    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          PLANNED PARENTHOOD EXPOSED:
                       EXAMINING ABORTION PROCEDURES AND
                     MEDICAL ETHICS AT THE NATION'S LARGEST
                               ABORTION PROVIDER

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 8, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-43

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                   ___________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    96-905 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2015

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
        Wisconsin                        JERROLD NADLER, New York
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                ZOE LOFGREN, California
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    STEVE KING, Iowa                       Georgia
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 JUDY CHU, California
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     TED DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 KAREN BASS, California
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
    RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho                 HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia                SCOTT PETERS, California
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    KEN BUCK, Colorado
    JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
    DAVE TROTT, Michigan
    MIKE BISHOP, Michigan

               Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
            Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                OCTOBER 8, 2015

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary     3

    The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
      the Judiciary..................................................     4

    The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Arizona, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary.......     6

    The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Tennessee, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary.....     7

                                   WITNESSES

    Anthony Levatino, M.D., Obstetrician and Gynecologist, Las
      Cruces, NM
      Oral Testimony.................................................    10
      Prepared Statement.............................................    12

    Susan Thayer, former Planned Parenthood Manager, Storm Lake, IA
      Oral Testimony.................................................    17
      Prepared Statement.............................................    19

    Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society
      Oral Testimony.................................................    24
      Prepared Statement.............................................    26

    Luana Stoltenberg, Davenport, IA
      Oral Testimony.................................................    33
      Prepared Statement.............................................    35

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Material submitted by Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the
      Judiciary......................................................    76

    Material submitted by Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative
      in Congress from the State of New York, and Member, Committee
      on the Judiciary...............................................    90

                                    APPENDIX
                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Letter from Americans United for Life, submitted by the Honorable
      Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary.............   114

    Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
      Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary.....................   126
                            OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
              Unprinted Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Supplemental material submitted by Luana Stoltenberg, Davenport, IA.
        See Support Documents at:

        http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104048

    Material submitted by the Alliance Defending Freedom. See Support
        Documents at:

        http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104048

     PLANNED PARENTHOOD EXPOSED: EXAMINING ABORTION PROCEDURES AND MEDICAL
                ETHICS AT THE NATION'S LARGEST ABORTION PROVIDER

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2015

                            House of Representatives

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                Washington, DC.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room
    2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob
    Goodlatte (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Smith, Chabot, Forbes,
    King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Chaffetz, Labrador,
    Collins, DeSantis, Walters, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Bishop,
    Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson,
    Pierluisi, Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez, Richmond, DelBene, Jeffries,
    Cicilline, and Peters.
        Staff Present: Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General
    Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief
    Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel;
    John Coleman, Counsel, Subcommittee on the Constitution and
    Civil Justice; Kelsey Williams, Clerk; (Minority) Perry
    Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle
    Brown, Parliamentarian & Chief Legislative Counsel; Aaron
    Hiller, Chief Oversight Counsel; and James Park, Chief Counsel,
    Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Good afternoon. The Judiciary Committee will
    come to order.
        And, without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
    recesses of the Committee at any time.
        We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on ``Planned
    Parenthood Exposed: Examining Abortion Procedures and Medical
    Ethics at the Nation's Largest Abortion Provider.'' And I will
    begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement.
        Before I go to the statement on that, I would like to take
    a moment to remember the life of former Congressman William
    Donlon ``Don'' Edwards, who passed away this month at the age
    of 100.
        Don Edwards was first elected to Congress in 1963, where he
    had a distinguished career working on the Voting Rights Act,
    the Civil Rights Act, and served on the House Judiciary
    Committee during the investigation of the Watergate scandal.
    During this time on the Judiciary Committee, Don Edwards served
    with former Congressman Caldwell Butler, whom I worked for at
    the time.
        When Don Edwards left office in 1995 after 32 years of
    congressional service, he was succeeded by our very own Zoe
    Lofgren in California's 16th District. I had the opportunity to
    serve for 2 years with Congressman Edwards myself and
    appreciated his service.
        And it is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member
    to share a few words about our former colleague.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Members of the Committee and our witnesses and all of our
    friends that are here in the hearing room, I knew Congressman
    Don Edwards and worked with him, and he has left a lasting
    legacy.
        He was a progressive, principled man who never stopped
    believing that the coercive power of the government should be
    subject to the highest levels of scrutiny. And I think we still
    carry on that tradition in Judiciary even now. And he also
    wanted us never to forget that our government exists through
    the consent of the governed with the purpose of preserving, and
    not eroding, our rights.
        I am grateful to have been a friend and a colleague of his
    during his service and career in Congress, and we will miss him
    and remember him.
        And I thank the Chair.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman from California is
    recognized.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just briefly would
    like to join in the eulogy for Congressman Don Edwards.
        In 1970, I graduated from Stanford University and came out
    to Washington without a job, and Don Edwards hired me. And I
    worked for him for 9 years, both here in Washington and also in
    the California office. We went through the impeachment of
    Richard Nixon, along with your prior boss, and many other
    issues.
        He was a marvelous man, a mentor to me, and someone who was
    widely admired not only in the Congress but in the district
    that he served. I was honored to be able to succeed him in the
    House of Representatives and kept in frequent touch with him.
        He watched all of us in his retirement, and he lived to the
    ripe old age of 100 years. So he had great satisfaction in his
    life. He made his mark.
        And I would just like Members to know that we will be
    having a special order about Congressman Don Edwards on the
    21st of October, and Members are invited to participate.
        And, like Mr. Conyers--I never got to serve with him in the
    Congress, but, as his staff, I certainly was a huge admirer.
        And I thank the Chairman for allowing me these few words.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman from New York?
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add a
    few words about the late Don Edwards.
        I had the honor of serving with him for 2 years; I was
    elected in 1992. And I knew of him well before I came to
    Congress. I knew of him as one of the leading defenders of
    civil liberties in the United States, and I greatly admired him
    from afar.
        When I came to Congress and I told the then-Speaker--I was
    asked, ``What Committees would you like to serve on?'' and I
    said, ``Well, I'd like to serve on the Judiciary Committee.'' I
    was told that, well, if I wanted to serve on the Judiciary
    Committee, I had to get Mr. Edwards' approval as to my
    attitudes on civil liberties. And so I had an interview with
    him, and I must have satisfied his interest in my attitude
    toward civil liberties because he approved it, and I became a
    Member of this Committee.
        But such was the esteem in which he was held by the
    leadership, that he was given, apparently, that prerogative
    with new Members. And he richly deserved it. He was a leading
    voice of civil liberties for many, many years, and he served
    this country well. And we should thank him for that, thank his
    memory for that.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        And now I will begin my opening statement. And we have
    votes on the floor, but perhaps I and the Ranking Member can
    get our statements in before we go to vote.
        A child's heart begins to form 3 weeks after conception. By
    the fifth week, her heart begins to beat, pumping blood
    throughout her little body, and her arm and leg buds begin to
    grow. Her brain begins to develop. Her eyes and ears begin to
    form. By the sixth week, her hands and feet begin to form.
        The following week, her toes can be seen. During this time,
    she kicks and will jump if startled. By 8 weeks, the baby's
    facial features become more distinct. In weeks 9 through 12,
    the baby may begin sucking her thumb. By 10 weeks, she can
    yawn. By 11 weeks, she can make a wide variety of facial
    expressions, including a smile. By 12 weeks, which marks the
    end of the first trimester, she is capable of making a fist.
        But, on any given day, her developing parts, including her
    heart and brain, may be harvested at many Planned Parenthood
    clinics that participate in this practice across this country.
    If her organs are harvested, she will not carry a name. At
    most, she will be referred to as a ``product of conception.''
        Despite the horrific nature of these practices, Planned
    Parenthood's outrage has been directed not at the harvesting of
    baby parts but at the people who caught them talking about
    doing it on video. Indeed, Planned Parenthood argues that the
    videos released by the Center for Medical Progress are highly
    edited, but it is noteworthy to point out that the group hired
    by Planned Parenthood to review the videos found that their,
    ``analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive
    video manipulation.''
        A second analysis, commissioned by Alliance Defending
    Freedom, reached a similar conclusion. According to that
    report, the recorded media files indicate that the video
    recordings are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation
    or editing, quote/unquote.
        Today's hearing is about the content contained within the
    videos, including admissions made by Planned Parenthood
    officials that raise serious questions about the treatment of
    our Nation's children who may be born alive following a failed
    abortion. For example, the vice president of Planned Parenthood
    of the Rocky Mountains stated that, in some cases, babies are
    being born intact. She further stated, ``Sometimes we get--if
    someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure,
    then they are intact. But that's not what we go for.''
        To ensure babies born alive in such instances are given
    necessary medical care, the House passed H.R. 3504, the ``Born-
    Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,'' which requires that
    babies surviving an abortion be given the same treatment and
    care that would be given to any child naturally born premature
    at the same age and imposes criminal penalties at the Federal
    level to prevent the killing of innocent human babies born
    alive.
        Moreover, these videos indicate abortion practitioners may
    have adopted new abortion procedures to avoid the risk of
    violating the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. In the first
    video, the senior director of medical services at Planned
    Parenthood Federation of America stated that, ``the Federal
    abortion ban is a law, and laws are up to interpretation.''
    Today's hearing is in part intended to explore what
    interpretations by abortion practitioners have arisen since the
    law's passage.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses here today.
        And it is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member
    of the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for
    his opening statement.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we want to take
    a moment to walk through the events that have led up to this
    hearing.
        We know from reports that the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
    Franks, and others in the majority had viewed at least some of
    the videos about a month before they were released. On July 15
    of this year, the first video was released to the public. Now,
    these were posted online over the August break.
        Three different House Committees then launched simultaneous
    congressional investigations. On September 9, this Committee
    held its first hearing on the topic, at which the witnesses for
    the majority refused to discuss the videos at the heart of the
    matter. There have been since two other hearings on this topic,
    making this the fourth in the House in less than a month. And,
    finally, the majority has announced that it will create a new
    taxpayer-funded Select Committee to extend this so-called
    investigation indefinitely.
        As I reflect on these events, I think we are able to draw
    some conclusions, the first being that there is no evidence in
    the record whatsoever of illegal activity at Planned
    Parenthood.
        On behalf of its 59 affiliates, the Planned Parenthood
    Federation of America has provided this Committee with hundreds
    of pages of documents. The organization is cooperating fully
    with all three investigations in the House. The documents we
    have reviewed so far allow us to go point by point to correct
    the false impressions created by the highly edited, highly
    misleading videos that nominally inspired these investigations.
        Chairman Chaffetz, who sits on this Committee and is
    running his own investigation into these matters in the
    Oversight Committee next-door, has agreed with this conclusion.
    Last week, Wolf Blitzer asked the gentleman from Utah, ``Is
    there any evidence that Planned Parenthood has broken any
    law?'' Mr. Chaffetz answered with the truth: ``No, I'm not
    suggesting that they broke the law.''
        I'm led to conclude that this hearing, much like the
    broader attack on Planned Parenthood, may be political
    theater--may be--designed to rally the conservative base and
    roll back the constitutional right to choose, wherever
    possible.
        In practice, these investigations have had little to do
    with the videos, which some went to great lengths not to
    discuss at our last hearing. They have everything to do with
    appeasing the most conservative elements of one of the parties
    during an interparty leadership crisis and a fractious
    Presidential primary.
        Now, we may have a legitimate difference of opinion on Roe
    v. Wade, but it remains the law of the land. And the attempt by
    some to relitigate a 40-year-old decision places thousands of
    lives at risk.
        Many women enter the healthcare system through a family
    planning provider. In fact, 6 in 10 women who receive services
    at a publicly funded family planning center consider it their
    primary source of medical care. Planned Parenthood alone serves
    2.7 million Americans every year.
        Abortion procedures make up an incredibly small amount of
    the services it provides, only 3 percent. For example, in 2013,
    Planned Parenthood provided 900,000 cancer screenings to women
    across the country. 88,000 of those tests detected cancer early
    or identified abnormalities that might signal a greater risk of
    cancer.
        In short, in this way and so many others, Planned
    Parenthood saves lives. And so the attempt to defund Planned
    Parenthood places each of those lives at risk. We should be
    grateful that the effort has been almost entirely unsuccessful,
    at least so far, on the Federal level.
        And, finally, it is important to observe all of the good
    work this Committee could be doing instead of meeting for the
    second time on this subject in 30 days. And as we head into our
    second election season since Shelby County v. Holder, this
    Committee has done very little, could do a lot more, to restore
    the enforcement mechanisms of the Voting Rights Act.
        We have done little to advance comprehensive immigration
    reform even though proposals remain overwhelmingly popular and
    would probably easily pass the House. We've got to start
    acting. And so 11 million men and women are waiting to come out
    of the shadows and contribute to our economy and communities,
    and, at this pace, I fear they will have to wait even longer.
        And although the scourge of gun violence has touched every
    one of our districts, including yours, Mr. Chairman, we have
    all but ignored calls to strengthen background checks and close
    the gun show loophole.
        All of these solutions would save lives. All of them are
    consistent with our constitutional rights. And the list of
    missed opportunities is long, and our time is short. We should
    not spend one more minute or one more taxpayer dollar vilifying
    Planned Parenthood without a speck of evidence to back these
    claims. This Committee has too much important work to do.
        And I urge my colleagues to help us put this kind of
    theater behind us. We can do better.
        I thank the Chairman and appreciate the opportunity to
    express my views.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        There is 1 minute remaining in this vote. Happily, we are
    amongst 320 Members who have not yet voted. So head to the
    floor.
        And the Committee will stand in recess until these votes
    conclude and resume immediately thereafter.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Committee will reconvene.
        And it is now my pleasure to recognize the Chairman of the
    Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, the
    gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the tiny diaper that I hold in my hand is one
    made to fit premature born-alive babies. Micro-preemies or
    ultra-preemies they're called.
        And when I first saw one of these little diapers, it moved
    my heart very deeply, because I think I saw it in the context
    of the numerous video recordings that have been released in
    recent months that tragically demonstrate that the Kermit
    Gosnells of this world have no monopoly on the abortion
    industry's unspeakable and murderous cruelty to pain-capable
    unborn children and to little babies who actually survive the
    trauma of going through an abortion. It is the little babies of
    exactly this age and stage of development that these little
    diapers were made to fit.
        And, Mr. Chairman, it is easy for me to understand why the
    abortion industry's shrill response to these videos has been to
    try to discredit them in every way possible. They really have
    no choice. Because if they fail to discredit these videos or to
    dissuade people from seeing them, they know that anyone with a
    conscience who does watch these videos will finally see Planned
    Parenthood and the abortion industry for who they truly are,
    and this murderous industry will be rejected in the hearts of
    the American people.
        However, Mr. Chairman, a forensic digital analysis by
    Coalfire, Incorporated, of these video recordings conclusively
    indicate that the videos are indeed authentic and show no
    evidence of manipulation or deceptive editing.
        Now, this conclusion is supported by the consistency of the
    video file dates, timestamps, the video time codes, as well as
    the folder and file naming scheme. The uniformity between the
    footage from the cameras from the two different investigators
    also confirms the evidence that these video recordings are
    completely authentic.
        Mr. Chairman, our response as a people and Nation to these
    atrocities incontrovertibly documented by these videos is vital
    to everything those lying out in Arlington National Cemetery
    died to save.
        The House of Representatives very recently passed H.R.
    3504, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. And I
    am told that Democrats in the Senate intend to filibuster even
    this bill that protects not unborn children but, rather, little
    children who have been born alive.
        Now, no one can obscure the humanity and personhood of
    these little born-alive babies or claim conflict with the now
    completely separate interests of the mother and the child, nor
    can they take refuge within this schizophrenic paradox Roe v.
    Wade has subjected this country to for now more than 40 years.
        Mr. Chairman, the abortion industry has labored for all of
    these decades to convince the world that born children and
    unborn children should be completely separated in our minds. In
    the past, they have said that, while born children are persons
    worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and are
    not worthy of protection.
        But those same people who now oppose this bill to protect
    born-alive children suddenly have the impossible task of trying
    to rejoin these born children and these unborn children back
    together again and then trying to convince us all to condemn
    them both, born and unborn, as now collectively inhuman, and
    neither of them are worthy of protection after all.
        To anyone who has not invincibly hardened their heart and
    soul, an honest consideration of this absurd inconsistency is
    profoundly enlightening. Because, you see, Mr. Chairman, this
    country has faced such a paradox before; we have faced such
    self-imposed blindness before. Because there was a time in our
    own parliamentary rules in this House that we banned discussion
    or debate about the effort to end human slavery in America.
        But that debate did come, Mr. Chairman, and with it came a
    time when the humanity of the victims and the inhumanity of
    what was being done to them finally became so glaring, even to
    the hardest of hearts, that it moved an entire generation of
    the American people to find the compassion and the courage in
    their souls to change their position. And now, to this
    generation, Mr. Chairman, that moment has come again.
        And I would implore every Member of this Committee to ask
    two questions in the stillness of his or her heart: First, is
    deliberately turning a blind eye to the suffering and murder of
    the most helpless of all of our children born alive in the
    United States of America who we have truly become as a Nation?
    And, second, is voting against or filibustering against a bill
    to protect born-alive human babies from agonizing dismemberment
    and death who I have become and want to be remembered for as a
    Member of the United States Congress?
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
    Constitution and Civil Justice, the gentleman from Tennessee,
    Mr. Cohen, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time,
    although I don't necessarily appreciate the subject matter.
        This is the second time in 30 days we are holding a full
    Committee hearing ostensibly on whether Planned Parenthood has
    violated any laws. As Ranking Member Conyers and many others,
    including Chairman Jason Chaffetz of the Oversight and
    Government Reform Committee, have made clear, there is no
    credible evidence supporting any allegation that Planned
    Parenthood has broken any law.
        Ironic that we do this on a day that we honor Don Edwards,
    who did so much with the Constitution and Civil Justice
    Committee, who passed so many laws to protect people's civil
    rights and to move this country forward, and to this date when
    the Committee does very little.
        Knowing that there is no ground to stand on regarding the
    legality of Planned Parenthood's actions, it is obvious the
    majority has chosen instead to move the goalposts. I suspect
    this hearing, like our last one, will ultimately dissolve into
    the never-ending argument of whether the Supreme Court rightly
    decided Row v. Wade, which for more than 42 years has
    guaranteed a women's constitutional right to choose. It is the
    law of the land. There is no such thing as murder. Murder is
    unlawful. This is lawful, a woman's choice, and within a
    certain period of time.
        We are not likely to hear anything and learn anything new,
    but we will hear the same arguments. But one thing we will see
    is we will get a little bit something new. Most of my
    Democratic colleagues and I strongly believe in a woman's right
    to choose and that that is a fundamental right, it is a pillar
    of women's equality, and the Court got it right in Roe v. Wade.
    And I suspect most of my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle believe the opposite--different values, different
    backgrounds they have than I have. The Court agrees with me.
        I also suspect they disagree with me and most of my
    Democratic colleagues who strongly believe in Planned
    Parenthood and the 97 percent of its work that is not abortion:
    critical healthcare services, including health screenings,
    birth control counseling, particularly cancer, women's cancer.
        These services are especially important for women of low
    income and minority women, for whom Planned Parenthood receives
    Medicaid reimbursements that constitute most of its Federal
    funding--Medicaid reimbursement for treating, observing,
    testing women for cancers and giving them birth control and
    advice.
        In fact, it is against the law to use Federal funding
    because of the Hyde amendment. So none of that exists.
        So we are likely to have an unfocused, scattershot, and
    ultimately pointless discussion over whether the constitutional
    right of women to make decisions about their bodies is a good
    or a bad thing--a question the Supreme Court clearly answered
    in 1973, but here we are today.
        We could be talking about voting rights, something that Don
    Edwards voted for and greatly supported and my friend Julian
    Bond, memorialized on Tuesday, championed, but have taken a big
    step back. We could be talking about gun violence, people dying
    in Oregon, people dying all around this country, but we are not
    doing that. We could be talking about pardons and commutations
    for nonviolent offenders. And, thankfully, the White House is
    taking action, and this Committee will do some more action on
    that with a comprehensive bill. And I thank the Chairman for
    his working with our Ranking Member on that. But we are not.
        Let us not forget this entire exercise is based on heavily
    edited videos doctored to make Planned Parenthood to be engaged
    in unlawful conduct, which it isn't, including the for-profit
    sales of fetal organs and tissues.
        At this point, I ask unanimous consent to play a
    compilation prepared by Oversight and Government Reform
    Committee Democrats of the portion of the unedited video of Dr.
    Deborah Nucatola, portions that we do not see in the edited
    video, in which she makes clear that Planned Parenthood does
    not sell tissue or organs for profit, and to enter that video
    into the record.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, the video will be shown
    and made a part of the record.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
        And if we could start playing it at 30 seconds and end it
    at 1:55.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
        I think that is very telling testimony, all edited out and
    wouldn't be seen in those videos that they are talking about,
    where she makes clear it is not about making money, it is not
    Planned Parenthood's policy, and Planned Parenthood's policy is
    different. Some might donate it for free and give it for free,
    it is a woman's decision, and it is not our deal. But he kept
    going, ``Right, right, right,'' like, ``Stop saying this. This
    isn't what I want to hear.''
        Last night, the Cubs beat the Pirates four to nothing. If
    they would have edited the game, take out the four runs, and we
    would still be playing. And that would be as fair a
    presentation of the game as there has been of this video.
        This investigation of Planned Parenthood is based on false
    premises, one after another after another. It is time to stop
    wasting time, get on with meaningful work, and stop picking on
    women and trying to take their choice away.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        We welcome our distinguished witnesses today.
        And if you would all please rise, I will begin by swearing
    you in.
        Do you and each of you swear that the testimony that you
    are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth, so help you God?
        Thank you.
        The witnesses may be seated.
        And let the record reflect that they all responded in the
    affirmative.
        And I will now begin by introducing today's witnesses.
        The first witness is Dr. Anthony Levatino. Dr. Levatino is
    a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist. Over the course of
    his career, Dr. Levatino has practiced obstetrics and
    gynecology in both private and university settings, including
    as an associate professor of OB-GYN at the Albany Medical
    College.
        Our next witness is Ms. Susan Thayer. Ms. Thayer worked for
    nearly 18 years as the center manager of the Planned Parenthood
    clinic in Storm Lake, Iowa. She was fired in December 2008 when
    she expressed concerns about webcam abortions. She has since
    become a strong voice for life and educates the public about
    abortion and specifically webcam abortions.
        Our next witnesses is Ms. Caroline Fredrickson. Ms.
    Fredrickson is president of the American Constitution Society.
    She has been widely published on a range of legal and
    constitutional issues and is a frequent guest on television and
    radio shows. Before joining American Constitution Society,
    Caroline served as the director of the ACLU's Washington
    legislative office and as general counsel and legal director of
    NARAL Pro-Choice America.
        Our final witness is Ms. Luana Stoltenberg. Ms. Stoltenberg
    is a public speaker for Operation Outcry, a ministry that seeks
    to educate the public about the devastating consequences of
    abortion. Ms. Stoltenberg is a resident of Davenport, Iowa.
        Welcome to you all.
        Your written statements will be entered into the record in
    their entirety, and I ask that you each summarize your
    testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that
    time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light
    switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude
    your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals that your
    5 minutes have expired.
        And, Dr. Levatino, we will begin with you. Welcome.

