tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN September 29, 2015 1:00pm-3:01pm EDT
woman who decides to go to planned parenthood is appreciated by her family, their partners and the community so what is congress doing here? we're having an argument that's never going to end about abortion but we're proposing to proceed in a way that where the affect of our "investigation" is going to have collateral consequences that compromises is ability of women to get access to basic health care needs. and it's also in the context where it's indisputed that the services that planned parenthood provides have helped reduce dramatically teen pregnancies and other pregnancies. so i think we should all take a step back here and think about what we do before we act the first medical principal that all doctors follow, do no harm.
ms. richards i do want to ask you a couple of questions. this alarming inquiry about whether you are selling -- planned parenthood is selling for profit, body parts. we've seen a proposed contract to send planned parenthood affiliate offering to buy tissue samples and that included a compensation clause. were you familiar with that document? >> yes, i am. >> and in response your affiliate removed the word "compensation" and added the following text "the payments shall not under any circumstances be calculated in such a way as to generate a profit for source." so miss richards, is that what the affiliate did and is that the strict policy of planned parenthood? >> that's a very good example of what happened akoss the country. this group who as i said are
committed to -- they weren't really committed to rooting out any misdeeds, they were actually trying to entrap doctors and clinicians into signing bogus contracts and breaking the law. so this example is a very good one of where they were completely rebuffed and yet they continued to badger and badger and badger our doctors to get them to commit to something that was unethical or illegal. >> and after your affiliate sent the deletion of the term compensation did he lose interest? >> there was never a contract that i know of that was actually sent back. >> let me ask another question about a failed attempt. on july 20 he sent a letter to chairman up -- you sent a letter to chairman upton, you said this "in another instance, biomax offered to pay much more, sending the affiliate a procurement agreement that offered a payment of $1600. "a your letter said this was a
"astronomical amount" compared to the reasonable cost affiliates are allowed to recoup under federal law. is that right? >> i don't have that in front of m me. >> i'm out of time. a thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman, appreciate your testimony. i am also married to a strong lady, a family nurse practitioner, helped launch the sexual assault nurse exam inner program at wake forest baptist medical center many years ago. but we stand together. we have done work in inner cities, places like cleveland and baltimore and new york and i'm troubled with some of the statistics that we've even seen out of new york and maybe you can address that. i don't want to talk over you. i want to give you a chance to respond but according to the, no health department statistic we
know there are more african-american babies aborted in new york than born alive. are you aware of that statistic? >> i'm not aware of that statistic. >> if that is correct, would that concern you? obviously planned parenthood has more clinics in new york state than any other state. >> actually, that's not true. we do not. >> what is the number one leading state that you have? >> i believe it's california. i'll have to look to make sure. >> but if you know that's not true -- >> it's not only -- planned parenthood, there are a number of health care providers in the state of new york beyond planned parenthood. it's one of the better served -- >> i understand. but we've already established somewhere between 30% and 40% of all abortions come from your organization so if we're going to put out stat wes want to make sure we're talking cent on the numbers. >> and i think mr. walker it's an important point because one of the other -- i don't know what all the statistics are that you have but of course the lack of access for african-american women in particular to basic preventative health care, including family planning, is a huge problem in this country as well. >> it is and i agree with you. as aforementioned time in places
that we've served in worked in african-american population is 13% yet they're being aborted three times percent of the population at 35%. that should concern all of us, i'm sure it concerns you as well. i have a specific question regarding the $32 million sent over seas. does planned parenthood send any funds to the democrat republic of congo is. >> this was asked earlier. >> we touched on it but i want to get back to it. >> honestly i didn't bring materials about our international global program. i would have to get back to you. i'm not trying to evade it, it's not something i thought was a topic of the committee meeting. >> i hope you would because we have laws in this country that prohibit us from sending money to places where we have sanctions on and if we're -- if planned parenthood is doing that i would imagine that would be something that would concern you, would it not? >> we certainly comply with all the laws globally and domestically and that's why i commit to you i will get
information and work with the committee to get information. >> fair enough. i have a question. as a former pastor 15 years in a couple large churches there are many times where we counseled women of different age, various ages, for different things they were going through. sometimes 15, 20, 25 years later after going through an abortion there were still some struggle there. i don't disparage these women for making tough choices as you talk about. many came from underprivileged community, didn't feel like they had options but of the $500 million of taxpayer money that goes to your organization, how much is set aside to offer counselling to some of those women who are still struggling with that issue? >> well, we don't -- this is what it's really hard to explain to you because i feel like we're just -- maybe we're talking past each other. we don't get a big check from the federal government. we're reimbursed for direct services. they're all family planning, std testing, well women visits. i will say though, one area i think we might agree, i would love in this country if we would fully fund for planned
parenthood or anywhere else comprehensive counseling services for women on a whole host of issues. it is very underfunded and it'll really important to us as well because we do counseling with women every single day. >> i understand that and i i agree there are legitimate services offered but this is something that i'm -- i saw for 15 years so of the $1.3 billion in revenue even if doesn't come from taxpayers how much is set aside to offer services of women seeking counseling? >> we counsel -- i don't know -- i could get the numbers for you. we counsel women and young people and men every single day at planned parenthood health centers across the country and most of it, as you probably know, is uncompensated care. >> well, i look at your numbers and i would tell you this, it is amazing as far as the amount of revenue that exists and i wanted to talk a bit about how much you're sending overseas but i have one final question. if -- this is a big if -- there is proven to be criminal activity through an investigation would you have any
problem redirecting the $500 million or the $60 million of the 20% that's not medicaid, would you have any problem redirecting that to other women's health care organizations who offer genuine health care? >> well, i'm not going to answer to a hypothetical and, again, i -- we follow all the laws at planned parenthood, the health and safety of our patients is our number one concern. if there is any issue ever, the state or local national level we will address it and we do so swiftly is and we always have. >> thank you, i yield back. >> now we'll recognize the gentlewoman from the virgin islands for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member mr. cummings. thank you miss richards for being here for the inordinate amount of time that you have and i reiterate so much of what my colleagues here on this side of the aisle have said regarding this hearing and some of the concerns. you and your office know that i
have vocalized to you privately the fact that i'm displeased that planned parenthood is not present in my own district in the virgin islands or any of the territories where we have approximately four million people. and the reason i'm displeased about that is because i know the good work that planned parenthood does in preventative health for women with the virgin islands having 141 unplanned teen pregnancies per 1,000 when the national rate is 29 pregnancies per 1,000. i see how important the work that you guys do is to different areas and the chairman has seven clinics in his area in utah and, mr. chairman, we'd be glad to take any one of them in the virgin islands to be able to support women's health and the work that you do knowing that 78% of those seven clinics are in rural areas. and i know this committee is searching for truth and that's
the purpose of the oversight and government reform committee and i believe we need to do that in a neutral and even handed matter that reflects the integrity of this committee which is why i think this is a premature committee hearing if not the fact that the other side, the individual that the minority has requested to be here is not here and while i understand mr. dayleiden has had restrictions on the videos being produced, he has not produced one document that has been requested by this committee from either side. dealiden. >> will the gentlewoman yield? >> no, not at this time, sir. afterwards i will leave you some time. >> i know thousands and thousands of pages of documents. >> i think it's 20,000 pages and i know that the ranking member cummings has sent a request for
documents and the chairman, chaffetz and representative jordan have sent their own requests for documents. but -- and a subpoena was issued and not one page of documents. although i understand from the testimony that the videos is were, in fact, there was a question regarding that. so miss richards i want to ask you some questions since we only have planned parenthood here and we only have your documents that we're able to put up and put up on screens and for you to be questioned about, not the other side which assen attorn ean att problematic for me to get to the truth if i don't see both sides of the evidence being presented to me. i understand that there are several states that have launched investigations against planned parenthood, is that correct? >> well, there have been a variety of -- we're constantly being -- overseen, our health care services and yes as a result of this recent campaign there have been various state inquiries. >> and i understand several of those states have cleared
parenthood of any wrongdoing? >> that's correct. that's correct. >> and that there has not been produced any credible evidence that your organization has broken a single law, is that correct? >> i believe that's true. >> however there's plenty of evidence that mr. daleiden and his associates have violated federal and state laws. one example is his group obtaining tax-exempt status and apparently solicited charitable contributions under false pretension tense. are you obtained that obtained a 501(c)(3) status as a biomedical organization? >> all i know is what i've read. >> and this is a fake organization that filed official paperwork with the state of california to create a sham tissue procurement company called biomax procurement services llc?
miss richards, as far as i know illegally filing false paperwork with a state agency the against the law, right? >> it may be, i don't know. i know there's a lawsuit pending and i think the attorney general of california indicated there will be an investigation. >> so for us to have this discussion with you without having the balance of the other side becomes problematic. mr. chairman, did you want to say something at this point? >> yes, i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. she made a suggest that mr. daleiden had not been responsive. that's not true. we issued a subpoena, he responded within the time, that package that arrived has not been opened. it's in our safe. he's unable to provide all of the documents given that there is temporary restraining order. we understand that, house counsel is involve. mr. cummings and i agree that we're trying to get all that information but towd ip suggest was not responsive is not true
because he responded within the time allocated under the subpoena. >> it's my. mr. chairman, that until you're table to open those documents and receive all of them and we're able to balance them against the documents, the 20,000 pages of documents produced by planned parenthood that this is an unfair hearing and that we're not getting the information. >> i agree. that's why mr. daleiden was not invited to this hearing. the subject is what i said in opening comments and statements. it's the funding component. this does not -- we did not title this hearing as a hearing on the videos. it caused some controversy but we have in the essence of time some legitimate discussion about a continuing resolution and ongoing funding for planned parenthood and we've laid that out but my comments were not about the video, it's about the funding. that's where my concern lies.
