions. it seems to me this hearing is not whether there is a crime that is been committed or not. that is a decision for the department of justice to determine later.

even though my friend from georgia acted as a defense lawyer defending someone that is not 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. this is my opinion. 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? ,> i don't have the statistics but your own state is funding women's health at a higher level. there is morethat funding than there has been in the past. example.hat is a great we know the state of texas is funding women's health services at an all-time level. i have to say 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.

that therending is are 732 federally qualified health centers in texas and 38 planned parenthood centers in texas. issue about the videos, edited, not edited, that seems to be the discussion. do we have the full video? do we have all the e-mails? with have the side deals 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. tell me a little bit about your knowledge of planned parenthood based on your background and

life experiences. you don't have to go into those, but margaret singer or planned parenthood, what you know about them? >> my biological mother went to a planned parenthood. they advised her to have a saline abortion. planned parenthood has had an anonymous impact on my life. cerebrale gift of palsy is a direct result from a lack of oxygen to my brain as a result of the procedure. margaret sanger was quite an individual. quote, theread this most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant .embers is to kill it

-- that is the woman who began this organization. with statuesoblems of her in different places in america? >> i do, yeah. >> based on your opinion, your life experiences, and i value you a great deal, and you think undpayers should f planned parenthood, an organization that harvests the body parts of the unborn? >> absolutely not. >> my time is expired. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. chairman.

my apologies for having to step out. i chair the california democratic delegation. we have the secretary of labor meeting with us, and i had to go over for 50 minutes to deal with that. i have the benefit of reading all the testimony, hearing the testimony, this morning, and -- it seems to me that there are a lot of distortions in terms of how we are approaching this issue. the real agenda here is pretty andous, which is to try outlaw or eliminate abortion in the united states. right that women have under the constitution, at least , and ifirst trimester think this is a thinly veiled attack on that right that women

have. are at the law school. you have analyzed all of this stuff. i have a list of the services that are provided by planned parenthood in my state in centers, just7 over 800,000 patients. it could not be absorbed by the other clinics at all. none of the abortion services are funded by the federal government. ,t is only these other services contraception, sexual transmitted disease treatment, , evenears, breast exams 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? >> thank you for the question. yeah, 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 , isnding planned parenthood that if ud fund the non-abortion related services that the government funds around this , there would be a significant increase in the number of unintended pregnancies and therefore an increase in the number of abortions that would occur. that is just the impact on abortion rates alone. are also talking about the ability of women, particularly low income women, to obtain high-quality services, services that cannot be absorbed by a community health center as has

been suggested. we are talking about wellness exams, cancer screenings, pap all kindsd testing, of services, so planned parenthood has become so popular that because it provides abortions, but because it provides a wide range of services that women and men need to stay healthy. it does so at reasonable costs 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. >> in my community, planned parenthood not only provides cancer screening and the like, .ut they provide pediatric care it is whole families, not just women coming in, women and their children, getting immunizations -- >> and that is in fact an

-- itant point, which is would disagree with a member before -- the name planned parenthood is very apt. it is about people planning their families, plan when they're going to have their families and take care of their families. >> there has been talk of --tting the government down what would happen to funding for planned parenthood if we had a government shutdown at the end of this month? because i am not an official at planned parenthood, i don't know what would happen to their funding stream. so it would be medicaid recipients would not be covered, i assume, for their services and

health care needs and would be unable to go to planned parenthood clinics, and women would go without necessary health care. >> it wouldn't defund abortions because is no federal money going into abortions. this question of funding is quite ironic. under federal law, we don't consider money fungible in this way, because it really doesn't apply, it doesn't move from one seer to another. in our religious freedom cases, , secularthe funding services at faith-based organizations, and we do that and say it is not an establishment clause violation because the money that goes to religious activities at the same organizations is separately funded, so we recognize the ability, and we can keep dissing separate in our head in that context.

i think we should be able to keep dusting separate here as well, because they are separate in reality. is expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. can you describe the process of a partial birth abortion so people will have a better it mightding of why have been banned and a better understanding of why professor smith argued against it? >> it is where a physician partially delivers, using the trunk and legs of the baby, leaving only the head in the birth canal, and the baby is takes an act to kill the baby at that point, usually thrusting scissors into the back of the skull in order to kill the baby, and then completes the delivery.

