U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–905 PDF 2015

PLANNED PARENTHOOD EXPOSED: 

EXAMINING ABORTION PROCEDURES AND 

MEDICAL ETHICS AT THE NATION’S LARGEST 

ABORTION PROVIDER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 8, 2015 

Serial No. 114–43 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OCTOBER 8, 2015 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 3 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 4 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 6 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 7 

WITNESSES 

Anthony Levatino, M.D., Obstetrician and Gynecologist, Las Cruces, NM 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

Susan Thayer, former Planned Parenthood Manager, Storm Lake, IA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19 

Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26 

Luana Stoltenberg, Davenport, IA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ............... 76 

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

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from Americans United for Life, submitted by the Honorable Bob 

Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ............................................................. 114 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 126 
(IV) 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

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

Documents at: 

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

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

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104048 
(1) 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD EXPOSED: EXAMINING ABORTION PROCEDURES AND MEDICAL 

ETHICS AT THE NATION’S LARGEST ABORTION PROVIDER 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Smith, Chabot, Forbes, King, 

Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Chaffetz, Labrador, Collins, 

DeSantis, Walters, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Bishop, Conyers, Nadler, 

Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson, Pierluisi, Chu, Deutch, 

Gutierrez, Richmond, DelBene, Jeffries, Cicilline, and Peters. 

Staff Present: Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; John Coleman, 

Counsel, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice; 

Kelsey Williams, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff 

Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian & 

Chief Legislative Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Chief Oversight Counsel; 

and James Park, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

and Civil Justice. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good afternoon. The Judiciary Committee will 

come to order. 

And, without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on ‘‘Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining Abortion Procedures and Medical 

Ethics at the Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider.’’ And I will begin 

by recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

Before I go to the statement on that, I would like to take a moment to remember the life of former Congressman William Donlon 

‘‘Don’’ Edwards, who passed away this month at the age of 100. 

Don Edwards was first elected to Congress in 1963, where he 

had a distinguished career working on the Voting Rights Act, the 

Civil Rights Act, and served on the House Judiciary Committee 

during the investigation of the Watergate scandal. During this time 
2 

on the Judiciary Committee, Don Edwards served with former Congressman Caldwell Butler, whom I worked for at the time. 

When Don Edwards left office in 1995 after 32 years of congressional service, he was succeeded by our very own Zoe Lofgren in 

California’s 16th District. I had the opportunity to serve for 2 years 

with Congressman Edwards myself and appreciated his service. 

And it is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member to 

share a few words about our former colleague. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Members of the Committee and our witnesses and all of our 

friends that are here in the hearing room, I knew Congressman 

Don Edwards and worked with him, and he has left a lasting legacy. 

He was a progressive, principled man who never stopped believing that the coercive power of the government should be subject to 

the highest levels of scrutiny. And I think we still carry on that 

tradition in Judiciary even now. And he also wanted us never to 

forget that our government exists through the consent of the governed with the purpose of preserving, and not eroding, our rights. 

I am grateful to have been a friend and a colleague of his during 

his service and career in Congress, and we will miss him and remember him. 

And I thank the Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman from California is recognized. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just briefly would like 

to join in the eulogy for Congressman Don Edwards. 

In 1970, I graduated from Stanford University and came out to 

Washington without a job, and Don Edwards hired me. And I 

worked for him for 9 years, both here in Washington and also in 

the California office. We went through the impeachment of Richard 

Nixon, along with your prior boss, and many other issues. 

He was a marvelous man, a mentor to me, and someone who was 

widely admired not only in the Congress but in the district that he 

served. I was honored to be able to succeed him in the House of 

Representatives and kept in frequent touch with him. 

He watched all of us in his retirement, and he lived to the ripe 

old age of 100 years. So he had great satisfaction in his life. He 

made his mark. 

And I would just like Members to know that we will be having 

a special order about Congressman Don Edwards on the 21st of October, and Members are invited to participate. 

And, like Mr. Conyers—I never got to serve with him in the Congress, but, as his staff, I certainly was a huge admirer. 

And I thank the Chairman for allowing me these few words. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from New York? 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add a 

few words about the late Don Edwards. 

I had the honor of serving with him for 2 years; I was elected 

in 1992. And I knew of him well before I came to Congress. I knew 

of him as one of the leading defenders of civil liberties in the 

United States, and I greatly admired him from afar. 

When I came to Congress and I told the then-Speaker—I was 

asked, ‘‘What Committees would you like to serve on?’’ and I said, 
3 

‘‘Well, I’d like to serve on the Judiciary Committee.’’ I was told 

that, well, if I wanted to serve on the Judiciary Committee, I had 

to get Mr. Edwards’ approval as to my attitudes on civil liberties. 

And so I had an interview with him, and I must have satisfied his 

interest in my attitude toward civil liberties because he approved 

it, and I became a Member of this Committee. 

But such was the esteem in which he was held by the leadership, 

that he was given, apparently, that prerogative with new Members. 

And he richly deserved it. He was a leading voice of civil liberties 

for many, many years, and he served this country well. And we 

should thank him for that, thank his memory for that. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

And now I will begin my opening statement. And we have votes 

on the floor, but perhaps I and the Ranking Member can get our 

statements in before we go to vote. 

A child’s heart begins to form 3 weeks after conception. By the 

fifth week, her heart begins to beat, pumping blood throughout her 

little body, and her arm and leg buds begin to grow. Her brain begins to develop. Her eyes and ears begin to form. By the sixth 

week, her hands and feet begin to form. 

The following week, her toes can be seen. During this time, she 

kicks and will jump if startled. By 8 weeks, the baby’s facial features become more distinct. In weeks 9 through 12, the baby may 

begin sucking her thumb. By 10 weeks, she can yawn. By 11 

weeks, she can make a wide variety of facial expressions, including 

a smile. By 12 weeks, which marks the end of the first trimester, 

she is capable of making a fist. 

But, on any given day, her developing parts, including her heart 

and brain, may be harvested at many Planned Parenthood clinics 

that participate in this practice across this country. If her organs 

are harvested, she will not carry a name. At most, she will be referred to as a ‘‘product of conception.’’ 

Despite the horrific nature of these practices, Planned Parenthood’s outrage has been directed not at the harvesting of baby 

parts but at the people who caught them talking about doing it on 

video. Indeed, Planned Parenthood argues that the videos released 

by the Center for Medical Progress are highly edited, but it is noteworthy to point out that the group hired by Planned Parenthood 

to review the videos found that their, ‘‘analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.’’ 

A second analysis, commissioned by Alliance Defending Freedom, 

reached a similar conclusion. According to that report, the recorded 

media files indicate that the video recordings are authentic and 

show no evidence of manipulation or editing, quote/unquote. 

Today’s hearing is about the content contained within the videos, 

including admissions made by Planned Parenthood officials that 

raise serious questions about the treatment of our Nation’s children 

who may be born alive following a failed abortion. For example, the 

vice president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains stated that, in some cases, babies are being born intact. She further 

stated, ‘‘Sometimes we get—if someone delivers before we get to see 

them for a procedure, then they are intact. But that’s not what we 

go for.’’ 
4 

To ensure babies born alive in such instances are given necessary 

medical care, the House passed H.R. 3504, the ‘‘Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,’’ which requires that babies surviving 

an abortion be given the same treatment and care that would be 

given to any child naturally born premature at the same age and 

imposes criminal penalties at the Federal level to prevent the killing of innocent human babies born alive. 

Moreover, these videos indicate abortion practitioners may have 

adopted new abortion procedures to avoid the risk of violating the 

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. In the first video, the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America stated that, ‘‘the Federal abortion ban is a law, and laws are 

up to interpretation.’’ Today’s hearing is in part intended to explore 

what interpretations by abortion practitioners have arisen since 

the law’s passage. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses here today. 

And it is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of 

the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we want to take 

a moment to walk through the events that have led up to this hearing. 

We know from reports that the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 

Franks, and others in the majority had viewed at least some of the 

videos about a month before they were released. On July 15 of this 

year, the first video was released to the public. Now, these were 

posted online over the August break. 

Three different House Committees then launched simultaneous 

congressional investigations. On September 9, this Committee held 

its first hearing on the topic, at which the witnesses for the majority refused to discuss the videos at the heart of the matter. There 

have been since two other hearings on this topic, making this the 

fourth in the House in less than a month. And, finally, the majority 

has announced that it will create a new taxpayer-funded Select 

Committee to extend this so-called investigation indefinitely. 

As I reflect on these events, I think we are able to draw some 

conclusions, the first being that there is no evidence in the record 

whatsoever of illegal activity at Planned Parenthood. 

On behalf of its 59 affiliates, the Planned Parenthood Federation 

of America has provided this Committee with hundreds of pages of 

documents. The organization is cooperating fully with all three investigations in the House. The documents we have reviewed so far 

allow us to go point by point to correct the false impressions created by the highly edited, highly misleading videos that nominally 

inspired these investigations. 

Chairman Chaffetz, who sits on this Committee and is running 

his own investigation into these matters in the Oversight Committee next-door, has agreed with this conclusion. Last week, Wolf 

Blitzer asked the gentleman from Utah, ‘‘Is there any evidence that 

Planned Parenthood has broken any law?’’ Mr. Chaffetz answered 

with the truth: ‘‘No, I’m not suggesting that they broke the law.’’ 

I’m led to conclude that this hearing, much like the broader attack on Planned Parenthood, may be political theater—may be—de-
5 

signed to rally the conservative base and roll back the constitutional right to choose, wherever possible. 

In practice, these investigations have had little to do with the 

videos, which some went to great lengths not to discuss at our last 

hearing. They have everything to do with appeasing the most conservative elements of one of the parties during an interparty leadership crisis and a fractious Presidential primary. 

Now, we may have a legitimate difference of opinion on Roe v. 

Wade, but it remains the law of the land. And the attempt by some 

to relitigate a 40-year-old decision places thousands of lives at risk. 

Many women enter the healthcare system through a family planning provider. In fact, 6 in 10 women who receive services at a publicly funded family planning center consider it their primary source 

of medical care. Planned Parenthood alone serves 2.7 million Americans every year. 

Abortion procedures make up an incredibly small amount of the 

services it provides, only 3 percent. For example, in 2013, Planned 

Parenthood provided 900,000 cancer screenings to women across 

the country. 88,000 of those tests detected cancer early or identified 

abnormalities that might signal a greater risk of cancer. 

In short, in this way and so many others, Planned Parenthood 

saves lives. And so the attempt to defund Planned Parenthood 

places each of those lives at risk. We should be grateful that the 

effort has been almost entirely unsuccessful, at least so far, on the 

Federal level. 

And, finally, it is important to observe all of the good work this 

Committee could be doing instead of meeting for the second time 

on this subject in 30 days. And as we head into our second election 

season since Shelby County v. Holder, this Committee has done 

very little, could do a lot more, to restore the enforcement mechanisms of the Voting Rights Act. 

We have done little to advance comprehensive immigration reform even though proposals remain overwhelmingly popular and 

would probably easily pass the House. We’ve got to start acting. 

And so 11 million men and women are waiting to come out of the 

shadows and contribute to our economy and communities, and, at 

this pace, I fear they will have to wait even longer. 

And although the scourge of gun violence has touched every one 

of our districts, including yours, Mr. Chairman, we have all but ignored calls to strengthen background checks and close the gun 

show loophole. 

All of these solutions would save lives. All of them are consistent 

with our constitutional rights. And the list of missed opportunities 

is long, and our time is short. We should not spend one more 

minute or one more taxpayer dollar vilifying Planned Parenthood 

without a speck of evidence to back these claims. This Committee 

has too much important work to do. 

And I urge my colleagues to help us put this kind of theater behind us. We can do better. 

I thank the Chairman and appreciate the opportunity to express 

my views. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

There is 1 minute remaining in this vote. Happily, we are 

amongst 320 Members who have not yet voted. So head to the floor. 
6 

And the Committee will stand in recess until these votes conclude and resume immediately thereafter. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Committee will reconvene. 

And it is now my pleasure to recognize the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, the gentleman 

from Arizona, Mr. Franks, for his opening statement. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, the tiny diaper that I hold in my hand is one 

made to fit premature born-alive babies. Micro-preemies or ultrapreemies they’re called. 

And when I first saw one of these little diapers, it moved my 

heart very deeply, because I think I saw it in the context of the 

numerous video recordings that have been released in recent 

months that tragically demonstrate that the Kermit Gosnells of 

this world have no monopoly on the abortion industry’s unspeakable and murderous cruelty to pain-capable unborn children and to 

little babies who actually survive the trauma of going through an 

abortion. It is the little babies of exactly this age and stage of development that these little diapers were made to fit. 

And, Mr. Chairman, it is easy for me to understand why the 

abortion industry’s shrill response to these videos has been to try 

to discredit them in every way possible. They really have no choice. 

Because if they fail to discredit these videos or to dissuade people 

from seeing them, they know that anyone with a conscience who 

does watch these videos will finally see Planned Parenthood and 

the abortion industry for who they truly are, and this murderous 

industry will be rejected in the hearts of the American people. 