                 TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY LEVATINO, M.D.,
             OBSTETRICIAN AND GYNECOLOGIST, LAS CRUCES, NM

        Dr. Levatino. Thank you, Chairman and Members of the
    Committee. I only have 5 minutes, so I'm going to get right to
    it.
        Second-trimester D&E abortion is performed between roughly
    14 and 24 weeks of gestation. Your patient today is 17 years
    old; she's 22 weeks pregnant. Her baby is the length of your
    hand plus a couple of inches, and she's been feeling her baby
    kick for the last several weeks. And she's asleep on an
    operating room table.
        You walk into that operating room, scrubbed and gowned, and
    after removing laminaria, you introduce a suction catheter into
    the uterus. This is a 14 French suction catheter. If she were
    12 weeks pregnant or less, basically the width of your hand or
    smaller, you could basically do the entire procedure with this,
    but babies this big don't fit through catheters this size.
        After suctioning the amniotic fluid out from around the
    baby, you introduce an instrument called the Sopher clamp. It's
    about 13 inches long. It's made of stainless steel. The
    business end of this clamp is about 2 1/2 inches long and a
    half-inch wide. There are rows of sharp teeth. This is a
    grasping instrument, and when it gets a hold of something, it
    does not let go.
        A D&E procedure is a blind abortion, so picture yourself
    introducing this and grabbing anything you can blindly and
    pull, and I do mean hard, and out pops a leg about that big,
    which you put down on the table next to you. Reach in again,
    pull again, pull out an arm about the same length, which you
    put down on the table next to you. And use this instrument
    again and again to tear out the spine, the intestines, the
    heart, and lungs.
        The head on a baby that size is about the size of a large
    plum. You can't see it, but you've a pretty good idea you've
    got it if you've got your instrument around something and your
    fingers are spread about as far as they go. You know you did it
    right if you crush down on the instrument and white material
    runs out of the cervix. That was the baby's brains. Then you
    can pull out skull pieces. And if you have a day like I had a
    lot of times, sometimes a little face comes back and stares
    back at you.
        Congratulations. You've just successfully performed a
    second-trimester D&E abortion. You just affirmed your right to
    choose.
        When we talk about abortions even later, 23 weeks and up--
    and we're talking up to 35 weeks and essentially all the way to
    term--the most commonly used procedure at this point is called
    the MOLD technique. I have not done any of these myself, but I
    can have the abortionists themselves in their clinic describe
    what we're talking about.
        Will you please run my video?
        Mr. Goodlatte. The video will be run.
        [Video shown.]
        Dr. Levatino. So, for $10,000, a woman 27-weeks pregnant
    gets to labor alone, unattended, in a hotel room, with no one
    there to watch her vital signs or otherwise attend her. And if
    her baby delivers into a toilet, her own dead son or daughter,
    so be it.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Levatino follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   ATTACHMENT
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Dr. Levatino.
        Ms. Thayer, welcome.

     TESTIMONY OF SUSAN THAYER, FORMER PLANNED PARENTHOOD MANAGER,
                             STORM LAKE, IA

        Ms. Thayer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee.
        From April 1991 to December 2008, I was employed by Planned
    Parenthood of the Heartland as center manager of its Storm Lake
    and Le Mars, Iowa, clinics. I spent 17 years learning from the
    inside out just how Planned Parenthood works. I concluded that
    no business, certainly no healthcare business, should view a
    woman's body as a profit center, but that is what Planned
    Parenthood is all about. They're more concerned with profits
    than about the health of women.
        When I first began working for Planned Parenthood, I was
    convinced that I was serving my community and the health needs
    of women. As the parent of 5 children, including 3 adopted
    kids, and a foster mom to 130 kids over the past 28 years, I
    didn't fit well into Planned Parenthood's corporate culture.
    Though during my initial interview I expressed concerns about
    abortion, I was hired and promoted by Planned Parenthood. I
    believed that I could help reduce abortion and serve women.
        Over time, I learned that I was wrong to trust Planned
    Parenthood. I'm here today because all people need to know the
    truth about Planned Parenthood.
        In 2002, the remains of a newborn, a full-term child, were
    discovered in a trash dump in my small Iowa town. After
    determining that the child had been born alive, the sheriff
    investigating the murder of this child came to my clinic to
    seek medical records of potential suspects.
        I assumed that Planned Parenthood would want to cooperate
    with this criminal investigation. Instead, Planned Parenthood
    turned the murder into a fundraising opportunity and falsely
    claimed that all women's health records would be compromised
    and that a woman's right to abortion was under attack. As it
    often seems to do, Planned Parenthood raised thousands of
    dollars from this sordid event.
        Like most of Iowa's Planned Parenthood clinics, birth
    control pills were dispensed to patients without the patients
    ever having been seen by a medical professional. Once a week, a
    nurse practitioner would come to the Planned Parenthood clinics
    to sign off on birth control prescriptions that had been
    dispensed the prior week.
        In 2007, I learned more about the truth of Planned
    Parenthood when it implemented webcam abortion. Here is how
    this was to work: A woman with a positive pregnancy test would
    be offered a webcam abortion on the spot so she couldn't change
    her mind. Next, a nonmedical clinic assistant with minimal
    training would perform a transvaginal ultrasound and scan the
    image to a doctor in another location. The doctor would briefly
    talk to the woman by a Skype television connection. Then the
    doctor could push a button on her computer that opened a drawer
    in which were the abortion pills. The woman was told to take
    one set of pills at the clinic and then, to complete her
    abortion, take the second set of pills at home 48 hours later.
        Planned Parenthood instructed its clinic workers to tell
    women who experienced complications at home to report to their
    local ER. The women were told to say they were experiencing a
    miscarriage, not that they had undergone a chemical abortion.
        Planned Parenthood cut its costs to the bone by performing
    webcam abortions with virtually no overhead--no onsite doctors,
    no real medical staff, very little equipment, and no expense
    for travel to a remote clinic. And yet it charged women the
    same fee for a chemical abortion as it did for a surgical
    abortion. Webcam abortion is obviously a big moneymaker for
    Planned Parenthood.
        I expressed my concerns to Planned Parenthood management
    that webcam abortions were unsafe and possibly illegal. Today,
    Planned Parenthood's webcam abortion scheme is so financially
    successful it's been implemented in both Iowa and Minnesota.
    They touted it as the first in the Nation and had plans to
    expand webcam abortion to every State.
        After I left Planned Parenthood, I realized that it had
    been fraudulently billing Iowa Medicaid's program. It had filed
    false Medicaid claims totaling about $28 million. First,
    through its C-Mail program, it dispensed without a prescription
    medically unnecessary oral contraceptive pills to Medicaid
    patients. Second, it billed Medicaid for abortion-related
    services, in violation of Federal law. Third, it coerced
    donations from patients, in violation of Medicaid regulations.
        Each of these initiatives was implemented to benefit
    Planned Parenthood's bottom line. None benefited women's
    health. Planned Parenthood is organized as a tax-exempt
    nonprofit; nevertheless, these are some of the reasons that it
    has reported $765 million in excess revenue over the last 10
    years.
        When I first began working at Planned Parenthood, I trusted
    them and thought its leaders knew what was right, but I learned
    that it could not be trusted. In fact, it does not deserve to
    be trusted by any American, woman or man. Planned Parenthood is
    more concerned about its bottom line than it is about the
    health and safety of women.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Thayer follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Ms. Thayer.
        Ms. Fredrickson, welcome.

         TESTIMONY OF CAROLINE FREDRICKSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
                          CONSTITUTION SOCIETY

        Ms. Fredrickson. Good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte and
    Ranking Member Conyers and distinguished Members of the
    Committee. My name is Caroline Fredrickson, and I'm the
    president of the American Constitution Society for Law and
    Policy. I am testifying today in my personal capacity and do
    not purport to represent any institutional views of the
    American Constitution Society. Thank you for providing me the
    opportunity to testify here today in response to this most
    recent attack on Planned Parenthood.
        Planned Parenthood is a nearly century-old healthcare
    provider that plays a critical role in securing the right to
    health care for millions of Americans. Each year, Planned
    Parenthood health centers provide services such as family
    planning counseling and contraception, breast exams, and
    testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections to
    2.7 million patients. And no less than one in five women in the
    United States has visited a Planned Parenthood health center at
    least once in her lifetime.
        These services help women prevent an estimated 516,000
    unintended pregnancies and 217,000 abortions every year. These
    are services that women, men, and young people in this country
    desperately need and that many would go without should they
    lose access to Planned Parenthood's health centers.
        Planned Parenthood provides services at approximately 700
    health centers, located in every State in the Nation, and 54
    percent of these health centers are in rural or medically
    underserved areas or areas with shortages in health
    professionals. As many experts have opined, there are simply
    insufficient numbers of alternative healthcare providers to
    absorb the patients who need care should they lose access to
    Planned Parenthood.
        Planned Parenthood health centers are particularly crucial
    for poor women in this country. More than half of Planned
    Parenthood's 2.7 million patients each year rely on public
    health programs, such as Medicaid, to cover their costs. And 78
    percent of Planned Parenthood's patients live with incomes of
    150 percent of the Federal poverty level or less. Indeed, in 68
    percent of the counties with a Planned Parenthood health
    center, Planned Parenthood serves at least half of all safety-
    net family patients.
        Planned Parenthood is an integral part of the healthcare
    system in this country. It provides critical healthcare
    services to many women, particularly poor women, who might
    otherwise go without these services.
        This most recent round of attacks on Planned Parenthood was
    instigated by an anti-choice organization, the Center for
    Medical Progress, whose members deceptively infiltrated Planned
    Parenthood clinics and conferences, claiming they worked for a
    tissue procurement company. The CMP
        representatives surreptitiously and possibly illegally
    recorded meetings with Planned Parenthood staff and then, over
    the course of several months, released numerous videos of these
    encounters. CMP now claims the videos show that Planned
    Parenthood acted illegally in selling fetal tissue and
    violating the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
        At the outset, regardless of the content of the videos as
    released by CMP, which arguably show no wrongdoing at all,
    those videos are unreliable and unusable as any evidence
    because they've been so heavily and selectively edited and CMP
    has not released to anyone the full, unedited versions.
        In fact, Planned Parenthood hired experts to review the
    videos and assess their authenticity. And those experts,
    including Grant Fredericks, who is a contract instructor of
    video sciences at the FBI and one of the most experienced video
    experts in North America, found many deceptive edits in those
    videos. In many cases, CMP edited dialogue out of context in
    ways that substantively altered the meaning of the dialogue. In
    other cases, large segments of dialogue were simply omitted
    altogether.
        There is no question that both the shorter videos and the
    so-called full-footage videos are selectively and intentionally
    edited and incomplete. As such, in the words of the expert
    analysis, the manipulation of the videos does mean they have no
    evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon
    for any official inquiries.
        Moreover, every jurisdiction that has conducted
    investigations into Planned Parenthood's activities have found
    no wrongdoing. As of this date, six States have completed
    investigations into whether Planned Parenthood violated any
    laws in its fetal tissue donation program. All six unanimously
    concluded that Planned Parenthood did not.
        And, in fact, Representative Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of
    the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, whose
    Committee questioned Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards at
    length just last week, admitted to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, ``No,
    I'm not suggesting that they broke the law.''
        In sum, there's absolutely no evidence here that Planned
    Parenthood has violated any laws.
        As we all know, this is one in a long length of videos that
    have been used to try and undermine women's access to the full
    reproductive health care that they are entitled to under the
    law in America and have need of to ensure they can live full
    lives.
        So I respect the Committee and thank you for inviting me
    here to talk about this important issue.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Fredrickson follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Caroline Fredrickson, President,
                American Constitution Society for Law and Policy

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      __________
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
        Ms. Stoltenberg, welcome.