it is a way of killing the baby when most of the baby has already been -- is already outside the womb. >> there are people who argued against banning that barbaric practice? >> oh, yes, many of the people we are hearing from today were big advocates for the continuation of partial-birth abortions. they have no respect for human life if they consider to be unborn or they want to label it as a fetus, and literally anything is all right -- >> let's go to that point, because professor smith seems to draw a line between humanity 02 a viable fetus, and the lack of humanity what she considers to be a nonviable fetus. who gets to draw that line? >> that is a complex question.

number one, it is a medical determination on whether a child is viable, but it is a difficult one, and there are many great areas. areas. we would consider that anyone born at that point in time ought to be considered viable, but many times you just of the doubt know until later. even heard people working at abortion clinics are able to make that complex medical decision. to correctly,t professor smith said she was not a doctor and it should be up to the doctors to make a determination, and there were nine lawyers who came up with a plan, not one of whom was a doctor, and i also know the irony of hank johnson wondering

why there weren't more women on the side of our aisle when they tend to target those who seek office as republican women and there wasn't a single one on the , but when roe versus wade that doesn't seem to trouble him much either. for those watching at home or doesn't civil law recognize the viability of even comesviable fetus when it time for the plaintiffs attorney to get paid? >> there are many instances of wrongful cases in various states of wrongful best of the unborn, criminal laws -- wrongful deaths of the unborn, criminal laws -- >> when it comes time for the attorney to get paid, we have a different definition of viability, right? >> it simply not relevant. >> exactly.

our friends on the other side of the aisle, some of them who work as attorneys, have no trouble being paid for the life of that two week your old. >> the idea of using viability standard ise antiquated, and most courts have gone away from that. >> it is hard to go away from viability when professor smith says there is not any humanity owed a pre-viable, she wants a baby, previable fetus. did i misunderstand her? is there any degree of humanity owed? you have been sitting beside her all morning. if there's something outside the bounds of decency that we really won't allow as long as the fetus is previable? >> as i understand her testimony, if the born, alive

infant is considered to be nonviable, then we have a free fire zone, we can do whatever we want. we can kill it, harvest the tissues, whatever it may be. about producing an which has been demonstrated in the videos is the possibility that these unborn children are alive, and there is even evidence of that one of the intech babies born alive had a beating heart, which is the definition of being alive. videos are why the relevant to our conversation about partial-birth abortion. i am out of time. i have two quick questions for mrs. smith. >> if we were to double the amount of money available to the providers, would you be ok with that? >> i would have to know who it was going to. >> anyone not named planned

parenthood. >> not anyone, no. if they provide high quality services to low income people in the same way to planned parenthood does, frankly, yes. you are ok with us defunding planned parenthood as long as the money goes somewhere where it can do that most good with the same group of people. you are ok with congress defunding planned parenthood? >> not in the current environment where there is now one. >> if there were. >> yes, then you could fund that -- >> so if we were to provide that same quality care not named planned parenthood, you will support republicans and defund planned parenthood. how about we try. what we do that? >> if you're asking me a hypothetical question -- double the money as long

as it doesn't go to planned parenthood. we will double that money available as long as it doesn't go to planned parenthood, how's that? >> plan parenthood today is the institution -- planned parenthood today is the institution that provides the best quality care for women in this country across the nation in cities, and low income areas, where the services are unavailable -- target ofe also the videos that are heinous, barbaric, and said human. as long as we can provide that same level of care and is not named planned parenthood -- white you th defund that. >> i was voting to defund planned parenthood before the videos ever showed up. i don't think we know each other well enough -- >> and vice a versa. >> i yield back.

clarify, you said earlier that in order to determine whether an unborn child is viable, one would need to ask a doctor. would you support acquirement that when an unborn child is born alive that the child be transported to a hospital so that it can survive if it is viable? >> if it is viable and born alive? transported tobe a hospital so that doctors can ascertain -- > can you answer the question? >> i'm not prepared to support or not support. --i now recognize >> i believe your next in line. >> thank you, mr. chairman. that ijust first say

thank all of the men and women that work at planned parenthood. i thank them for the incredible service that they offer millions of women who would otherwise go kind,t the kind of considerate, compassionate, understanding service that i believe women in this country need. it isn't it being offered in other venues. 500,000them because fewer pregnancies, that's a way to stop abortions. this shouldn't be a question of four or against abortions. everyone is against abortions. how do you stop abortions? 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.