However, Mr. Chairman, a forensic digital analysis by Coalfire, 

Incorporated, of these video recordings conclusively indicate that 

the videos are indeed authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or deceptive editing. 

Now, this conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video 

file dates, timestamps, the video time codes, as well as the folder 

and file naming scheme. The uniformity between the footage from 

the cameras from the two different investigators also confirms the 

evidence that these video recordings are completely authentic. 

Mr. Chairman, our response as a people and Nation to these 

atrocities incontrovertibly documented by these videos is vital to 

everything those lying out in Arlington National Cemetery died to 

save. 

The House of Representatives very recently passed H.R. 3504, 

the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. And I am told 

that Democrats in the Senate intend to filibuster even this bill that 

protects not unborn children but, rather, little children who have 

been born alive. 

Now, no one can obscure the humanity and personhood of these 

little born-alive babies or claim conflict with the now completely 

separate interests of the mother and the child, nor can they take 

refuge within this schizophrenic paradox Roe v. Wade has subjected 

this country to for now more than 40 years. 

Mr. Chairman, the abortion industry has labored for all of these 

decades to convince the world that born children and unborn children should be completely separated in our minds. In the past, 
7 

they have said that, while born children are persons worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and are not worthy of protection. 

But those same people who now oppose this bill to protect bornalive children suddenly have the impossible task of trying to rejoin 

these born children and these unborn children back together again 

and then trying to convince us all to condemn them both, born and 

unborn, as now collectively inhuman, and neither of them are worthy of protection after all. 

To anyone who has not invincibly hardened their heart and soul, 

an honest consideration of this absurd inconsistency is profoundly 

enlightening. Because, you see, Mr. Chairman, this country has 

faced such a paradox before; we have faced such self-imposed blindness before. Because there was a time in our own parliamentary 

rules in this House that we banned discussion or debate about the 

effort to end human slavery in America. 

But that debate did come, Mr. Chairman, and with it came a 

time when the humanity of the victims and the inhumanity of what 

was being done to them finally became so glaring, even to the hardest of hearts, that it moved an entire generation of the American 

people to find the compassion and the courage in their souls to 

change their position. And now, to this generation, Mr. Chairman, 

that moment has come again. 

And I would implore every Member of this Committee to ask two 

questions in the stillness of his or her heart: First, is deliberately 

turning a blind eye to the suffering and murder of the most helpless of all of our children born alive in the United States of America who we have truly become as a Nation? And, second, is voting 

against or filibustering against a bill to protect born-alive human 

babies from agonizing dismemberment and death who I have become and want to be remembered for as a Member of the United 

States Congress? 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, 

for his opening statement. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time, although I don’t necessarily appreciate the subject matter. 

This is the second time in 30 days we are holding a full Committee hearing ostensibly on whether Planned Parenthood has violated any laws. As Ranking Member Conyers and many others, including Chairman Jason Chaffetz of the Oversight and Government 

Reform Committee, have made clear, there is no credible evidence 

supporting any allegation that Planned Parenthood has broken any 

law. 

Ironic that we do this on a day that we honor Don Edwards, who 

did so much with the Constitution and Civil Justice Committee, 

who passed so many laws to protect people’s civil rights and to 

move this country forward, and to this date when the Committee 

does very little. 

Knowing that there is no ground to stand on regarding the legality of Planned Parenthood’s actions, it is obvious the majority has 

chosen instead to move the goalposts. I suspect this hearing, like 
8 

our last one, will ultimately dissolve into the never-ending argument of whether the Supreme Court rightly decided Row v. Wade, which for more than 42 years has guaranteed a women’s constitutional right to choose. It is the law of the land. There is no such 

thing as murder. Murder is unlawful. This is lawful, a woman’s 

choice, and within a certain period of time. 

We are not likely to hear anything and learn anything new, but 

we will hear the same arguments. But one thing we will see is we 

will get a little bit something new. Most of my Democratic colleagues and I strongly believe in a woman’s right to choose and 

that that is a fundamental right, it is a pillar of women’s equality, 

and the Court got it right in Roe v. Wade. And I suspect most of 

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe the opposite— 

different values, different backgrounds they have than I have. The 

Court agrees with me. 

I also suspect they disagree with me and most of my Democratic 

colleagues who strongly believe in Planned Parenthood and the 97 

percent of its work that is not abortion: critical healthcare services, 

including health screenings, birth control counseling, particularly 

cancer, women’s cancer. 

These services are especially important for women of low income 

and minority women, for whom Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid reimbursements that constitute most of its Federal funding— 

Medicaid reimbursement for treating, observing, testing women for 

cancers and giving them birth control and advice. 

In fact, it is against the law to use Federal funding because of 

the Hyde amendment. So none of that exists. 

So we are likely to have an unfocused, scattershot, and ultimately pointless discussion over whether the constitutional right of 

women to make decisions about their bodies is a good or a bad 

thing—a question the Supreme Court clearly answered in 1973, but 

here we are today. 

We could be talking about voting rights, something that Don Edwards voted for and greatly supported and my friend Julian Bond, 

memorialized on Tuesday, championed, but have taken a big step 

back. We could be talking about gun violence, people dying in Oregon, people dying all around this country, but we are not doing 

that. We could be talking about pardons and commutations for nonviolent offenders. And, thankfully, the White House is taking action, and this Committee will do some more action on that with a 

comprehensive bill. And I thank the Chairman for his working with 

our Ranking Member on that. But we are not. 

Let us not forget this entire exercise is based on heavily edited 

videos doctored to make Planned Parenthood to be engaged in unlawful conduct, which it isn’t, including the for-profit sales of fetal 

organs and tissues. 

At this point, I ask unanimous consent to play a compilation prepared by Oversight and Government Reform Committee Democrats 

of the portion of the unedited video of Dr. Deborah Nucatola, portions that we do not see in the edited video, in which she makes 

clear that Planned Parenthood does not sell tissue or organs for 

profit, and to enter that video into the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the video will be shown and 

made a part of the record. 
9 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

And if we could start playing it at 30 seconds and end it at 1:55. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

I think that is very telling testimony, all edited out and wouldn’t 

be seen in those videos that they are talking about, where she 

makes clear it is not about making money, it is not Planned Parenthood’s policy, and Planned Parenthood’s policy is different. 

Some might donate it for free and give it for free, it is a woman’s 

decision, and it is not our deal. But he kept going, ‘‘Right, right, 

right,’’ like, ‘‘Stop saying this. This isn’t what I want to hear.’’ 

Last night, the Cubs beat the Pirates four to nothing. If they 

would have edited the game, take out the four runs, and we would 

still be playing. And that would be as fair a presentation of the 

game as there has been of this video. 

This investigation of Planned Parenthood is based on false premises, one after another after another. It is time to stop wasting 

time, get on with meaningful work, and stop picking on women and 

trying to take their choice away. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

We welcome our distinguished witnesses today. 

And if you would all please rise, I will begin by swearing you in. 

Do you and each of you swear that the testimony that you are 

about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? 

Thank you. 

The witnesses may be seated. 

And let the record reflect that they all responded in the affirmative. 

And I will now begin by introducing today’s witnesses. 

The first witness is Dr. Anthony Levatino. Dr. Levatino is a 

board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist. Over the course of his career, Dr. Levatino has practiced obstetrics and gynecology in both 

private and university settings, including as an associate professor 

of OB-GYN at the Albany Medical College. 

Our next witness is Ms. Susan Thayer. Ms. Thayer worked for 

nearly 18 years as the center manager of the Planned Parenthood 

clinic in Storm Lake, Iowa. She was fired in December 2008 when 

she expressed concerns about webcam abortions. She has since become a strong voice for life and educates the public about abortion 

and specifically webcam abortions. 

Our next witnesses is Ms. Caroline Fredrickson. Ms. Fredrickson 

is president of the American Constitution Society. She has been 

widely published on a range of legal and constitutional issues and 

is a frequent guest on television and radio shows. Before joining 

American Constitution Society, Caroline served as the director of 

the ACLU’s Washington legislative office and as general counsel 

and legal director of NARAL Pro-Choice America. 

Our final witness is Ms. Luana Stoltenberg. Ms. Stoltenberg is 

a public speaker for Operation Outcry, a ministry that seeks to 

educate the public about the devastating consequences of abortion. 

Ms. Stoltenberg is a resident of Davenport, Iowa. 

Welcome to you all. 
10 

Your written statements will be entered into the record in their 

entirety, and I ask that you each summarize your testimony in 5 

minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light 

turns red, it signals that your 5 minutes have expired. 

And, Dr. Levatino, we will begin with you. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY LEVATINO, M.D., 

OBSTETRICIAN AND GYNECOLOGIST, LAS CRUCES, NM 

Dr. LEVATINO. Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Committee. I only have 5 minutes, so I’m going to get right to it. 

Second-trimester D&E abortion is performed between roughly 14 

and 24 weeks of gestation. Your patient today is 17 years old; she’s 

22 weeks pregnant. Her baby is the length of your hand plus a couple of inches, and she’s been feeling her baby kick for the last several weeks. And she’s asleep on an operating room table. 

You walk into that operating room, scrubbed and gowned, and 

after removing laminaria, you introduce a suction catheter into the 

uterus. This is a 14 French suction catheter. If she were 12 weeks 

pregnant or less, basically the width of your hand or smaller, you 

could basically do the entire procedure with this, but babies this 

big don’t fit through catheters this size. 

After suctioning the amniotic fluid out from around the baby, you 

introduce an instrument called the Sopher clamp. It’s about 13 

inches long. It’s made of stainless steel. The business end of this 

clamp is about 2 1/2 inches long and a half-inch wide. There are 

rows of sharp teeth. This is a grasping instrument, and when it 

gets a hold of something, it does not let go. 

A D&E procedure is a blind abortion, so picture yourself introducing this and grabbing anything you can blindly and pull, and 

I do mean hard, and out pops a leg about that big, which you put 

down on the table next to you. Reach in again, pull again, pull out 

an arm about the same length, which you put down on the table 

next to you. And use this instrument again and again to tear out 

the spine, the intestines, the heart, and lungs. 

The head on a baby that size is about the size of a large plum. 

You can’t see it, but you’ve a pretty good idea you’ve got it if you’ve 

got your instrument around something and your fingers are spread 

about as far as they go. You know you did it right if you crush 

down on the instrument and white material runs out of the cervix. 

That was the baby’s brains. Then you can pull out skull pieces. 

And if you have a day like I had a lot of times, sometimes a little 

face comes back and stares back at you. 

Congratulations. You’ve just successfully performed a second-trimester D&E abortion. You just affirmed your right to choose. 

When we talk about abortions even later, 23 weeks and up—and 

we’re talking up to 35 weeks and essentially all the way to term— 

the most commonly used procedure at this point is called the 

MOLD technique. I have not done any of these myself, but I can 

have the abortionists themselves in their clinic describe what we’re 

talking about. 

Will you please run my video? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The video will be run. 
11 

[Video shown.] 

Dr. LEVATINO. So, for $10,000, a woman 27-weeks pregnant gets 

to labor alone, unattended, in a hotel room, with no one there to 

watch her vital signs or otherwise attend her. And if her baby delivers into a toilet, her own dead son or daughter, so be it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Levatino follows:] 
12 
13 
14 
15 

ATTACHMENT 
16 
17 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Dr. Levatino. 

Ms. Thayer, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF SUSAN THAYER, FORMER PLANNED 

PARENTHOOD MANAGER, STORM LAKE, IA 

Ms. THAYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. 

From April 1991 to December 2008, I was employed by Planned 

Parenthood of the Heartland as center manager of its Storm Lake 

and Le Mars, Iowa, clinics. I spent 17 years learning from the inside out just how Planned Parenthood works. I concluded that no 

business, certainly no healthcare business, should view a woman’s 

body as a profit center, but that is what Planned Parenthood is all 

about. They’re more concerned with profits than about the health 

of women. 

When I first began working for Planned Parenthood, I was convinced that I was serving my community and the health needs of 

women. As the parent of 5 children, including 3 adopted kids, and 

a foster mom to 130 kids over the past 28 years, I didn’t fit well 

into Planned Parenthood’s corporate culture. Though during my 

initial interview I expressed concerns about abortion, I was hired 

and promoted by Planned Parenthood. I believed that I could help 

reduce abortion and serve women. 

Over time, I learned that I was wrong to trust Planned Parenthood. I’m here today because all people need to know the truth 

about Planned Parenthood. 

In 2002, the remains of a newborn, a full-term child, were discovered in a trash dump in my small Iowa town. After determining 

that the child had been born alive, the sheriff investigating the 

murder of this child came to my clinic to seek medical records of 

potential suspects. 

I assumed that Planned Parenthood would want to cooperate 

with this criminal investigation. Instead, Planned Parenthood 

turned the murder into a fundraising opportunity and falsely 

claimed that all women’s health records would be compromised and 

that a woman’s right to abortion was under attack. As it often 

seems to do, Planned Parenthood raised thousands of dollars from 

this sordid event. 