              TESTIMONY OF LUANA STOLTENBERG, DAVENPORT, IA

        Ms. Stoltenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all of the
    Committee Members.
        My life has been devastated by abortion. I was a teenager
    when I had my first abortion. I was too afraid to tell my
    parents that I was pregnant, and my boyfriend didn't want a
    baby, so I made my appointment with Planned Parenthood.
        I was so scared when I arrived. I paid my money, and I sat
    in the waiting room. I was then taken back to a room with a
    nurse and asked how I felt about this. I told her this had to
    be wrong, it had to be a baby. She told me it was just a blob
    of tissue, that this abortion would be easier and safer than if
    I carried it to term.
        I was a scared teenager with no medical knowledge or
    experience. They were the trusted medical professionals and
    adults, so I thought. So I trusted and I believed them, and I
    went through with the procedure.
        The type of abortion that I had was a vacuum aspirator
    method. This is the most common abortion done in the first
    trimester. I laid on the table, and I waited for the doctor
    that I had never met before, which is most times the case, to
    come in. This doctor was cold, and he was unfriendly. He told
    me to lie still and that it wouldn't take long.
        I had no anesthetic for the pain. He said that I would just
    feel tugging and a slight sensation and cramping. That was not
    true. It was the most extremely painful procedure I've ever had
    done.
        I could hear the increased labor every time the suction
    machine would pull a part or a limb of my baby from my body.
        Each time I kept trying to sit up to see what was going
    into that jar. Was it my baby? They kept pushing me back down
    and telling me to lie still. As soon as the procedure was over,
    they quickly wheeled the jar out of the room with my baby's
    remains.
        They knew it was my baby. They saw the head. They saw the
    feet. They saw the arms.
        I wasn't told about fetal development when I was at Planned
    Parenthood. They didn't tell me that my unborn baby that they
    were ripping out of my body would have arms, have legs, have a
    heartbeat, fingerprints, and she could feel pain.
        Why didn't they want to tell me that? Were they afraid that
    I would change my mind? It must have been a wrong choice if,
    after knowing all the facts, I chose life for my child.
        On the way home, I was in severe pain. I laid in the back
    seat crying and bleeding profusely. And when I got home, I
    called Planned Parenthood, and I told them about the pain and
    the bleeding. They told me that this was no longer their
    problem, that I would need to call my own physician. There was
    no way I was going to call my own physician. I was too scared.
    I was too ashamed, and I didn't want my parents to find out
    what I had done. So I painfully laid there that day and
    wondered if I would die. The happy, fun-loving Luana did die
    that day along with my baby. I became depressed, angry. I
    started drinking heavily. I started doing drugs, and I became
    very promiscuous. I hated myself. My life was spinning out of
    control. I became pregnant two more times and chose abortion
    both times. Each experience was similar. To the first, except
    for the second abortion, they showed me blobs of tissue on
    slides and told me that that's all they would be removing, not
    a baby. By the third abortion, I was so ashamed and
    embarrassed, embarrassed, I didn't even give them my real name.
    I gave them a friend of mine's name. I cringe to think what
    would have happened if there would have been complications or I
    died on the table that day. Who would they have called? Would
    my parents have ever found out?
        Having an abortion didn't solve any of my problems. It only
    created new ones and larger ones. The way I dealt with them was
    more alcohol, more drugs, anything to numb the pain, and I even
    tried to kill myself.
        But God had a plan for my life. I found hope and
    forgiveness in Jesus, and I accepted him as my Lord, and my
    life began to change. I met a wonderful man, and we were
    married, and we wanted to start a family, but we were having no
    success. I went for endless tests. And one of the tests that I
    had done was a dye test to determine if there were blockages in
    my fallopian tubes. During the test, my doctor asked if I had
    ever had abortions, and I admitted that I had three. She showed
    me on the screen where my tubes were damaged and mangled from
    the abortion procedure. She said, I would never have children
    because of the abortion, and she wanted me to have a
    hysterectomy so I would not have an atopic pregnancy. She left
    the room, and I laid there paralyzed and let it soak in that
    the only children I would ever bear I had killed.
        I had to tell me husband that he was never going to be able
    to have his own children because of the choices I had made. I
    wondered if he would want a divorce. We had a hard road of
    tears and sleepless nights and counseling sessions. I learned
    to forgive myself and the abortion workers for not telling me
    the risks and the possibilities of infertility. I was angry
    that I was lied to and that I didn't get all the facts so that
    I could make the choice for myself. I thought they were pro-
    choice and cared for women. I didn't feel cared for. I felt
    used, and I felt abused. I live with the consequences and the
    pain and the regret of abortion every day along with many other
    women.
        In front of me are pages of sworn testimonies of women who
    have been hurt and abused physically, emotionally,
    psychologically by Planned Parenthood and other abortion
    industry in general. I'm here representing them as well as
    myself, and it is a heavy load. I'm asking you to please
    consider these stories in mind when you make legislation and
    when you make decisions about defunding Planned Parenthood and
    about abortion.
        All of us who have been hurt by abortion are being made to
    pay Planned Parenthood with our tax dollars. You know, that's
    like being forced to pay your abuser over and over again.
    Abortion is not health care. It is the taking of an innocent
    life. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Stoltenberg follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Luana Stoltenberg, Davenport, Iowa