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

cancer, parkinson's, we need to continue to have medical research, and part of that medical research is because -- accesshe ability -- to fetal tissues. in it.sn't profitability nobody has shown there's profitability in it, but the needs to be a way that we have medical research in this country. toust want to say, thank you all of the women and men and all those who labor in our health care delivery system across this country, and especially those who would provide that to women. 80% of the clients receive birth control services, 516,000 unintended pregnancies annually. in five women in the united

states has visited at planned parenthood once in her life. i also want to talk a little bit asut the fact that as much we try to have universal health care, we still don't have universal health care unfortunately in this country. bit want to talk a little -- i'm not for abortion. sign thatif i see a says honk if you're for choice? yeah, i do honk. we have been very lucky and 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 because there are people out there giving that kind of access. sayingto in the not by hoode for plan hit arun

because -- planned parenthood because we receive money, this is really about women and what is the law. to less points, there seems to be a question here morality -- two last points, there seems to be a question here around the. when you have members of the house of representatives that are proposing doma that have been divorced four times, i think we might when the question their knowledge or sincerity about marriage. that was overturned by the supreme court. when we have clerks that are married once, twice, three, and all of a sudden get religious and say i'm not going to give a mayor certificate to those two men or those two women because ,t questions people's morality but what you cannot question is -- i raisedngress two daughters right, did the best i could, and trust them. i will protect their right and every other woman to make

decisions about their reproductive systems with their conscience. i raised them and gave them the best by his that i need to respect them now. i just wish that in the society we would have a system that respected all women and the kinds of decisions they have to make every day, every day they have to make decisions, and i don't think we are in a position to judge them. i'm certainly not going to allow others to promote legislation or promote situations that put that in jeopardy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i recognize mr. labrador for five minutes. really grateful for the words of a rowdy that we just heard. this is an issue of morality. that is why we are here today. it is not an issue whether planned parenthood broke the law by selling fetal body parts.

in fact, i don't know if we will ever answer that question if it was illegal for them to do what they were doing. the real tragedy is that we are confronted today with -- human beings have been reduced to mere commodities and this practice, and federal dollars are converting to it, and i think that is immoral. i do not want to contribute to a system that profits from someone's fate nor do i want to subject millions of taxpayers to supporting the violation of life. it is often the temptation to boil this argument down to medical terms and ignore the real losses our nation faces when we choose to reject someone before he or she has been given a chance to live. like these two beautiful women who are cared today with us and have testified so eloquently. i commend them both for the courage to come

before this committee. i am sure that life is not always been easy for them, but i and and credibly grateful that you were given the opportunity to live and that you are choosing to spend time with us today. said to be ae survivor of abortion. soul,her, god rest her passed away 10 years ago this month. moste her, and i love her of all because of the time of her pregnancy when she was a single mom, she was encouraged by people like ms. smith and others to abort me. waywas told that the only that she was going to have a life, a good life, was making sure that she did not have this child. a personal choice, a choice that should be respected. she made the choice to give me life, but not just to give me life, but to give me a good life. to raise me to the best of my

ability to become the best that i could. 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 that this child had a good life, even though she was a single mom, she did not have any money, she did not have much in her life, she was going to give you the best opportunity available to 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 who have a god-given potential to be the best that they can be and to be everything they can be. i hope you don't forget that. when i watch those videos, i have to admit that i only watched two of them. i think there are 7-8 of them. i cannot watch after the second one, because i was sickened to my core. to me, it was immoral. i don't know if it was illegal, this myth, but it was in moral what i was seeing on that video