Like most of Iowa’s Planned Parenthood clinics, birth control 

pills were dispensed to patients without the patients ever having 

been seen by a medical professional. Once a week, a nurse practitioner would come to the Planned Parenthood clinics to sign off on 

birth control prescriptions that had been dispensed the prior week. 

In 2007, I learned more about the truth of Planned Parenthood 

when it implemented webcam abortion. Here is how this was to 

work: A woman with a positive pregnancy test would be offered a 

webcam abortion on the spot so she couldn’t change her mind. 

Next, a nonmedical clinic assistant with minimal training would 

perform a transvaginal ultrasound and scan the image to a doctor 

in another location. The doctor would briefly talk to the woman by 

a Skype television connection. Then the doctor could push a button 

on her computer that opened a drawer in which were the abortion 

pills. The woman was told to take one set of pills at the clinic and 
18 

then, to complete her abortion, take the second set of pills at home 

48 hours later. 

Planned Parenthood instructed its clinic workers to tell women 

who experienced complications at home to report to their local ER. 

The women were told to say they were experiencing a miscarriage, 

not that they had undergone a chemical abortion. 

Planned Parenthood cut its costs to the bone by performing 

webcam abortions with virtually no overhead—no onsite doctors, no 

real medical staff, very little equipment, and no expense for travel 

to a remote clinic. And yet it charged women the same fee for a 

chemical abortion as it did for a surgical abortion. Webcam abortion is obviously a big moneymaker for Planned Parenthood. 

I expressed my concerns to Planned Parenthood management 

that webcam abortions were unsafe and possibly illegal. Today, 

Planned Parenthood’s webcam abortion scheme is so financially 

successful it’s been implemented in both Iowa and Minnesota. They 

touted it as the first in the Nation and had plans to expand 

webcam abortion to every State. 

After I left Planned Parenthood, I realized that it had been 

fraudulently billing Iowa Medicaid’s program. It had filed false 

Medicaid claims totaling about $28 million. First, through its CMail program, it dispensed without a prescription medically unnecessary oral contraceptive pills to Medicaid patients. Second, it 

billed Medicaid for abortion-related services, in violation of Federal 

law. Third, it coerced donations from patients, in violation of Medicaid regulations. 

Each of these initiatives was implemented to benefit Planned 

Parenthood’s bottom line. None benefited women’s health. Planned 

Parenthood is organized as a tax-exempt nonprofit; nevertheless, 

these are some of the reasons that it has reported $765 million in 

excess revenue over the last 10 years. 

When I first began working at Planned Parenthood, I trusted 

them and thought its leaders knew what was right, but I learned 

that it could not be trusted. In fact, it does not deserve to be trusted by any American, woman or man. Planned Parenthood is more 

concerned about its bottom line than it is about the health and 

safety of women. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thayer follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Ms. Thayer. 

Ms. Fredrickson, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF CAROLINE FREDRICKSON, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte and 

Ranking Member Conyers and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Caroline Fredrickson, and I’m the president of 

the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. I am testifying today in my personal capacity and do not purport to represent any institutional views of the American Constitution Society. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify here 

today in response to this most recent attack on Planned Parenthood. 

Planned Parenthood is a nearly century-old healthcare provider 

that plays a critical role in securing the right to health care for millions of Americans. Each year, Planned Parenthood health centers 

provide services such as family planning counseling and contraception, breast exams, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections to 2.7 million patients. And no less than one in 

five women in the United States has visited a Planned Parenthood 

health center at least once in her lifetime. 

These services help women prevent an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies and 217,000 abortions every year. These are 

services that women, men, and young people in this country desperately need and that many would go without should they lose access to Planned Parenthood’s health centers. 

Planned Parenthood provides services at approximately 700 

health centers, located in every State in the Nation, and 54 percent 

of these health centers are in rural or medically underserved areas 

or areas with shortages in health professionals. As many experts 

have opined, there are simply insufficient numbers of alternative 

healthcare providers to absorb the patients who need care should 

they lose access to Planned Parenthood. 

Planned Parenthood health centers are particularly crucial for 

poor women in this country. More than half of Planned Parenthood’s 2.7 million patients each year rely on public health programs, such as Medicaid, to cover their costs. And 78 percent of 

Planned Parenthood’s patients live with incomes of 150 percent of 

the Federal poverty level or less. Indeed, in 68 percent of the counties with a Planned Parenthood health center, Planned Parenthood 

serves at least half of all safety-net family patients. 

Planned Parenthood is an integral part of the healthcare system 

in this country. It provides critical healthcare services to many 

women, particularly poor women, who might otherwise go without 

these services. 

This most recent round of attacks on Planned Parenthood was instigated by an anti-choice organization, the Center for Medical 

Progress, whose members deceptively infiltrated Planned Parenthood clinics and conferences, claiming they worked for a tissue procurement company. The CMP 

representatives surreptitiously and possibly illegally recorded 

meetings with Planned Parenthood staff and then, over the course 

of several months, released numerous videos of these encounters. 
25 

CMP now claims the videos show that Planned Parenthood acted 

illegally in selling fetal tissue and violating the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. 

At the outset, regardless of the content of the videos as released 

by CMP, which arguably show no wrongdoing at all, those videos 

are unreliable and unusable as any evidence because they’ve been 

so heavily and selectively edited and CMP has not released to anyone the full, unedited versions. 

In fact, Planned Parenthood hired experts to review the videos 

and assess their authenticity. And those experts, including Grant 

Fredericks, who is a contract instructor of video sciences at the FBI 

and one of the most experienced video experts in North America, 

found many deceptive edits in those videos. In many cases, CMP 

edited dialogue out of context in ways that substantively altered 

the meaning of the dialogue. In other cases, large segments of dialogue were simply omitted altogether. 

There is no question that both the shorter videos and the socalled full-footage videos are selectively and intentionally edited 

and incomplete. As such, in the words of the expert analysis, the 

manipulation of the videos does mean they have no evidentiary 

value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official 

inquiries. 

Moreover, every jurisdiction that has conducted investigations 

into Planned Parenthood’s activities have found no wrongdoing. As 

of this date, six States have completed investigations into whether 

Planned Parenthood violated any laws in its fetal tissue donation 

program. All six unanimously concluded that Planned Parenthood 

did not. 

And, in fact, Representative Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, whose 

Committee questioned Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards at 

length just last week, admitted to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, ‘‘No, I’m not 

suggesting that they broke the law.’’ 

In sum, there’s absolutely no evidence here that Planned Parenthood has violated any laws. 

As we all know, this is one in a long length of videos that have 

been used to try and undermine women’s access to the full reproductive health care that they are entitled to under the law in 

America and have need of to ensure they can live full lives. 

So I respect the Committee and thank you for inviting me here 

to talk about this important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fredrickson follows:] 
26 

Prepared Statement of Caroline Fredrickson, President, 

American Constitution Society for Law and Policy 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Ms. Stoltenberg, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF LUANA STOLTENBERG, DAVENPORT, IA 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all of the Committee Members. 

My life has been devastated by abortion. I was a teenager when 

I had my first abortion. I was too afraid to tell my parents that I 

was pregnant, and my boyfriend didn’t want a baby, so I made my 

appointment with Planned Parenthood. 

I was so scared when I arrived. I paid my money, and I sat in 

the waiting room. I was then taken back to a room with a nurse 

and asked how I felt about this. I told her this had to be wrong, 

it had to be a baby. She told me it was just a blob of tissue, that 

this abortion would be easier and safer than if I carried it to term. 

I was a scared teenager with no medical knowledge or experience. They were the trusted medical professionals and adults, so I 

thought. So I trusted and I believed them, and I went through with 

the procedure. 

The type of abortion that I had was a vacuum aspirator method. 

This is the most common abortion done in the first trimester. I laid 

on the table, and I waited for the doctor that I had never met before, which is most times the case, to come in. This doctor was cold, 

and he was unfriendly. He told me to lie still and that it wouldn’t 

take long. 

I had no anesthetic for the pain. He said that I would just feel 

tugging and a slight sensation and cramping. That was not true. 

It was the most extremely painful procedure I’ve ever had done. 

I could hear the increased labor every time the suction machine 

would pull a part or a limb of my baby from my body. 

Each time I kept trying to sit up to see what was going into that 

jar. Was it my baby? They kept pushing me back down and telling 

me to lie still. As soon as the procedure was over, they quickly 

wheeled the jar out of the room with my baby’s remains. 

They knew it was my baby. They saw the head. They saw the 

feet. They saw the arms. 

I wasn’t told about fetal development when I was at Planned 

Parenthood. They didn’t tell me that my unborn baby that they 

were ripping out of my body would have arms, have legs, have a 

heartbeat, fingerprints, and she could feel pain. 

Why didn’t they want to tell me that? Were they afraid that I 

would change my mind? It must have been a wrong choice if, after 

knowing all the facts, I chose life for my child. 

On the way home, I was in severe pain. I laid in the back seat 

crying and bleeding profusely. And when I got home, I called 

Planned Parenthood, and I told them about the pain and the bleeding. They told me that this was no longer their problem, that I 

would need to call my own physician. There was no way I was 

going to call my own physician. I was too scared. I was too 

ashamed, and I didn’t want my parents to find out what I had 

done. So I painfully laid there that day and wondered if I would 

die. The happy, fun-loving Luana did die that day along with my 

baby. I became depressed, angry. I started drinking heavily. I 

started doing drugs, and I became very promiscuous. I hated my-
34 

self. My life was spinning out of control. I became pregnant two 

more times and chose abortion both times. Each experience was 

similar. To the first, except for the second abortion, they showed 

me blobs of tissue on slides and told me that that’s all they would 

be removing, not a baby. By the third abortion, I was so ashamed 

and embarrassed, embarrassed, I didn’t even give them my real 

name. I gave them a friend of mine’s name. I cringe to think what 

would have happened if there would have been complications or I 

died on the table that day. Who would they have called? Would my 

parents have ever found out? 

Having an abortion didn’t solve any of my problems. It only created new ones and larger ones. The way I dealt with them was 

more alcohol, more drugs, anything to numb the pain, and I even 

tried to kill myself. 

But God had a plan for my life. I found hope and forgiveness in 

Jesus, and I accepted him as my Lord, and my life began to 

change. I met a wonderful man, and we were married, and we 

wanted to start a family, but we were having no success. I went 

for endless tests. And one of the tests that I had done was a dye 

test to determine if there were blockages in my fallopian tubes. 

During the test, my doctor asked if I had ever had abortions, and 

I admitted that I had three. She showed me on the screen where 

my tubes were damaged and mangled from the abortion procedure. 

She said, I would never have children because of the abortion, and 

she wanted me to have a hysterectomy so I would not have an 

atopic pregnancy. She left the room, and I laid there paralyzed and 

let it soak in that the only children I would ever bear I had killed. 

I had to tell me husband that he was never going to be able to 

have his own children because of the choices I had made. I wondered if he would want a divorce. We had a hard road of tears and 

sleepless nights and counseling sessions. I learned to forgive myself 

and the abortion workers for not telling me the risks and the possibilities of infertility. I was angry that I was lied to and that I didn’t 

get all the facts so that I could make the choice for myself. I 

thought they were pro-choice and cared for women. I didn’t feel 

cared for. I felt used, and I felt abused. I live with the consequences and the pain and the regret of abortion every day along 

with many other women. 

In front of me are pages of sworn testimonies of women who have 

been hurt and abused physically, emotionally, psychologically by 

Planned Parenthood and other abortion industry in general. I’m 

here representing them as well as myself, and it is a heavy load. 

I’m asking you to please consider these stories in mind when you 

make legislation and when you make decisions about defunding 

Planned Parenthood and about abortion. 

All of us who have been hurt by abortion are being made to pay 

Planned Parenthood with our tax dollars. You know, that’s like 

being forced to pay your abuser over and over again. Abortion is 

not health care. It is the taking of an innocent life. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stoltenberg follows:] 
35 

Prepared Statement of Luana Stoltenberg, Davenport, Iowa 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Ms. Stoltenberg. 

We’ll now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions for 

witnesses. And I’ll begin by recognizing myself. 

Before I begin my questioning, I would like to show a quick video 

that puts a human face on the issues presented here today. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Ms. Stoltenberg, thank you for sharing with us 

your very personal experiences following the three abortions you 

underwent. On Planned Parenthood’s Web site, there are frequently asked questions associated with abortion. One considers 

whether there are long-term risks associated with abortion stating, 

‘‘Safe, uncomplicated abortion does not cause problems for future 

pregnancies,’’ and, ‘‘Ultimately, most women feel relief after an 

abortion.’’ 