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     __________
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Ms. Stoltenberg.
        We'll now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions
    for witnesses. And I'll begin by recognizing myself.
        Before I begin my questioning, I would like to show a quick
    video that puts a human face on the issues presented here
    today.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Goodlatte. Ms. Stoltenberg, thank you for sharing with
    us your very personal experiences following the three abortions
    you underwent. On Planned Parenthood's Web site, there are
    frequently asked questions associated with abortion. One
    considers whether there are long-term risks associated with
    abortion stating, ``Safe, uncomplicated abortion does not cause
    problems for future pregnancies,'' and, ``Ultimately, most
    women feel relief after an abortion.''
        Based on your experience, do you think these
    characterizations provide women with all the information they
    need about the risks associated with the abortion procedure
    they are about to undergo?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. No, I do not. I didn't hear any of those
    risks from them, and I don't believe that's a true statement at
    all. My story proves that, that this was not safe for me. I
    couldn't have children. And all these stories prove that.
    People have been physically harmed. I have a friend who lost a
    daughter on the table of an abortionist. There are
    ramifications, and it does hurt women.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
        Dr. Levatino, the 2009 National Abortion Federation
    textbook on comprehensive abortion care states that, some
    patients or clinicians prefer initiating the abortion procedure
    with a nonliving fetus for emotional reasons or to avoid the
    problem of a transiently living neonate at the time of fetal
    expulsion. That's on page 185. What, in plain English, are they
    referring to in this sanitized statement?
        Dr. Levatino. They are referring to----
        Mr. Goodlatte. Turn your microphone on.
        Dr. Levatino. I can't remember that microphone.
        They are referring to bringing about a fetal death prior to
    initiating the procedure. You can do that a couple of ways. One
    is through the use of digoxin, which is actually what was on
    that video. And another one is through the use of potassium
    chloride. Potassium chloride is, I'll say, a more dangerous
    drug, and it is much more difficult to administer effectively
    to cause fetal death. By injecting digoxin either in large--
    moderately large doses into the amniotic sac or directly into
    the fetus, as was shown there, you can cause a fetal death. And
    that obviates the problem--if you are successful in that, you
    obviate the problem of a live birth. With a D&E abortion that I
    described initially, between 14 and 24 weeks and dismembering a
    baby--dismemberment abortion, if you wish, there's no chance of
    a life birth at all. But when you use these later techniques
    where you are essentially inducing labor through the laminaria
    and another drug called misoprostol, if you don't induce fetal
    death ahead of time, then you run the risk of a live birth, and
    then you have the situation of a person under the law, even as
    our laws are constituted, that has a right to medical care,
    which is obviously not going to be available in hotel rooms or
    in clinics. These women need to be in hospitals. I think that's
    what they're referring to.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
        One more question, Dr. Levatino. Why did you end your
    practice of doing abortions?
        Dr. Levatino. I did over 1,200 abortions over a 4-year
    period in private practice, not counting the ones that I did
    during my training. I met my wife during my first year of
    training at Albany Medical Center. We got married about a year
    later and found that we had an infertility problem. After years
    of failed infertility treatment and several years trying to
    adopt a child, we were blessed with adopting of a little girl
    that we named Heather in August 1978. As sometimes happens in
    those situations, my wife got pregnant the very next month, and
    we had two children 10 months apart. Two months short of my
    daughter Heather's 6th birthday, she was killed in an auto
    accident, literally died in our arms in the back of an
    ambulance. Anyone who has children might think they have some
    idea of what that feels like, but unless you've been through it
    yourself, you have no idea whatsoever.
        I know people find it hard to believe, but what do you do
    after a disaster? You bury your child, and then you go back to
    your life. And I don't remember exactly how long it was after
    my daughter died that I showed up at Albany Medical Center OR
    No. 9 to perform my first second-trimester D&E abortion. I
    wasn't thinking it was anything special; this was routine to
    me. But I reached in, literally pulled out an arm or a leg, and
    got sick. You know, earlier on, I described stacking of body
    parts on the side of the table. It's not to, you know, gross
    people out, to use a simple term. When you do an abortion, you
    need to keep inventory. You have to make sure you get two arms
    and two legs and all the pieces. If you don't, your patient is
    going to come back infected, bleeding, or dead. So I soldiered
    on and finished that abortion. And I know it sounds, as I said,
    hard for people to believe, but I'm telling you straight up my
    experience. You know, after over 1,200 abortions, first and
    second trimester up to 24 weeks, and all the rest of it and
    being very dedicated to it, for the first time in my life I
    really looked, I really looked at that pile of body parts on
    the side of the table. And I didn't see her wonderful right to
    choose, and I didn't see all the money I just made. All I could
    see was somebody's son or daughter. And I stopped doing late-
    term abortions after that and, several months later, stopped
    doing all abortions.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentleman from Michigan for his questions. We have a vote on
    and about 12 minutes remaining. So I think if you wanted to
    proceed, we can get those done.
        Mr. Conyers. Yes, sir. I would like to go forward. Thank
    you.
        And I want to thank all the witnesses, but I have questions
    for Ms. Caroline Fredrickson, please.
        I'm going to quote from our Chairman's memorandum on this
    hearing, quote: ``The Purpose of this hearing will be to hear
    from witnesses on the issues surrounding the alleged acts of
    Planned Parenthood.''
        So, without commenting on its authenticity, does the video
    played by Dr. Levatino earlier have anything whatsoever to do
    with Planned Parenthood?
        Ms. Fredrickson. I don't see the relevance of the video to
    a hearing that's supposed to be focused on Planned Parenthood
    itself and any allegations, unsupported as they may be, of
    wrongdoing. So, no, Mr. Conyers, I don't see how they relate to
    this hearing.
        Mr. Conyers. Now, can you describe the results of the
    independent forensic analysis of the videos released by the
    Center for Medical Progress?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Yes. The independent examination by the
    forensic experts found that the videos were completely
    unreliable because they had been so heavily edited and
    manipulated and that they could not be shown to prove any
    evidence of any type of wrongdoing.
        Mr. Conyers. Now, as you note, Ms. Fredrickson, in your
    testimony, six States--Missouri, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
    Indiana, Massachusetts, and South Dakota--have looked at the
    allegations of wrongdoing at Planned Parenthood affiliates.
        Can you report, to your knowledge, what they have found?
        Ms. Fredrickson. All of them found that there was no basis
    for any finding of any wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, and so
    those investigations were dismissed.
        Mr. Conyers. Now, what would happen to women if Roe v. Wade
    were overturned, as you know, the landmark case involving a
    woman's right to choose? Would women still choose to end their
    pregnancies? Would those procedures be safer than those
    provided by Planned Parenthood today?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Mr. Conyers, it's true and unfortunate
    that when abortion was illegal in this country, women did seek
    abortions. And, unfortunately, those illegal abortions are
    dangerous and put women's lives in jeopardy, and women do,
    nonetheless, seek out abortions. So it is imperative that
    abortion remain safe and legal in this country.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
        Now, there's some who want to push to defund Planned
    Parenthood. Some have claimed that there are enough other
    clinics to absorb Planned Parenthood's patients if Planned
    Parenthood affiliates are forced to close their doors. Is that
    true?
        Ms. Fredrickson. That has been described as actually
    ludicrous by people, experts in public health who say that
    there is no way that these health centers could fill the gap
    that is provided by Planned Parenthood, which is an anchor for
    women's health care in America and is, in fact, the leading
    health provider of reproductive health care for women.
        Mr. Conyers. Now, I'm just about through. Is there adequate
    capacity in the health care system to absorb all of Planned
    Parenthood's patients?
        Ms. Fredrickson. No. There is clearly no capacity to absorb
    those patients. Those patients would, unfortunately, have their
    needs go unmet. They would be less likely to have family
    planning counseling and access to contraception as well as to
    basic sexually transmitted disease testing and breast exams,
    and as a result, there would be more abortions in this country
    and not fewer.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
        And, finally, what kinds of patients might be particularly
    harmed if those that want to defund Planned Parenthood were
    successful in their effort?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Mr. Conyers, poor women, low-income women
    in this country, women in rural areas would be the ones who
    would suffer most from not having access to the critical
    services that Planned Parenthood provides.
        Mr. Conyers. I thank you very much for your testimony, and
    I thank the Chairman for the time.
        Mr. Goodlatte. There are 6 minutes remaining in this vote.
    So the Committee will stand in recess and reconvene immediately
    after the votes.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Franks [presiding]. The Committee will now come to
    order.
        And I will recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
    Forbes, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        At the end of the classic movie, ``Casablanca,'' an
    inspector issues an order to round up the usual suspects, and
    every time my friends on the other side of the aisle have a
    horrific act that's done or alleged to be done by one of their
    allies, they issue a similar order to round up the usual
    excuses. We've heard them all here today: Don't believe your
    eyes and your ears and what you hear on the video; look
    somewhere else. And for goodness sake, don't focus on this
    horrific act when you could be focusing on some other horrific
    act that people we don't like might have committed. This is
    just political theater. Somehow or the other, if you are
    sensitive and don't like the fact that an unborn child is torn
    apart limb by limb, you really don't talk about that. You have
    some kind of massive attack on women in general. And don't look
    at the horrific act that this group might have done because,
    after all, they might have done other good acts that weren't
    horrific. And excuses go on and on.
        And the reality is there is simply no point. There's
    nothing that our friends on the other side of the aisle would
    look at this organization and say, we might like you, but
    that's just too far, and we can't condone that.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to now show a video, since
    this seems to be the day of the video. If we could roll that.
        [Video played.]
        Mr. Forbes. Now, Mr. Chairman, we've heard a lot today
    about editing the videos. There's no evidence, Ms. Fredrickson,
    I think that you have it all, that this video has been edited
    or anything has been add to it. So the procedures that were
    discussed in there of crushing an unborn child in more than one
    place--an unborn child, by the way, that has a heart, a lung,
    and a liver that's so well developed that Planned Parenthood
    would want to save the heart, the lung, and the liver, but
    would not want to save the life that created. Just one simple
    question, is that procedure too brutal for you?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Well, sir, I'd like to respond by saying
    that, as you started describing this as political theater, I
    would like to reiterate----
        Mr. Forbes. No, ma'am. You could do what you want if you
    don't want to answer the question, but you are not going to let
    the clock run on me. Yes or no, is it too brutal?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Sir, ultimately, this is an attack on
    women's ability----
        Mr. Forbes. That may be, but I've got 5 minutes. You can
    answer it or not. Do you feel that procedure is too brutal? And
    I understand if you don't want to answer it, but can you say
    whether you feel it's too brutal or not? Yes or no?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Sir, I feel abortion should be safe and
    legal in this procedure.
        Mr. Forbes. Is that procedure too brutal?
        Ms. Fredrickson. I am not a doctor. I can't comment on----
        Mr. Forbes. Okay. Let me ask you this question: If you had
    a small dog, and you had to put that dog to sleep, would you
    think it would be too brutal for the veterinarian to crush that
    dog in two different places?
        Ms. Fredrickson. I trust women and their doctors to
    determine what are the best----
        Mr. Forbes. Let the record show that Ms. Fredrickson would
    not answer the question.
        Dr. Levatino, is that too brutal?
        Dr. Levatino. Every abortion involves the destruction of
    human life. I get frustrated sometimes with the, ``Well, it's
    not a baby; it's a fetus.'' I think we mostly got beyond the
    old blob of cells argument. You know what that is? That's your
    son. That's your daughter. Every abortion results in a dead son
    or daughter.
        I think it's absolutely gruesome. And I thought the example
    you just gave a minute ago is perfect. If I abused a dog in my
    town, I'd be arrested. If I did abortions again, first
    trimester, second trimester, I would be a hero to so many
    people. It's absurd.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, you know,
    the point that I think disturbs so many of us is the exact
    response we heard from Ms. Fredrickson. They won't say that any
    procedure is too far or not enough or is too brutal, and that's
    the purpose of these hearings because there's a big difference
    between saying there may not be a law to protect against
    something that may not be illegal and to say there was no
    wrongdoing done because I think what we heard on that tape was
    wrongdoing.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman.
        And I now recognize Mr. Nadler from New York for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We've heard a lot today about saving lives. After 23 years
    in Congress, I am still shocked by the hypocrisy we continually
    hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle. Since
    2013, there have been over 900 mass shootings across the
    country, including 300 mass shootings in 2015, an average of
    more than one mass shooting every day this year. 10,128 people
    have been killed this year alone. Americans are 20 times more
    likely to be killed by gun violence than people in any other
    developed country who are not more or less mentally ill than
    people in the United States. Although we have 30 percent of the
    world's population, the U.S. has 90 percent of the world's
    firearm homicides--I think that's 3 percent of the world's
    population.
        How many hearings have my Republican colleagues held on gun
    violence since taking over the House since 2011? None. Since
    Sandy Hook, there have been 142 school shootings, the most
    recent strategy occurring on a community college in Oregon. And
    since the Oregon shooting, 146 people have been killed and 128
    shootings in the United States. Not one hearing, not one vote
    on gun violence.
        For comparison's sake, 2 months ago, an extremist liar
    released a series of heavily edited and probably illegal videos
    filled with lies about Planned Parenthood, an organization that
    has been providing comprehensive compassionate health care to
    women for a century. In the last 30 days, the House has opened
    three official investigations, spent countless hours in
    Committee hearings, and just yesterday voted to establish a
    fourth investigation through a special select Committee. We
    have taken 20 votes this year alone restricting women's access
    to health care. This very hearing is the Committee's second in
    30 days on Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that this
    entire farce is knowingly based on lies.
        If my colleagues had even one shred of evidence that
    Planned Parenthood had broken any laws, they would have gone to
    a State or Federal prosecutor right away. But they didn't, and
    they don't. Perhaps that's why one of my Republican colleagues
    Mr. Chaffetz announced on TV just last week that there's no
    evidence that Planned Parenthood has broken any laws. Imagine
    how many lives we could save if my colleagues devoted even one
    half of that attention to stopping the epidemic, and it is an
    epidemic, of gun violence in this country. My colleagues will
    claim that we cannot possibly take any action on gun violence
    because the right to own a gun is protected by the
    Constitution. It's a very funny argument coming from the other
    side in light of this shameful hearing. You know what else is
    protected by the Constitution, a women's right to access
    abortion and to make her own choices about her health care and
    whether to get an abortion. Yet the same colleagues who refuse
    to take any action on gun violence have no problem tossing the
    Constitution out the window to impose their own moral opinions
    on all American women.
        Measures passed at the State and local level put
    unbelievable restrictions on a woman's right to access an
    abortion. Women must endure invasive tests and exams, wait 48
    hours before they can undergo the procedure, take time off from
    work to visit the one facility in the State where abortion is
    still available, and endure endless badgering and even assault
    from protesters any time they try to enter a clinic they have a
    constitutional right to enter. They must face regular shaming
    from the Republicans on this Committee--almost all men, I may
    add--for making the choice to exercise their constitutional
    rights.
        Yet there are no such restrictions for acquiring a gun. You
    can walk into a gun show at noon and walk out 15 minutes later
    with a high-capacity magazine and a semiautomatic rifle in your
    hands. No background check, no ID, no way of making sure the
    gun purchase is going to someone with the proper safety
    training and with no history of domestic violence. Imagine if
    we made people jump through the same hoops to buy a firearm as
    they do for having an abortion. Imagine the invasive questions
    about why are you getting the gun and whether or not you
    considered all your options? Imagine the only way to get a gun
    was to prove through a police report that you have been raped
    or assaulted in the past or have a lawyer certify that your
    life is in imminent physical danger unless you get a gun. Think
    about being shamed and shouted at and forced to look at graphic
    images of gun violence as you walk into a gun shop.
        That outrage you feel, that nagging feeling that the
    government has no right to put any restrictions on your
    constitutional rights: that is what a woman feels every time
    she tries to make a decision about her health and about whether
    or not to access her constitutional rights to an abortion.
    Until this Committee is ready to face the real crisis of gun
    violence in our country to take a firm stand that enough is
    enough and it's time for real action, these proceedings will
    remain a hypocritical farce.
        Ms. Fredrickson, are you aware that the Center for Medical
    Progress obtained its nonprofit status from the IRS by
    representing itself as a nonprofit based on biomedical research
    and that they did not indicate their political activities in
    their application. And is this a fraud? Is this illegal to
    provide false information to the IRS?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Mr. Nadler, yes, to your first question.
        They did, indeed, make that application, and I do believe
    it is a fraud and illegal.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My last question is, at the moment
    three House committees and one Senate committee on
    investigating Planned Parenthood. The majority is proposing
    using taxpayer dollars to establish a select panel that would
    launch its own fifth investigation.
        What do you make of the fact that the majority has
    committed these resources to attacking Planned Parenthood and
    almost none to investigating alleged illegal activity at the
    Center for Medical Progress?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Well, I think it indicates that the true
    agenda here is to undermine women's right to make personal
    decisions in consultation with her doctor and her family and
    exercise her constitutional rights to choose her own health
    care.
        Mr. Nadler. As do the testimony of three witnesses who have
    nothing to say about Planned Parenthood but have to say about
    abortion generally.
        Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Franks. I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr.
    King.
        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
    for your testimony here today. And I was just listening to the
    gentleman from New York about the same hoops to buy a firearm
    as there is to get an abortion. I suggest, instead, in this
    city, for example, it's probably much easier to get an abortion
    than it is to buy a gun or to possess one or to transport one.
    And that's true also in many States, including Chicago, for
    example, where we've seen a lot of deaths and desecration that
    comes from violence there that doesn't seem to be troubling the
    minority party either.
        But I'm looking through your testimony, Ms. Fredrickson,
    and I notice there that in your testimony you say that you list
    the numbers of lifesaving breast exams, the number of women
    whose cancer was detected early, 500,000 exams, 88,000 women
    whose cancer was detected earlier, very likely did save lives
    in doing that. I didn't notice--oh, and also that it had
    prevented an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies and
    217,000 abortions every year. I haven't seen Planned Parenthood
    produce a number that actually took credit for the number of
    abortions prevented--excuse me, the number--yeah, the number of
    abortions prevented, neither did I see in this testimony the
    number of abortions that Planned Parenthood does in a normal
    year. Could you tell me what that number would be?
        Ms. Fredrickson. I believe the number is about 350,000 per
    year.
        Mr. King. What would the typical price be for a typical
    abortion?
        Ms. Fredrickson. I do not know. I do not work for Planned
    Parenthood.
        Mr. King. And could I just then, state, I will, off their
    Web site, $1,500. And when I punch that through my calculator,
    it was 340,000 was the number I used, rather than 350, but
    we're in the ballpark, and at $1,500 each, that turned out to
    be $510 million. And $510 million happens to be very close to
    identical to the exact number of the appropriations that would
    go into Planned Parenthood should the appropriations go
    forward, which it has out of this House at least for a couple
    of months. And it's hard for me to accept the idea that this is
    a nonprofit organization.
        And I would turn to Ms. Thayer. Your testimony spoke to
    that. Seeing those kind of numbers, Ms. Thayer, could you be
    convinced that Planned Parenthood is nonprofit?
        Ms. Thayer. Officially, Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit,
    but their main concern is really their bottom line. We would
    have monthly managers' meetings via the very Web cam system
    that they installed to do the abortions. And on a spreadsheet,
    they would have our goals, our quotas, for every single service
    and supply that we had. If we met our goal, that square would
    be green. If we were 5 percent below, it would be yellow. And
    if we were 10 percent below our quota, it would be red, and we
    would have to have a corrective action plan on how to correct
    that.
        And abortion was one of those items. If we didn't do
    abortions at that center, then we had a goal for abortion
    referrals.
        Mr. King. Could you say clearly here in your testimony with
    confidence that in your years working for Planned Parenthood
    that even though Planned Parenthood has filed as a nonprofit,
    that they are profit driven?
        Ms. Thayer. Well, they are all about the profit. For
    example, they purchase birth control pills for $2.98 a cycle,
    bill the Iowa taxpayers $35 a cycle, are reimbursed a little
    over $26, and then they solicit from the very women that Ms.
    Fredrickson referred to as very low income, at or below poverty
    level, a $10 donation per cycle for each pill that goes out,
    each cycle of pills.
        Mr. King. That's clearly a distinct profit that most
    businesses would like to see in their margins.
        I would like to turn, again, to Ms. Fredrickson. And I
    recall in your testimony you talk about the gap that would be
    created if we didn't fund Planned Parenthood. And would you say
    that there's no way to fill the gap of services that you
    testified, that there's not a way to fill that gap some other
    way?
        Ms. Fredrickson. I think we already have evidence that it
    is nearly impossible, if not impossible, to fill that gap. The
    example from Texas, and even in Louisiana, where they have
    tried to cut back on Planned Parenthood services and found that
    they could simply not serve the population that needed those
    services.
        Mr. King. Tell me, if you would, how did Planned Parenthood
    grow into this, ``service,'' and into this gap that can't be
    created another way? Are you submitting then that free
    enterprise and demand and transportation and funding and
    resources wouldn't grow another entity or two or three or four
    or five that would fill the same demand that you're saying that
    Planned Parenthood only can fill?
        Ms. Fredrickson. With all due respect, sir, we're talking
    about Medicaid patients that primarily get those services. So,
    no, I don't think that they can be filled by the free
    enterprise system.
        Mr. King. What do you think would happen?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Well, unfortunately, I think we would have
    more unintended pregnancy and ultimately, unfortunately, more
    abortions.
        Mr. King. I just suspect that the witness hasn't considered
    how this comes together, how free enterprise moves and accepts
    Medicaid checks, et cetera, how the clinic system works, how
    the healthcare providers are able to take a look at the
    marketplace and supply a demand. And I suggest that that would
    be supplied without any great concern, and I would yield back.
        Mr. Franks. Well, I thank the gentleman.
        And I'll recognize myself now for 5 minutes for questions--
    forgive me.
        I'll recognize now Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you very much, all of the
    witnesses. Whenever we have witnesses come, it's appropriate
    for Members of Congress to thank you because we know the
    sacrifice that you make to come.
        Let me also say that this is the Judiciary Committee, and
    it is important for us to do fact finding but also to maintain
    and adhere to current stated statutory or court law that has
    set precedents for the actions that may be in place now.
    Obviously, as legislators, we have the right to make
    determinations.
        Let me also say that I respect and appreciate the
    differences of opinion that are in this room and among those in
    this audience and on the panel as well.
        I'm interested in the truth, but I am one who has known
    people and have lived through the back-alley abortions and seen
    so many people suffer and die because of choices that they
    intelligently wanted to make, desperately had to make, and did
    not have the adequate medical care consultation that was
    needed.
        Let me thank you, doctor. Any time I see a doctor, I want
    to thank you for taking the oath and recognizing the need for
    good care. But I do want to go back to what this hearing is all
    about.
        Are you representing--understanding you are under oath, are
    you representing that the video that you showed was a Planned
    Parenthood video?
        Dr. Levatino. No, ma'am, I am not. The reason I brought
    that video forward, however----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I have a short period of time.
        Dr. Levatino. Go ahead, ma'am.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So you are not--that is not a Planned
    Parenthood video?
        Dr. Levatino. That is not a Planned Parenthood video.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And I want to make clear that the hearing
    is ``Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining Abortion Procedures
    and Medical Ethics at the Nation's Largest Abortion Provider.''
        Ms. Thayer. I'm sorry.
        Ms. Thayer. That's okay.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me pronounce it correctly. Are you a
    lawyer?
        Ms. Thayer. No, ma'am.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you trained in nonprofit law?
        Ms. Thayer. No, ma'am.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you then have a legal understanding
    of the rights and responsibilities of a nonprofit and what they
    are allowed to do?
        Ms. Thayer. Well, I ran a nonprofit for almost 18 years.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. But are you a lawyer that understands the
    law of nonprofits, 501(c)(3)?
        Ms. Thayer. No, but I did have an understanding that----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. But not from a legal perspective? So you
    would not be able to discern the appropriate response to
    Federal funding being used for Medicaid healthcare matters
    versus things that you have now become opposed to, which is
    your right to do? Not from a legal perspective.
        Ms. Thayer. One my biggest concerns was why they were
    soliciting donations, requiring donations from Medicaid-
    eligible women, and I knew that that wasn't right.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, is that something that you are
    submitting into the record? Do you have some statements from
    the Medicaid women that were solicited?
        Ms. Thayer. I did that every day that I worked there. Their
    pills are $35. The donation is $10; will it be cash or credit?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, were you able to discern by the
    understanding of the bylaws of Planned Parenthood just what
    those requests might be? They have every right to engage--I'm
    not saying it's true--in a voluntary perspective. Let me move--
    in a voluntary request that someone voluntarily may desire to
    do.
        But let me go to Ms. Fredrickson and set the tone for this
    particular hearing.
        It has been said by Congressman Chaffetz, the Chairman of
    the Oversight Committee, among many hearings that Planned
    Parenthood did, if I might quote correctly from the hearing,
    ``violated no law.'' Is Roe v. Wade the law of the land?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Yes, it is.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that the right for women to choose?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Yes. That provides----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. It's no billboard pronouncement that we
    are promoting abortions. Is that the case? The law simply is on
    the Ninth Amendment, the right to privacy?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Under the Constitution, women have the
    right to make those personal decisions.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Not an advertisement and billboard for
    abortion; it is a right to privacy under the Ninth Amendment?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me also say that the political agenda
    that has been framed, many of you have seen, I'm not going to
    ask you that question, but I'd like to focus on your
    understanding, Ms. Fredrickson, of what Planned Parenthood
    does. Do they legitimately have health care for women?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Planned Parenthood is our Nation's leading
    provider for reproductive health care for women. They provide a
    critical service. One in five American women go to a Planned
    Parenthood clinic in their lifetime.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me pursue another line of questioning.
    In order to make sure that we know that we have--Planned
    Parenthood, excuse me, has a medical structure, as I understand
    it, abortion care is included in medical training, clinical
    practice, and continued medical education. Studies show
    abortion has 99 percent safe record, but more importantly, the
    57,000 members of the American Congress of Obstetricians and
    Gynecologists maintains the highest standards of clinical
    practice have indicated that that is the case, and that there's
    misinformation about how abortions today are handled versus,
    remember what I said, back alley and coat hanger. Are you
    familiar with that contrast of what women went through, what I
    say, 20, 30 years ago versus what they doing today?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Yes. I understand that before Roe v. Wade,
    many women died in back-alley abortions, and that it's a
    tremendous advance in this country to have safe and legal
    abortions available for women.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me add the Fourth Amendment to my line
    of reasoning as well.
        But let me just ask this question as I close: On this
    video, are you familiar with the name Mr.--I'm sorry. His name
    is Mr. Daleiden?
        Ms. Fredrickson. From the videos, yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes. Do you realize that he has not
    publicly released the entire unedited video?
        Ms. Fredrickson. So I understand that no Member of this
    Committee has seen the entire unedited videos, yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you realize that Mr. Daleiden has taken
    the Fifth Amendment, meaning not willing to come before any
    Committee?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And do you also understand that he stole
    the ID of a fellow classmate in high school who happened to be
    a feminist in order to portray the distorted political and
    biassed video?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Yes, I understand that is the case.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. If we are here--and I close Mr. Chairman,
    and I thank you for this. If we are here to find the facts, is
    it not factual that through all of the hearings we've not heard
    of any statement about Planned Parenthood in essence violating
    the law, Roe v. Wade, constitutional amendments, and the Bill
    of Rights? Have you heard that, Ms. Fredrickson?
        Ms. Fredrickson. No, no one has been able to substantiate
    any allegation of wrongdoing against Planned Parenthood, and
    indeed, Mr. Chaffetz has agreed that there is no wrongdoing.
        Mr. Franks. The gentlelady time has expired.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary
    inquiry?
        Mr. Franks. State your point.
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what the
    proper procedure would be. I think this witness has just
    testified--this hearing is entitled, ``Planned Parenthood
    Exposed: Examining Abortion Practices and Medical Ethics at the
    Nation's Largest Abortion Provider.'' This witness played a
    tape that he has now admitted under oath was not prepared in
    connection with Planned Parenthood at all, and so I would ask
    that it be stricken from the record of this hearing.
        Mr. Franks. The Chair is the judge of relevancy here, and
    the gentleman never had suggested anything to the contrary.
        Mr. Cicilline. Well, Mr. Chairman, it was presented to a
    Committee having a hearing on Planned Parenthood with the clear
    implication that it was relevant to the hearing. It's not. I'd
    ask--I make a motion to strike it from the record.
        Mr. Franks. Well, would you also include in your motion the
    gentleman from New York's testimony on gun control? Is that
    relevant to Planned Parenthood?
        Mr. Cicilline. My motion is on the recording that Dr.
    Levatino presented that he admitted has nothing to do with
    Planned Parenthood. I've made a motion, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Franks. Well, Mr. Nadler made his motion about--I mean
    his comments about guns almost entirely----
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, point of order. I've made a
    motion that that be stricken from the record of this hearing as
    irrelevant to a hearing on Planned Parenthood, and I'd ask for
    a vote on my request.
        Mr. Johnson. I'll second the motion.
        Mr. Franks. All those in favor, say aye.
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Mr. Franks. Would the gentleman restate his motion?
        Mr. Cicilline. The motion is to strike from the record the
    video of Dr. Levatino, which was not prepared or generated in
    connection with any service by Planned Parenthood.
        Mr. King. Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, there's already been a vote.
        Mr. King [continuing]. Reserving my right to object, there
    was a unanimous consent request to enter the information into
    the record. The gentleman had his opportunity to object at the
    time the information was----
        Mr. Cicilline. No, that is not true.
        Mr. King [continuing]. Entered into the record. And I
    object to his motion as being out of order.
        Mr. Cicilline. That is not correct. It was not a unanimous
    consent. It was----
        Mr. King. I have the floor.
        Mr. Franks. All those in favor, say aye.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        Mr. Cicilline. Of my motion? Aye.
        Mr. Franks. All those opposed?
        The noes have it.
        Mr. Cicilline. I ask for a recorded vote.
        Mr. Franks. Okay.
        Ms. Cicilline. I ask for a recorded vote.
        Mr. Franks. Recorded vote has been--I wonder if we are
    going to be able to strike that video from your memory.
        Mr. Cicilline. All I'm asking is that it be stricken from
    the record of this hearing. It ought to have some relevance
    before people bring in a video which has nothing to do with the
    subject matter at hand.
        Mr. Johnson. I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Franks. Recorded vote has been asked.
        The clerk will call the roll.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, regular order. Could the clerk
    call the roll? Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Goodlatte?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Sensenbrenner?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Smith?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Chabot?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Issa?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Forbes?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. King?
        Mr. King. No.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. King votes no.
        Mr. Franks?
        Mr. Franks. No.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Franks votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        Mr. Gohmert. No.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Gohmert votes no.
        Mr. Jordan?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Poe?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Chaffetz?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Marino?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Gowdy?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Labrador?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Farenthold?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Collins?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. DeSantis?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Ms. Walters?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Buck?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Ratcliffe?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Trott?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Bishop?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Conyers?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Nadler?
        Mr. Nadler. Aye.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Nadler votes aye.
        Ms. Lofgren?
        Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
        Ms. Williams. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
        Ms. Jackson Lee?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
        Ms. Williams. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. Aye.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Cohen votes aye.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. Aye.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
        Mr. Pierluisi?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Ms. Chu?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Mr. Gutierrez?
        Mr. Gutierrez. Aye.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Gutierrez votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Richmond?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Ms. DelBene?
        Ms. DelBene. Aye.
        Ms. Williams. Ms. DelBene votes aye.
        Mr. Jeffries?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Mr. Peters?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Franks. Mr. Chaffetz?
        Mr. Chaffetz. No.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Chaffetz votes no.
        Mr. Franks. Gentleman from Virginia?
        Mr. Forbes. No.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Forbes votes no.
        Mr. Nadler. That's the recorded vote.
        Regular order results, please.
        Mr. Labrador. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Franks. Mr. Labrador?
        Mr. Labrador. No.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Labrador votes no.
        Mr. Nadler. Regular order. Could we have the results of the
    vote, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Franks. The clerk will now----
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Franks [continuing]. Report the vote.
        Mr. Forbes.
        Mr. Forbes. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Franks. State your inquiry.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, this is a motion
    to----
        Mr. Nadler. Point of order. When we are in the middle of a
    roll call vote, you can't have a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Forbes. I'll ask a ruling from the Chair and take time
    to ask for the Parliamentarian.
        Mr. Nadler. Let's report the vote.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Report the vote.
        Mr. Forbes. The Chairman can consider that.
        Mr. Franks. State your inquiry.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask if this was
    a motion to strike testimony of a witness or a video, and if we
    had such a motion because I don't recall ever having one in
    this Committee where we were striking testimony of witnesses
    that had been made in here.
        Mr. Franks. As I understand, Mr. Forbes, the minority is
    asking to strike the video, which, of course, was given to them
    days ago and is not a surprise to them in any way.
        Is that correct?
        Mr. Nadler. It was given to us yesterday morning.
        Mr. Cicilline. That's the motion, yes.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Regular order.
        Mr. Nadler. Regular order. Can we have the vote results?
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, this is regular order to have a
    parliamentary inquiry--
        Mr. Franks. Will the gentleman state his order?
        Mr. Forbes. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I'll wait until they be
    quiet, then I'll state my parliamentary procedure once they
    have gotten quiet.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Come on.
        Mr. Forbes. Okay. They are finally quiet.
        Mr. Chairman, have we had a procedure before under our
    parliamentary rules to strike evidence of a witness because I
    don't ever remember one taking place in this Committee?
        Mr. Franks. I'm told not in this Committee.
        Mr. Forbes. Okay. All right.
        Mr. Franks. Please announce the vote.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. Chabot. One last thing, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Franks. Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Chairman, nine Members voted aye; seven Members voted
    no.
        [The rollcall vote follows:]