-- it was immoral what i was seeing on that video. you and i would disagree on a discussion. i can tell you that 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 we are on immoral nation. whether we are willing to allow that to happen or not. i have a few questions for you, ms. smith. you emphasize that federal funding for planned parenthood is not used for abortions, yet you go on to say that the funding -- defunding planned parenthood would lead to an increase in abortions. onlyin to me why you associate abortion with planned parenthood in the case of defunding planned parenthood, but failed to recognize the connection when the federal government actively contribute money to planned parenthood? saying is that if you defund planned parenthood,

you defund the contraceptive services and the care they provide to women. >> if we gave that money to other community health organizations, without the ok? >> if there were community health organizations that provided as high-quality care . planned parenthood is definitely -- there are community health centers. there are a reason why they go to planned parenthood. ve elaborated on violationsal legal -- what justification remains for using taxpayer dollars. >> the question again, sir? you have elaborated on whether planned parenthood potentially violated the law, is it justification to continue to defund -- to fund their

practices? theo, the reason is if current laws are not violated, they clearly are committing violating moral and ethical principles, and violating the safeguards -- as wrong as the panel was about recommending this research, at least they talked about proposed safeguards like no financial incentives. when the loss got past, it was passed by people who wanted to facilitate, and the law was fetal tissue procurement from aborted fetuses and went beyond what the panel would have limited it too. it could be that the current laws need to be adjusted in effectiverovide protection against these two,cial incentives, and

providing the necessary protection for instance of born alive, which we have a witness right here before this committee speaking for the abortion industry that says they are in a free fire zone if they're not viable. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> i will recognize mr. dortch for five minutes. >> thank you. marks the first hearing of the full committee after a lengthy recess. how fitting it is that would be devoted to a bogus attack on women's health care and those who provided. the entire premise of today's hearing is based on viral videos that have been dissected, debunked, and discredited. for three years, antiabortion activists fraudulently cast themselves as biomedical researchers, to find a gotcha moment that catches staff

affiliated with planned parenthood breaking the law. after three years of deception, they failed to find it. what do they do? edit footage to smear planned parenthood, a nonprofit health care provider that serves more than 2.7 million americans every year as some sort of for-profit enterprise engaged in a preposterous black-market of fetal tissue. conveniently scrubbed out were moments when staff said no one should sell the tissue and the goal was to cover thhe cost of the process. why are we here? we learn that planned parenthood did not engage in wrongdoing. they only do fetal tissue donation and a handful of states. it was consensually obtained through legal abortions legalized by congress in 1993 with bipartisan support. planned parenthood's goal is to fulfill the wishes of those who decide to donate fetal tissue to

science, and perhaps contribute somedayrch that may yield cures. so fetal tissue research is legal. family planning is legal. as much as some of our witnesses like to pretend otherwise, abortion is legal. yet, here we are. this deception has led congress to hold the first of several hearings. it has led presidential candidates to pledge to defund planned parenthood. guess what? no federal funding goes to abortions. when you defund planned defunding 97% of what they do that is not abortion, pregnancy tests, birth control, screenings are breast cancer and cervical cancer and ovarian cancer. you defund access to referrals to other hospitals and specialists, and you deny prenatal care.

you defundpens when planned parenthood, provided that serves over 2.7 million americans? you defund access to health care that has nothing to do with abortions. let me correct the record here. planned parenthood does spend federal funding on birth control that prevents unwanted pregnancies that made me to abortions. 10eed, in 2013 loan, title sites that planned parenthood help prevent unplanned pregnancies that would have statistically likely lead to over 300,000 more abortions that year. i honestly don't know why we are here today. i know that not a single one of the men sitting here today ever -- i know that federal law already prohibits planned parenthood from using tax dollars on abortion related care. i think all women should have

access to legal abortion regardless of financial means. this movement to defund planned parenthood is not just an attack -- it's an attack on the concept of reproductive justice, the idea that all women regardless of race or sexual orientation or economic background have a right to education about sexual health and a right to manage their reproductive health. to delay the right childbearing until they are ready to become mothers. it is a right to control fertility that gives them that a better shot at controlling their on destiny. today's hearing is an attack on the economy and therefore on the dignity of women. i therefore will not dignify it with any questions. i yield back the balance of my time. >> we now recognize mr. radcliffe for five minutes. >> thank you for convening this hearing. i wish it was not necessary. i wish that the horrifying

events that prompted it had not occurred in our country. i'm grateful for leaders spearheading this critical investigation. i think it is worth pointing out that is what it is. it is an investigation. it is the beginning, not the end. to maket come here conclusions unlike some of the democratic colleagues of mine who have been making conclusions from the beginning of this fact the ranking member opening remarks stated there was no credible evidence that planned parenthood had violated the law. he said that before you heard a single word of testimony here. room, myrats in this colleagues across the aisle, can feign outrage, but this is the obligation of congress. federal tax dollars are going to planned parenthood. we have an obligation. duly our elected representatives of the people to determine whether they are using those tax dollars to violate the law. be upset,eagues can