Based on your experience, do you think these characterizations 

provide women with all the information they need about the risks 

associated with the abortion procedure they are about to undergo? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. No, I do not. I didn’t hear any of those risks 

from them, and I don’t believe that’s a true statement at all. My 

story proves that, that this was not safe for me. I couldn’t have 

children. And all these stories prove that. People have been physically harmed. I have a friend who lost a daughter on the table of 

an abortionist. There are ramifications, and it does hurt women. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Dr. Levatino, the 2009 National Abortion Federation textbook on 

comprehensive abortion care states that, some patients or clinicians prefer initiating the abortion procedure with a nonliving fetus 

for emotional reasons or to avoid the problem of a transiently living 

neonate at the time of fetal expulsion. That’s on page 185. What, 

in plain English, are they referring to in this sanitized statement? 

Dr. LEVATINO. They are referring to—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Turn your microphone on. 

Dr. LEVATINO. I can’t remember that microphone. 

They are referring to bringing about a fetal death prior to initiating the procedure. You can do that a couple of ways. One is 

through the use of digoxin, which is actually what was on that 

video. And another one is through the use of potassium chloride. 

Potassium chloride is, I’ll say, a more dangerous drug, and it is 

much more difficult to administer effectively to cause fetal death. 

By injecting digoxin either in large—moderately large doses into 

the amniotic sac or directly into the fetus, as was shown there, you 

can cause a fetal death. And that obviates the problem—if you are 

successful in that, you obviate the problem of a live birth. With a 

D&E abortion that I described initially, between 14 and 24 weeks 

and dismembering a baby—dismemberment abortion, if you wish, 

there’s no chance of a life birth at all. But when you use these later 

techniques where you are essentially inducing labor through the 

laminaria and another drug called misoprostol, if you don’t induce 

fetal death ahead of time, then you run the risk of a live birth, and 

then you have the situation of a person under the law, even as our 

laws are constituted, that has a right to medical care, which is obviously not going to be available in hotel rooms or in clinics. These 

women need to be in hospitals. I think that’s what they’re referring 

to. 
42 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

One more question, Dr. Levatino. Why did you end your practice 

of doing abortions? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I did over 1,200 abortions over a 4-year period in 

private practice, not counting the ones that I did during my training. I met my wife during my first year of training at Albany Medical Center. We got married about a year later and found that we 

had an infertility problem. After years of failed infertility treatment and several years trying to adopt a child, we were blessed 

with adopting of a little girl that we named Heather in August 

1978. As sometimes happens in those situations, my wife got pregnant the very next month, and we had two children 10 months 

apart. Two months short of my daughter Heather’s 6th birthday, 

she was killed in an auto accident, literally died in our arms in the 

back of an ambulance. Anyone who has children might think they 

have some idea of what that feels like, but unless you’ve been 

through it yourself, you have no idea whatsoever. 

I know people find it hard to believe, but what do you do after 

a disaster? You bury your child, and then you go back to your life. 

And I don’t remember exactly how long it was after my daughter 

died that I showed up at Albany Medical Center OR No. 9 to perform my first second-trimester D&E abortion. I wasn’t thinking it 

was anything special; this was routine to me. But I reached in, literally pulled out an arm or a leg, and got sick. You know, earlier 

on, I described stacking of body parts on the side of the table. It’s 

not to, you know, gross people out, to use a simple term. When you 

do an abortion, you need to keep inventory. You have to make sure 

you get two arms and two legs and all the pieces. If you don’t, your 

patient is going to come back infected, bleeding, or dead. So I soldiered on and finished that abortion. And I know it sounds, as I 

said, hard for people to believe, but I’m telling you straight up my 

experience. You know, after over 1,200 abortions, first and second 

trimester up to 24 weeks, and all the rest of it and being very dedicated to it, for the first time in my life I really looked, I really 

looked at that pile of body parts on the side of the table. And I 

didn’t see her wonderful right to choose, and I didn’t see all the 

money I just made. All I could see was somebody’s son or daughter. 

And I stopped doing late-term abortions after that and, several 

months later, stopped doing all abortions. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan for his questions. We have a vote on and 

about 12 minutes remaining. So I think if you wanted to proceed, 

we can get those done. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir. I would like to go forward. Thank you. 

And I want to thank all the witnesses, but I have questions for 

Ms. Caroline Fredrickson, please. 

I’m going to quote from our Chairman’s memorandum on this 

hearing, quote: ‘‘The Purpose of this hearing will be to hear from 

witnesses on the issues surrounding the alleged acts of Planned 

Parenthood.’’ 

So, without commenting on its authenticity, does the video 

played by Dr. Levatino earlier have anything whatsoever to do with 

Planned Parenthood? 
43 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. I don’t see the relevance of the video to a 

hearing that’s supposed to be focused on Planned Parenthood itself 

and any allegations, unsupported as they may be, of wrongdoing. 

So, no, Mr. Conyers, I don’t see how they relate to this hearing. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, can you describe the results of the independent forensic analysis of the videos released by the Center for 

Medical Progress? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Yes. The independent examination by the forensic experts found that the videos were completely unreliable because they had been so heavily edited and manipulated and that 

they could not be shown to prove any evidence of any type of 

wrongdoing. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, as you note, Ms. Fredrickson, in your testimony, six States—Missouri, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, and South Dakota—have looked at the allegations of 

wrongdoing at Planned Parenthood affiliates. 

Can you report, to your knowledge, what they have found? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. All of them found that there was no basis for 

any finding of any wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, and so 

those investigations were dismissed. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, what would happen to women if Roe v. Wade 

were overturned, as you know, the landmark case involving a woman’s right to choose? Would women still choose to end their pregnancies? Would those procedures be safer than those provided by 

Planned Parenthood today? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Mr. Conyers, it’s true and unfortunate that 

when abortion was illegal in this country, women did seek abortions. And, unfortunately, those illegal abortions are dangerous and 

put women’s lives in jeopardy, and women do, nonetheless, seek out 

abortions. So it is imperative that abortion remain safe and legal 

in this country. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Now, there’s some who want to push to defund Planned Parenthood. Some have claimed that there are enough other clinics to absorb Planned Parenthood’s patients if Planned Parenthood affiliates are forced to close their doors. Is that true? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. That has been described as actually ludicrous 

by people, experts in public health who say that there is no way 

that these health centers could fill the gap that is provided by 

Planned Parenthood, which is an anchor for women’s health care 

in America and is, in fact, the leading health provider of reproductive health care for women. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, I’m just about through. Is there adequate capacity in the health care system to absorb all of Planned Parenthood’s patients? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. No. There is clearly no capacity to absorb 

those patients. Those patients would, unfortunately, have their 

needs go unmet. They would be less likely to have family planning 

counseling and access to contraception as well as to basic sexually 

transmitted disease testing and breast exams, and as a result, 

there would be more abortions in this country and not fewer. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 
44 

And, finally, what kinds of patients might be particularly 

harmed if those that want to defund Planned Parenthood were successful in their effort? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Mr. Conyers, poor women, low-income women 

in this country, women in rural areas would be the ones who would 

suffer most from not having access to the critical services that 

Planned Parenthood provides. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you very much for your testimony, and I 

thank the Chairman for the time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. There are 6 minutes remaining in this vote. So 

the Committee will stand in recess and reconvene immediately 

after the votes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. FRANKS [presiding]. The Committee will now come to order. 

And I will recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

At the end of the classic movie, ‘‘Casablanca,’’ an inspector issues 

an order to round up the usual suspects, and every time my friends 

on the other side of the aisle have a horrific act that’s done or alleged to be done by one of their allies, they issue a similar order 

to round up the usual excuses. We’ve heard them all here today: 

Don’t believe your eyes and your ears and what you hear on the 

video; look somewhere else. And for goodness sake, don’t focus on 

this horrific act when you could be focusing on some other horrific 

act that people we don’t like might have committed. This is just political theater. Somehow or the other, if you are sensitive and don’t 

like the fact that an unborn child is torn apart limb by limb, you 

really don’t talk about that. You have some kind of massive attack 

on women in general. And don’t look at the horrific act that this 

group might have done because, after all, they might have done 

other good acts that weren’t horrific. And excuses go on and on. 

And the reality is there is simply no point. There’s nothing that 

our friends on the other side of the aisle would look at this organization and say, we might like you, but that’s just too far, and we 

can’t condone that. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to now show a video, since this 

seems to be the day of the video. If we could roll that. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. FORBES. Now, Mr. Chairman, we’ve heard a lot today about 

editing the videos. There’s no evidence, Ms. Fredrickson, I think 

that you have it all, that this video has been edited or anything has 

been add to it. So the procedures that were discussed in there of 

crushing an unborn child in more than one place—an unborn child, 

by the way, that has a heart, a lung, and a liver that’s so well developed that Planned Parenthood would want to save the heart, the 

lung, and the liver, but would not want to save the life that created. Just one simple question, is that procedure too brutal for you? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Well, sir, I’d like to respond by saying that, 

as you started describing this as political theater, I would like to 

reiterate—— 

Mr. FORBES. No, ma’am. You could do what you want if you don’t 

want to answer the question, but you are not going to let the clock 

run on me. Yes or no, is it too brutal? 
45 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Sir, ultimately, this is an attack on women’s 

ability—— 

Mr. FORBES. That may be, but I’ve got 5 minutes. You can answer it or not. Do you feel that procedure is too brutal? And I understand if you don’t want to answer it, but can you say whether 

you feel it’s too brutal or not? Yes or no? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Sir, I feel abortion should be safe and legal in 

this procedure. 

Mr. FORBES. Is that procedure too brutal? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. I am not a doctor. I can’t comment on—— 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. Let me ask you this question: If you had a 

small dog, and you had to put that dog to sleep, would you think 

it would be too brutal for the veterinarian to crush that dog in two 

different places? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. I trust women and their doctors to determine 

what are the best—— 

Mr. FORBES. Let the record show that Ms. Fredrickson would not 

answer the question. 

Dr. Levatino, is that too brutal? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Every abortion involves the destruction of human 

life. I get frustrated sometimes with the, ‘‘Well, it’s not a baby; it’s 

a fetus.’’ I think we mostly got beyond the old blob of cells argument. You know what that is? That’s your son. That’s your daughter. Every abortion results in a dead son or daughter. 

I think it’s absolutely gruesome. And I thought the example you 

just gave a minute ago is perfect. If I abused a dog in my town, 

I’d be arrested. If I did abortions again, first trimester, second trimester, I would be a hero to so many people. It’s absurd. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, you know, the 

point that I think disturbs so many of us is the exact response we 

heard from Ms. Fredrickson. They won’t say that any procedure is 

too far or not enough or is too brutal, and that’s the purpose of 

these hearings because there’s a big difference between saying 

there may not be a law to protect against something that may not 

be illegal and to say there was no wrongdoing done because I think 

what we heard on that tape was wrongdoing. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. 

And I now recognize Mr. Nadler from New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We’ve heard a lot today about saving lives. After 23 years in 

Congress, I am still shocked by the hypocrisy we continually hear 

from my friends on the other side of the aisle. Since 2013, there 

have been over 900 mass shootings across the country, including 

300 mass shootings in 2015, an average of more than one mass 

shooting every day this year. 10,128 people have been killed this 

year alone. Americans are 20 times more likely to be killed by gun 

violence than people in any other developed country who are not 

more or less mentally ill than people in the United States. Although we have 30 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. has 

90 percent of the world’s firearm homicides—I think that’s 3 percent of the world’s population. 

How many hearings have my Republican colleagues held on gun 

violence since taking over the House since 2011? None. Since 
46 

Sandy Hook, there have been 142 school shootings, the most recent 

strategy occurring on a community college in Oregon. And since the 

Oregon shooting, 146 people have been killed and 128 shootings in 

the United States. Not one hearing, not one vote on gun violence. 

For comparison’s sake, 2 months ago, an extremist liar released 

a series of heavily edited and probably illegal videos filled with lies 

about Planned Parenthood, an organization that has been providing comprehensive compassionate health care to women for a 

century. In the last 30 days, the House has opened three official 

investigations, spent countless hours in Committee hearings, and 

just yesterday voted to establish a fourth investigation through a 

special select Committee. We have taken 20 votes this year alone 

restricting women’s access to health care. This very hearing is the 

Committee’s second in 30 days on Planned Parenthood, despite the 

fact that this entire farce is knowingly based on lies. 

If my colleagues had even one shred of evidence that Planned 

Parenthood had broken any laws, they would have gone to a State 

or Federal prosecutor right away. But they didn’t, and they don’t. 

Perhaps that’s why one of my Republican colleagues Mr. Chaffetz 

announced on TV just last week that there’s no evidence that 

Planned Parenthood has broken any laws. Imagine how many lives 

we could save if my colleagues devoted even one half of that attention to stopping the epidemic, and it is an epidemic, of gun violence 

in this country. My colleagues will claim that we cannot possibly 

take any action on gun violence because the right to own a gun is 

protected by the Constitution. It’s a very funny argument coming 

from the other side in light of this shameful hearing. You know 

what else is protected by the Constitution, a women’s right to access abortion and to make her own choices about her health care 

and whether to get an abortion. Yet the same colleagues who 

refuse to take any action on gun violence have no problem tossing 

the Constitution out the window to impose their own moral opinions on all American women. 