        1.  Motion to strike video played by Dr. Levatino from
    record.

                 L2(0,4,10,5,4,3),tp9,p8,8/9,g1,t1,s30,4C,4C,4C
                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Ayes        Nays     Present
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...........
    Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)............
    Mr. Smith (TX).........................
    Mr. Chabot (OH)........................                      X
    Mr. Issa (CA)..........................
    Mr. Forbes (VA)........................                      X
    Mr. King (IA)..........................                      X
    Mr. Franks (AZ)........................                      X
    Mr. Gohmert (TX).......................                      X
    Mr. Jordan (OH)........................
    Mr. Poe (TX)...........................
    Mr. Chaffetz (UT)......................                      X
    Mr. Marino (PA)........................
    Mr. Gowdy (SC).........................
    Mr. Labrador (ID)......................                      X
    Mr. Farenthold (TX)....................
    Mr. Collins (GA).......................
    Mr. DeSantis (FL)......................
    Ms. Walters (CA).......................
    Mr. Buck (CO)..........................
    Mr. Ratcliffe (TX).....................
    Mr. Trott (MI).........................
    Mr. Bishop (MI)........................

    Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..
    Mr. Nadler (NY)........................          X
    Ms. Lofgren (CA).......................          X
    Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...................          X
    Mr. Cohen (TN).........................          X
    Mr. Johnson (GA).......................          X
    Mr. Pierluisi (PR).....................
    Ms. Chu (CA)...........................
    Mr. Deutch (FL)........................          X
    Mr. Gutierrez (IL).....................          X
    Ms. Bass (CA)..........................
    Mr. Richmond (LA)......................
    Ms. DelBene (WA).......................          X
    Mr. Jeffries (NY)......................
    Mr. Cicilline (RI).....................          X
    Mr. Peters (CA)........................
                                            --------------------------------
        Total..............................          9           7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Franks. And the motion is agreed to.
        I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
        You know, one of the hallmarks of humanity throughout
    history is our astonishing proclivity as human beings to
    obscure, rationalize away an incontrovertible truth in our own
    minds or before others to achieve some solidarity or temporary
    acceptance with our own insular peer group. It's always
    astonished me to what lengths we go on this issue. And I think
    I know why, because we never really ask this central question.
    And the central question is: Does abortion kill a little baby?
    If abortion doesn't kill a little baby, then I'm here to pretty
    much suggest that we shouldn't be having such a hearing or
    anything like that. But if abortion really does kill a little
    baby, then those of us seated in the greatest Nation in the
    history of the world, the land of the free, home of the brave,
    are sitting in the midst of the greatest human genocide in the
    history of humanity. And the victims are the most helpless of
    all children.
        We recently had a vote in the House of Representatives to
    protect born-alive children. There was not one person to my
    left that voted for that bill, born-alive children. And I would
    just suggest that if we've come to the moment in America where
    we no longer are willing to protect born-alive children, then
    it is time to reassess who we are and whether or not the
    Founding Fathers' dreams still has any place in our society.
        Mr. Levatino, if a child is born alive during an abortion
    procedure, a doctor has an ethical duty to save that child,
    correct?
        Dr. Levatino. He does. He has an ethical duty to provide
    care, whether it's lifesaving or palliative.
        Mr. Franks. Well, the president of Planned Parenthood,
    Cecile Richards, has said in testimony that she had never heard
    of such a circumstance happening in Planned Parenthood clinics.
    Do you believe that among the hundreds of thousands of
    abortions Planned Parenthood commits every year that there are,
    in fact, children born alive but die because they do not
    receive appropriate care?
        Dr. Levatino. I can't speak specifically from experience
    regarding Planned Parenthood in that regard. The reason I
    introduced the video was because Planned Parenthood has stated,
    and we understand that they do, perform late-term abortions. It
    has been stated, I believe by Ms. Richards, that they perform
    late-term abortions, ``up to viability,'' but that was never
    defined. So if you are going to be talking about late-term
    abortions in terms of Planned Parenthood, you need to know what
    the techniques are. That's why I introduced the testimony that
    I did.
        Mr. Franks. Well, based on your experience, what is your
    assessment of how low-income women's health care could be met
    without Planned Parenthood?
        Dr. Levatino. With all respect to Ms. Fredrickson, her
    assertion and backing it up with statements from other people
    that it is ``ludicrous,'' were her words, that other providers
    could adequately take on Planned Parenthood patients is--the
    statement itself is ludicrous.
        It's interesting, if you want to learn about low-income
    women and health care, you should come to southern New Mexico,
    where I've worked for over 13 years. This map, the Planned
    Parenthood facilities in New Mexico are in Albuquerque, Santa
    Fe, and Farmington, the three richest areas in the State. There
    isn't a single Planned Parenthood south of Bernalillo County in
    New Mexico, and there hasn't been for over a decade, the very
    area that I worked.
        Dona Ana County, where I work, is one of the poorest
    counties in the country. And if you want to understand about
    indigent care, then come to Dona Ana County, please.
        Ms. Richardson has talked specifically about the health
    care that Planned Parenthood provides, specifically, family
    planning counseling and contraception, pregnancy test, Pap
    smears, and breast exams--and oh, STD testing, which she did
    not mention in her testimony but was in her written testimony.
    Those are the services they provide. Let me tell you something,
    the poor people in my area get contraceptive counseling, Pap
    smears, breast exams, and truly comprehensive health care from
    our healthcare clinics.
        You've heard--this Committee has heard, I know, that there
    are over 13,000 healthcare clinics across the country. Look at
    my map again. This is covering in New Mexico in terms of those
    very same health clinics. And unlike Planned Parenthood, they
    are not a 9-to-5 business, Monday through Friday. They are
    there 24 hours a day to serve their women. And their women get
    taken care of not only if they need just Pap smears or breast
    exams; they get taken care of if they have a headache or nausea
    or a stroke or a heart attack or all the other things that
    happen. That's what we call comprehensive health care, and
    that's what is available at these clinics.
        Five hundred million dollars. As a doctor, I would give you
    my opinion that $500 million poured into Planned Parenthood
    would be far better served--those women across the country
    would be far better served if that money was put into community
    health centers where women could get truly comprehensive care,
    not just Pap smears and breast exams.
        Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman.
        Now I would recognize, I believe, Mr. Cohen from Tennessee
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Franks. Ms. Lofgren. Forgive me.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This hearing is disappointing in so many ways. It's really
    hard to begin, but let me just say that it is a myth to think
    that if we were able to defund Planned Parenthood, which I
    think, legally, we couldn't do, I mean, that there is the
    capacity to provide the medical services to the women who are
    being served. And the last time that we had a hearing in this
    Committee on this same subject, I put a letter into the record
    of that hearing from the California nonprofit clinics saying
    they do not have the capacity to pick up the caseload of
    Planned Parenthood. Just, flat out, they could not do it.
        There has been a lot of discussion about abortion here
    today. And abortion is a very emotional subject for people in
    this country, and I think that is why we've ended up in the
    situation we have, which is there is no Federal funding for
    abortion. There is no Federal funding for abortion. And so if
    the effort to cut off funding from Planned Parenthood would
    succeed, we would cut off contraception, but we would not cut
    off abortion, which is an absurd result, I must say.
        You know, I have known women who have had abortions, and
    I've never met a woman who felt happy about it. This is not a
    festive occasion. It's a situation where women find themselves,
    and they make a choice instead of the government telling them
    what to do. I think of the daughter-in-law of a dear friend of
    mine who had an abortion late in her pregnancy when she found
    out that the much-wanted child she was carrying had--all of her
    brains had formed outside of the cranium. This child was not
    going to live, and she and her husband were devastated. But she
    was told by her physician that if she carried this child to
    term, not only would the child die, but she might die, and,
    certainly, she would never have the chance of having another
    child.
        We think about the women all over the country who struggle
    with this decision and make a decision, but one of the
    important things is to provide for contraception so that women
    don't have to be faced with that terrible decision. And I do
    think that one of the most important things that Planned
    Parenthood does is to provide birth control to women who want
    to control their own fertility. And if we were to cut off
    funding for Planned Parenthood, that would not be available to
    the women--many women--who live in my community in San Jose and
    in Gilroy. That would just not be available, and I think that
    would be a very wrong thing.
        Now, I think there has been a lot of dirt in the air about
    the Planned Parenthood as an institution. I'll just say that
    Planned Parenthood in San Jose is a well-respected
    organization. I know thousands of women who have told me how
    much they rely on Planned Parenthood, not only for Pap smears
    and for birth control and for cancer screenings, but they even
    do some pediatric care. I mean, they're full service, and it's
    a really important institution and a well-trusted institution
    in my district. And that's what I hear from families and from
    women back home.
        Now, this is in contrast to some of the things that have
    been said here in Washington. You know, earlier in the
    Oversight and Government Reform Committee, there was a chart
    indicating that Planned Parenthood performed more abortions
    than lifesaving procedures in 2013.
        I wonder, Ms. Fredrickson. Did you look at that chart? Did
    you see the hearing?
        Ms. Fredrickson. No, I didn't see that chart.
        Ms. Lofgren. Okay. I don't think that that's an accurate
    chart, and, in fact, I think it's since been proven that that
    is not correct.
        Let me ask you about--we've had all these hearings about
    Planned Parenthood. There's not been any evidence that Planned
    Parenthood has violated the law in any way.
        Are you aware of any hearings that have been held about
    this CMP group, about whether they filed false tax returns,
    whether they were operating in compliance with the law?
        Ms. Fredrickson. So far, I don't believe there have been
    any congressional inquiries. I do believe there is a court case
    proceeding, however.
        Ms. Lofgren. Yes, I know that our attorney general in
    California is looking into it since they incorporated there.
        I'll just close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I hope that
    this is the end of the persecution of Planned Parenthood. It is
    important, the service they provide for the women of America,
    and I hope that we will stop trying to smear this wonderful
    institution.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte [presiding]. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
    Forbes, is recognized.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the video
    that's part of Mr. Levatino's testimony, that was previously
    stricken from the record, be made part of the record.
        Mr. Goodlatte. All those in favor of the motion, respond by
    saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
        And the video is made a part of the record.
        I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman is now recognized
    for his questions.
        Oh, who's next?
        The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Walters, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        You're next. Do you want to pass or do you----
        Ms. Walters. I pass.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Okay.
        The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, is recognized for his
    questions.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank you for holding this hearing.
        And the gentlelady from California, who I have great
    respect for, indicated that this hearing is disappointing, and
    it is, certainly, disappointing that we have to hold a hearing
    like this about an organization that every year brutally kills
    hundreds of thousands of unborn, innocent babies and sells
    their body parts and does that for profit.
        I happen to represent most of the city of Cincinnati, and
    Planned Parenthood does approximately 330,000 abortions. It's
    the largest abortion provider in this country. They basically
    wipe out the population of the city of Cincinnati every year.
    It's about 300,000 people in that particular community, and
    it's just--so it is very disappointing that we have to have a
    hearing like this and hear the testimony.
        Ms. Fredrickson, you earlier said that--I think your
    comment about Mr. Chaffetz, saying something along the lines
    of, ``Well, it isn't against the law,'' and if that's the case,
    what--the organization that you're here testifying on their
    behalf today--if it's accurate that what you're doing--
    destroying little, innocent, unborn lives and selling their
    body parts for profit--if that's not against the law, then we
    damn well better change the law and make it against the law
    because we're supposed to be a civilized society and a
    civilized country. And to think that that kind of behavior is
    occurring in these modern times, it makes one wonder what the
    hell's going on in this country. It's disgusting.
        And when I saw these videos--and I know the excuse is,
    ``Oh, well. We didn't know we were being taped,'' I mean, what
    a defense. ``We didn't know that somebody might actually find
    out what's going on in the Planned Parenthood facilities all
    over the country, that it might get out what's going on.'' I
    mean, that's a heck of a defense, and some of the people that
    are here--and all three of the other witnesses in particular--I
    think it takes a lot of courage, you know, to experience some
    of the things that you've experienced over the years and to be
    willing to come here and testify about what has happened. And
    thank God that you are willing to do that, and all three, all
    the stories.
        And, Dr. Levatino, I heard you testify in this Committee in
    the past, and, you know, thank you for coming forward and doing
    what you're doing now to expose what has occurred.
        I guess--and I've probably used up a lot of my time
    already, but, doctor, I guess, if you could again--and I know
    you've already said it, but I think it bears hearing it a
    second time, that--you know, in your past, obviously, you did
    perform abortions and then at some point in your life decided
    that ``I'm not going to do that anymore.''
        Could you share again what it was that made that change for
    you?
        Dr. Levatino. Because, Congressman, it was the loss of my
    own adopted daughter that made me look very seriously at what I
    was doing with abortions.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Thank you.
        Ms. Stoltenberg, you indicated that you've--and I know
    you've got a whole bunch of other women that were in your
    circumstances, that their lives have been changed. Would you
    want to share some of the stories of other women? You don't
    necessarily have to give their names but what you have heard
    from others and how this has affected their lives so that--
    there's actually two victims here. There's the unborn child,
    and there's also the woman, who's been a victim oftentimes, in
    a Planned Parenthood facility since they're the largest
    abortion provider.
        But could you share, in the brief time that I have left,
    anything you'd like to say about the other women you've talked
    to over the years about that?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. I would, sir.
        I've heard a lot here today about safe abortion, and all of
    these women's stories refute safe abortion. We are not having
    safe abortion in this country. Women are being maimed. They are
    being harmed. They are not being able to have their own
    children because of it. Their children are dying on tables.
    They are turning to alcohol and drugs and suicide. I do post-
    abortion counseling, and I just counseled a woman in the prior
    months that has tried to kill herself three different times and
    almost succeeded.
        Why aren't we talking about why this is not safe? These are
    the stories to tell, and there would be more stacked up here if
    women were not too ashamed and too afraid to come out and talk
    about this. And sometimes it doesn't happen for years. I wasn't
    able to talk about this for 5 years. There are women that won't
    be able to talk about it for 10 and 20 years. And I've heard
    multiple stories--hundreds--of how they have been maimed and
    wounded in every way. I can't even--it was hard for me to even
    bond with my own child that I adopted because of this
    procedure.
        I'm just begging for you people to protect women. This is
    not a good choice for women. Protect us. Do the right thing.
    Instead of looking at pocketbooks, I would like to ask the
    Committee how many people are receiving donations from Planned
    Parenthood on their campaigns, and that saddens my heart
    because would you choose that over protecting women?
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
        I yield back my time.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Franks made a comment about a bill that was on the
    floor about 3 or 4 weeks ago, a born-alive children bill. On
    that same day, there was another bill on the floor to defund
    Planned Parenthood, and nobody on this side voted for them--
    he's right--and he didn't come to the Subcommittee, and he
    didn't go to the full Committee for a markup or for a hearing
    because regular order did not apply because the Pope was going
    to be here, and we wanted to put the focus on this issue
    because it was politics.
        We're supposed to go to Committees for hearings like we're
    having today, and if there is a bill--and there's no bill here;
    this is just show business hearing--then there's supposed to be
    a markup. There was none of that. It went straight to the
    floor; no amendments allowed in the Rules Committee. So
    protocol was just done away with. It was politics, just like
    Benghazi was politics, and Kevin McCarthy told you it was
    politics. It accomplished its purpose of hurting the woman who
    is going to lead this Democratic Party, and the leading----
        Mr. King. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cohen. No, I won't.
        And just like that, and he admitted this is what they were
    doing, and this Planned Parenthood is the same deal.
        They're having a special Committee they've now set up, and
    yet Representive Chaffetz said there is not any evidence that
    there has been any law violated, and there isn't, and yet we're
    having a special Committee.
        Let me ask Dr. Levatino: You admitted that your video had
    nothing to do with--nothing to do with Planned Parenthood,
    correct?
        Dr. Levatino. The video that was shown was not shot at
    Planned Parenthood but may be relevant to procedures Planned
    Parenthood performed.
        Mr. Cohen. Don't tell me about relevance. I want--answer
    the question. It had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood.
        Dr. Levatino. The video was not shot at Planned Parenthood.
        Mr. Cohen. Right. Did you ever work for Planned Parenthood?
        Dr. Levatino. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cohen. When?
        Dr. Levatino. When I was a resident.
        Mr. Cohen. When you were a resident. Not when you were in
    private practice, though?
        Dr. Levatino. Not in private practice, no.
        Mr. Cohen. So you didn't do 8 years working at Planned
    Parenthood?
        Dr. Levatino. Sorry, sir?
        Mr. Cohen. Do you or anybody else on the panel know--
    because this is talking about medical ethics, is what this is
    entitled, ``Examining Abortion Procedures and Medical Ethics.''
    Does anybody know one person who lost their medical license
    because of activity at Planned Parenthood?
        Ms. Stoltenberg, do you know of anybody that lost their
    medical license?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. No.
        Mr. Cohen. No?
        Ms. Thayer, do you know of anybody that lost their medical
    license?
        Ms. Thayer. No, there was never----
        Mr. Cohen. No?
        And, Dr. Levatino, do you know of anybody that lost their
    medical license?
        Dr. Levatino. I do not.
        Mr. Cohen. Medical ethics. Case closed.
        Second question: Ms.--I don't have your name right----
        Ms. Stoltenberg. Stoltenberg.
        Mr. Cohen.--Stoltenberg.
        And I'm sorry for your problems that you've had and your
    history. Your first abortion was at Planned Parenthood.
        Ms. Stoltenberg. That's correct.
        Mr. Cohen. Where was your second abortion?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. Emma Goldman's Clinic.
        Mr. Cohen. And where was your third abortion?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. I believe it was at Emma Goldman's, but I
    don't remember.
        Mr. Cohen. And Emma Goldman is not Planned Parenthood,
    right?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. They do the same types of procedures
    there.
        Mr. Cohen. A lot of places do the same procedures, but this
    hearing is about Planned Parenthood. So your second and third
    abortions had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, right?
        Ms. Thayer, you now have a not for profit responsible--
    what's the name of your not for profit you run?
        Ms. Thayer. Cornerstone for Life.
        Mr. Cohen. Yeah, and do you draw a salary there?
        Ms. Thayer. I get a stipend.
        Mr. Cohen. A stipend. And what is that stipend?
        Ms. Thayer. $1,000 a month.
        Mr. Cohen. A thousand. And when you make--you're considered
    a ``Christian speaker.'' Do you get paid to make your speeches
    or just expenses?
        Ms. Thayer. Usually, I don't get paid at all.
        Mr. Cohen. But you get your expenses?
        Ms. Thayer. I'm not getting paid to be here.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, I know that. That would certainly be
    wrong. The government doesn't pay any of us too much.
        The fact is this hearing is just like Benghazi. It's just
    like the Select Committee on Planned Parenthood. It's politics.
    And yet we've got major problems going on in this country. The
    whole idea that this is about Planned Parenthood is wrong. And
    Dr. Levatino has admitted medical ethics, everybody, there's no
    evidence of any medical ethical impropriety by Planned
    Parenthood; only a title that's been put up here. And Ms.
    Stoltenberg has one-third of her history with Planned
    Parenthood. It's unfortunate this is the way we're spending our
    time. It's really unfortunate.
        And I appreciate Planned Parenthood for what they do for
    lower income women, for women who need health services, who
    need family planning, who need cancer exams, cervical, breast,
    et cetera, and that are performed by Planned Parenthood. And
    I'm happy that Medicaid reimburses them, and that's good.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I would just caution Members. I've heard my name
    several times invoked. Members, please be careful using this.
        The context of the comments that I made were in
    relationship to a hearing, as the Chairman of the Oversight
    Committee, that I conducted. The hearing that we conducted in
    Oversight was about the finances of Planned Parenthood. We
    didn't get into the content of what they do. We didn't get into
    the content of the video. We didn't get into the practices that
    they do. We didn't get into the fetal body tissue issues. We
    didn't do that. We were very narrowly focused on the finances.
        The point we were making is that Planned Parenthood had
    revenue of $127 million more than their expenses, and we
    started to look as a nonprofit organization on what people were
    making and how they were spending that money. They were sending
    money overseas. They were spending money and giving it to
    political organizations. They had a lot of shared services. I
    think that's a legitimate question as we look at the finances
    of an organization that is structured as a nonprofit
    organization.
        I was asked a direct question about the finances. That's
    the way I took the question given that that's what the
    direction and the drive of the hearing was about. Did we find
    any wrongdoing? The answer was no, but to suggest----
        Mr. Johnson. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Chaffetz. In a minute. I will in just one moment. Just
    let me finish that thought.
        It is inappropriate to suggest that I have come to some
    grand conclusion about every part of their operation. In the
    Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we did subpoena the