but congress is doing exactly what it should do here today. justerman before me commented on the fact that congress has returned after a month of recess. the 700,000ou what people in east texas wanted to talk about. they wanted to talk about what they saw in these videos. my colleagues across the alcan said the videos are not real, but they are very real to the 700,000 texans that i represent. i came here today to ask some questions about that. the texans i represent have been sickened by what they had seen on this videos. professor smith, you referred to planned parenthood as a beloved institution. i don't know planned parenthood. i only know what i've seen on the videos and with the representatives have said. i don't see a beloved

institution. i see an organization that appears to have a blatant disregard for human life. i know you have talked about how but feels are not reliable, that is not the same thing as saying they're not true. under oath tore say that none of those statements made by planned parenthood employees were not true, are you? the wordsly some of they uttered and many statements they said, they did say. absolutely, but i think the videos were edited to make it seem like they said things they didn't say. thatuld you agree with me if the word you heard on the video are true, there were some out rages statements made. >> we would have to talk about which statements. >> let's talk about some of the statements. ms. o'donnell said and i will put it exactly, this is the most gestated fetus and the closest

thing to a baby i have ever seen . she taps the heart and it starts beating. the nodes were still firing, and i don't mean if it's technically dead or alive. it wasn't completely torn off. it's nose was pronounced. it had eyelids. she said, ok, well, this is a really good fetus, and it looks like we could procure a lot from it. we will procure a brain. i'm not asking if that statement is true. if it is true, would you agree that it is outrageous and it raises questions about the legality of actions taking place at planned parenthood. >> i don't think it raises questions about the legality of the actions. theink she's talking about abortion of a previable fetus that is distasteful to many of us. i think the language is perhaps sensitive to people and how they want to think about a fetus. we often equally fetus with baby. in fact, members of this

committee have done so repeatedly today. that makes us think about full-term, gestated babies rather than fetuses and a very early state of gestation, which is what she's talking about. so when you juxtapose those images in your mind, it becomes very distasteful. when you are talking about a very early, undeveloped -- >> i understand that we are theg to disagree -- you use term fetus. i will use the term baby. that statement does not give you reason to think that congress should investigate whether or not that statement is true, perhaps violated the partial-birth ban, or the foreign alive long? let me move on. you have told me that you don't agree with me. we will have to agree to disagree. the other thing you said earlier was that you would be ok with defunding planned parenthood if it made the same federal tax

dollars available to other providers that were qualified to give health care to women in this country. >> if there was an institution that provided as quality care as planned parenthood does on a consistent basis. be me correct the record to more clear about it, yes, that's what i'm talking about. >> did you know there are 20 federal he funded comprehensive care clinics for everyone planned parenthood in this country. areyou aware that there 13,000 federally qualified health care centers for women in this country. lowery of them provide quality health care than planned parenthood does. there was an article on salon.com about the difference between community health centers and planned parenthood clinics and compare them. people goreason that to planned parenthood, which is the care is very good, compassionate, and --

>> as compassionate as what we saw in those videos? >> people trust them. we will have to agree to disagree. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i will yield back. >> we recognize the gentlewoman from washington. >> thank you. i wish i could say i'm surprised that the committee's first order of business is to launch another attack on way himself, but i'm not. already, the house has restricted to -- voted to that allow employers to discriminate against workers for using birth control. now we are conducting a so-called investigation rooted in extreme anti-choice ideology rather than evidence and facts. it is shameful that this committee would legitimize the extremists whose intention is to

intimidate women and health care providers and shutter planned parenthood clinics across the country. state of 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. it is time for congress to focus on the facts. defunding planned parenthood would have a devastating impact on women's access to care. that care includes cancer screenings, immunizations, birth than 90 in fact, more percent of the services provided by planned parenthood are preventative. we cannot allow the reckless actions of a few extremists to jeopardize the critical safety net provided by planned parenthood. mr. chair, i would like to submit for the record of letter from 92 organizations, including the national women's law center,

expressing their support for planned parenthood. >> it may be part of the record. >> thank you. >> 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. your opinionto get on that. is it your understanding that some americans would be left without access to preventative health services and they were no longer funded in the service is no longer available? >> that's right. i don't know the details. i have not studied all the areas without community health centers, but i know there are many places that's a victim have access to them. level ofestion the services that are provided in some of those centers as well. planned parenthood remains the only option for many people to obtain the services. that is definitely true. can i correct the record with one point? something that mr. labrador said