>> mr. chairman -- >> and we will get to hopefully see those videos but we have to get past the restraining order that opinihas been put in place >> if we're going to discuss funding and knowing that members of congress can sit here and ask questions that run the gamut and that funding question is related to those videos that are the genesis of the question of whether to defund then i think it's naive of us to think that that discussion can be done in a vacuum without the videos and the other documents from the other side. >> if the gentlewoman would yield -- >> my time is up. >> would you yield? in fairness to the gentlelady, i'm looking at the memorandum from the majority and it talks about background for this hearing and the first sentence says "recently released video demonstrates the planned parenthood federation of america participates in transactions
involving transferring fetal tissue for remuneration." then it goes on. but let me very briefly so that the record is clear the jay lady referred to documents we had not received and i'd like to clear phi one point on record. on friday afternoon the republican staff informed democratic staff that mr. daleiden sent them a package, a fed ex-box that they said they didn't want to open until this week. we thought this was strange because if the republicans delayed opening this package members would not have had enough time to refute whatever was inside before today's hearing. so our staff also made it clear that if the republicans wanted to use any of this material at today's hearing it should be opened immediately on friday so we would begin to -- could begin
reviewing it as soon as possible through the weekend but the republican staff told us that they wanted to just keep the box closed. they said they would not open it and they would not use it at the hearing. so as of this moment we still do not know for sure what is inside that box from mr. daleiden, however, we did receive a copy of minutes from a recent hearing in a lawsuit in california whether mr. daleiden's attorney said they delivered additional footage so even more footage that mr. daleiden cut from the videos he released publicly. so we went to open the package, we want members to have equal access to the videos that are apparently inside and we definitely want to see what the other footage mr. daleiden was concealing from the public. i'll yield back. >> i want to see all the videos,
too. that's why we issued a subpoena. i wish you supported us when we issuedish. >> again, mr. chairman, i've said it before. >> i'm glad to have your support now. >> we've been -- we've supported it and i can show you the documents to show you that we consistently have asked that we get all of the tapes and if you give me a few minutes while others are asking questions i'll give you the very documents we sent you showing that. >> we're going to go to the gentleman for from south carolina mr. mulvaney. >> i'll thank you the chairman and try and make my democrat colleagues happy and ask funding questions that have nothing to do with the videos. which is more important to you, miss richards? actually pr lly providing women health care services or lobbying? >> well, i think these two things go hand in hand and certainly what we have learned over the years is that in order to be able to provide health care services to women you have to also be able to advocate for
women who are underserved so the two things go hand in hand. >> fair enough. you spent $21 million on lobbying, you spent zero dollars on mammograms, why is that? >> well, i think we've discussed mammograms repeatedly and how women's health care works. so when i go to my doctor i get a breast exam -- >> you get a referral. i get that. why don't you do that? >> we're not a radiological clinic and i don't think that's an -- >> why not? that's a women's service. >> i guess we could take it up but we never have provided by mammograms because we work in concert with folks who do provide radiological services. we do a number of breast exams -- >> you're aware there's people running for president saying you provide mammograms, that's not accurate. >> well, there are a number of people running for president saying a lot of things that i can't. >> you said earlier you don't make money from federal funds, right? you don't make profit off the federal funds? is that correct. >> planned parenthood is a national office. we have one source of federal funding right now, it's a
$21,000 roughly grant for a birth control clinical trial where we're reimbursed for costs alone and that's the only source of federal resources that come to the national office so we couldn't make a profit off that. >> where's the $532 million going? >> medicaid and title x -- >> so when you said you don't make money off the federal funds you were talking about the parent, not your operations? >> i was trying to explain the national office and then we have 59 affiliates, we have 650 to 700 health centers that provide health care services. >> is it your testimony that none of those make profits off of federal funds? >> well i would have to -- they're all reimbursed for services they provide. >> and that provides a profit, right? >> excuse me? >> that provides a profit. >> well, we're a nonprofit. >> you're a non-flooft made $127 million. >> we didn't make money. we don't make money.
we reinvest money in health care service and education and a lot of other things. but i wanted to answer your first question -- >> no, let's go on to this one. you just mentioned you don't make money but you had revenues in excess of your expenses of $127 million last year. that's right. that's your testimony. so here's my question. i'm going to get to the question. where does the $127 million go? >> like any organization of our size and scale, a lot of our resources are in what is a board-designated endowment or reserve. we are a 99-year-old organization so we've built our endowment. but also -- >> but you retain those earnings? in a private sense you would retain those earnings? you put them the bank. >> well, i hope they here in the bank and not just laying around. but negotiation that -- some are in reserves and the other is expanding health care services and building new clinics in a
variety of states across the country. >> how is that not an expense? >> well it is an expense. >> but your books reflect revenues in excess of expenses of $127 million. >> i'm sorry, they're not all out the door but i've made commitments to opening new up health centers in new orleans, in dallas, in other states in the south, opening in other states that i won't mention here probably because it will draw more attention -- >> so let's say the money goes towards expanding the service, one of the proposals here miss richards is to defund planned parenthood which includes taking $60 million, roughly $60 million of what you get out of discretionary fund. if we took $60 million away from you you could still perform every service you gave last year, can't you? >> i can't say that. >> well you made -- you said you have revenues in excess of expenses of $127 million. you told me what you do with $127 million, you're spending,
investing, expanding, i get that. but if you had $60 million less last year, you could have provided by every single service to every single woman that you did last year. >> well, i constantly raise money to expand services to the patients that look to us. >> and god bless you, i think that's great. but answer my question. please. you could have provided by every single service to every single woman last year if you did not get a penny from the discretionary fund from the united states congress. >> i disagree and there's no way i could agree to that. these are services spread out all across the country and i can't president account for how each dollar that i raise -- >> you still would have to -- >> it's committed to other services and expansion of services could replace federal dollars. >> not expansion of services. i'm talking about services you provided by. you would have had $67 million -- >> well we're expanding services beyond what we provide. >> got that. my question is if we had not funded you you would have been able to provide the services and i think the answer is unequivocally yes. you might not have been able to expand your services but every single woman that walked into
every single clinic would have been served if you had not received that money. . thank you, mr. chairman. >> i disagree. >> we're just trying to figure out why you would disagree with that. revenues would still exceed expenses. even with $60 million less. >> are we now having a conversation? i'm sorry, i wasn't sure if we're finishing this. >> sure. >> i raise money every single day to expand services and education services to people in america, that's what we do at planned parenthood. and like any other nonprofit we reserve money for all kinds of services that need to be expanded, assistance that needs to be provided by and that's what we do with our money. we're a nonprofit, we don't do anything else with our money other than put it back into the services, the education and sometimes the advocacy we provide. >> i'll now recognize the gentlewoman from new mexico for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
and thank you miss richards. and if this committee is going to undertake how medicaid money is used and not used by every health care provider in every state and every local government in the united states it might be a very interesting hearing about how we can asure the medicaid funds that are not reaching so many still even with the progress of the affordable care act, so many women and so many families, that would be a hearing that i think would be well worth having. i'm going to go back to the funding aspect, the unintended consequences and i appreciate the comments of all of my colleagues but mr. welch and mr. boyle. i served as the new mexico secretary of health and one of my challenges was certainly to deal with teen pregnancy. but also make sure we had the right partnerships and viable access in the public health system where women and their families could get access to
health care services of high quality and services they trust. i can tell you something you already know, that without planned parenthood we could not meet those access points and quite frankly even in the public health system. there are many women, particularly in rural air frontier areas of the state who, a, did not have access or would absolutely under no circumstances choose that access where i'd like to tell you that our record about prevention and preventing pregnancy was better in the public health system and that was in a world we didn't have the 2008 budget issues where our state now is not putting money into public health or expanding public health or working on women's health care. and without the affordable care act our rural hospitals and community health centers would all but be closed and we now have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. with efforts at looking at what we can do for 15-year-olds to prevent the second and third
pregnancy. women need and deserve unfettered high quality confidential access to comprehensive health services. and i'm hearing from hundreds of constituents -- and i also know that thousands of new mexico women and their families will not have that access to these services because it is all connected -- and even if it wasn't would still want them to have the choices that they make and that are right for them with all of the funding issues that we debate in this congress i know unequivocally they don't have access in many of the places that they should and under the equal protection clause they certain ly ought to with medicaid funding. can you talk about states like new mexico with these high teen pregnancy rate, without those rural access points, where would those 21,000 women go? >> well i thank you for your service in the public health
arena and for your question. i think it's incredibly important that we're constantly looking at new ways to help particularly young people access information and services and it guess back to the chairman's question earlier which is one of the things we do at planned parenthood in addition to providing medicaid family planning services is we now run education programs across the country and through the weapon that have an average of six million visitors every month, visited by young people and their families, english and spanish because many people don't have access to adequate sex education in their communities. in addition, we are looking at more ways to provide birth control virtually so you can order it online and don't have to be in a clinic because for many rural americans it's difficult to access a family planning provider in your community. >> they're just not there. i have a pastor in my district who's let me know he refers
women to planned parenthood because he know there is aren't the right community access points and i know it's been touched on in this committee but i have personal experience and no many of my constituents in their 20s and 30s and 40s who without the comprehensive health care services would have died from cervical cancer and i know exactly how important in a state that has higher per capita averages in many of these cancer areas for these populations and particularly for moor know for populations that we want to do a much better job in investing in comprehensive health simply do not have it. and the notion we would continue to discriminate against those populations by not providing adequate federal funding access makes no sense if we're trying to maintain my choice about my high quality confidential provider. thank you for being here. i appreciate your testimony.