    videos. We have some of those videos in the safe. We have
    jointly worked with the Democrats on that. We had a court
    ruling earlier this week to get the rest of those videos. There
    was a temporary restraining order in California that would not
    have released those videos. The judge recently ruled in our
    favor. Those videos are now being sent to Congress. They may
    have arrived in the last few hours, and I'm just not aware of
    it. And then I will work with Elijah Cummings and figure out
    the best course on what to do with these videos.
        But just caution to Members that it's a bit of a stretch to
    say that I have done some conclusive investigation on all the
    actions of Planned Parenthood.
        Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically
    as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there
    any wrongdoing? I didn't find any, but I do think it's a
    legitimate question for all of us. Why do we send money to an
    organization where the revenues exceed their expenses by $127
    million? It doesn't sound like an organization that needs to be
    supplemented by taxpayer dollars. That was my point.
        Mr. Johnson. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Chaffetz. And I'm happy to yield.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. I just want to ask, Representative,
    whether or not you have any evidence whatsoever that Planned
    Parenthood has broken the law in any way.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I think some of the video that's been out
    there, the rumors that have been swirling, some of the
    testimony that we have heard causes a lot of people to
    legitimately ask and dive into whether or not what they're
    doing is illegal. I think it's a very legitimate question from
    an objective point of view, without getting into the emotions
    of it, and so I think there will continue to be investigations.
    I voted in favor of the Select Committee, which I think does
    have to go further and dive deeper into those issues, but I
    don't think that the final chapter has been written on that. My
    point was that we were talking specifically about the finances.
        And I would remind Members, there was all this criticism
    that we were going after women, and that is so false. What is
    the first not-for-profit organization that we went after in the
    Oversight and Government Reform Committee? It was the NFL. I
    called out the NFL. They were structured as a not-for-profit
    organization. We called out Roger Goodell for making an
    exorbitant salary and taking advantage of the Tax Code, and do
    you know what? The NFL, to their credit, restructured, and for
    the first time--I believe it started in July--the 1st of July--
    they are now no longer a not-for-profit organization.
        So, in a very bipartisan way, with Elijah Cummings and the
    Democrats, we worked on that issue and made a major
    transformation, a major change. And I think looking at another
    not-for-profit organization who's taking a lot--hundreds of
    millions of dollars of taxpayer money--that's a legitimate
    decision in the context of an $18 trillion-plus debt, and
    that's the discussion we had. I'm proud of it, and I think we
    had a very good hearing.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
    recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Stoltenberg, would you mind me having a look at one of
    the books that you have compiled.
        Ms. Stoltenberg. Would you like me to bring it up to you?
        Mr. Johnson. No. I'll send someone down to take a look at
    it.
        And while she's coming down to do that, let me ask Dr.
    Levatino a question.
        Sir, is there any circumstance under which you would agree
    that a woman should have a right to have an abortion to abort a
    fetus that arose from incest or rape?
        Dr. Levatino. If I were a Congressman, sir, I would support
    such a law.
        Mr. Johnson. You would support a law that would ban
    abortions----
        Dr. Levatino. Not ban. Allow.
        Mr. Johnson. Oh, that would allow. So you believe that a
    woman should have a right to choose in the case of incest or
    rape.
        Dr. Levatino. If a woman is pregnant by incest or rape, her
    child is innocent, all the same. Morally, I have a great
    problem with that. Politically, I would vote for such a law.
        Mr. Johnson. And what about you, Ms. Thayer?
        Ms. Thayer. Two wrongs don't make a right. Sperm meets egg.
    Unique DNA. Heartbeat at 21 days. It's never okay to have an
    abortion. We have 57 million missing people since 1973.
        Mr. Johnson. So you went to work at Planned Parenthood
    knowing that part of the work that Planned Parenthood does is
    terminating pregnancies?
        Ms. Thayer. Well, actually, no, I didn't.
        Mr. Johnson. You did not know that when you went to work?
        Ms. Thayer. No. I started there as a clinic assistant, and
    I----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, let me ask you this question.
        You are a woman who was fired by Planned Parenthood, and
    you are a disgruntled ex-employee. Is that correct?
        Ms. Thayer. Well, that's what they say, but I'm----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, you were fired, correct?
        Ms. Thayer. I was--they were downsizing.
        Mr. Johnson. And you are now disgruntled. Is that not
    correct?
        Ms. Thayer. No, that's not correct.
        Mr. Johnson. So you loved Planned Parenthood?
        Ms. Thayer. I loved my work there. There were things that
    happened there that I knew were wrong, like making----
        Mr. Johnson. You believe----
        Ms. Thayer.--Medicaid eligible women pay for those pills.
        Mr. Johnson. Do you believe that they should be defunded?
        Ms. Thayer. Indeed, I do. I don't think one more dime of
    taxpayer money should go to an organization that's wrought with
    fraud.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Dr. Levatino--and thank you, Ms. Thayer.
    You've got a lawsuit pending, by the way, right?
        Ms. Thayer. I do, a whistleblower.
        Mr. Johnson. It's a whistleblower case where, if you win,
    you'll make a lot of money.
        Ms. Thayer. We never really talked about that.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, you'll make a lot of money if you win.
    Take it from me.
        Ms. Thayer. Well, I don't need a Lamborghini, and my Ford
    Fiesta is paid for, so I don't know what I would do with that.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, money doesn't matter, though, to you.
        Ms. Thayer. Right. Telling the truth is what matters.
        Mr. Johnson. All right. Okay.
        Well, Mr. Levatino, as far as you know, Planned Parenthood
    doesn't make political contributions, does it?
        Dr. Levatino. I have no idea what contributions Planned
    Parenthood makes.
        Mr. Johnson. Or if they do make contributions, they don't
    do it, do they, Ms. Fredrickson?
        Ms. Fredrickson. I'm not familiar with the entire corporate
    structure of Planned Parenthood.
        Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, doctor, are you aware of the
    stories of the many women whose lives have literally been saved
    by Planned Parenthood?
        Dr. Levatino. In what way, sir?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, that's not my question. My question is,
    are you aware of that being the case?
        Dr. Levatino. It's hard to answer the question without
    knowing in what context you're asking it.
        Mr. Johnson. Okay. How about you, Ms. Thayer?
        Ms. Thayer. I guess I would ask the same question.
        Mr. Johnson. Okay. You don't want to answer the question
    then. Well, you haven't heard about the story of Tiffany, who
    was so broke that she couldn't afford a regular doctor's visit,
    so Planned Parenthood was her only option and that a routine
    Pap smear at Planned Parenthood diagnosed her with cervical
    cancer, the early discovery of which saved her life. Are you
    not familiar with Tiffany's case?
        Ms. Thayer. I guess I would ask how much money they asked
    from Tiffany after they did her Pap smear.
        Mr. Johnson. I'm sure that it was gladly payable for her
    life to be saved.
        Ms. Thayer. It would be 50 percent of whatever her charges
    were that day.
        Mr. Johnson. It could not be more than the value of her
    life, I can guarantee you that. I'm sure she's quite happy at
    the little bit that she paid, but----
        Ms. Thayer. If she would have gone to a federally qualified
    health center, it would have been free.
        Mr. Johnson. Maybe she could not have gotten
    transportation.
        Ms. Thayer. Well, in my town, it's four blocks from the
    Planned Parenthood.
        Mr. Johnson. And that's in your neighborhood, though. But
    there are other people with different circumstances, and
    shouldn't you be concerned about them?
        Ms. Thayer. Well, there's 20 free clinics for every one
    Planned Parenthood. I mean, compared to Planned Parenthoods,
    they're everywhere.
        Mr. Johnson. And the purpose of this hearing was to shut
    down Planned Parenthood because of abortion.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert,
    for 5 minutes. And would you yield back to me briefly?
        Mr. Gohmert. Yes, I yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
        I just want to state for the record regarding the point Ms.
    Thayer just made.
        In the State of Georgia, there are four Planned Parenthood
    locations, most or all of which provide abortion services. In
    Georgia, there are 274 other health care alternatives that
    provide women's services that do not provide abortions. So, in
    terms of convenience and location to get to, I think there'd be
    a good argument that there's much more convenience to get to
    healthcare facilities. These are public healthcare facilities,
    too, that do not include abortion services.
        I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
        Reclaiming my time, Ms. Thayer, I think there was some
    effort to cast doubt on your capabilities in working for
    Planned Parenthood since you were not an attorney. I don't know
    how many attorneys we have running Planned Parenthood
    facilities, but I hope there aren't many.
        Ms. Thayer. There's typically one, probably, per affiliate.
        Mr. Gohmert. Really? One lawyer per Planned Parenthood
    affiliate?
        Ms. Thayer. Yes. They do lobbying, and they run the PAC,
    you know, the political action committee, Planned Parenthood.
        Mr. Gohmert. Planned Parenthood has a PAC?
        Ms. Thayer. Yes, indeed. They make donations to many----
        Mr. Gohmert. And how many mammograms do those PACs do?
        Ms. Thayer. Zero. Planned Parenthood does not do
    mammograms.
        Mr. Gohmert. So, if we cut Federal funding for Planned
    Parenthood across the country, how many women would be denied
    mammograms?
        Ms. Thayer. Zero.
        Mr. Gohmert. But if we cut funding for Planned Parenthood,
    there would be some lawyers that do the lobbying and some
    people that get political donations that would not be getting
    those political donations, and lawyers that would have to look
    for some other form of money and financing, right?
        Ms. Thayer. Yes.
        Mr. Gohmert. My friend from California had indicated that
    it was a myth that if we defund Planned Parenthood that we
    could provide services to all the women that Planned Parenthood
    had been helping. And yet, when we hear the actual facts, it
    turns out, wow, if we provided the money directly to healthcare
    facilities that do nothing but help women with the full range
    of services for women, including mammograms and things that
    Planned Parenthood never does, it sounds like women would have
    even better services, more services even though a lot of hearts
    would break for the lawyers that would not be able to get the
    Federal funding and be able to lobby and donate to our
    Democratic friends.
        I was so pleased with the comment from my friend from
    Tennessee that Benghazi was politics. That's exactly what we've
    been trying to get to. It was politics. You had people meeting
    here in America--in Washington--while people were dying, while
    Ty Woods was gathering David Ubben and Glen Doherty and going
    to the rooftop to man guns to try to protect the people in
    those facilities.
        Yes, Benghazi was about politics, and I would love to know
    what the President was doing that night because I can tell you,
    if I had people that worked for me--my personal ambassador is
    missing--I could not go to bed. And yet, apparently, there was
    plenty of rest before he went to the fundraiser in Las Vegas
    the next day.
        Yes, my colleague is right. Benghazi was about politics,
    and we need to get to the bottom of why those four people were
    killed while nobody in Washington that knew what was going on
    lifted a finger, and why David Ubben doesn't even get an
    American plane. Somebody else has to provide a plane. He's on a
    gurney, and they're beating his leg--blown off--against the
    sides of that little plane while somebody in Washington knows,
    but they're doing nothing. You bet it was politics. And a lot
    of people--four people died, and a lot of people suffered
    because of that politics.
        This is a hearing about Planned Parenthood. My colleagues
    want to keep talking about Benghazi. I felt like, if they're
    going to bring it up, we need to say, yes, that was politics,
    and we need to find out why it was so political instead of
    coming together as Americans and protecting those people
    harmed.
        My time has expired.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, it's remarkable to me that the two most
    important issues of the majority has now collided into one
    hearing, that a Planned Parenthood hearing has now become a
    hearing on Benghazi.
        Yesterday, the House created a Select Committee to
    investigate abortion practices, meaning that today's hearing is
    even more pointless than it was before. The House Judiciary
    Committee is now one of four Committees here in the House
    investigating Planned Parenthood.
        What exactly are we investigating today? Let's be clear. No
    one's said this yet, but we just need to be clear about it: The
    goal of the majority is to return to a Nation where Roe v. Wade
    is not the law of the land and where women do not enjoy the
    constitutional right that the Supreme Court made clear they
    have to make decisions about their own body. That's what this
    is about.
        Now, I don't know why we're here. We're not here to talk
    about the fruitless investigations undertaken by at least six
    different States, including my own, that have failed to find
    any illegal wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. We're not here to
    discuss the merits of fetal tissue donation given that The New
    England Journal of Medicine recently wrote that virtually every
    person in this country has benefited from research using fetal
    tissue. And we're not here to discuss the Federal court issued
    this week mandating that The Center for Medical Progress turn
    over more of its misleading and fraudulent documentation.
        This hearing's only purpose is to smear a healthcare
    provider that serves millions of women every year, a provider
    that, I might add, enjoys a higher approval rating among the
    American people than, I would guess, any Member in this body
    enjoys.
        Now, as this Committee contemplates the medical ethics of
    women's reproductive freedoms, I ask this question: What are
    the medical ethics of not holding any hearings on a gun
    violence epidemic that claims the lives of 30,000 Americans
    every year? What are the medical ethics of not holding a
    hearing on the 12,000 homicides and accidental gun deaths and
    the 18,000 gun deaths by suicide that occur every year? And
    what are the medical ethics of States trying to ban
    pediatricians from discussing basic gun safety measures with
    parents?
        This House Judiciary Committee has held zero hearings on a
    gun violence epidemic that claims American lives every day--
    every day, an average of 88 Americans die of gunshot wounds--
    nor has this Committee held hearings on the deadly mass
    shootings that have inflicted so much grief in communities
    across America--not after Tucson, not after Aurora, not after
    Newtown, not after Santa Barbara--and there have been none
    scheduled after Roseburg and not after any of the more than 200
    mass shootings that have already occurred in 2015 alone.
        October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. In 2013
    alone, more than 1,600 women were murdered by men, and 94
    percent of them were gun deaths. So while this Committee
    continues its redundant attacks over women's health, it ignores
    the reality that, every day, American women are murdered due to
    domestic gun violence. Yet as Congress works to ensure that
    women face even more humiliating obstacles to safe and legal
    abortion access, the U.S. Congress stands idly by as violent
    offenders are still able to skirt background checks and get
    guns to commit horrific crimes.
        The American people are rightly frustrated with Congress
    for failing to take any action, even the most basic action of
    closing the gun show loophole in the aftermath of so much
    devastation. There are dozens of bills that deserve hearings in
    this Committee of their jurisdiction--this one, the Judiciary
    Committee. I don't have the time to name them all, but I'll
    name a few. There's a bipartisan Public Safety and Second
    Amendment Protection Act, introduced by Congressmen Thompson
    and King, that would close gun sale loopholes with
    comprehensive background checks for all purchases. There's
    Congressman Quigley's TRACE Act that would empower law
    enforcement to stop the flow of guns through our streets by
    traffickers who make a living selling guns to criminals.
    There's Congresswoman Maloney's legislation to lift the ban on
    Federal research on gun violence and how to best curb it.
    There's my own legislation, the Safe and Responsible Firearms
    Transfer Act, to prevent guns from being sold without
    background checks.
        Not one of those bills--not one--has been the subject of a
    hearing from this Committee, Mr. Chairman, not even a hearing
    where the majority can bring up witnesses to tell us why
    bipartisan proposals, supported overwhelmingly by the American
    people and gun owners, are somehow too extreme. There has not
    been a single hearing of the 114th Congress on any commonsense
    improvements to our gun laws. The American people are already
    frustrated with Congress for failing to act on gun violence.
    The time for silence on this issue is over.
        You know, at the beginning of the hearing today, one of my
    colleagues talked about the self-imposed blindness--self-
    imposed blindness. That's the self-imposed blindness that
    Congress has to gun violence. He said that the humanity of the
    victims, he hopes, becomes so glaring that it moves an entire
    generation of the American people. I can only hope that the
    humanity of the victims of the thousands--tens of thousands of
    lives lost to gun violence might move this Congress to finally
    take action.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
    Labrador, for 5 minutes.
        And would the gentleman yield to me briefly?
        Mr. Labrador. Yes, I will.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I'd like to say that there are right now on
    the books hundreds of Federal gun control laws and regulations,
    and yet in the last 6 years, the enforcement--the prosecutions
    for violations of all of those laws are down by 30 percent.
        It seems to me that an Administration that's led by an
    individual who calls for more laws every time we have one of
    these tragedies ought to go look in the mirror and determine
    what's appropriate to do.
        Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Goodlatte. I will not yield. It's the gentleman from
    Idaho's time.
        Mr. Deutch. That's why we should have a hearing about it.
        Mr. Goodlatte. It is a problem that can be addressed with
    the laws that exist now. There are, by the organization that is
    the actual subject of this hearing today, 350,000, plus or
    minus, abortions conducted by this organization every year--
    nearly 1,000, nearly 1,000 a day--and that's why we're here,
    focused on this hearing today, to make sure that we're aware of
    whether more laws are needed to protect the lives of the
    unborn.
        I yield back to the gentleman from Idaho and thank him.
        Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    making that point that I was also going to make.
        It's hard to sit here and be lectured about something like
    that when, apparently, there's no concern for the child--the
    lives of children, of babies--babies born alive.
        Dr. Levatino, can you tell me how many babies are aborted
    every single day? Do you know?
        Dr. Levatino. I have no idea.
        Mr. Labrador. Do you know, Ms. Thayer?
        Ms. Thayer. Well, there's 13 in Iowa every day, and think
    of it as a kindergarten class every 2 days.
        Mr. Labrador. Do you know how many late-term abortions
    there are every single day in Iowa?
        Ms. Thayer. No, not exactly.
        Mr. Labrador. Ms. Fredrickson?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Well, first of all, I don't think ``late
    term'' is actually a technical term, so I don't know how to
    respond to that. But I don't know the number of abortions that
    take place every day in American.
        Mr. Labrador. You don't. Okay. But you're a expert on this
    issue.
        Ms. Fredrickson. I'm not here to talk about medical
    procedures. I'm here to talk about the law.
        Mr. Labrador. Okay. I was just lectured at the number of
    deaths, and I just wanted to know if the panel knew how many
    children who are being killed every single day that we know. Do
    you know?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. I believe it's almost 4,000 a day, not by
    Planned Parenthood but by the abortion industry.
        Mr. Labrador. And do you know how many late-term abortions
    there are--or over 20 weeks?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. No.
        Mr. Labrador. Do you know those numbers?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. No, I don't.
        Mr. Labrador. Okay. Thank you.
        I want to continue to emphasize that this is not simply a
    question of legality of Planned Parenthood's actions. We may
    never find the answer to that question whether they're legal or
    not legal, but reducing human beings to commodities by selling
    fetal body parts for profit, I think everyone should agree, is
    morally reprehensible.
        Based on the testimony presented today, it would also
    appear that Planned Parenthood has participated in other
    suspicious behaviors, and all of that at the expense of the
    American taxpayers. I am not convinced that Planned Parenthood
    will cease to exist without taxpayer funding. Furthermore, I am
    not convinced that revoking taxpayer funding from Planned
    Parenthood would disadvantage women's health to the extent that
    my colleagues would like to claim.
        I want to talk just about my home State of Idaho. It has
    three Planned Parenthood locations--two in the Boise area, one
    in southeastern Idaho--and if you look next to that, it has 129
    better healthcare alternatives. All three of these centers are
    within 136 miles of each other in a massive State that
    stretches for thousands of miles and includes a vast amount of
    rural areas.
        According to Planned Parenthood's own data, the three
    centers in Idaho served around 7,000 patients 2013.
    Alternatively, the State of Idaho has 76 federally qualified
    health center service sites that served a little over 138,000
    patients in 2013. Look at that: The difference between 3 and
    76; the difference between 7,000 patients and 138,000 patients.
    So anybody who's making the argument that they're not going to
    receive health care is really lying to this Committee. These
    services' sites cover a much broader cross-section of the State
    and have the capacity to serve a diverse population of Idahoans
    seeking medical care.
        Ms. Fredrickson, can you walk us through the services that
    Planned Parenthood provides once again?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Well, the vast majority of Planned
    Parenthood's services are related to reproductive health care.
    They provide family planning counseling and contraceptive care
    as well as cervical cancer tests and breast exams.
        Mr. Labrador. And how is that different----
        Ms. Fredrickson. Pap smears.
        Mr. Labrador. How is that different than the other
    federally qualified health centers?
        Ms. Fredrickson. 2.7 million women in America use the
    Planned Parenthood facilities every year. It's an absolutely
    critical part of our health care infrastructure.
        Mr. Labrador. But more women use the other Federal health
    centers. Is that not correct?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Public health experts say there is no way
    that the public health system can absorb the capacity that
    would be lost if Planned Parenthood was not funded.
        Mr. Labrador. But the numbers just don't speak to that.
        Ms. Fredrickson. I defer to the experts as, I think,
    Congress should.
        Mr. Labrador. Name one expert.
        Ms. Fredrickson. I've named in my testimony.
        Mr. Labrador. And can you name one right now?
        Ms. Fredrickson. The American Public Health Association.
        Mr. Labrador. Okay. Thank you. It took you a couple of
    seconds there.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, it's legal in the United States of America to
    have an abortion. It's the law of the land. And we all took an
    oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this land, and
    I'm going to do that.
        Now, it's clear to anybody listening to this procedure that
    this is about Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood
    offers abortions, but they're not doing anything illegal when
    they do it, and no one here has testified that they're doing
    anything illegal.
        They object to the fact that they offer abortions because
    that's their point of view. They don't like the law. They can't
    change the law. They can't undercut the Constitution of the
    United States and the Supreme Court. So what do they do? They
    try to sully the reputation of an organization. And you know
    what? You guys have opened one big Pandora's box here because,
    on repeated occasions here today, the majority and their