Measures passed at the State and local level put unbelievable restrictions on a woman’s right to access an abortion. Women must 

endure invasive tests and exams, wait 48 hours before they can undergo the procedure, take time off from work to visit the one facility in the State where abortion is still available, and endure endless badgering and even assault from protesters any time they try 

to enter a clinic they have a constitutional right to enter. They 

must face regular shaming from the Republicans on this Committee—almost all men, I may add—for making the choice to exercise their constitutional rights. 

Yet there are no such restrictions for acquiring a gun. You can 

walk into a gun show at noon and walk out 15 minutes later with 

a high-capacity magazine and a semiautomatic rifle in your hands. 

No background check, no ID, no way of making sure the gun purchase is going to someone with the proper safety training and with 

no history of domestic violence. Imagine if we made people jump 

through the same hoops to buy a firearm as they do for having an 

abortion. Imagine the invasive questions about why are you getting 

the gun and whether or not you considered all your options? Imagine the only way to get a gun was to prove through a police report 

that you have been raped or assaulted in the past or have a lawyer 
47 

certify that your life is in imminent physical danger unless you get 

a gun. Think about being shamed and shouted at and forced to look 

at graphic images of gun violence as you walk into a gun shop. 

That outrage you feel, that nagging feeling that the government 

has no right to put any restrictions on your constitutional rights: 

that is what a woman feels every time she tries to make a decision 

about her health and about whether or not to access her constitutional rights to an abortion. Until this Committee is ready to face 

the real crisis of gun violence in our country to take a firm stand 

that enough is enough and it’s time for real action, these proceedings will remain a hypocritical farce. 

Ms. Fredrickson, are you aware that the Center for Medical 

Progress obtained its nonprofit status from the IRS by representing 

itself as a nonprofit based on biomedical research and that they did 

not indicate their political activities in their application. And is this 

a fraud? Is this illegal to provide false information to the IRS? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Mr. Nadler, yes, to your first question. 

They did, indeed, make that application, and I do believe it is a 

fraud and illegal. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. My last question is, at the moment 

three House committees and one Senate committee on investigating Planned Parenthood. The majority is proposing using taxpayer dollars to establish a select panel that would launch its own 

fifth investigation. 

What do you make of the fact that the majority has committed 

these resources to attacking Planned Parenthood and almost none 

to investigating alleged illegal activity at the Center for Medical 

Progress? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Well, I think it indicates that the true agenda 

here is to undermine women’s right to make personal decisions in 

consultation with her doctor and her family and exercise her constitutional rights to choose her own health care. 

Mr. NADLER. As do the testimony of three witnesses who have 

nothing to say about Planned Parenthood but have to say about 

abortion generally. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

your testimony here today. And I was just listening to the gentleman from New York about the same hoops to buy a firearm as 

there is to get an abortion. I suggest, instead, in this city, for example, it’s probably much easier to get an abortion than it is to buy 

a gun or to possess one or to transport one. And that’s true also 

in many States, including Chicago, for example, where we’ve seen 

a lot of deaths and desecration that comes from violence there that 

doesn’t seem to be troubling the minority party either. 

But I’m looking through your testimony, Ms. Fredrickson, and I 

notice there that in your testimony you say that you list the numbers of lifesaving breast exams, the number of women whose cancer 

was detected early, 500,000 exams, 88,000 women whose cancer 

was detected earlier, very likely did save lives in doing that. I 

didn’t notice—oh, and also that it had prevented an estimated 

516,000 unintended pregnancies and 217,000 abortions every year. 

I haven’t seen Planned Parenthood produce a number that actually 
48 

took credit for the number of abortions prevented—excuse me, the 

number—yeah, the number of abortions prevented, neither did I 

see in this testimony the number of abortions that Planned Parenthood does in a normal year. Could you tell me what that number 

would be? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. I believe the number is about 350,000 per 

year. 

Mr. KING. What would the typical price be for a typical abortion? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. I do not know. I do not work for Planned Parenthood. 

Mr. KING. And could I just then, state, I will, off their Web site, 

$1,500. And when I punch that through my calculator, it was 

340,000 was the number I used, rather than 350, but we’re in the 

ballpark, and at $1,500 each, that turned out to be $510 million. 

And $510 million happens to be very close to identical to the exact 

number of the appropriations that would go into Planned Parenthood should the appropriations go forward, which it has out of this 

House at least for a couple of months. And it’s hard for me to accept the idea that this is a nonprofit organization. 

And I would turn to Ms. Thayer. Your testimony spoke to that. 

Seeing those kind of numbers, Ms. Thayer, could you be convinced 

that Planned Parenthood is nonprofit? 

Ms. THAYER. Officially, Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit, but 

their main concern is really their bottom line. We would have 

monthly managers’ meetings via the very Web cam system that 

they installed to do the abortions. And on a spreadsheet, they 

would have our goals, our quotas, for every single service and supply that we had. If we met our goal, that square would be green. 

If we were 5 percent below, it would be yellow. And if we were 10 

percent below our quota, it would be red, and we would have to 

have a corrective action plan on how to correct that. 

And abortion was one of those items. If we didn’t do abortions 

at that center, then we had a goal for abortion referrals. 

Mr. KING. Could you say clearly here in your testimony with confidence that in your years working for Planned Parenthood that 

even though Planned Parenthood has filed as a nonprofit, that they 

are profit driven? 

Ms. THAYER. Well, they are all about the profit. For example, 

they purchase birth control pills for $2.98 a cycle, bill the Iowa taxpayers $35 a cycle, are reimbursed a little over $26, and then they 

solicit from the very women that Ms. Fredrickson referred to as 

very low income, at or below poverty level, a $10 donation per cycle 

for each pill that goes out, each cycle of pills. 

Mr. KING. That’s clearly a distinct profit that most businesses 

would like to see in their margins. 

I would like to turn, again, to Ms. Fredrickson. And I recall in 

your testimony you talk about the gap that would be created if we 

didn’t fund Planned Parenthood. And would you say that there’s no 

way to fill the gap of services that you testified, that there’s not 

a way to fill that gap some other way? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. I think we already have evidence that it is 

nearly impossible, if not impossible, to fill that gap. The example 

from Texas, and even in Louisiana, where they have tried to cut 
49 

back on Planned Parenthood services and found that they could 

simply not serve the population that needed those services. 

Mr. KING. Tell me, if you would, how did Planned Parenthood 

grow into this, ‘‘service,’’ and into this gap that can’t be created another way? Are you submitting then that free enterprise and demand and transportation and funding and resources wouldn’t grow 

another entity or two or three or four or five that would fill the 

same demand that you’re saying that Planned Parenthood only can 

fill? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. With all due respect, sir, we’re talking about 

Medicaid patients that primarily get those services. So, no, I don’t 

think that they can be filled by the free enterprise system. 

Mr. KING. What do you think would happen? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Well, unfortunately, I think we would have 

more unintended pregnancy and ultimately, unfortunately, more 

abortions. 

Mr. KING. I just suspect that the witness hasn’t considered how 

this comes together, how free enterprise moves and accepts Medicaid checks, et cetera, how the clinic system works, how the 

healthcare providers are able to take a look at the marketplace and 

supply a demand. And I suggest that that would be supplied without any great concern, and I would yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I thank the gentleman. 

And I’ll recognize myself now for 5 minutes for questions—forgive me. 

I’ll recognize now Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you very much, all of the witnesses. Whenever we have witnesses come, it’s appropriate for 

Members of Congress to thank you because we know the sacrifice 

that you make to come. 

Let me also say that this is the Judiciary Committee, and it is 

important for us to do fact finding but also to maintain and adhere 

to current stated statutory or court law that has set precedents for 

the actions that may be in place now. Obviously, as legislators, we 

have the right to make determinations. 

Let me also say that I respect and appreciate the differences of 

opinion that are in this room and among those in this audience and 

on the panel as well. 

I’m interested in the truth, but I am one who has known people 

and have lived through the back-alley abortions and seen so many 

people suffer and die because of choices that they intelligently 

wanted to make, desperately had to make, and did not have the 

adequate medical care consultation that was needed. 

Let me thank you, doctor. Any time I see a doctor, I want to 

thank you for taking the oath and recognizing the need for good 

care. But I do want to go back to what this hearing is all about. 

Are you representing—understanding you are under oath, are 

you representing that the video that you showed was a Planned 

Parenthood video? 

Dr. LEVATINO. No, ma’am, I am not. The reason I brought that 

video forward, however—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have a short period of time. 

Dr. LEVATINO. Go ahead, ma’am. 
50 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you are not—that is not a Planned Parenthood video? 

Dr. LEVATINO. That is not a Planned Parenthood video. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I want to make clear that the hearing is 

‘‘Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining Abortion Procedures and 

Medical Ethics at the Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider.’’ 

Ms. Thayer. I’m sorry. 

Ms. THAYER. That’s okay. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me pronounce it correctly. Are you a lawyer? 

Ms. THAYER. No, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you trained in nonprofit law? 

Ms. THAYER. No, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would you then have a legal understanding 

of the rights and responsibilities of a nonprofit and what they are 

allowed to do? 

Ms. THAYER. Well, I ran a nonprofit for almost 18 years. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But are you a lawyer that understands the 

law of nonprofits, 501(c)(3)? 

Ms. THAYER. No, but I did have an understanding that—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But not from a legal perspective? So you 

would not be able to discern the appropriate response to Federal 

funding being used for Medicaid healthcare matters versus things 

that you have now become opposed to, which is your right to do? 

Not from a legal perspective. 

Ms. THAYER. One my biggest concerns was why they were soliciting donations, requiring donations from Medicaid-eligible women, 

and I knew that that wasn’t right. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, is that something that you are submitting into the record? Do you have some statements from the Medicaid women that were solicited? 

Ms. THAYER. I did that every day that I worked there. Their pills 

are $35. The donation is $10; will it be cash or credit? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, were you able to discern by the understanding of the bylaws of Planned Parenthood just what those requests might be? They have every right to engage—I’m not saying 

it’s true—in a voluntary perspective. Let me move—in a voluntary 

request that someone voluntarily may desire to do. 

But let me go to Ms. Fredrickson and set the tone for this particular hearing. 

It has been said by Congressman Chaffetz, the Chairman of the 

Oversight Committee, among many hearings that Planned Parenthood did, if I might quote correctly from the hearing, ‘‘violated no 

law.’’ Is Roe v. Wade the law of the land? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Yes, it is. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is that the right for women to choose? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Yes. That provides—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It’s no billboard pronouncement that we are 

promoting abortions. Is that the case? The law simply is on the 

Ninth Amendment, the right to privacy? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Under the Constitution, women have the right 

to make those personal decisions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Not an advertisement and billboard for abortion; it is a right to privacy under the Ninth Amendment? 
51 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me also say that the political agenda that 

has been framed, many of you have seen, I’m not going to ask you 

that question, but I’d like to focus on your understanding, Ms. 

Fredrickson, of what Planned Parenthood does. Do they legitimately have health care for women? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Planned Parenthood is our Nation’s leading 

provider for reproductive health care for women. They provide a 

critical service. One in five American women go to a Planned Parenthood clinic in their lifetime. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me pursue another line of questioning. In 

order to make sure that we know that we have—Planned Parenthood, excuse me, has a medical structure, as I understand it, abortion care is included in medical training, clinical practice, and continued medical education. Studies show abortion has 99 percent 

safe record, but more importantly, the 57,000 members of the 

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists maintains 

the highest standards of clinical practice have indicated that that 

is the case, and that there’s misinformation about how abortions 

today are handled versus, remember what I said, back alley and 

coat hanger. Are you familiar with that contrast of what women 

went through, what I say, 20, 30 years ago versus what they doing 

today? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Yes. I understand that before Roe v. Wade, many women died in back-alley abortions, and that it’s a tremendous advance in this country to have safe and legal abortions available for women. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me add the Fourth Amendment to my line 

of reasoning as well. 

But let me just ask this question as I close: On this video, are 

you familiar with the name Mr.—I’m sorry. His name is Mr. 

Daleiden? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. From the videos, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. Do you realize that he has not publicly 

released the entire unedited video? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. So I understand that no Member of this Committee has seen the entire unedited videos, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you realize that Mr. Daleiden has taken 

the Fifth Amendment, meaning not willing to come before any 

Committee? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And do you also understand that he stole the 

ID of a fellow classmate in high school who happened to be a feminist in order to portray the distorted political and biassed video? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Yes, I understand that is the case. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If we are here—and I close Mr. Chairman, 

and I thank you for this. If we are here to find the facts, is it not 

factual that through all of the hearings we’ve not heard of any 

statement about Planned Parenthood in essence violating the law, 

Roe v. Wade, constitutional amendments, and the Bill of Rights? 

Have you heard that, Ms. Fredrickson? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. No, no one has been able to substantiate any 

allegation of wrongdoing against Planned Parenthood, and indeed, 

Mr. Chaffetz has agreed that there is no wrongdoing. 
52 

Mr. FRANKS. The gentlelady time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary inquiry? 