>> thanks for letting me be here. >> we have two votes on the floor, there are approximately eight minutes left in this first previous question vote. it's the intention of the chair to recognize mr. heiss for his five minutes of questioning then we'll go to recess and come back. we thought we could get through it but we have a number of members who have questions so we'll rise mr. highs and have convene after the votes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. richards, just a point of clirfication, it's already been established that planned parenthood serves a lot of underprivileged people and i just want to be clear in your testimony you stated that it is significantly more difficult for individuals on medicaid to access a provider as opposed to someone with a private insurance because so many providers now are not accepting medicaid, is that correct? >> it varies across the country.
but certainly there are some states where it's very difficult. >> and that's one reason you would say planned parenthood is needed because there's a gap there, is that correct? >> well, i think we're -- i think we have tried to demonstrate that we are important provider of medicaid services to a lot of folks in this country. >> but particularly the underprivileged. >> well, that's who -- i guess by definition, yes. that's who's on medicaid. >> you also said in your testimony that the government account ability office found two-thirds of the states are challenged recruiting ob-gyns and that according to the cbo -- according to your testimony -- that by next year obamacare is expected to reduce the uninsured and nearly half of those will be on medicaid. from these testimonies from -- these statements in your testimony is medicaid in your
opinion a substandard insurance? >> in my opinion, no? >> is it an inferior product? >> well, i'm not sure exact -- i'm not exactly sure how to answer. i think it's important that medicaid patients -- >> this is according to your testimony. >> no, no, i don't think i said that so i want to make sure i'm clear what you're asking. it's important medicaid patients be able to get the same kind of quality of care as other people. >> but you said they can't, they're not able to because so many providers are not -- let's go on to other things. i'm just curious and those were questions i jotted down. it seems to me there's a question mark there, you praise it on one end, medicaid. >> it's very important. >> and then say it's a problem on the other. >> no, it's not -- i hope i didn't misstate that. i don't think medicaid is a problem. i think the challenge is because the reimbursement rates are
very, very low there are not enough doctors and health care providers that will take new medicaid patients. that's something everyone struggles with. >> we've also established that there has been excess revenue as you describe it other than saying profit. excess revenue, nearly the three quarters of a billion in the last 10 years, $127 million last year. we can break that down in a number of different ways. yet at the same time dramatic reduction in prenatal care, preventative services, cancer screening and so far r forth and do you have any idea, by the way, how many planned parenthood clinics have closed over the last ten years? >> i don't have those exact numbers and you're preferring to things i have to look at charts for i think we've addressed why some women's health care services aren't needed on an annual basis anymore. but many of the planned parenthood health centers have merged to be more efficient. we started 99 years ago and i
will be candid there's not always total efficiencies in the system. >> let me go on. there's been over 100 that have closed. >> or merged? >> closed and merged. >> whatever. but the bottom line is you stated a few moments ago that this $127 million, three quarters of a billion over the last ten years that you're largely holding it and using it for investment purposes. why is it on the taxpayers' hook to provide for your investments in expansion when you were declining your services and clinics are closing? >> i don't think the -- the federal government isn't investing in our expansion. >> the taxpayers are according to -- >> the federal government -- >> you have $127 billion over the last year that's excess. >> that was -- none of that is federal dollars. that's all raised by -- >> all right, we have $60 million that are federal that comes through the discretionary fund. why is the taxpayer providing
$60 million when you have $127 million a year? i'm just going back to the question already asked. i'm trying to find why is the taxpayer responsible for your expansion. >> i'm not holding the taxpayers responsible for our expansion. that money paid for by the federal government through medicaid, title x, through cdc grants, through hiv/aids programs all pay for services directly provided by to patients and there's strict accountability and we are accountable by -- hhs looks at medicaid payments. so we are grateful for the opportunity to serve patients who come into us. i think we provide high quality and that's why patients continue to come to us. i think patients regardless of whether they're on medicaid or not should have the option to go to the health care provider of their choice. >> the committee will stand in recess and reconvene no sooner than 2:00 p.m. but we'll be behold on the the conclusion of
breaking for just a short time here on the florida's committee room, the house oversight and government reform committee, the chair, jason chaffetz says they'll do voting on the house floor. we'll take your phone calls. should the federal government fund planned parenthood? the number is on your screen.
democrats 202-748-8920. republicans, 202-748-8921. inspect independents, all others, 202-748-8922, let us know what you think. and we have a facebook page up, facebook.com/c-span, answer the question there. join the conversation with other viewers. before we take your calls, we'll look back at the beginning of this hearing, cecile richards at the witness stand, the president of planned parenthood here's some of her opening statement and we'll get to your phone calls. >> i'm proud to be here today speaking on behalf of planned parenthood, a leading provider of high quality reproductive health care in america. one in five women in this country has sought care from a planned parenthood health center and they trust us because our rigorous health care standards have been developed with the nation's cop medical experts over our 99-year history.
there's been a great deal of misinformation circulated about planned parenthood recently and i want to be clear at the outset. the federal funding that planned parenthood receives allows our doctors and clinicians at our health centers to provide birth control, cancer screenings and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. now, while the federal policy in my opinion discriminates against low income women, no federal funds pay for abortion services at planned parenthood or anywhere else except in the very limited circumstances allowed by law. these are when the woman has been raped, has been the victim of incest, or when her life is in danger. planned parenthood operates like all other health centers and hospitals that provide medical care to medicaid patients. medicaid reimburses us for the preventative health services that we provide and the department of health and human
fss ises conducting routine audits of the program to ensure these funds are used appropriately. the same is true for the title x, the federal family planning program, which was signed into law by president richard nixon. planned parenthood has been in the news recently because of deceptively edited videos released by a group dedicated to making abortion illegal in this country. this is just the most reexcellent a long line of discredited attacks, the 10th over the last 15 years. the latest smear campaign is based on efforts by our opponents to entrap our doctors and clinicians into breaking the law and, one against, our opponents failed. to set the record straight i want to be clear on four matters. first, using fetal tissue in life-saving medical research is legal according to the 1993 law passed by the senate 93-4 and
based on recommendations from a blue-ribbon panel created under the reagan administration. second. currently less than 1% of planned parenthood health centers are facilitating the donation of tissue for fetal tissue research. third in those health centers, donating fetal tissue is something many of our patients want to do and regularly request. and finally planned parenthood policies not only comply with but, indeed, go beyond the requirements of the law. the outrageous accusations leveled against planned parenthood based on heavily doctored videos are offensive and categorically untrue. i realize, though, that the facts have never gotten in the way of these campaigns to block women from health care they need and deserve. and, mr. chairman, you and i do disagree about whether women should have access to safe and legal abortion. at planned parenthood we believe
that women should be able to make their own decisions about their pregnant sis and their futures and the majority of americans agree. we trust women to make these decisions in consultation with their families, their doctors and their faith and not by congress. it is unacceptable that in the 21st century women in america are routinely harassed for accessing a legal medical procedure. doctors who provide abortion as well as their families often face harassment and threats of violence and after this recent smear campaign it's only gotten worse. these acts against women and health care providers don't reflect american values or the rule of law and i hope the committee will condemn them. >> the president of planned parenthood testify ago few minutes ago. the house committee breaking for votes on the house floor. we'll take your phone calls and waiting patiently on the line, luke, philadelphia,
pennsylvania, a democrat. hi, luke. >> caller: hi, how are you koinkoin doing. what are your thoughts about this government funding, planned parenthood? >> caller: to be perfectly frank it's a waste of money, this entire hearing. especially those on the right want to talk about defunding planned parenthood what they should be talking about is defunding the whole purpose of this meeting. i think it's ridiculous that we are in this era talking about taking away a constitutional right away from women. this is completely a come's choice. the entire meeting was filled with the same questions just asked by different congressmen and senators on the right. it goes against the character of this country to take a way a guaranteed trugsal right away from women. it doesn't make sense at all to defund planned parenthood. as a college student it hits home even more. i'm a student at temple university and i know a lot of
my friends, girls and guys, who need and go to planned parenthood their entire lives and to take that away is taking away a basic human right. >> thank you for the call, luke. mary is on the line calling from liverpool, new york. independent. >> caller: hello, how are you? >> good, mary, thanks. >> caller: when i was younger in my 20s went to planned parenthood and they were absolutely wonderful. i needed contraception and as a 65-year-old i also understand the issues with the medicare and problem with doctors not accepting it because i just went through that with a family member and the other thing is when you go through other places like that accept medicaid, you're treated like cattle and it's sad because planned parenthood is so kind to their patients and understanding and i
don't understand why we have a group of people who want to destroy that. >> thanks for the call, mary. and just while she's on that note, medicare and medicaid, the house will be voting later today on whether or not to move forward with the women's public health safety act. that having to do with medicaid funding as well and allowing stating to deny that funding to go to certain planned parenthood resources. nancy is on the line, pennsylvania, republican. nancy, go ahead? >> caller: oh, hi, thank you for the opportunity to say something. i personally do not support funding planned parenthood for abortions for health care, yes, but in my find and opinion health care that duds not -- abortion is not health care, it's killing innocent babies and no one as the right under the
constitution to take the life of another person deliberately. we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so thank you for taking my call. >> thanks, nancy. take a look at "usa today" and its poll, polled with a university, to see how many people feel the way she does there, our last caller. by 2-1, funding for planned parenthood is supported. there's cecile rich dlards in her testimony. washington here, come congressional republicans remain determined to cut off federal funding for planned parenthood but a nationwide "usa today" suffolk university poll finds americans back government support for the group by more than 2-1. two-thirds of those surveyed, 65%, say funding should continue for the group which provides contraception, cancer screening and other health services to women. 29% say it should be cut off. what are your thoughts? we're taking your calls while the committee is in a break and we have cecile richards