    witnesses have questioned the integrity of Members of the
    minority panel by questioning who it is we receive campaign
    contributions from.
        So, from here forward, we should just open it up, Mr.
    Chairman, every time on any issue. I want to know how much you
    get from the NRA. I want to know every dollar you receive from
    every--and we should just open it up. That would make it great.
    I'm not that worried about it.
        I tell the women of America you are safe because you have a
    President of the United States that will veto any legislation
    that comes out of this Committee and might make it to the floor
    of the House.
        He'll veto that legislation, and there's nothing you can do
    about it. He'll veto that legislation, and they will be safe.
        I'm not worried. They can't pick--they've got 250 Members,
    and they can't figure out how to pick the Speaker of the House.
    Do you think they're really going to turn back the clock on
    women in America? They can't even pick their own leader, so I'm
    not that worried about where we're going. But I will stand up
    for women because it seems to me that what we're really talking
    about here today is turning back the clock, turning back the
    clock, a clock in which I grew up.
        When I was born in United States of America, separate but
    equal was still the law of the land when I was born. The only
    day I was White was the day I was born, and they put it on my
    birth certificate because, apart from that, I was never treated
    equal--certainly separate but not equal--to everybody in this
    country. And women, yes, had to go to back alleys and cross
    State lines and had to lose their lives in order to get
    reproductive healthcare rights in this country. That's true. We
    all know it.
        But let me just suggest the following: My mother's only
    option was the one option the Government of the United States
    gave her, which was sterilization. And for hundreds of
    thousands of Puerto Rican women, that was the only option.
    There were other options that my wife and I had. We have two
    wonderful daughters, two brilliant--and let me just say
    something. I respect my daughters, and I trust my daughters to
    make decisions as I do for all women in this country, and we
    should all respect women to make the decisions that they
    fundamentally have to make about their lives and their future.
        But, moreover, you know something? There's an 8-year
    difference between my first child and my second child, and the
    reason was because my wife had control over her reproductive
    system. And she could have a life, and she could take her
    education, and she could have a life, and she could have a
    career, and she could be everything that she can be.
        My mom didn't have that ability, and my daughters have
    greater rights and greater abilities. And I will be damned if I
    am going to allow on my watch for the rights of women,
    especially the women who are so important to me in my life, to
    be turned back by that clock. We're not going to turn back the
    clock. As much as you wish to turn back the clock, gay people
    are not going back in the closet. Latinos and Asians and
    immigrants aren't going to disappear. And women are not going
    to get back-alley abortions and put their lives at risk again
    while Americans are standing up for a better, more inclusive,
    and egalitarian future for everybody in this country.
        So, look, nothing here that any of the witnesses have said,
    even those afforded by the minority, is going to change
    anything. We're good. We're in a good place because there is a
    new, growing coalition in America. We all know what it is. It's
    people who care about Mother Earth. It's people who care about
    women and their rights. It's people who care about gays and
    lesbians. It's people who care about immigrants. It's people
    who care about making sure that we have fair and decent
    salaries.
        And you want to know something? Donald Trump likes to talk
    about the polls. Well, I've got a poll. And in my poll, the
    vast majority of the American people want to move forward and
    not turn back the clock.
        Thank very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes.
        And would you yield to me very briefly?
        Mr. Poe. I'll yield to the Chair.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I just want to make one point that when we
    passed the Pain-Capable Abortion Act, we introduced into the
    record evidence that in every demographic group, men, women,
    people of various races, age, in every demographic group, a
    majority of the people in this country support prohibiting
    abortions after 20 weeks.
        I thank the gentleman and yield back.
        Mr. Poe. I thank the Chair. I want to try to get back on
    the subject that we've been talking about. When Mr. Johnson, on
    the other side, asked does Planned Parenthood do political
    contributions, if I remember the testimony, two of you said
    that Planned Parenthood didn't give contributions to anyone.
        Ms, Thayer, do you know whether Planned Parenthood
    contributes to Federal candidates?
        Ms. Thayer. Yes, they do. They have a PAC.
        Mr. Poe. And what is the name of the PAC, do you know?
        Ms. Thayer. No. I don't remember. It's just called a PAC.
        Mr. Poe. Planned Parenthood PAC?
        Ms. Thayer. Yes.
        Mr. Poe. Would it surprise you in the election cycle 2014,
    Planned Parenthood PAC contributed a little over $400,000 to
    Federal candidates?
        Ms. Thayer. No. That wouldn't surprise me at all.
        Mr. Poe. One hundred and thirty-eight Federal candidates,
    would that surprise you or not?
        Ms. Thayer. No.
        Mr. Poe. $400,000, seems like you could do a lot of other
    things with $400,000 instead of giving it to people running for
    Congress.
        Ms. Thayer. Well, one thing they could do with it is take
    some of that money and put doctors or nurse practitioners in
    the rural centers. In Planned Parenthood in Iowa, we had a
    nurse practitioner 2 hours a week. And in my almost 18 years
    there, we had a doctor in the facility probably 3 or 4 times.
    So all those pills are being dispensed by nonmedical people. I
    think that would be a much better use of their money.
        Mr. Poe. And since the minority did bring it up, Mr.
    Chairman, I would like to introduce in the record the open
    secrets document of contributions by Planned Parenthood PAC.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, it will be made a part of
    the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________
        Mr. Poe. The talk has also been about--and I resent the
    other side talking about, generalizing those of us over here
    are against women. I resent that. I have four children, three
    daughters. I have 11 grand kids, 7 granddaughters. One of those
    is adopted. And I'm not a female. I agree with that comment.
    But the idea that we don't like women is absurd. I think many
    of us are trying to look out for the life of new women coming
    into the world. What about those women? And I think they're
    women when they're harvested for their body parts. I'm
    concerned about those women. So I'm not going to put up with
    saying that, me, that I'm opposed to women. Let's talk about
    those women. If Congress doesn't speak for them, who speaks for
    them? You all speak for them. So I know that's not the issue.
        The issue is Planned Parenthood. It's also, I think Planned
    Parenthood seems to do a pretty good job of marketing Planned
    Parenthood. Would you agree with that, Ms. Thayer?
        Ms. Thayer. Yes, very much so.
        Mr. Poe. Do you have any idea how much money Planned
    Parenthood spends on marketing Planned Parenthood?
        Ms. Thayer. In Iowa, they marketed the family planning
    waiver, spent lots and lots of money at the expense of staff
    raises that year, and made it sound like the family planning
    waiver was their own creation. And it was actually State
    dollars.
        Mr. Poe. I want to apologize to you for the insinuation
    that you did something wrong by being a whistleblower, and
    you're being attacked because you talked about or brought
    evidence about an organization. That's what we do,
    unfortunately, we attack whistleblowers across the board it
    seems like.
        Also the comment was made that we got to have Planned
    Parenthood, or there's no other answer. Well, I have this
    chart, maybe it's on the screen, Mr. Chairman, of Texas where
    I'm from. And most of these, you can't see them too well;
    they'll be on the far right on the screen, the Planned
    Parenthood areas are in the metropolitan areas, 38 of them. But
    most of Texas is not in the metropolitan area. I mean, the
    State is the vast State. There are parts over here on the other
    side with all the white dots where you have federally funded
    healthcare centers. I would submit to you and to the record
    there are places in Texas that there are federally funded
    healthcare centers that aren't on Google Maps. They're in
    remote districts like where Louie Gohmert is from or in west
    Texas, in small little towns. So that's not an accurate
    portrayal of women's health care in the country.
        The federally funded healthcare units are everywhere,
    rural, city. And Planned Parenthood in Texas, anyway, is just
    in the metropolitan areas. Is that the way you understand it,
    Ms. Thayer?
        Ms. Thayer. Well, and the really important----
        Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired. Ms.
    Thayer will be allowed to answer.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Thayer. It's important to remember that all those FQHCs
    have doctors there. And they don't charge Medicaid-eligible
    women, unlike Planned Parenthood.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman, recognizes
    the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just clear up some things that, Mr. Chairman, you
    volunteered some statistics on how many gun laws we have.
    That's exactly why we're asking for a hearing. This Committee
    could do great things. We had a hearing on GSA's failure to
    meet the needs of the judiciary, which was the cost of
    courthouses, building of courthouses in Members' districts. So
    we really could do big things. But we waste it on things like
    this.
        And my colleague on the other side said what he resents. I
    resent a whole bunch of stuff. And if people say you oppose
    women--I didn't say it--but that's between you and women. But I
    won't have is you saying that Planned Parenthood may or may not
    have donated to someone affects their positions on choice and
    other things because I think people make those decisions long
    before they get to Congress.
        The other thing I would say is that the hypocrisy in the
    room is unbelievable. This year in the State of the Union, the
    President mentioned that abortions were at an all-time low,
    which I would think is our goal. Everybody in the room, the
    goal is to get to zero. The President announces it's at an all-
    time low, not one person on the Republican side stood up or
    cheered.
        There's a bunch of ways we can try to get to zero. You can
    try it by doing a law. The rich will fly out of the country and
    still have them. The poor will go in the alleys and risk their
    lives so that they can have them.
        Or we can still invest in prenatal care, paid parental
    leave, investing in our foster care system, raising the minimum
    wage so that women can raise a child. We can do all of those
    things.
        But we're not because we're so stuck on saying that I'm
    pro-life. Yeah, until the baby is born. And then when the baby
    is born, you're like: You're on your own. We're not going to
    help you do anything.
        So if we're going to have a conversation and if it's about
    Roe v. Wade, well, we can't do anything about it. As much as
    the other side would like to be the President and tell him how
    to handle immigration, Benghazi, and all those other things,
    you're not the President. As much as you would like the Court
    to overturn Roe v. Wade, none of you are on the Supreme Court.
    But you're able to run for President. And you're able to
    express an interest in the Supreme Court.
        But we in Congress have a bunch of things that we could be
    working on and having meaningful hearings to figure out how we
    get to the ultimate decision or ultimate desire that we want.
    And if it's zero abortions, then let's talk about how we get
    there. But you know you're not going to overturn Roe v. Wade.
        So I just hate that we've come here and we drag witnesses
    here and put them in the position of testifying on things that
    they can't control just so we can do messaging. And that is the
    problem in this country. When we could be actually trying to
    accomplish something.
        And we keep talking about Benghazi. I'm okay with letting
    the facts play out how they'll play out because I think it is
    important for the American people to see how government works.
    And when there's something wrong, you figure out what went
    wrong and you try to fix it. But it's too often we try to play
    gotcha moments when there are no gotcha moments. Instead of
    being respectful for the deceased, the people who gave their
    life for this country, and trying to figure out how we prevent
    things like that from happening again.
        So, you know, let me just say, and I'll ask Ms.
    Stoltenberg, since I do have a minute, do you think that if the
    law just said you can't have an abortion, that we would go to
    zero abortions?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. No. I don't believe we would go to zero
    abortions. But I believe there are many women dying today from
    legal abortions, probably more so because there are more
    abortions being done than there were when it was back alley.
    And there's more women being maimed and hurt and harmed like I
    was.
        Mr. Richmond. Do you think the law of the land would have
    made a decision on your decision? If it was illegal then, do
    you think it would have made a difference in your decision?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. In my decision? Oh, most definitely. I
    didn't illegal things. So I would not have had an abortion. And
    I would be able to see who my children are today.
        Mr. Richmond. But you do agree some women would, would
    still have it, even though--if Roe v. Wade was reversed, you
    agree that some women would still have them in back alleys?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. Would still have abortions?
        Mr. Richmond. Yes.
        Ms. Stoltenberg. Probably, yes. They probably would.
        Mr. Richmond. And the rich would still fly out of the
    country and have them in other places?
        Ms. Stoltenberg. Possibly they could. But there would be
    many lives that would be spared, many.
        Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. So I
    yield back.
        Mr. Franks [presiding]. I recognize Ms. DelBene from
    Washington.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I am deeply disappointed that this Committee is holding
    another one-sided hearing that's more about politics than
    factfinding.
        The attacks on women's health just never seem to stop.
    Meanwhile, we're ignoring a long list of bipartisan policies
    that deserve our attention. Right now, we could be talking
    about the much needed updates to email privacy laws. We could
    be talking about leveling the playing field for brick-and-
    mortar stores. Or we could finally get to work on our country's
    broken immigration system.
        But, instead, we're wasting even more time on an
    investigation that the majority clearly prejudged before
    receiving a shred of evidence from Planned Parenthood.
        It's shameful, Mr. Chairman. This Committee should be
    focused on facts, not ideology.
        And so far, there are no facts to substantiate the claims
    made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, no
    evidence that Planned Parenthood has engaged in unlawful
    activity, period. So let's talk about what we do know: We know
    that 2.7 million Americans receive essential health care every
    year through Planned Parenthood. Seventy-eight percent of
    Planned Parenthood patients are low-income, with incomes at or
    below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. In my home
    State of Washington, Planned Parenthood annually provides more
    than 34,000 cancer screenings. And across the country, the
    services provided by Planned Parenthood help prevent more than
    500,000 unintended pregnancies every year.
        That last number should give my colleagues pause. If we
    want to reduce the number of abortions provided in this
    country, attacking Planned Parenthood is certainly not the way
    to do it.
        But, at this point, it's clear that this investigation
    isn't about gathering facts at all. It's just part of an
    extreme ideological agenda to defund Planned Parenthood and
    take away a woman's constitutional right to choose.
        Ms. Fredrickson, your testimony mentioned that Planned
    Parenthood provides birth control and family planning
    counseling to 2.1 million patients each year. Could you speak
    about how women's access to birth control is related to their
    economic security?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Absolutely. It's a vital part of women's
    economic security. Women being able to control when, whether
    they have children has been a critical part of them being able
    to enter not quite into equal status in the American economy,
    unfortunately, but they're on their way. Women are doing
    better. Women are able to provide better for their families by
    ensuring that they have the families that they can, at the time
    when they want to have families or not to have children when
    they don't want to have children.
        Ms. DelBene. And what would be the impact on women if
    access to birth control through Planned Parenthood would be
    restricted?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Well, there would be many more unintended
    pregnancies. And, ultimately, there would be many more
    abortions. So the consequences of defunding Planned Parenthood
    would certainly lead to an increase in abortions in this
    country. And it would certainly undermine women's access to
    basic contraceptive care, which would undermine their ability
    to earn a living and control their own economic well-being.
        Ms. DelBene. So you believe that it would be harder for
    women to plan their families, plan their careers if Congress
    decided to defund this organization?
        Ms. Fredrickson. It's been a vital part of women being able
    to have independence, to be able to exercise, to determine
    their own fertility, to determine when and whether they have
    children. It allows them to enter into the workforce. It
    enables them to take care of the children that they have. It
    enables them to be treated more fairly in the workplace because
    they do have the choice about whether and when to have
    children.
        Ms. DelBene. And my colleagues have been, across the aisle,
    have been talking about how if Planned Parenthood wasn't, if
    Planned Parenthoods were not available in their regions, it
    would have no impact on women's access to health care. Again, I
    ask you what would be the impact on women throughout our
    country if Planned Parenthood was not available for health
    care?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Well, I think the fact that already we've
    discussed how 1 in 5 American women, that's 20 percent of
    American women, in their lifetime will use Planned Parenthood
    services. That's an enormously large number. And 2.7 million
    people per year use Planned Parenthood's services. The loss of
    those, the ability to use a Planned Parenthood health center
    would be enormous.
        Ms. DelBene. And I think you referenced a study that says
    that there are not other community health centers or other
    places who would be able to serve that same population.
        Ms. Fredrickson. Right. The expert opinion of the American
    Public Health Association says that there's just not the
    ability to absorb that capacity, that those women would just go
    unserved.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Franks. The Chair now yields to Mr. Jeffries from New
    York for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        This is an enormous waste of taxpayer money for us to sit
    here at this hearing when we realize or should realize this is
    not a legitimate congressional exercise. This is not a
    factfinding hearing. This is theater. This is a charade. This
    is stagecraft. This is nothing more than a political hit job on
    a woman's right to choose, which, by the way, is
    constitutionally protected.
        And I've got the benefit of being one of the least senior
    Members here, and so I get to sit through much of the hearing.
    And there are only one or two of us left. And this hearing has
    gone on for hour after hour after hour. And yet no one has
    presented a shred of evidence, a scintilla of evidence that
    Planned Parenthood has done anything wrong.
        So I've got a few moments and let me see if I can uncover
    some evidence of wrongdoing. The hearing is called ``Planned
    Parenthood Exposed''--dramatic--``Examining Abortion Procedures
    and Medical Ethics at the Nation's Largest Abortion Provider.''
        Dr. Levatino, you're the only doctor on the panel, correct?
        Dr. Levatino. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Jeffries. Do you have any evidence that any Planned
    Parenthood doctor, nurse, physician has engaged in wrongdoing,
    violated medical ethics, or lost their license?
        Dr. Levatino. I do not have such evidence.
        Mr. Jeffries. And you're the only doctor on the panel,
    correct?
        Dr. Levatino. Correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. Does anyone else on the panel have any
    evidence that someone has violated their medical ethics?
        Ms. Thayer. Well, I would consider it a violation of
    medical ethics to do Web cam abortions without ever seeing the
    client or expecting nonmedical people to do medical procedures.
        Mr. Jeffries. Well, let's have a discussion. You were at
    Planned Parenthood for 18 years. Is that correct?
        Ms. Thayer. Right, about.
        Mr. Jeffries. And you were terminated?
        Ms. Thayer. Yes.
        Mr. Jeffries. And one of my colleagues asked whether you
    were a disgruntled employee, correct?
        Ms. Thayer. That already come up, yes.
        Mr. Jeffries. And you disagreed with that characterization
    I assume, correct?
        Ms. Thayer. I did. They were downsizing, let me go.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Now, you alleged that Planned
    Parenthood was wrought with fraud. Is that correct?
        Ms. Thayer. Correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. In fact, you brought a Federal court action
    claiming that they've engaged in fraud, true?
        Ms. Thayer. Correct. False Claims Act.
        Mr. Jeffries. Now, under that False Claims Act, you would
    it be what is called a relator, correct?
        Ms. Thayer. Correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. And the government has intervened as well in
    that action, true?
        Ms. Thayer. The what?
        Mr. Jeffries. The government has intervened in that action?
        Ms. Thayer. Yes.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And this was brought where? In the
    Southern District of Iowa?
        Ms. Thayer. Correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. Now, you testified earlier that you had no
    idea if you prevailed, whether you would receive monetary
    benefit. Did I hear that correct?
        Ms. Thayer. I said we hadn't discussed it. I had not
    discussed it with my attorney.
        Mr. Jeffries. You have not discussed that with your
    attorney?
        Ms. Thayer. No, sir.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Now, you allege in this action that
    Planned Parenthood engaged in $28 million of fraud, correct?
        Ms. Thayer. Correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. And as a relator, you're entitled, under
    Federal law, to between 15 and 25 percent, correct?
        Ms. Thayer. I don't know. We've never discussed that.
        Mr. Jeffries. So you have a licensed attorney who has never
    discussed with you the fact that if you were to prevail in this
    lawsuit where you allege $28 million, that you could receive at
    much as $7 million? That's your testimony here today under
    oath?
        Ms. Thayer. Sir, for me, this is not about the money.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay.
        Ms. Thayer. Yeah, it is not about the money. I'm here to
    try to tell the truth about Planned Parenthood and what I
    experienced in all those years there.
        Mr. Jeffries. Now, you don't have any evidence that Planned
    Parenthood engaged in fraud, correct?
        Ms. Thayer. I engaged in fraud every single day that I was
    there.
        Mr. Jeffries. Was your action dismissed at the district
    court level?
        Ms. Thayer. It was dismissed at district court and then
    reinstated by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
        Mr. Jeffries. Actually that's inaccurate. I've got the
    decision right here and I want to place it into the record.
        First of all, the district court judge dismissed your
    action because you had no evidence of fraud. By the way, it was
    a judge appointed by G.W. Bush. You then appealed it to the
    Eighth Circuit. And they affirmed the decision that you've got
    no evidence of fraud, remanded on a separate ground, good luck.
    But I will point out that the Eighth Circuit Court judges
    concluded, based on the district court's decision, you failed
    to plead fraud with specificity pursuant to 9(d).
        Mr. Franks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Jeffries. And it's a matter of public record.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Franks. The gentlelady can answer the question if she
    wants to.
        Ms. Thayer. Well, sir, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
    reversed the district court. And it's now back in district
    court. We're waiting on a ruling from them.
        Mr. Jeffries. I would just ask the Chair because you didn't
    respond to my request, sir, to enter as a matter of record both
    the----
        Mr. Franks. Without objection.
        Mr. Jeffries [continuing]. District court decision and the
    Eighth Circuit Court decision.
        Mr. Franks. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    __________