Mr. FRANKS. State your point. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what the 

proper procedure would be. I think this witness has just testified— 

this hearing is entitled, ‘‘Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining 

Abortion Practices and Medical Ethics at the Nation’s Largest 

Abortion Provider.’’ This witness played a tape that he has now admitted under oath was not prepared in connection with Planned 

Parenthood at all, and so I would ask that it be stricken from the 

record of this hearing. 

Mr. FRANKS. The Chair is the judge of relevancy here, and the 

gentleman never had suggested anything to the contrary. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Well, Mr. Chairman, it was presented to a Committee having a hearing on Planned Parenthood with the clear implication that it was relevant to the hearing. It’s not. I’d ask—I 

make a motion to strike it from the record. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, would you also include in your motion the 

gentleman from New York’s testimony on gun control? Is that relevant to Planned Parenthood? 

Mr. CICILLINE. My motion is on the recording that Dr. Levatino 

presented that he admitted has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. I’ve made a motion, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, Mr. Nadler made his motion about—I mean 

his comments about guns almost entirely—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, point of order. I’ve made a motion 

that that be stricken from the record of this hearing as irrelevant 

to a hearing on Planned Parenthood, and I’d ask for a vote on my 

request. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’ll second the motion. 

Mr. FRANKS. All those in favor, say aye. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Mr. FRANKS. Would the gentleman restate his motion? 

Mr. CICILLINE. The motion is to strike from the record the video 

of Dr. Levatino, which was not prepared or generated in connection 

with any service by Planned Parenthood. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, there’s already been a vote. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Reserving my right to object, there was 

a unanimous consent request to enter the information into the 

record. The gentleman had his opportunity to object at the time the 

information was—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. No, that is not true. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Entered into the record. And I object to 

his motion as being out of order. 

Mr. CICILLINE. That is not correct. It was not a unanimous consent. It was—— 

Mr. KING. I have the floor. 

Mr. FRANKS. All those in favor, say aye. 

All those in favor, say aye. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Of my motion? Aye. 

Mr. FRANKS. All those opposed? 

The noes have it. 
53 

Mr. CICILLINE. I ask for a recorded vote. 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay. 

Ms. CICILLINE. I ask for a recorded vote. 

Mr. FRANKS. Recorded vote has been—I wonder if we are going 

to be able to strike that video from your memory. 

Mr. CICILLINE. All I’m asking is that it be stricken from the 

record of this hearing. It ought to have some relevance before people bring in a video which has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Recorded vote has been asked. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, regular order. Could the clerk call 

the roll? Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Smith? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chabot? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Issa? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Forbes? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. King votes no. 

Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Franks votes no. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Gohmert votes no. 

Mr. Jordan? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Poe? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chaffetz? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Marino? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Gowdy? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Labrador? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Farenthold? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Collins? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. DeSantis? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Ms. Walters? 
54 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Buck? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Ratcliffe? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Trott? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Bishop? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Conyers? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. Aye. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Nadler votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. 

Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye. 

Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. Aye. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Cohen votes aye. 

Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Aye. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Johnson votes aye. 

Mr. Pierluisi? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Ms. Chu? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Deutch? 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 

Mr. Gutierrez? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Aye. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Gutierrez votes aye. 

Ms. Bass? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Richmond? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Ms. DelBene? 

Ms. DELBENE. Aye. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Ms. DelBene votes aye. 

Mr. Jeffries? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Cicilline? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Mr. Peters? 

[No response.] 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chaffetz? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chaffetz votes no. 

Mr. FRANKS. Gentleman from Virginia? 
55 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Forbes votes no. 

Mr. NADLER. That’s the recorded vote. 

Regular order results, please. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Labrador? 

Mr. LABRADOR. No. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Labrador votes no. 

Mr. NADLER. Regular order. Could we have the results of the 

vote, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. The clerk will now—— 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS [continuing]. Report the vote. 

Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. State your inquiry. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, this is a motion 

to—— 

Mr. NADLER. Point of order. When we are in the middle of a roll 

call vote, you can’t have a parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. FORBES. I’ll ask a ruling from the Chair and take time to ask 

for the Parliamentarian. 

Mr. NADLER. Let’s report the vote. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Report the vote. 

Mr. FORBES. The Chairman can consider that. 

Mr. FRANKS. State your inquiry. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask if this was a 

motion to strike testimony of a witness or a video, and if we had 

such a motion because I don’t recall ever having one in this Committee where we were striking testimony of witnesses that had 

been made in here. 

Mr. FRANKS. As I understand, Mr. Forbes, the minority is asking 

to strike the video, which, of course, was given to them days ago 

and is not a surprise to them in any way. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. NADLER. It was given to us yesterday morning. 

Mr. CICILLINE. That’s the motion, yes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Regular order. 

Mr. NADLER. Regular order. Can we have the vote results? 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, this is regular order to have a parliamentary inquiry— 

Mr. FRANKS. Will the gentleman state his order? 

Mr. FORBES. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I’ll wait until they be quiet, 

then I’ll state my parliamentary procedure once they have gotten 

quiet. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Come on. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. They are finally quiet. 

Mr. Chairman, have we had a procedure before under our parliamentary rules to strike evidence of a witness because I don’t 

ever remember one taking place in this Committee? 

Mr. FRANKS. I’m told not in this Committee. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. All right. 

Mr. FRANKS. Please announce the vote. 
56 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. CHABOT. One last thing, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. Chairman, nine Members voted aye; seven Members voted 

no. 

[The rollcall vote follows:] 

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

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman .............................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .................................................

Mr. Smith (TX) .......................................................................

Mr. Chabot (OH) .................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ..........................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) ..................................................................... X 

Mr. King (IA) .......................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) ..................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) .................................................................. X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ....................................................................

Mr. Poe (TX) ...........................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) .................................................................. X 

Mr. Marino (PA) .....................................................................

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ......................................................................

Mr. Labrador (ID) .................................................................. X 

Mr. Farenthold (TX) ..............................................................

Mr. Collins (GA) .....................................................................

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ..................................................................

Ms. Walters (CA) ...................................................................

Mr. Buck (CO) ........................................................................

Mr. Ratcliffe (TX) ...................................................................

Mr. Trott (MI) ........................................................................

Mr. Bishop (MI) ......................................................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member .............................

Mr. Nadler (NY) ..................................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) .................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ............................................................ X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) ...................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ...................................................................

Ms. Chu (CA) ..........................................................................

Mr. Deutch (FL) ..................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .................................................................. X 

Ms. Bass (CA) .........................................................................

Mr. Richmond (LA) ................................................................

Ms. DelBene (WA) .................................................................. X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ....................................................................

Mr. Cicilline (RI) .................................................................... X 

Mr. Peters (CA) ......................................................................

Total ......................................................................... 9 7 

Mr. FRANKS. And the motion is agreed to. 
57 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

You know, one of the hallmarks of humanity throughout history 

is our astonishing proclivity as human beings to obscure, rationalize away an incontrovertible truth in our own minds or before 

others to achieve some solidarity or temporary acceptance with our 

own insular peer group. It’s always astonished me to what lengths 

we go on this issue. And I think I know why, because we never 

really ask this central question. And the central question is: Does 

abortion kill a little baby? If abortion doesn’t kill a little baby, then 

I’m here to pretty much suggest that we shouldn’t be having such 

a hearing or anything like that. But if abortion really does kill a 

little baby, then those of us seated in the greatest Nation in the 

history of the world, the land of the free, home of the brave, are 

sitting in the midst of the greatest human genocide in the history 

of humanity. And the victims are the most helpless of all children. 

We recently had a vote in the House of Representatives to protect born-alive children. There was not one person to my left that 

voted for that bill, born-alive children. And I would just suggest 

that if we’ve come to the moment in America where we no longer 

are willing to protect born-alive children, then it is time to reassess 

who we are and whether or not the Founding Fathers’ dreams still 

has any place in our society. 

Mr. Levatino, if a child is born alive during an abortion procedure, a doctor has an ethical duty to save that child, correct? 

Dr. LEVATINO. He does. He has an ethical duty to provide care, 

whether it’s lifesaving or palliative. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile 

Richards, has said in testimony that she had never heard of such 

a circumstance happening in Planned Parenthood clinics. Do you 

believe that among the hundreds of thousands of abortions Planned 

Parenthood commits every year that there are, in fact, children 

born alive but die because they do not receive appropriate care? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I can’t speak specifically from experience regarding Planned Parenthood in that regard. The reason I introduced 

the video was because Planned Parenthood has stated, and we understand that they do, perform late-term abortions. It has been 

stated, I believe by Ms. Richards, that they perform late-term abortions, ‘‘up to viability,’’ but that was never defined. So if you are 

going to be talking about late-term abortions in terms of Planned 

Parenthood, you need to know what the techniques are. That’s why 

I introduced the testimony that I did. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, based on your experience, what is your assessment of how low-income women’s health care could be met without 

Planned Parenthood? 

Dr. LEVATINO. With all respect to Ms. Fredrickson, her assertion 

and backing it up with statements from other people that it is ‘‘ludicrous,’’ were her words, that other providers could adequately 

take on Planned Parenthood patients is—the statement itself is ludicrous. 

It’s interesting, if you want to learn about low-income women 

and health care, you should come to southern New Mexico, where 

I’ve worked for over 13 years. This map, the Planned Parenthood 

facilities in New Mexico are in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Farmington, the three richest areas in the State. There isn’t a single 
58 

Planned Parenthood south of Bernalillo County in New Mexico, and 

there hasn’t been for over a decade, the very area that I worked. 

Dona Ana County, where I work, is one of the poorest counties 

in the country. And if you want to understand about indigent care, 

then come to Dona Ana County, please. 

Ms. Richardson has talked specifically about the health care that 

Planned Parenthood provides, specifically, family planning counseling and contraception, pregnancy test, Pap smears, and breast 

exams—and oh, STD testing, which she did not mention in her testimony but was in her written testimony. Those are the services 

they provide. Let me tell you something, the poor people in my 

area get contraceptive counseling, Pap smears, breast exams, and 

truly comprehensive health care from our healthcare clinics. 

You’ve heard—this Committee has heard, I know, that there are 

over 13,000 healthcare clinics across the country. Look at my map 

again. This is covering in New Mexico in terms of those very same 

health clinics. And unlike Planned Parenthood, they are not a 9- 

to-5 business, Monday through Friday. They are there 24 hours a 

day to serve their women. And their women get taken care of not 

only if they need just Pap smears or breast exams; they get taken 

care of if they have a headache or nausea or a stroke or a heart 

attack or all the other things that happen. That’s what we call 

comprehensive health care, and that’s what is available at these 

clinics. 

Five hundred million dollars. As a doctor, I would give you my opinion that $500 million poured into Planned Parenthood would 

be far better served—those women across the country would be far 

better served if that money was put into community health centers 

where women could get truly comprehensive care, not just Pap 

smears and breast exams. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. 

Now I would recognize, I believe, Mr. Cohen from Tennessee for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Lofgren. Forgive me. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This hearing is disappointing in so many ways. It’s really hard 

to begin, but let me just say that it is a myth to think that if we 

were able to defund Planned Parenthood, which I think, legally, we 

couldn’t do, I mean, that there is the capacity to provide the medical services to the women who are being served. And the last time 

that we had a hearing in this Committee on this same subject, I 

put a letter into the record of that hearing from the California nonprofit clinics saying they do not have the capacity to pick up the 

caseload of Planned Parenthood. Just, flat out, they could not do 

it. 

There has been a lot of discussion about abortion here today. And 

abortion is a very emotional subject for people in this country, and 

I think that is why we’ve ended up in the situation we have, which 

is there is no Federal funding for abortion. There is no Federal 

funding for abortion. And so if the effort to cut off funding from 

Planned Parenthood would succeed, we would cut off contraception, 

but we would not cut off abortion, which is an absurd result, I 

must say. 
59 

You know, I have known women who have had abortions, and 

I’ve never met a woman who felt happy about it. This is not a festive occasion. It’s a situation where women find themselves, and 

they make a choice instead of the government telling them what 

to do. I think of the daughter-in-law of a dear friend of mine who 

had an abortion late in her pregnancy when she found out that the 

much-wanted child she was carrying had—all of her brains had 

formed outside of the cranium. This child was not going to live, and 

she and her husband were devastated. But she was told by her 

physician that if she carried this child to term, not only would the 

child die, but she might die, and, certainly, she would never have 

the chance of having another child. 

We think about the women all over the country who struggle 

with this decision and make a decision, but one of the important 

things is to provide for contraception so that women don’t have to 

be faced with that terrible decision. And I do think that one of the 

most important things that Planned Parenthood does is to provide 

birth control to women who want to control their own fertility. And 

if we were to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, that would 

not be available to the women—many women—who live in my community in San Jose and in Gilroy. That would just not be available, 

and I think that would be a very wrong thing. 