testifying from planned parenthood. alicia is on the line, bethesda, maryland, independent. >> caller: hi there. thank god for cecile richards. she is tremendous and it is complete outrage that there are few people that are trying to prevent women from practicing or going out and receiving what we deserve. it's completely legal. it's within the law. it's 2015. it's unbelievable to me that we are going through and hashing this over and over and that this committee and that chairman, the chairman should be put up. he should -- there should be a hearing on the chairman first of all, why is there a hearing? she can't even speak? they cut her off, they don't let her answer questions and thank god for the people, i guess democrats who are giving her time to answer her questions
fully. this is not a hearing. it's a dart board and a handful of these people are just shooting darts at this woman. anyway i am so glad to hear that the american public is saying yes to women having complete choice on how to handle their own health. >> take a look at this tweet, too, alicia. the hill reporting at the very beginning we saw the person you're talking about, the chair, jason chaffetz of utah, he delivered an emotional opening statement at this planned parenthood hearing talking about his own wife and family's battle with cancer and then paul singer, "usa today" saying "plan parented hood hearing gets chippy. republicans challenge expenditures, cecile richards mounts defense." what are your thoughts? david is on the line, st. louis, missouri, democrat. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. >> you bet. >> the amount of hypocrisy coming from the right is truly
amazing. i've been fortunate enough to watch most of the hearing today and what truly amazes me is that it seems -- because i had no idea what planned parenthood really did but listening to what she said, it sounds like planned parenthood does nothing else than what a lot of hospitals in this country do, they have medicaid patients and they also perform abortions but you don't see the republicans going after hospitals to defund them. they simply are targeting planned parenthood. which, again, does nothing different than what hospitals do. secondly what i would like to see her respond to is toward the end because it does raise a concern is this idea that planned parenthood could continue even if they weren't giving the $60 million from the federal government. thank you. >> thanks for the call: i've got steve on the line and steve is in york, pennsylvania, republican. steve, what are your thoughts? >> caller: well, i'm a registered republican and i'm
embarrassed by what has transpired there today. we're not talking about just planned parenthood, we're talking about abortion, that's all we're talking about abortion. that's all the republicans want to talk about. they want to talk about abortion. and i'm a republican. it's not about abortion. it's about taking care of women. it's about taking care of people. that's the most important thing. abortion, like she said, is only 3% of what planned parenthood actually does. as far as their surgical things that they do. and to sit there and watch them beat this woman up verbally, cut her off. i am embarrassed to be a republican. to sit there and watch that. they don't care about -- they're not sitting there caring about people. they just want to beat her up over the issue of abortion.
>> all right, thanks for the call, steve. take a look at some of the numbers. this is from the associated press. the question, how many planned parenthood clinics provide fetal tissue for medical research and where are they located? fewer than 1% of the 700 planned parenthood affiliated clinics nationwide offer this tissue donation for medical research. only available in california and washington state. an oregon affiliate provides tissue to a university and clinics in texas and colorado have provided similar tissue over the past five years, but not fetal tissue. you read more there. associated press. we'll take a look from the congressional angle of things. planned parenthood formally attached to the continuing resolution that would fund the federal government past wednesday. they decided in the senate to not move forward with that. they are moving forward with what's called a clean c.r. it does not have that defunding language in it. let's take a look at our conversation with a capitol hill
reporter. kaitlin owens joins us. she covers health care for national journal. congress is holding several hearings on the issue of federal funding for planned parenthood. over in the house, a bill involving medicaid and funding and abortions. what is this bill about, and why is the white house opposed to it? >> the bill that is going to be voted on in the house today, it addresses medicaid in the states. so right now, currently, federal medicaid law requires states -- or advanced states from withholding medicaid funding just because a provider gives abortions. so the legislation today has been changed. i think it's probably in light of states realizing this as they try to block medicaid funding for planned parenthood, they've been contacted by cms saying they can't do that. >> now, how does this fit into sort of the larger picture about planned parenthood and what republicans are trying to do? >> so this is just another way that republicans are trying to defund planned parenthood.
and so currently, planned parenthood received a little more than 500 million from the government. about 41% of their total budget. so a lot of that, about 450 is federal funding. and what it comes down to, that's about 390 million that comes from medicaid reimbursements. so really, it's only about 60 million that's appropriated. so to really stop federal funding, rules about medicaid have to be changed to the federal level and not just appropriated. >> how does all of this fit into the potential for a shutdown? that's tomorrow night at midnight. how is this all affecting that conversation on the hill? >> right. so that gets back to the money that is appropriated through congress, which gives money to planned parenthood. some republicans really feel that that should not be included in a spending bill that must keep the government running. last night, there was a procedural vote in the senate on a short-term spending bill that
does not include a defund to planned parenthood. we'll see what the house does with it. >> and in the house, they're also holding a hearing with the president of planned parenthood, cecile richards. are we going to see more hearings like it? >> this is actually the third hearing. this was an oversight committee, and so today they just wanted to go over the planned parenthood finances. they asked about what it was used for. what was going on with planned parenthood services themselves. and so as far as more hearings, i do believe this is just the beginning. each committee investigating has only held one so far, and i think there's definitely more to come. >> and you actually wrote an article about a house mark-up involving planned parenthood. on the reconciliation process,
what's this process and what are house republicans trying to do? >> so reconciliation is actually a senate procedural. only 51 votes instead of the 60 that's normally needed. they can pass a bill without democratic support. so it's originating in the house and there's actually three different committees in the house that will have different pieces of the reconciliation bill, depending on jurisdiction. so there's multiple mark-ups. what are we going to do about reconciliation? it seems like republicans in both chambers have finally settled that. one bill is eventually going to come together. that reveals major pieces of oba obamacare, but also plans planned parenthood for a year. >> the house plans to bring together a special committee to further investigate planned parenthood. when are you hearing we might see that come together, a vote on that happen? and also, in the house, who might be chairing that special committee? >> so from what i've heard, it
seems like marsha blackburn would be chairing it. but as far as when this will come about, it's kind of anybody's guess. if i had to guess, i know speaker boehner -- he's been really adamant about seeing this through the committee investigation process. so i would imagine he would want to get that going before he leaves in a month or so. but like i said, it's really anyone's guess. >> kaitlin owens, you can keep following her on twitter. and also her writing at nation l nationaljournal.com. also, taking phone calls while they're in a break on that committee, talking about planned parenthood. helen on the line. what are your thoughts? >> caller: my thoughts are the following. first of all, it is embarrassing. what i want to mention is that -- and of course, i am
totally for the funding of planned parenthood. but what i want to do is to give a testimony of how important in my life planned parenthood has been. although i work for six years at planned parenthood in the '70s, i also learned there how to do a breast exam. and in that time, every month, i do a breast exam. and it is because of that breast exam that i found a lump by myself. and that lump turned out to be cancerous. but because i found it right away. it was extremely small. and it was taken care of. and that was 21 years ago. so i am extremely grateful for planned parenthood and for everything that they do. >> thanks for sharing your story, helen. here's marianne on the line, fredericksburg, virginia, independent. >> caller: hi. i was just saying that for planned parenthood, after they showed the figures, and they
want them to go through everybody that we give money to. if they've got that kind of money and they can pay for that kind of lobbyists, i think it's about time we look at everybody. because us as taxpayers should not be paying for planned parenthood or any of the other garbage that we're paying for being this far in debt. >> and marianne, it's interesting you mentioned that. i don't know if you heard earlier during the hearing, but the ranking member on the committee, the oversight committee, that's elijah cummings of maryland, he actually talked about why aren't we looking more at corporations and how much their ceos are paid and how much they get from the federal government as well, just echoing your point. here's another one from chad pergram. a tweet saying elijah cummings calls planned parenthood political theatre. the hill says gop planned parenthood wasted millions of dollars on lavish travel and
parties. one of the points that jason and others were talking about during the hearing. and abc news saying ranking member cummings says committee democrats want planned parenthood undercover video producer to testify, but that the gop refused. taking your calls. want to know what you think about funding for planned parenthood coming from the government and from taxpayers. john is calling from alabama, republican. >> caller: yeah, that was a nice spin on the talk about directing the story away from the fact that the planned parenthood person makes a lot of money as a ceo. a lot of corporations pay millions of dollars to their ceos. but they're not getting federal funds every year to the tune of $500 million. so we need to stop giving money to private organizations for women's health care. we're not taking away health care by doing that. they have a choice, just as the
ceo said repeatedly, to go anywhere that they want to go. so it's got nothing to do with that. the fact that they're selling body parts is disgusting and anybody supporting an organization that is caught on tape with unedited long videos that describes them doing that is ridiculous. we need to stop funding organizations that would kill innocent children. and so women's health care's got nothing to do with killing their offspring. it's time for them to stop the funding. let them -- you can't put it in one pocket and not put it into the other pocket. they're spending it one way or another and part of that is paying for abortions. and it's real easy to make up why they're paying for that, to say that the woman was under
stress or whatever reason, make up an excuse. it's time to stop. >> democrats line richard is calling from el monte, california. hi, richard. >> caller: hello, hi. i just heard that last gentleman, the republican. it's the usual republican spin about, you know, abortion and everything else. i watched this since the start. they ought to be ashamed of themselves. truly ashamed of themselves. it is -- they are -- i'm so upset about this, i'm telling you. because they have absolutely no proof of what this planned parenthood is doing. they have been hiding everything from the videos.