, that people like ms. smith encouraged people to have abortions. i just want to correct the record and say i have never encouraged as someone to have an abortion. i have talked to women who are considering abortions and have discussed the options with me, but i would never encourage them or push anyone to have an abortion. i wanted a make that clear in the record. >> i understand. i want to highlight that in my state of washington, planned parenthood has almost -- this is 2013 numbers -- almost 120,000 over 17,000 folks have , overn for a path test 17,000 for breast exams, so we are talking about preventative services that are still critical. opinion, are there particular groups that would be impacted more significantly if planned parenthood services were no longer available? >> women who don't have

insurance, low income women in particular, women of color and communities which don't have excesses to high-quality services and don't have health insurance despite the affordable health care act and all the gains we have made there. >> you have talked about some of the attacks that we have seen against planned parenthood. this in yourout testimony. there is a history of this. can you elaborate more on that? differentere are nine smear campaigns just since 2000 using these kind of videos, accusing planned parenthood of everything from hiding statutory rape, i forget all the different ones. there have been a number of them. on every time there has been a full investigation, there has been a cry about it they gets in the press. everyone goes crazy. congressional hearings are held. things are investigated.

the claims of the bond. it has happened again and again and again. i will predict that that will happen again this time. >> thank you. it is unfortunate that it is happening now. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. bishop. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you to those who have shown up to testify today. -- sittingor having through this long questioning. it is important to all of us. i take exception with the last exchange that i heard, words like smear tactics or smear campaigns, attack on women's health. what would you have us do? i don't understand. all of us had to witness what we saw in these videos. planned parenthood is funded by the united states government, by

taxpayers. asis our responsibility members, republicans and democrats, to address issues like this in this format. i think it would be easy to just walk away from this and just pretend like it did not happen, put our head in the sand. it seems that congress does that a lot. in this case, the videos were so unconscionable, funding, funding for the sake of having done it before. this is our responsibility. i want to make that point clear. i'm a new member. i have not been a part of anything in the past. i am here because i am an american citizen. believeo a taxpayer and it is our responsibility to marshal our resources and do it in a way that is consistent with

our fiduciary duties. that said, when i see this video, i am outraged. as a citizen, i want to be here and talk to all of you. i want to get back to -- i'm sorry about the diatribe -- but i think you see the emotion and all of us. i want to get back to a question that we begin with, the discussion we had about whether or not any of this testimony, the videos, is in fact illegal. what is a valuable consideration? i offer that is a question to my legal counsel here, both of you. there been suggested that is a gaping hole for reasonable payments, for reimbursable costs, whatever that might mean. i won a regional portion of this transcript. folkss between one of the who set up the undercover video

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

we could talk about a specimen for procured tissue sample. -- maybe able to get that is $75 per specimen. $150.s versus if we get a brain hemisphere -- and the doctor says, ok. that protects us so we are not paying for stuff we can't use, and i think it also illustrates things. the doctor says, it's been years since i talked about it, so let me figure out what others are getting. if this is in the ballpark, that's fine. if it is too low, we can bump it up. i want a lamborghini. the undercover person says, what did you say? i said, i want a lamborghini.