                                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________
        Mr. Franks. The gentleman from Rhode Island.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thank the witnesses.
        I've now sat through the entire hearing. And I still don't
    exactly know what we're doing here. It's clear that this is not
    a hearing about the wrongdoing of Planned Parenthood because
    there is no evidence of wrongdoing. There is no testimony that
    has been presented that Planned Parenthood engaged in any
    wrongdoing. There have been six States that have reviewed this
    and concluded that Planned Parenthood has done nothing wrong.
    Seven other States cited a lack of evidence of wrongdoing and
    declined to investigate.
        Then somebody suggests it's about defunding Planned
    Parenthood. I'm not sure that's it.
        What I think the hearing is about, as best I can tell,
    having listened to every single one of my colleagues is, a
    fundamental view of some of the witnesses here that Roe v. Wade
    was wrongly decided. You have a right to that opinion. But what
    you don't have a right to do is smear a vital healthcare
    organization to advance that argument.
        There are people, and I respect deeply, there are people
    who have different views on whether or not Roe v. Wade was
    rightly decided, whether women should have full control over
    their reproductive health. I happen to think it was properly
    decided. You may disagree. But what I think is wrong and really
    regrettable is rather than having a hearing that says, ``Was
    Roe v. Wade decided properly,'' and we could have a public
    forum and have a debate about it, but this hearing is entitled
    and tries to insinuate that Planned Parenthood has done
    something wrong. The title of the hearing is, in fact,
    ``Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining Abortion Procedures and
    Medical Ethics of the Nation's Largest Abortion Providers.''
        So the hearing is intended somehow to suggest that by just
    attacking Planned Parenthood, we can undermine the decision of
    Roe v. Wade.
        I think it's very clear that Planned Parenthood provides
    critical services to women all across this country: 2.7 million
    individuals access health care through Planned Parenthood. That
    includes, by the way, and specifically, Ms. Fredrickson, that
    includes a range of breast cancer screenings, Pap smears, exams
    for sexually transmitted diseases, HIV tests, cervical cancer,
    a whole range of services. Is that correct?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Yes, sir.
        That's the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does.
        Mr. Cicilline. Ninety-seven percent of the services they
    provide, is that correct?
        Ms. Fredrickson. Yes. That's correct.
        Mr. Cicilline. And Planned Parenthood is a respected
    healthcare organization. And some have suggested: Well, if we
    just close Planned Parenthood, people can get services
    elsewhere.
        As you've indicated in your written testimony, the experts
    who have looked at that said it is ludicrous and people who
    make such a claim fundamentally misunderstand the healthcare
    system. Is that correct?
        Ms. Fredrickson. That's absolutely correct.
        Mr. Cicilline. And so we're left with a hearing that lasted
    several hours in which people have made some assertions, played
    videos, some of which had nothing to do with Planned
    Parenthood, presumably made some claims that have nothing to do
    with the procedures followed by Planned Parenthood in an effort
    to bolster their position against the decision Roe v. Wade.
        What I think is regrettable is that I think Planned
    Parenthood has demonstrated unequivocally that it is a vital
    healthcare organization, that millions of women and families
    rely on Planned Parenthood, that the individuals who work there
    are professional, individuals of integrity who do their jobs
    and take their jobs seriously.
        And there was a suggestion that they're all motivated by
    profit. I've been to Planned Parenthood. I've been to a clinic.
    I've spoken to the individuals, the men and women who work
    there. And I want to say that my experience has been just the
    opposite. These are dedicated, committed professionals.
        And I think it does a disservice to the seriousness of the
    debate about the issue of abortion to malign an organization
    that does important work and that is saving lives. We can have
    a real debate as to whether or not the Supreme Court should
    change its decision on Roe v. Wade. I think they shouldn't.
        But it is settled law. It's the law of the land. And the
    way you challenge that is you bring a case and you make a
    different legal argument. You don't attack individuals who are
    following the law, who are performing a legal medical procedure
    that is saving lives of women in this country. I regret that we
    spend time doing that.
        I thank the witnesses for being here. I hope that we can
    focus on the real issues that were mentioned: immigration
    reform, making sure we pass the Marketplace Fairness Act,
    dealing with the scourge of gun violence in this country. The
    agenda of this Committee is very long. Let's get to work on the
    issues that matter to the American people.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Franks. I want to thank all the witnesses for being
    here today. This concludes today's hearing. Thanks to our
    audience.
        And, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative
    days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
    or additional materials for the record.
        And, with that, thank you, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 6:40 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________

                                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]