and they have shown no proof at all of what they have done wrong. as a party, they ought to be ashamed of themselves as to what they're doing today. i hope that all women are watching today because they are losing votes as this goes on, and that's all i have to say. thank you. >> watching from the beginning of the hearing, just a reminder, they're taking a break so they could go to the house floor to vote. we will be taking your phone calls until we come back to the committee room. the oversight and government reform committee, talking about planned parenthood and whether the federal government funding should be going to the organization. jamie is on the line, louisville, kentucky. independents and others. hi, jamie. >> caller: hi, how you doing? i think this is nothing more than a waste of time. i know in kentucky, no federal money goes for abortions. no state money goes for abortions. if you walk into any facility and do not have cash, you're not
going to get an abortion. it's not paid for through state or federal funding and this is nothing more than a witch hunt on this woman. like the previous caller, they're not letting her finish her statements or anything. they're talking over her. especially the men. and these men need to realize without a woman, they would not be here. and this is a continuing war on women. we still aren't paid equally, and now they want to intrude on our health care. and this is just totally unfair. and that's pretty much all i have to say. i'm so upset the way they're badgering this woman. i can't even think of what all was on my mind that i had to say when i called. thank you. have a good day. >> randolph, massachusetts. paul is on the line. independents and others. >> caller: i'm sorry i didn't get to catch this from the very beginning. my big thing is that there's so
much talk about all of these videos that have been made and doctored. why don't they show them on tv? let the people see what they're all about. i have six sisters. none of them have ever had abortions. and to have people say oh, they're doctored, they're doctored. fine, show us, the american people, because every life is precious. my mother had nine children. and as far as planned parenthood, i did have to take a person to planned parenthood once. she did not -- got money, wasn't paid for it. but the state medicaid department paid for it. so whether they say the federal government or the state government, the governments are paying for abortions. >> all right, paul, thanks for the call. want to let you know too since you missed part of the hearing, we're going to be showing it again, 8:00 p.m. eastern time tonight. that will be on our companion network, c-span. you can join us there and you
can also watch any time in our video library. we'll have the entire hearing up there. again, just taking a break while they vote on the house floor, and then coming back to finish the hearing as soon as they are done voting. let's take a few more calls here. anthony calling from minneapolis, minnesota. democrats line. anthony, you've got the floor. >> thank you very much for taking my call. i just want to say we've got to start at responsible sex. i think people need to really address that and have safe sex. a lot of abortions would be alleviated by that. also, it's hard for me to see older gentlemen and women who don't worry about paying for health care, because they're set. generations behind them -- >> anthony, i hate to interrupt you. we're going to go back to the hearing room. looks like people are getting set to restart the hearing. we'll take a listen.
we will resume our hearing regarding planned parenthood. we are now going to recognize that the gentlewoman would -- we need her to -- we'll now recognize the gentleman from missouri for five months. >> ms. richards, welcome. and thank you for your patience, for being here so long. let me start with the point that a lot of republicans have relied on, these doctored videos. to accuse planned parenthood physicians of violating federal laws. just yesterday, the missouri attorney general just completed
his investigation of planned parenthood and found no wrong doing. however, i want to walk through some of these accusations and ask you to give us the facts. just as a preliminary matter, does planned parenthood receive any federal funding for its tissue donation program? >> no, not that i'm aware of. >> okay, let me ask about the accusations that physicians are illegally altering abortion methods to harvest fetal tissue in violation of federal law? what the law says, doctors must certify, and i quote, no alteration of the timing method or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining tissue. this provision applies to
federally funded research involving the transplantation of human fetal tissue for the therapeutic purposes. this has been confirmed by the department of health and human services, which wrote that the department, and i quote, has not funded or conducted this specific type of research in recent years. so even though this law does not apply to planned parenthood affiliates. you have still issued guidance that is consistent with the law. is that right? >> that's correct. so just to be perfectly clear, the federal lawyer citing doesn't apply to planned parenthood because as you said, it only applies to donations for related transplantation research funded by the nih. one other thing i would like to mention. that when all of this came up, i actually wrote to the nih and said if it's time to review the way fetal tissue research is done in this country, we welcome
that. it's a very small part of what we do. only 1% of our health centers even allow for tissue donation. but it seems it would be inappropriate forum for biomedical emphasis and research and doctors to do that, and we welcome that if the nih chooses to do so. >> wonderful, wonderful. okay. let's turn to these accusations. the republicans accused planned parenthood physicians of changing the timing method and procedure of abortion slowly for the purpose of obtaining fetal tissue. so let me ask you directly. do planned parenthood physicians alter the timing method or procedure of an abortion solely for the purpose of obtaining fetal tissue for research in violation of federal law? >> well, first, just to go back, we've established federal law
doesn't apply. our own standards and guidelines go beyond what's required. i have spoken with our chief medical officer, and she assures me that she knows of no instance where the method or the procedure or the timing of an abortion was altered in any way in order to facilitate what is the patient's desire to donate fetal tissue for fetal tissue research. >> when the physicians do make clinical adjustments during the course of the procedure, why would today do that and how does that work? >> well, i'm not a doctor so i can't speak to everything that doctors do, but i do know that our number one goal of planned parenthood is the health and safety of our patients, and so certainly our doctors, number one goal is to make sure if it is an abortion patient, that they have a successful procedure. and i know from talking to doctors all across the country, long before any of this
happened, that doctors do all kinds of things, as do all surgeons, i assume, make decisions in the middle of procedures to ensure a good outcome. >> let's move to a different accusation, which is that women are not consenting to participate in these tissue donation programs. can you speak to that, that women may not be consenting to donating the fetal tissue? >> women are fully consenting, and they consent to planned parenthood certainly prior to an abortion. and one of the interesting things that has happened and part is a result i think of all of the press is that there are more and more women asking if they could actually donate fetal tissue because they understand the importance of the research that's done. but again, we only have two affiliates now who are able to, you know, can help women who want to make a fetal tissue donation.
>> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell. >> thank you, madam chairman. and thank you, ms. richards for being here today. how much total revenue collected or reimbursed for planned parenthood and its affiliates comes from abortion services? >> i believe we have provided all of our financial information. i don't have that number. >> do you have a ballpark? >> no, i don't. but again, we provided -- i know there was some back and forth about this. and i just verified it on the break. we provided all of the 990s, not only for the national organization, but our 59 affiliates and i believe their audited financial statements. >> i guess if we were to extrapolate from the planned parenthood website the cost of an abortion, the average cost, or an abortion pill, it would be
at $1,500 for the service of abortion, or $800 for the pill. if you multiply that times 327,000, that would come somewhere between 40% or 22% of a figure. regardless, it's $491 million down to $261 million just from the ballpark figures we see on planned parenthood's website. >> and i have to -- i'm sorry to interrupt. >> if you would very quickly. >> that's not accurate. >> would you be willing to provide us what the accurate figure is and when could you provide that to us? >> what was inaccurate is i think what you reported in terms of the cost of an abortion. obviously it varies state to state. >> we would await the accurate figures. and when would you provide those to us? >> i've said to the chair, we have been abundantly cooperative to this committee. we've provided thousands and thousands of pages of documents. and i'm happy to work with the committee and the staff and with
my team to provide other information that you need. >> and i appreciate that. we'll continue on. absent federal funding, what effects specifically would it have on the organization's ability to provide abortion services? >> i'm sorry, could you restate that question? >> absent federal funding, what specifically would it have on the organization's ability to provide abortion services? >> well, i hope i'm answering your question correctly. no money, no federal dollars go to planned parenthood or other hospitals or other health care providers -- >> so it would have no impact, is that your answer? >> no impact on what? >> on abortion services. >> if we were not reimbursed for family planning, for preventative care -- >> no, i'm asking specifically, absent federal funding, what specific impact would have it on
abortions? >> i can't think of a specific impact. i really am trying to be responsive to your question. >> and i can see that. thank you. can federal funds be used for abortion equipment? >> federal funds are only, in my understanding, and if there's something -- there may be something i'm aware of. but federal funds can only be used for abortion services in very specific instances, which we talked about earlier. if a woman has been raped. if she's a victim of incest. >> on the equipment, on the salaries, cleaning services, rent and maintenance, the facilities. what about that? >> on the abortion services and on federal funding for abortion services, these are -- this is actually done through the state. that's what medicaid funds come through. i can get -- we could look at the specifics on that. >> okay. we would like that.