i just read your portion of that transcript of that video, and i want to know how this appears to be a flat fee exchange. it's as almost as if they're at a restaurant picking from a menu. is that not viable to be talking about. have we had any discussion about reasonable payment for reimbursable costs? >> your last point is what is noteworthy. viableanything is a consideration. the exception, which they are trying to exploit, is for reasonable reimbursement of costs, reasonable payments for various costs associated with the procurement of the tissue. dependingdon't very on how many specimens you get out of ticket or fetus. -- you get out of a particular

fetus. what is noteworthy in that exchange is, where was the discussion or reference to, what does it cost us, when you're talking about how much. what she was interested in was what is the market price. what is everyone else getting for this, not for our costs, but for what they're getting. 100% aboutsion was maximizing the amount of money that is obtained based on market considerations and based on per specimen -- cost will not change regardless of how many specimens you get. on any idea of what are the costs related to the procurement. >> thank you. i know my time has expired, mr. chair, but if i might. the video to which i just referred to and with this

committee has repeatedly referred to throughout this hearing is a material part of this discussion. at this time, i would ask you to enter into the record the entire tapesripts from these that we have been discussing today. >> without objection. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. are those transcripts complete and full and on edited? do they contain all the statements made. there was her review done that the transcripts are an accurate. we should have some affidavit ensuring that they are in fact complete, fair, and accurate recordings of what was actually said in the complete, unedited recordings. >> if i might respond. >> we are just going to compound injury upon injury if we are going to submit transcripts that are in accurate, that distort exactly what happened, and rely

on them. we have are responsibly to ensure they are accurate. >> the transcript of the public video be made of part of the record? >> yes, these are the public videos that appear -- >> they are much like the transcript of any other program that is made available through a news organization or anything else. >> right to object. >> members can assign credibility to whether part -- to whatever part of it -- >> you are just submitting a transcript of the public record. >> i would like to comment. it has been the policy of the committee to not object to putting anything in the record of what ever. i understand that tradition. it is not my intention to object, but i would like to note that if we're going to agree with this, we must also include the forensic report by the

fusion group that analyzed the video showing that it has no evidentiary value. to put thate happy in the director did there is no objection to that as well. >> that would be my request. >> both of those documents are made part of the record. >> thank you to the witnesses for being here today and for offering your differing viewpoints on this very difficult issue, and i know the passion that accompanies both sides. i'm still struggling with what exactly this hearing is about. issues have been raised with respect to fetal tissue research . it is clear that there are established scientific protocols that were followed. there is a correspondence in the record that confirms that. there has been a lot of discussion about late-term abortion, which is prohibited under federal law.

then discussion about the central question of whether women have a constitutional right to make decisions regarding their own reproductive health care. that is also a question of law. written in your testimony that you reviewed these recorded conversations and they review -- review many legal issues regarding fetal tissue procurement. based it on your review of the recordings, and then you ask about a series of allegations that laws may have been broken, federal tax laws, laws in california to prohibit fraud and forgery, making false journal solicitations and the like. thatt was releasee advised he intends to invoke the fifth amendment against self incrimination. you said you were advised by this committee not to discuss the circumstances that occurred in the production and editing an

alteration and securing of these videos, is that correct? >> the purpose of this hearing -- that is not part of -- >> that is not my question. where you advised by the committee counsel not to discuss allegations of criminal behavior in the generation of these videos? yes or no? >> i'm not answering yes or no to that question. i'm stating what i said i was advised about. >> were you advised not to discuss how these videos were produced? >> i was advised that that is not the purpose of this hearing and i should not comment. what it is is creating an opportunity to defund planned parenthood and make it more difficult for women to have access to full reproductive health care. we know of the value of planned parenthood. 2.7 main patients, men and women , one in five women in the

united states is visited planned parenthood once in her lifetime. a million and a half young people and adults participate in oncational programs reproductive health. 6 million visits to websites where health care information is readily available in the russian spanish. 700 clinics throughout the country to provide cancer screenings. and 80,000 ofst, those cancer screenings attempted early so hundreds of thousands of people are still able to be with their loved ones. i want to associate my remarks of congressman guitierrez.

the other 97% of their services i just outlined would be compromised and in fact, the incidence of unwanted pregnancies and abortions would increase so defunding planned parenthood is unlikely to cause the same thing that proponents claim they don't want and that is more abortions. that is right and one of the things this next clear is that a campaign against abortion abortion and it's also a campaign against contraceptives. i wrote a paper about this comstockcontraceptive ery." that continues today. >> it is very disappointing

since many of us hoped this issue was settled, that women have the right to full reproductive health care and the right to make decisions about their own bodies with their own conscience and to have our first hearing, another effort to make it more difficult for women in america to access high-quality health care is incredibly disappointing and i thank you for your assessment. >> the gentleman from georgia. >> as i have said many times, congress, ier last am down toward the end and after hearing everything, there many times you come to points of really wondering the points of why we are here. about a lot ofk