it's the federal government, though, that is making those decisions. >> well, thank you. >> for the record, mr. chairman, we've heard testimony today that 2.7 million receive services and the last reported here. that number is actually over three million when you add the 327,000 aborted children to that figure. for the record, 2.7 million received services and 327,000 receive a legal termination with no right to choose life. three of my five children are adopted. it is my firm belief and the financial evidence substantiates that planned parenthood clearly does not need taxpayer funding to survive. we can carve up a child and call it a choice. we can destroy human life and call it health care. we can make the killing of children legal and pretend it is beneficial. we can cover acts of bar barbar
but we cannot escape our accountability before the creator of life. and with that, madam chairman, i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. carver. >> thank you, madam chair. ms. richards, i want to thank you for being here today. i want to ask about planned parenthood's federal funding. since that's supposed to be the topic of today's hearing. what we're hearing is that planned parenthood receives about $500 million of federal funding every year. and it's easy to see why you hear that figure a lot, because it's an awful lot of money. and it seems like -- the way you hear it, it sounds like planned parenthood receives a big check. a big cash payment every year. i want to break down the numbers. according to the data compiled by the gao, something like 80%
of planned parenthood's government-related revenue in 2012, about $400 million, came from medicaid reimbursements. i think that's the point you've been trying to make today, is that it comes in the form of medicaid reimbursements through the states, for activities such as cancer screenings and wellness exams. ms. richards, first off, is that figure correct, around 80% to the best of your knowledge? >> to the best of my knowledge, it is correct. about 1.6 million of our patients in a year receive our -- are covered by some kind of federal program, title 10 or their medicaid patients. where there's a few other programs that we work on hiv/aids programs and the like. >> and so is that figure fairly consistent with more recent years? >> yes. and also, one thing i just wanted to make sure is clear. it's not all federal funds. a lot of state funds are
combined in that figure. i don't know the exact breakdown. >> fair enough. >> so it's just not all federal dollars is all i meant to say. >> what these numbers really mean is that planned parenthood affiliates provide a massive number of health care services to medicaid patients, and then they're reimbursed on a fee for service basis. >> that's correct. and i think we provide really, really good health care for medicaid patients and we're proud of that. >> okay. i come from a district that has a lot of rural territory in northeastern, pennsylvania. we have an awful lot of medicaid eligible patients. so it's an issue of concern to me. medicaid patients are primarily people who are poor, elderly, or have disabilities. isn't that right? >> i don't know the breakdown of all medicaid patients. i certainly don't know for your area of pennsylvania.
i do know how many patients we see in pennsylvania. >> just in general, medicaid patients -- stay with me here. >> okay. >> medicaid patients tend to be poor, elderly, or have disabilities, don't they, in general? >> again, i'm just speaking -- i only know the folks we serve. so i can't speak about medicaid patients more broadly. we don't serve many elderly medicaid patient. primarily, we serve women between the ages of 18 and 44. >> of course, that's true. many medicaid patients come from medically underserved communities, right? >> that's correct. >> and that's why the $500 million figure gets thrown around so much. that's why that's so misleading. it is reimbursements for fee for service treatment. and like other medical providers, planned parenthood is reimbursed for the health care it provides to these patients and that's generally the way
health care insurance works anyway, right? >> that's exactly right. just a different insurance program. >> we rely on providers to take in these patients, especially since medicaid generally reimburses at a lower rate than private insurance. >> that's correct. and i think it's really important because in so many states, as we've talked about earlier, there are not that many health care providers that will take medicaid patients. >> in fact, i think dr. gosar made that point. medicaid reimburses rather poorly. >> it does, although we're really proud at -- just looking at the state of pennsylvania, we see 108,000 patients in the state of pennsylvania. many of them are in rural communities. >> so when we hear talk about defunding planned parenthood, a big part of that is excludeing planned parenthood affiliates from medicaid. isn't that right? >> correct. essentially -- and that's what's important. i'm so glad you made this point, because we can't make it strongly enough. as you said, we don't get an
appropriate amount of money. this would actually -- what congress is proposing doing would deny people on medicaid the ability to go to the provider of their choice and many of them do choose planned parenthood for a whole host of reasons. >> thank you for being here, ms. richards. i yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia. >> ms. richards, you were kind enough to provide this committee with a list of the salaries and compensation of the officers of planned parenthood. that is correct and up to date, is that right? >> i'm sure it is if we provided it. >> okay. well, thank you. i'm looking at this and i'm seeing an employee of planned parenthood's affiliate in north dakota and south dakota was paid $549,827 in 2013, is that correct? >> i don't have the figures. i do happen to know that affiliate -- this is a woman who has been a health care professional for decades.
>> $549,000. and it is correct that you were compensated $590,000 in 2013, is that correct? >> well, i tried to address this earlier. >> i understand. >> i'm sorry -- >> yes or no? >> $520,000 was my annual salary. there was a benefit that was accrued to me -- >> and $590,000 was your compensation in 2013? >> it's set by the board of directors, and it's important to me -- >> all i need to no is yes or no. >> no federal funds go to my salary. >> $590,000 was what you were compensated in 2013, according to what you provided this committee with, correct? yes? >> i think i've answered your question. >> let me ask you about the travel for planned parenthood. planned parenthood spent over $5 million on travel in 2013. that's almost $14,000 a day. was that first class, or was any
of it charter jet? >> that would be nice. no. i don't fly -- >> $14,000 a day? >> we have eight million supporters in this country. we provide health care to 2.7 million people. we provide sex education to 1.5 million people. >> is that correct? 14,000 dl $14,000 a day? >> i'm happy to look at them. >> can you provide this committee with the records that show the modes of travel that you've taken, whether they've been first class, whether they've been charter jets? >> i will work with the committee staff to provide whatever we can on questions that have been asked. >> we appreciate that very much. let me ask you something -- >> although i will say for the record, i do not travel first class. >> neither do i, but i don't spend $14,000 a day either. nevertheless. you've made the claim that many patients wouldn't have timely access to basic reproductive
health care if it weren't for the services of planned parenthood. yet, u.s. department of health and human services in 2015 said that there were almost 9,700 health care service delivery sites and over 4,000 rural health clinics, including over 1,200 federally qualified health centers operating over 9,000 sites in the united states. how many clinics does planned parenthood operate? >> between 650 and 700, depending. >> if that would go away, these patients wouldn't have access to health care? >> well, i mean, i'm looking at the cvo report -- the congressional budget just came out with a report that if planned parenthood -- if women were unable to go to planned parenthood, medicaid patients or title ten patients, 390,000 women would immediately lose health care next year. >> the problem i have with that is the obama administration reports that there are over
13,000 publicly supported health care alternatives in the united states. have you seen that? are you aware of that? >> i have not seen that. >> that's what the obama administration is telling us. so that's almost eight times as many as planned parenthood has. and out of those clinics, i mean, we've got almost -- excuse me. i misspoke. over 20 federally funded clinics, as opposed to every planned parenthood. yet those federally funded clinics, they don't have $100 million endowments. today don't have $70 million manhattan condos. they don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on grammy-winning performers performing at their galas. they don't do any of those thing. yet they are able to provide needed services to women. why is it that planned parenthood has got to have that in order to have the same services? do you believe that they have to have that? >> well --
>> it's yes or no. that's all it is. >> with all respect, that wasn't really a question. i would say i really stand by the fact that we provide health care to many, many women in this country. >> the question was, have you got to have that in order to provide health care to women? other clinics don't have it and they don't have it. >> i'm not going to speak to every other clinic -- i think we provide excellent health care to women in this country. >> please answer the question. the question is do you have to have $100 million endowment. $70 million condos. >> i don't know what you're speaking of. with respect, i think it's important that the question here is do low income women in this country have the right to choose wherever they want to go to for health care. and 2.7 million of them choose planned parenthood. >> why don't you let them go to one of those $70 million condos. >> the gentlelady from texas is
recognized. >> thank you so very much for the courtesies extended. let me thank the chairman of the full committee for his courtesies, and to mr. cummings, certainly for his courtesies as well for my participation in this very vital hearing today. i am a member of the judiciary committee as well, and we held such a hearing some weeks ago. and so i can almost say deja vu. let me thank ms. richards, first of all, as a fellow texan, to thank her for the legacy of her family. that has always been engaged in public service. and that's what i consider you and planned parenthood as doing. coming from texas, let me cite the houston planned parenthood offices, of which i've been in, walked through, and seen the clinics, and seen individuals who fell into my arms, indicating that without planned parenthood, they would not be able to, in fact, have health care. let me ask you very quickly, as my time goes.
it may be as i've been listening this afternoon that we have been mixing more than apples and oranges. it might be apples and potatoes. because we're talking about abortion. when i say that, many of these questions have come forward. and i just wanted to read this quote from a senator in oklahoma. in discussing planned parenthood. my focus is to try to deal with the life issue. defunding planned parenthood is just a sideshow for the real event. has this come to your attention, ms. richards, that many are talking about something that really has nothing to do with your federal funding? >> well, i do think it's been a bit of a theme. i think that is one thing i'd like to say. it's important that i don't really believe that an organization, a health care provider should be discriminated against for providing a legal service. whether it's planned parenthood or a local community hospital or anyone else. >> let me follow up as well and hold this up and ask to place it into the record. let me cite for some of my
colleagues. ohio, 28 clinic, 80,000 patients, 66,000 on contraception. texas, 38 clinic, 150,000 patients and 108,000 on contraception and others dealing with sexually transmitted diseases. if those clinics went away, we're talking about 28 in a big state like ohio, 38 in texas. thousands of women losing access to health care. is that not correct, ms. richards? >> that's correct. >> and are you familiar with the texas cases which challenge or discuss the legislative initiatives that are literally implode clinics in texas, and the supreme court decision that ruled in 2014 and 2015. i think the united states supreme court pay be based on roe v. wade, may be based on the fact that abortion services which are not part of the funding here. but in any event, just so my
colleagues would know that, in my state of texas, the state law would have cut off 75% of reproductive health care clinics. the supreme court indicated that the texas law was unconstitutional, indicating that the separate work that you do, dealing with people's right to choose, is a lawful act and has nothing to do with federal funding, is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> and the supreme court has indicated that abortion by law is not illegal. in those cases. >> and i know a lot of these are still on appeal. i do think since we both come from texas, i think it's important to know that when the state of texas shut down the texas women's health program and planned parenthood's ability to serve women, there were 25% fewer women in texas that are receiving care as a result. so i think that's why it's so important that we don't ever put politics ahead of women's health. >> let me get these last two questions in. as a member of the house
judiciary committee, we deal a lot with the fbi. let me just ask you about mr. delayeden's work. is he a member of the federal bureau of investigation, to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge. >> is he an fbi agent to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge. >> is he a member of the department of justice? >> i don't believe so. >> has the health and human services ever investigated you per se about your medicaid reimbursement, meaning something you have not been able to answer or file another filing? >> we follow all the laws at the state and federal level every day. >> so he has been engaged in an investigation, has no authorization, is not a member of the fbi, which i recall dastardly and deceitful. are you aware that mr. deladen has pleaded the fifth amendment in some cases that he's engaged in? >> i have read that in the paper. >> are you aware that it has been checked that mr. deladden stole the identity of the
president of the feminist club, have you heard that? >> i have also read that in the paper. >> and let me cite not you, but rh realty check. would we then say that we're here today to speak about the facts, and therefore are you saying on the record today that planned parenthood does not use any federal funding for anything that is not authorized under the laws of the united states of america? >> we follow all the laws at the state and federal level, and whenever we find issues, we take care of them and address them. >> i thank the gentleman and the committee for its courtesy. i yield back. >> the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you. a few questions. i'd just like to clear up some things. first of all, you talk about the percentage of women who are low income served by planned parenthood. i am under the impression that if you have a younger person, a
21-year-old college student or even a 16-year-old high school girl, that for the purpose of defining income, you leave out the mother's income. so, for example, if a billionaire's daughter made $5,000 last year came to planned parenthood, she would be considered low income, is that correct? >> i would have to check on that. i don't know of any billionaires' daughters that are coming to planned parenthood, but i'm happy to look into that and to address your question. >> okay. i'm saying for the purpose of the family planning waiver, i think it's pretty well publicized that both high school kids, college kids, for the purpose of determining income, they look at -- they're considered a family of one despite living with parents, is that true? >> i'm happy to check on that. and i think at a lot of high school or college women, they may at that point -- they don't have the resources of their parents and a lot of women do come to us because they need family planning but can't talk to their families. >> okay, the next question i
have. when i look at cities around me that have a planned parenthood clinic, usually they're medium sized cities. 20,000, 30,000, $40,000. usually in those cities, as a guy, i could go to many clinics locally that have all the machines that one would need. all of these clinics, as far as i know, take medicaid dollars. so you could go to any of those clinics to get any medical service you could. i guess what i'm getting at is, in my opinion, if planned parenthood disappeared tomorrow in those towns, there would still be three or four or five clinics or hospitals providing all the medicare -- all the medical care you would want. and quite frankly, providing superior care to people who were on medicaid. >> i think we do provide
superior medical care. >> i'm saying superior care in the sense that on medicaid, without the deductibles and co-pays, it'sial usually better insurance than people have. i guess what i'm saying is if planned parenthood were not around in those cities, with the exception of a couple of abortions clinics, there would be three or four other clinics available to do any women's health or men's health or health of any nature whatsoever. don't you feel that's true? >> well, i don't. and i have been to wisconsin a lot. obviously you know more about wisconsin than i do. but i know we have 22 health centers in the state of wisconsin. and last year we provided -- or the most recent year we have figures, we provided health care to 65,000 people. and actually, i think we were the largest -- don't quote me on this, but i will check to make sure, but largest family planning network in wisconsin. so that's pretty hard to replace. >> well, no. you're not answering my question.
if you have a city in which there are four full service clinics that you could go to, and a planned parenthood clinic, i would assume that the planned parenthood disappeared, you would have four or five other clinics to deal with anything that medicaid paid for. >> well, we just haven't seen that to be true. i used the example of the state of texas where they eliminated planned parenthood as an option in communities, and 25% of women lost access to care. so i actually don't think the-- there are a number of reasons people go to planned parenthood. it's personal choice, as well as availability and the services we provide. we are the provider that we think best meets their health care needs and i do think that's what's at stake here. >> okay. you emphasized before the lack of ability of access to health care for minorities. do you feel that you have a special role to fill there? >> i'm sorry. it's very hard to hear you. >> before you emphasized that you felt there was a lack of access of health care to
minorities. do you feel that you have a special role to play there? >> we have a special role to play for anyone who is underserved, and that includes folks of low income, folks of rural america, folks in areas of the country where there is less public health care access. so it really is all across the gamut. >> one more question and i'll come back to the prior one. in wisconsin, all of the planned parenthood clinics are in sizable cities in which there are, as far as i can see, probably multiple other medical providers. is there anywhere in the country that you know of, any metropolitan area in which planned parenthood offers services in which there are no other providers to take medicaid dollars? >> it's just beyond what i know. i can't really respond to that. but i think, again, if we're in 22 communities in wisconsin, which we are, according to these records, that's a lot of -- i'm not saying those aren't all decent size cities, but that's a lot of rural community as well.
>> i thank the gentleman. now i recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, ms. richards. planned parenthood action engages in political activity, is that correct? >> the planned parenthood action fund, which is a separate corporation, does. >> and you're compensated by that organization? >> well, i mean, i get compensation to reimburse my costs. >> yes or no. >> i'm just trying to explain. >> i understand. and i know how these things work. i think you've already answered it. it's, what, 31,000? >> i don't have the figures for last year. but whatever my compensation was, it is for work that i do on behalf of the action fund. >> where does planned parenthood action get its funding? >> private donations. we have eight million supporters in this country and a number of donors from all over the country. >> and is there any money from planned parenthood that goes to
planned parenthood action? >> the planned parenthood action fund, which is -- it does advocacy and it does electoral work. there is advocacy -- >> i know what they do. i'm asking -- >> well, i'm trying to be responsive to your question. >> for brevity sake -- and out of respect, for brevity sake. >> as you know, for a 501c organizations, they cannot do the majority of the work as electoral work. that's under irs code. >> i understand that. >> so i think between 65% and 75% of the work of the action fund is nonelectoral. >> and you also have a pack, is that correct? >> yeah, i was just going to -- yes, there is a federal pac. >> and just round figures, what did it spend in 2014? >> how much the federal pac spent in 2014? i can get that for you. it's obviously public record. i just don't have it for you. >> where does the pac get its money? >> it raises its money from
individuals. >> are you compensated by the pac? >> i don't believe i have ever been compensated by the pac. although i know that the federal law requires if you are doing work on behalf of a federal candidate, i believe you actually have to -- your time has to be paid for by a pac. >> do you have any oversight over the pac, any managerial responsibility? >> sure. >> you're supposed to be compensated if you do any work for the pac and you need to check that out. i want to go to this. in 2004, you founded a group called america votes a grass roots organization focused on elections. how many of these organizations collaborate with or are inco incorporated into planned parenthood's -- >> you're asking me about a job before planned parenthood? i'm sorry, could you restate the question? >> how many of these organizations are collaborating with or have been incorporated into planned parenthood's
political operation? >> i really don't know. >> so i would assume that some do because you don't answer? it's either yes or no. >> i think you asked me how many, and i said i don't know. a lot of these organizations work together. we could get more information for you. >> that would be helpful. you've got these high paid executives. interestingly enough, 44 of your highest paid executives make more than any cabinet member. 28 of them make more than any member of the cabinet. that's over 200,000. you've got another 11 that make over 300,000. that's more than anybody in the cabinet. any supreme court justice. the chief justice. you've got four that make more than the president. not counting you. are any of them expected to make political contributions? >> by who? i'm sorry. >> by you.