different things. miss smith, i am not even sure -- what i have heard a lot from you is context. i'm not sure how many of these you can put into proper context. there is no way you can put some that it isto context not abhorrent to anyone he would watch these videos. you made a statement about -- and i have counseled many who either had abortions were as aing about abortions chaplain and attorney. -- we needstatement to terminate a pregnancy. as if someone on the outside can

determine a quality of life. is it is as many times a mother and father facing a tough decision just like we did 23 years ago. , we found out she had spina bifida. my wife went back to work and in a time of much emotional turmoil, a colleague of hers i'm being helpful. you have choices, you don't have to go through this. we were a young couple back then. she was just starting teaching and i was working. as you go along and look at this, my wife finally figured out what she was tried to tell her. she was saying you can go kill

your child and you don't have to worry about it anymore. when my wife understood that, she said you were talking about my baby, not a fetus, my baby. today, i think we miss this. this is what gets lost in this debate about quality of life and other issues. the two of you have lives that are so productive. you are not a failure. i never thought i would have a chance to think that the first steps my daughter would ever take was rolling in a wheelchair. she texted me earlier today and asked how my day was going. i said it's a pretty hard day.

i didn't tell her what i was doing. she said whatever you are going through, i am praying for you. my child has a life and there are many in the abortion industry that are willingly telling people that if you have a child that has the most evenitating condition or spina bifida, you don't have to go through with this. we forget in this argument today and i am so over context, over .linics there are other clinics that can help these women. you know that. you may not like them. but i'm so over the fact we miss the sentimental issue and that's life. the heroes.mmend

-- at be explained away the end of the day, let's stand up and ask the hard questions and remember that life and those as you said, even those who don't really have a voice, if we don't let them have a voice. us, they will never be silent because life is precious and for me, they deserve everything. with that, i yield back. >> it's been a long day for the witnesses in particular. i want to thank you for being here. i do observe there is a cruel irony in those who say they are against abortion and trying to defund an organization that works so hard to prevent one of the -- prevent unwanted

pregnancies and my colleagues apparently want to shut it down. we are late in the day and a lot of people have said a number of things but we were called out as taxpayers here. i want you to know i appreciate what planned parenthood has done to prevent stds, to give cancer screenings to low income women, and to provide contraceptive care. all of those things save us money as taxpayers. the person who made the video is not here and in my experience, unimportante witness. i acknowledge and agree the discussion of these issues on these videos was somewhat disturbing, at least insensitive. the issue for us in the

committee is to look at what is legal and on that point, i don't think anything today has shown there has been something illegal here. if you wanted to test that, you could ask proponents if they agreed. $30 oruld never agree $50 was the right number because that is not the issue here. this is an issue about abortion choice, contraception, and everything but legality. her -- i also observed planned parenthood has not been accused of committing fraud, violating the medicaid statutes over there is a legal statute. that has been litigated in a number of states because any provider that provides these kinds of care, planned

parenthood hasn't been and attempts to cut them off. it is illuminating in many ways to have this hearing. it is not really been about legality, a much broader issue, an issue we thought would have been settled 40 years ago. these decisions are very difficult for families and my colleague just shared is and what a thing to have to go through but they are not made bys that should be the government. they are decisions that should be made by a woman a consultation with her doctor and family and it is not for the judiciary committee or the u.s. government or any government to say how families should handle that very tough issue so with respect to the issue of legality, i hope we have run our

course. i hope we can move forward and i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you and mr. chairman, you did not deserve to be called ignorant by mr. nadler. he made a very informed decision when you call to the ceiling. my friend from new york said these people who did the videos otherwise ifcause the videos were legitimate, they would have gone to the prosecutor to get these manners prosecuted but i can answer that because i advised people that came in as whistleblowers about things that this administration

cared about as they do planned themthood when they defend at all cost as they had even after the videos were made public. unfortunately, if you go to a prosecutor as a whistleblower on an organization or group that this administration protects, they prosecute you. i have seen that over and over and that is why i have advised gople to get a lawyer and we a different route but if you go to the justice department, you will find it's a department of injustice because we have seen it over and over with this administration. cutting and being selective, they did take our onlin -- excerpts