>> no. >> do you direct political contributions to candidates? >> the pac does. >> do you have any input on who gets -- >> no, there is a pac committee that votes. >> are you on that pac committee? >> i'm not on the pac committee. >> do you have any input? >> no, the pac committee votes. >> so there's no collaboration between you and the pac committee? >> i haven't sat on a pac committee meeting for a long time. >> all right. >> we operate -- we meet the federal laws and restrictions. >> i appreciate how you want to answer this. your pac advertised itself as being non-partisan. yet in 2014, 100% of the contributions went to democrats. in 2012, 99% went to democrats. >> i actually don't believe that's accurate. >> that's what's reported here. >> i'll go back and look. we support -- we've done work on behalf of -- anyone who supports
women's rights. >> mr. chairman, i'm reclaiming my time. i just want to point out that it's not non-partisan. and that you've given almost -- i mean, in every case, almost every dime to democrats, including to nine members of this committee. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we welcome any republican who supports women's rights and women's health care access. thank you. >> the gentleman yields become. we'll now recognize the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a couple of questions for ms. richards and i'm going to yield whatever is remaining to the chairman. peter welch sits right down there on the other side, he's a gentleman from vermont, a democrat. peter and i do not agree on very many issues, but there's not a more well-regarded member of our body, i don't think. and the evidenced that today by making it crystal clear that he
makes an effort to understand the analysis and the conclusions of those who may have a different position from the one that he holds. do you understand how some of us may at a base level disagree with you on the origin of life. do you make that same effort to understand that my friend from vermont peter welch makes? >> i fully respect and i think i spoke to this in my opening statement with the chairman, that i understand people have different feelings about whether abortion should be legal in this country or not. i think it is important that it is legal, and we can disagree. i know thinking people disagree about abortion, and our goal at planned parenthood is to be judgment-free. and to allow people and women in particular to make their own decisions about their pregnancies. >> well, we're going to get to the judgment-free zone here in just a second. but you mentioned abortion. how about partial birth
abortion. do you understand how some of us may support a ban on partial birth abortion? >> well, don't want to -- i'm not trying to be argumentative, but that was a political formulation, not a medical formulation. but i certainly understand that it was passed and is the law of the land. and planned parenthood certainly meets the requirements of that law. >> my question wasn't whether you follow the law. my question was whether or not you understand how some of us may be very much opposed to that practice. that was my question. >> i understand how people can disagree based on their religious beliefs, their background, their own personal experiences. and i also understand that people sometimes change over time. and that's the human condition. >> are you suggesting those who hold a contrary view to you need to change? is that why you added that line, ms. richards? >> no, i'm just candidly in my
ten years at planned parenthood, i have experienced myself, people who have picketed outside of our health center and then found themselves in need of our services and we try not to judge -- >> and i'm sure that there have been employees who grew tired of participating in the practices that they were participating in and they may have gone to the other side, might they? how about opposing abortions on the basis of gender or race. can you understand how people may support legislation that banned that? >> as i tried to say, i appreciate that people have a lot of different views on the issue of abortion, and there's any number of different pieces of legislation you could describe, and i think fundamentally at planned parenthood, we take the position that we trust women to make their decisions about their pregnancies. i have made my own decisions as well, so i feel like i walk --
can kind of walk in those shoes. >> i appreciate the way you like to frame the issue, that you're the reasonable one, and those of us who have a contrary position are not reasonable. >> i didn't say that. >> no, that's exactly the last answer you gave. that's exactly what it was, much like your people evolve to a more advanced viewpoint, much like that comment was also directed -- >> those were not the words i said. i said sometimes people change their opinions. >> it's not always what you say. sometimes it's what you mean. in 2014, you disagreed with my colleagues 100% figure. what percent of your money did go to democratic candidates in 2014 if it wasn't 100%? >> i told him i will look. i know that we support republicans across the country. and i wish there were more republicans -- >> name me some? name me some republicans in congress that you support? financially. >> well, i don't actually want -- in this public forum, i'm not going to raise their
names because they have been such the target of their fellow party members, but i'm happy to provide that to you later. >> well, the donations are public. >> yes. i don't know in terms of federal office. i was thinking more broadly in terms of support for candidates across the country. i know there are republicans that we support. and again, we would like to support more republicans for office. we wish there was -- we don't believe that women's health or women's rights should be a partisan issue. >> and we don't think eating dinner salads and drinking wine -- we have a problem with that, too. i think you can understand why we would be opposed to what we saw on some of the tapes. would you not? >> i think we may have -- i feel like everything i've answered, you see in a different way. so i respect your opinions and i am always open to listening to other people's opinions. >> the gentleman's time is
expired. we will now recognize the gentleman from iowa for five minutes. >> thank you, ms. richards, for being here today. i think it's down to you and i. >> no kidding. we could do this somewhere bri about your background. >> i'm a texan. i -- >> your professional background. >> oh, shoot, i thought you wanted to go back to the beginning. i was a labor organizer for many years with low-wage working women. i eventually had three kids and moved to washington, d.c., and i had the honor of working for leader pelosi for a period of time on capitol hill. i started a couple of nonprofits and then about ten years ago i was hired to be the president of planned parenthood. >> do you have any accounting in your background, any finance in your background? do you understand -- i asome you understand well accounting? >> i have taken accounting courses as part of my -- fortunately my board has been
very kind and offered me those kinds -- that kind of supplementary learning in my job. but i have -- obviously we have a chief financial officer. we have an entire accounting department at planned parenthood i work with closely. >> the reason i ask in a former life i was a public company ceo so i know a fair amount about revenues, expenses, overhead, costs, so i'd like to talk a few minutes with you about that. what's your understanding of overhead? >> well -- >> what is overhead? >> what is overhead? >> yes, what is overhead in planned parenthood? >> generally it's the cost just to keep the organization going. is that what you're -- >> salaries? salaries? building expenses, rent? >> it really depends on -- it depends on what you're talking about. if we're in a grant it could be potentially overhead could be considered. it really just depends, but, yes, of course, all organizations and the one you ran as well we have an office.
we have staff. we have electricity and -- >> it must be considerable on half a billion dollar corporation, overhead must be considerable, it has to be to run that organization. >> it depends on on your definition of considerable. we have a very dedicated staff and we provide health care to a lot of people, education to a lot of people and so, yes, it requires -- >> do you profit or make money on abortion services? >> so i think we've discussed this many times and i'll just try to take it one more time. i run the national office. we do not provide abortion services. we have provided to this committee, if you're on the committee, all of the financial information about the national organization. our audited financial statements. our 990s -- >> do your providers do they make money, your individual affiliated offices, do they make money providing abortions? >> i think -- >> in general.
>> in general? there is no general. i mean, we're a nonprofit. there's three sources of income. there are federal and public -- >> i'm talking about individual -- >> -- and there are -- >> if someone cannot afford to pay for -- what's an abortion cost? >> it depends depending on the state, depending on the procedure. excuse me? >> what if someone can't pay for the abortion? >> we raise private dollars to help women who cannot afford abortion er services if they wa an abortion and can't afford it we try to raise money to supplement the cost of an abortion. >> only through private donations is you make up the difference is what you're saying. >> i don't, but our 59 affiliates have a variety of -- >> does planned parenthood or make money on reimbursement of medicaid services? >> we don't make a profit on anything. >> it depends on you how -- you have $127 million excess every year. >> medicaid reimburses and as you know across the country
medicaid rates vary widely. in some states they come closer to paying for the cost of the services. in a lot of states we actually have to raise private donations to supplement what it costs for -- >> so you may make money on some medicaid reimbursement services, correct? >> i don't know that anyone does but i'd be happy to find out. >> i'm sure you're well aware it is against the law to use federal money on abortions. >> i am well aware. >> are you saying today with 100% surety that not one money of taxpayer money is used to pay for abortions? yes or no, 100% surety. because that is against the law. >> the federal law allows for federal dollars to pay for abortion services in very rare instances, rape, increest and t
life of the mother. we don't use federal money except for those that are permitted by law. sorry, we were talking over ourselves. i didn't hear you. >> the profits generated from taxpayer funded sources such as medicaid reimbursements are any of those profits used to help cover the costs of abortions? >> and i don't believe there tax i will absolutely -- we can go through all of our 990s happy to go through with the committee but i don't believe there are any profits from me medicaid services in this country. as i said that's one of the issues we're addressing here is there are too few people willing to take medicaid patients because often the med cade payments do not pay for the cost of birth control, a pap smear, a breast exam and the like. >> what's critically important is how you -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield back. >> now recognize the gentle woman from tennessee miss black for five minutes.
>> thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to sit in this committee and thank the wntion for being here today. you stated that hr 3134 the defund planned parenthood act of 2015 would and i quote block access for folks who deserve high quality compassionate care close quote. now, miss richards, i would like an opportunity for you as i ask you these questions to give you an update to change these false claims. so, i wrote the defund planned parenthood act of 2015. so let me tell you what it does do. it does not -- it does not -- reduce public health funding by a single dime. and it would, in fact, increase that funding for community health centers by $235 million. were you aware of these facts when you made that statement? >> congresswoman, we've
discussed many times today that, in fact, the congressional budget office estimated that if women were denied the ability to go to planned parenthood 390 -- >> reclaiming my time you said it would block access. it would block access. >> our patients -- >> yes or no, miss richards, do you acknowledge that community health centers outnumber planned parenthood clinics by roughly twif-1? >> i don't know the exact number. i know there are more community health centers than planned parenthood. >> you will acknowledge they outnumber planned parenthood clinics? >> i'm happy to acknowledge that. >> do you acknowledge the facilities funded under my bill provide a broader range, these facilities provide a broader range of services, than what is offered at planned parenthood, for instance, mammograms? >> i'm not an expert on what all family health centers provide. we work in close collaboration and often they send us their
patients that the they can't see for birth control. >> you will acknowledge that you do not provide mammograms which was acknowledged in this committee today? >> we've never made any -- >> they do actually provide mve. >> what i said i don't know what all the community health centers provide. we're clear about what we provide at planned parenthood and the number of women who voluntary choose to come to us. >> reclaiming my time. knowing the house passed bill actually increases public health funding and redirects those federal dollars to clinics who offer more preventive health care than planned parenthood you can't substantiate your claim that the bill blocks access to care. it does not block access to care. now, i do want to just end this by -- >> we disagree. >> -- by saying that you had a statement that you made that quality affordable health care is your entire mission. and you made that statement. i actually wrote it down when
you made it. why would you not make an executive decision, then, to temporarily discontinue your abortion services which only represents by your testimony 3% of the services that you provide and continue providing what you consider to be your entire mission of 97% of the services provided? >> well, because abortion is a legal service in america and we think it's important that women do -- you quoted me as saying quality affordable health care and that includes access to quality and affordable abortion services as well. >> but you acknowledge that -- do you say that abortion is health care? >> yes, it's a health care service for women three in ten women in this country have accessed abortion at some point. >> you define it as health care? >> absolutely as women's health care and women would agree. >> if i'm a nurse and you look
at medicine abortion is not health care. it is not considered to be health care. now, let me turn -- >> we simply agree to disagree on this matter. >> let's look at the definitide. let me finish up here because you've continued to say that the videos were doctored. are you aware of a report that just came out today that has been released by colefire that shows in their report and they say the forensic analysis removes any doubt that the full length undercover videos released by the central for medical progress are authentic, have not been manipulated and analysis scrutinized every second of the video recorded during the investigation and released it to a date and found only bathroom breaks or other nonpertinent footage had been removed. i would say if you were to compare the two companies now that have done this investigation, you see colefire has reported on every secondof