Now, I think there has been a lot of dirt in the air about the 

Planned Parenthood as an institution. I’ll just say that Planned 

Parenthood in San Jose is a well-respected organization. I know 

thousands of women who have told me how much they rely on 

Planned Parenthood, not only for Pap smears and for birth control 

and for cancer screenings, but they even do some pediatric care. I 

mean, they’re full service, and it’s a really important institution 

and a well-trusted institution in my district. And that’s what I hear 

from families and from women back home. 

Now, this is in contrast to some of the things that have been said 

here in Washington. You know, earlier in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, there was a chart indicating that 

Planned Parenthood performed more abortions than lifesaving procedures in 2013. 

I wonder, Ms. Fredrickson. Did you look at that chart? Did you 

see the hearing? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. No, I didn’t see that chart. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. I don’t think that that’s an accurate chart, 

and, in fact, I think it’s since been proven that that is not correct. 

Let me ask you about—we’ve had all these hearings about 

Planned Parenthood. There’s not been any evidence that Planned 

Parenthood has violated the law in any way. 

Are you aware of any hearings that have been held about this 

CMP group, about whether they filed false tax returns, whether 

they were operating in compliance with the law? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. So far, I don’t believe there have been any 

congressional inquiries. I do believe there is a court case proceeding, however. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, I know that our attorney general in California is looking into it since they incorporated there. 

I’ll just close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I hope that this is 

the end of the persecution of Planned Parenthood. It is important, 
60 

the service they provide for the women of America, and I hope that 

we will stop trying to smear this wonderful institution. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [presiding]. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes, is recognized. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the video 

that’s part of Mr. Levatino’s testimony, that was previously stricken from the record, be made part of the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All those in favor of the motion, respond by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

And the video is made a part of the record. 

I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman is now recognized for 

his questions. 

Oh, who’s next? 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Walters, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

You’re next. Do you want to pass or do you—— 

Ms. WALTERS. I pass. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing. 

And the gentlelady from California, who I have great respect for, 

indicated that this hearing is disappointing, and it is, certainly, 

disappointing that we have to hold a hearing like this about an organization that every year brutally kills hundreds of thousands of 

unborn, innocent babies and sells their body parts and does that 

for profit. 

I happen to represent most of the city of Cincinnati, and Planned 

Parenthood does approximately 330,000 abortions. It’s the largest 

abortion provider in this country. They basically wipe out the population of the city of Cincinnati every year. It’s about 300,000 people 

in that particular community, and it’s just—so it is very disappointing that we have to have a hearing like this and hear the 

testimony. 

Ms. Fredrickson, you earlier said that—I think your comment 

about Mr. Chaffetz, saying something along the lines of, ‘‘Well, it 

isn’t against the law,’’ and if that’s the case, what—the organization that you’re here testifying on their behalf today—if it’s accurate that what you’re doing—destroying little, innocent, unborn 

lives and selling their body parts for profit—if that’s not against 

the law, then we damn well better change the law and make it 

against the law because we’re supposed to be a civilized society and 

a civilized country. And to think that that kind of behavior is occurring in these modern times, it makes one wonder what the hell’s 

going on in this country. It’s disgusting. 

And when I saw these videos—and I know the excuse is, ‘‘Oh, 

well. We didn’t know we were being taped,’’ I mean, what a defense. ‘‘We didn’t know that somebody might actually find out 

what’s going on in the Planned Parenthood facilities all over the 

country, that it might get out what’s going on.’’ I mean, that’s a 
61 

heck of a defense, and some of the people that are here—and all 

three of the other witnesses in particular—I think it takes a lot of 

courage, you know, to experience some of the things that you’ve experienced over the years and to be willing to come here and testify 

about what has happened. And thank God that you are willing to 

do that, and all three, all the stories. 

And, Dr. Levatino, I heard you testify in this Committee in the 

past, and, you know, thank you for coming forward and doing what 

you’re doing now to expose what has occurred. 

I guess—and I’ve probably used up a lot of my time already, but, 

doctor, I guess, if you could again—and I know you’ve already said 

it, but I think it bears hearing it a second time, that—you know, 

in your past, obviously, you did perform abortions and then at some 

point in your life decided that ‘‘I’m not going to do that anymore.’’ 

Could you share again what it was that made that change for 

you? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Because, Congressman, it was the loss of my own 

adopted daughter that made me look very seriously at what I was 

doing with abortions. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Thank you. 

Ms. Stoltenberg, you indicated that you’ve—and I know you’ve 

got a whole bunch of other women that were in your circumstances, 

that their lives have been changed. Would you want to share some 

of the stories of other women? You don’t necessarily have to give 

their names but what you have heard from others and how this has 

affected their lives so that—there’s actually two victims here. 

There’s the unborn child, and there’s also the woman, who’s been 

a victim oftentimes, in a Planned Parenthood facility since they’re 

the largest abortion provider. 

But could you share, in the brief time that I have left, anything 

you’d like to say about the other women you’ve talked to over the 

years about that? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. I would, sir. 

I’ve heard a lot here today about safe abortion, and all of these 

women’s stories refute safe abortion. We are not having safe abortion in this country. Women are being maimed. They are being 

harmed. They are not being able to have their own children because of it. Their children are dying on tables. They are turning to 

alcohol and drugs and suicide. I do post-abortion counseling, and 

I just counseled a woman in the prior months that has tried to kill 

herself three different times and almost succeeded. 

Why aren’t we talking about why this is not safe? These are the 

stories to tell, and there would be more stacked up here if women 

were not too ashamed and too afraid to come out and talk about 

this. And sometimes it doesn’t happen for years. I wasn’t able to 

talk about this for 5 years. There are women that won’t be able to 

talk about it for 10 and 20 years. And I’ve heard multiple stories— 

hundreds—of how they have been maimed and wounded in every 

way. I can’t even—it was hard for me to even bond with my own 

child that I adopted because of this procedure. 

I’m just begging for you people to protect women. This is not a 

good choice for women. Protect us. Do the right thing. Instead of 

looking at pocketbooks, I would like to ask the Committee how 

many people are receiving donations from Planned Parenthood on 
62 

their campaigns, and that saddens my heart because would you 

choose that over protecting women? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Franks made a comment about a bill that was on the floor 

about 3 or 4 weeks ago, a born-alive children bill. On that same 

day, there was another bill on the floor to defund Planned Parenthood, and nobody on this side voted for them—he’s right—and he 

didn’t come to the Subcommittee, and he didn’t go to the full Committee for a markup or for a hearing because regular order did not 

apply because the Pope was going to be here, and we wanted to put 

the focus on this issue because it was politics. 

We’re supposed to go to Committees for hearings like we’re having today, and if there is a bill—and there’s no bill here; this is just 

show business hearing—then there’s supposed to be a markup. 

There was none of that. It went straight to the floor; no amendments allowed in the Rules Committee. So protocol was just done 

away with. It was politics, just like Benghazi was politics, and 

Kevin McCarthy told you it was politics. It accomplished its purpose of hurting the woman who is going to lead this Democratic 

Party, and the leading—— 

Mr. KING. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COHEN. No, I won’t. 

And just like that, and he admitted this is what they were doing, 

and this Planned Parenthood is the same deal. 

They’re having a special Committee they’ve now set up, and yet 

Representive Chaffetz said there is not any evidence that there has 

been any law violated, and there isn’t, and yet we’re having a special Committee. 

Let me ask Dr. Levatino: You admitted that your video had nothing to do with—nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, correct? 

Dr. LEVATINO. The video that was shown was not shot at 

Planned Parenthood but may be relevant to procedures Planned 

Parenthood performed. 

Mr. COHEN. Don’t tell me about relevance. I want—answer the 

question. It had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. 

Dr. LEVATINO. The video was not shot at Planned Parenthood. 

Mr. COHEN. Right. Did you ever work for Planned Parenthood? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. When? 

Dr. LEVATINO. When I was a resident. 

Mr. COHEN. When you were a resident. Not when you were in 

private practice, though? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Not in private practice, no. 

Mr. COHEN. So you didn’t do 8 years working at Planned Parenthood? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Sorry, sir? 

Mr. COHEN. Do you or anybody else on the panel know—because 

this is talking about medical ethics, is what this is entitled, ‘‘Examining Abortion Procedures and Medical Ethics.’’ Does anybody 
63 

know one person who lost their medical license because of activity 

at Planned Parenthood? 

Ms. Stoltenberg, do you know of anybody that lost their medical 

license? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. No. 

Mr. COHEN. No? 

Ms. Thayer, do you know of anybody that lost their medical license? 

Ms. THAYER. No, there was never—— 

Mr. COHEN. No? 

And, Dr. Levatino, do you know of anybody that lost their medical license? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I do not. 

Mr. COHEN. Medical ethics. Case closed. 

Second question: Ms.—I don’t have your name right—— 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. Stoltenberg. 

Mr. COHEN.—Stoltenberg. 

And I’m sorry for your problems that you’ve had and your history. Your first abortion was at Planned Parenthood. 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. That’s correct. 

Mr. COHEN. Where was your second abortion? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. Emma Goldman’s Clinic. 

Mr. COHEN. And where was your third abortion? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. I believe it was at Emma Goldman’s, but I 

don’t remember. 

Mr. COHEN. And Emma Goldman is not Planned Parenthood, 

right? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. They do the same types of procedures there. 

Mr. COHEN. A lot of places do the same procedures, but this 

hearing is about Planned Parenthood. So your second and third 

abortions had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, right? 

Ms. Thayer, you now have a not for profit responsible—what’s 

the name of your not for profit you run? 

Ms. THAYER. Cornerstone for Life. 

Mr. COHEN. Yeah, and do you draw a salary there? 

Ms. THAYER. I get a stipend. 

Mr. COHEN. A stipend. And what is that stipend? 

Ms. THAYER. $1,000 a month. 

Mr. COHEN. A thousand. And when you make—you’re considered 

a ‘‘Christian speaker.’’ Do you get paid to make your speeches or 

just expenses? 

Ms. THAYER. Usually, I don’t get paid at all. 

Mr. COHEN. But you get your expenses? 

Ms. THAYER. I’m not getting paid to be here. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I know that. That would certainly be wrong. 

The government doesn’t pay any of us too much. 

The fact is this hearing is just like Benghazi. It’s just like the 

Select Committee on Planned Parenthood. It’s politics. And yet 

we’ve got major problems going on in this country. The whole idea 

that this is about Planned Parenthood is wrong. And Dr. Levatino 

has admitted medical ethics, everybody, there’s no evidence of any 

medical ethical impropriety by Planned Parenthood; only a title 

that’s been put up here. And Ms. Stoltenberg has one-third of her 
64 

history with Planned Parenthood. It’s unfortunate this is the way 

we’re spending our time. It’s really unfortunate. 

And I appreciate Planned Parenthood for what they do for lower 

income women, for women who need health services, who need 

family planning, who need cancer exams, cervical, breast, et cetera, 

and that are performed by Planned Parenthood. And I’m happy 

that Medicaid reimburses them, and that’s good. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, 

Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would just caution Members. I’ve heard my name several 

times invoked. Members, please be careful using this. 

The context of the comments that I made were in relationship to 

a hearing, as the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, that I conducted. The hearing that we conducted in Oversight was about the 

finances of Planned Parenthood. We didn’t get into the content of 

what they do. We didn’t get into the content of the video. We didn’t 

get into the practices that they do. We didn’t get into the fetal body 

tissue issues. We didn’t do that. We were very narrowly focused on 

the finances. 

The point we were making is that Planned Parenthood had rev- enue of $127 million more than their expenses, and we started to 

look as a nonprofit organization on what people were making and 

how they were spending that money. They were sending money 

overseas. They were spending money and giving it to political organizations. They had a lot of shared services. I think that’s a legitimate question as we look at the finances of an organization that 

is structured as a nonprofit organization. 

I was asked a direct question about the finances. That’s the way 

I took the question given that that’s what the direction and the 

drive of the hearing was about. Did we find any wrongdoing? The 

answer was no, but to suggest—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. In a minute. I will in just one moment. Just let 

me finish that thought. 

It is inappropriate to suggest that I have come to some grand 

conclusion about every part of their operation. In the Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee, we did subpoena the videos. We 

have some of those videos in the safe. We have jointly worked with 

the Democrats on that. We had a court ruling earlier this week to 

get the rest of those videos. There was a temporary restraining 

order in California that would not have released those videos. The 

judge recently ruled in our favor. Those videos are now being sent 

to Congress. They may have arrived in the last few hours, and I’m 

just not aware of it. And then I will work with Elijah Cummings 

and figure out the best course on what to do with these videos. 

But just caution to Members that it’s a bit of a stretch to say 

that I have done some conclusive investigation on all the actions 

of Planned Parenthood. 

Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to 

the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any 

wrongdoing? I didn’t find any, but I do think it’s a legitimate question for all of us. Why do we send money to an organization where 
65 

the revenues exceed their expenses by $127 million? It doesn’t 

sound like an organization that needs to be supplemented by taxpayer dollars. That was my point. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I’m happy to yield. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. I just want to ask, Representative, whether 

or not you have any evidence whatsoever that Planned Parenthood 

has broken the law in any way. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I think some of the video that’s been out there, 

the rumors that have been swirling, some of the testimony that we 

have heard causes a lot of people to legitimately ask and dive into 

whether or not what they’re doing is illegal. I think it’s a very legitimate question from an objective point of view, without getting 

into the emotions of it, and so I think there will continue to be investigations. I voted in favor of the Select Committee, which I 

think does have to go further and dive deeper into those issues, but 

I don’t think that the final chapter has been written on that. My 

point was that we were talking specifically about the finances. 

And I would remind Members, there was all this criticism that 

we were going after women, and that is so false. What is the first 

not-for-profit organization that we went after in the Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee? It was the NFL. I called out the 

NFL. They were structured as a not-for-profit organization. We 

called out Roger Goodell for making an exorbitant salary and taking advantage of the Tax Code, and do you know what? The NFL, 

to their credit, restructured, and for the first time—I believe it 

started in July—the 1st of July—they are now no longer a not-forprofit organization. 

So, in a very bipartisan way, with Elijah Cummings and the 

Democrats, we worked on that issue and made a major transformation, a major change. And I think looking at another not-forprofit organization who’s taking a lot—hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money—that’s a legitimate decision in the context 

of an $18 trillion-plus debt, and that’s the discussion we had. I’m 

proud of it, and I think we had a very good hearing. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Stoltenberg, would you mind me having a look at one of the 

books that you have compiled. 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. Would you like me to bring it up to you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. I’ll send someone down to take a look at it. 

And while she’s coming down to do that, let me ask Dr. Levatino 

a question. 

Sir, is there any circumstance under which you would agree that 

a woman should have a right to have an abortion to abort a fetus 

that arose from incest or rape? 

Dr. LEVATINO. If I were a Congressman, sir, I would support 

such a law. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You would support a law that would ban abortions—— 

Dr. LEVATINO. Not ban. Allow. 
66 

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, that would allow. So you believe that a 

woman should have a right to choose in the case of incest or rape. 

Dr. LEVATINO. If a woman is pregnant by incest or rape, her 

child is innocent, all the same. Morally, I have a great problem 

with that. Politically, I would vote for such a law. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And what about you, Ms. Thayer? 

Ms. THAYER. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Sperm meets egg. 

Unique DNA. Heartbeat at 21 days. It’s never okay to have an 

abortion. We have 57 million missing people since 1973. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So you went to work at Planned Parenthood knowing that part of the work that Planned Parenthood does is terminating pregnancies? 

Ms. THAYER. Well, actually, no, I didn’t. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You did not know that when you went to work? 

Ms. THAYER. No. I started there as a clinic assistant, and I—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me ask you this question. 

You are a woman who was fired by Planned Parenthood, and you 

are a disgruntled ex-employee. Is that correct? 

Ms. THAYER. Well, that’s what they say, but I’m—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you were fired, correct? 

Ms. THAYER. I was—they were downsizing. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And you are now disgruntled. Is that not correct? 

Ms. THAYER. No, that’s not correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So you loved Planned Parenthood? 

Ms. THAYER. I loved my work there. There were things that happened there that I knew were wrong, like making—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. You believe—— 

Ms. THAYER.—Medicaid eligible women pay for those pills. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you believe that they should be defunded? 

Ms. THAYER. Indeed, I do. I don’t think one more dime of taxpayer money should go to an organization that’s wrought with 

fraud. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Dr. Levatino—and thank you, Ms. Thayer. 

You’ve got a lawsuit pending, by the way, right? 

Ms. THAYER. I do, a whistleblower. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It’s a whistleblower case where, if you win, you’ll 

make a lot of money. 

Ms. THAYER. We never really talked about that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you’ll make a lot of money if you win. Take 

it from me. 

Ms. THAYER. Well, I don’t need a Lamborghini, and my Ford Fiesta is paid for, so I don’t know what I would do with that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, money doesn’t matter, though, to you. 

Ms. THAYER. Right. Telling the truth is what matters. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Okay. 

Well, Mr. Levatino, as far as you know, Planned Parenthood 

doesn’t make political contributions, does it? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I have no idea what contributions Planned Parenthood makes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Or if they do make contributions, they don’t do it, 

do they, Ms. Fredrickson? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. I’m not familiar with the entire corporate 

structure of Planned Parenthood. 
67 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Well, doctor, are you aware of the stories 

of the many women whose lives have literally been saved by 

Planned Parenthood? 

Dr. LEVATINO. In what way, sir? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that’s not my question. My question is, are 

you aware of that being the case? 

Dr. LEVATINO. It’s hard to answer the question without knowing 

in what context you’re asking it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. How about you, Ms. Thayer? 

Ms. THAYER. I guess I would ask the same question. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. You don’t want to answer the question then. 

Well, you haven’t heard about the story of Tiffany, who was so 

broke that she couldn’t afford a regular doctor’s visit, so Planned 

Parenthood was her only option and that a routine Pap smear at 

Planned Parenthood diagnosed her with cervical cancer, the early 

discovery of which saved her life. Are you not familiar with Tiffany’s case? 

Ms. THAYER. I guess I would ask how much money they asked 

from Tiffany after they did her Pap smear. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m sure that it was gladly payable for her life to 

be saved. 

Ms. THAYER. It would be 50 percent of whatever her charges 

were that day. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It could not be more than the value of her life, I 

can guarantee you that. I’m sure she’s quite happy at the little bit 

that she paid, but—— 

Ms. THAYER. If she would have gone to a federally qualified 

health center, it would have been free. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Maybe she could not have gotten transportation. 

Ms. THAYER. Well, in my town, it’s four blocks from the Planned 

Parenthood. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And that’s in your neighborhood, though. But 

there are other people with different circumstances, and shouldn’t 

you be concerned about them? 

Ms. THAYER. Well, there’s 20 free clinics for every one Planned 

Parenthood. I mean, compared to Planned Parenthoods, they’re everywhere. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And the purpose of this hearing was to shut down 

Planned Parenthood because of abortion. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, 

for 5 minutes. And would you yield back to me briefly? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

I just want to state for the record regarding the point Ms. Thayer 

just made. 

In the State of Georgia, there are four Planned Parenthood locations, most or all of which provide abortion services. In Georgia, 

there are 274 other health care alternatives that provide women’s 

services that do not provide abortions. So, in terms of convenience 

and location to get to, I think there’d be a good argument that 

there’s much more convenience to get to healthcare facilities. These 

are public healthcare facilities, too, that do not include abortion 

services. 
68 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Reclaiming my time, Ms. Thayer, I think there was some effort 

to cast doubt on your capabilities in working for Planned Parenthood since you were not an attorney. I don’t know how many attorneys we have running Planned Parenthood facilities, but I hope 

there aren’t many. 

Ms. THAYER. There’s typically one, probably, per affiliate. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Really? One lawyer per Planned Parenthood affiliate? 

Ms. THAYER. Yes. They do lobbying, and they run the PAC, you 

know, the political action committee, Planned Parenthood. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Planned Parenthood has a PAC? 

Ms. THAYER. Yes, indeed. They make donations to many—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. And how many mammograms do those PACs do? 

Ms. THAYER. Zero. Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, if we cut Federal funding for Planned Parenthood across the country, how many women would be denied mammograms? 

Ms. THAYER. Zero. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But if we cut funding for Planned Parenthood, 

there would be some lawyers that do the lobbying and some people 

that get political donations that would not be getting those political 

donations, and lawyers that would have to look for some other form 

of money and financing, right? 

Ms. THAYER. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. My friend from California had indicated that it 

was a myth that if we defund Planned Parenthood that we could 

provide services to all the women that Planned Parenthood had 

been helping. And yet, when we hear the actual facts, it turns out, 

wow, if we provided the money directly to healthcare facilities that 

do nothing but help women with the full range of services for 

women, including mammograms and things that Planned Parenthood never does, it sounds like women would have even better 

services, more services even though a lot of hearts would break for 

the lawyers that would not be able to get the Federal funding and 

be able to lobby and donate to our Democratic friends. 

I was so pleased with the comment from my friend from Tennessee that Benghazi was politics. That’s exactly what we’ve been 

trying to get to. It was politics. You had people meeting here in 

America—in Washington—while people were dying, while Ty 

Woods was gathering David Ubben and Glen Doherty and going to 

the rooftop to man guns to try to protect the people in those facilities. 

Yes, Benghazi was about politics, and I would love to know what 

the President was doing that night because I can tell you, if I had 

people that worked for me—my personal ambassador is missing— 

I could not go to bed. And yet, apparently, there was plenty of rest 

before he went to the fundraiser in Las Vegas the next day. 

Yes, my colleague is right. Benghazi was about politics, and we 

need to get to the bottom of why those four people were killed 

while nobody in Washington that knew what was going on lifted 

a finger, and why David Ubben doesn’t even get an American 
69 

plane. Somebody else has to provide a plane. He’s on a gurney, and 

they’re beating his leg—blown off—against the sides of that little 

plane while somebody in Washington knows, but they’re doing 

nothing. You bet it was politics. And a lot of people—four people 

died, and a lot of people suffered because of that politics. 

This is a hearing about Planned Parenthood. My colleagues want 

to keep talking about Benghazi. I felt like, if they’re going to bring 

it up, we need to say, yes, that was politics, and we need to find 

out why it was so political instead of coming together as Americans 

and protecting those people harmed. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s remarkable to me that the two most important issues of the majority has now collided into one hearing, that 

a Planned Parenthood hearing has now become a hearing on 

Benghazi. 

Yesterday, the House created a Select Committee to investigate 

abortion practices, meaning that today’s hearing is even more 

pointless than it was before. The House Judiciary Committee is 

now one of four Committees here in the House investigating 

Planned Parenthood. 

What exactly are we investigating today? Let’s be clear. No one’s 

said this yet, but we just need to be clear about it: The goal of the 

majority is to return to a Nation where Roe v. Wade is not the law 

of the land and where women do not enjoy the constitutional right 

that the Supreme Court made clear they have to make decisions 

about their own body. That’s what this is about. 

Now, I don’t know why we’re here. We’re not here to talk about 

the fruitless investigations undertaken by at least six different 

States, including my own, that have failed to find any illegal 

wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. We’re not here to discuss the 

merits of fetal tissue donation given that The New England Journal of Medicine recently wrote that virtually every person in this 

country has benefited from research using fetal tissue. And we’re 

not here to discuss the Federal court issued this week mandating 

that The Center for Medical Progress turn over more of its misleading and fraudulent documentation. 

This hearing’s only purpose is to smear a healthcare provider 

that serves millions of women every year, a provider that, I might 

add, enjoys a higher approval rating among the American people 

than, I would guess, any Member in this body enjoys. 

Now, as this Committee contemplates the medical ethics of women’s reproductive freedoms, I ask this question: What are the medical ethics of not holding any hearings on a gun violence epidemic 

that claims the lives of 30,000 Americans every year? What are the 

medical ethics of not holding a hearing on the 12,000 homicides 

and accidental gun deaths and the 18,000 gun deaths by suicide 

that occur every year? And what are the medical ethics of States 

trying to ban pediatricians from discussing basic gun safety measures with parents? 

This House Judiciary Committee has held zero hearings on a gun 

violence epidemic that claims American lives every day—every day, 
70 

an average of 88 Americans die of gunshot wounds—nor has this 

Committee held hearings on the deadly mass shootings that have 

inflicted so much grief in communities across America—not after 

Tucson, not after Aurora, not after Newtown, not after Santa Barbara—and there have been none scheduled after Roseburg and not 

after any of the more than 200 mass shootings that have already 

occurred in 2015 alone. 

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. In 2013 alone, 

more than 1,600 women were murdered by men, and 94 percent of 

them were gun deaths. So while this Committee continues its redundant attacks over women’s health, it ignores the reality that, 

every day, American women are murdered due to domestic gun violence. Yet as Congress works to ensure that women face even more 

humiliating obstacles to safe and legal abortion access, the U.S. 

Congress stands idly by as violent offenders are still able to skirt 

background checks and get guns to commit horrific crimes. 

The American people are rightly frustrated with Congress for 

failing to take any action, even the most basic action of closing the 

gun show loophole in the aftermath of so much devastation. There 

are dozens of bills that deserve hearings in this Committee of their 

jurisdiction—this one, the Judiciary Committee. I don’t have the 

time to name them all, but I’ll name a few. There’s a bipartisan 

Public Safety and Second Amendment Protection Act, introduced 

by Congressmen Thompson and King, that would close gun sale 

loopholes with comprehensive background checks for all purchases. 

There’s Congressman Quigley’s TRACE Act that would empower 

law enforcement to stop the flow of guns through our streets by 

traffickers who make a living selling guns to criminals. There’s 

Congresswoman Maloney’s legislation to lift the ban on Federal research on gun violence and how to best curb it. There’s my own legislation, the Safe and Responsible Firearms Transfer Act, to prevent guns from being sold without background checks. 

Not one of those bills—not one—has been the subject of a hearing from this Committee, Mr. Chairman, not even a hearing where 

the majority can bring up witnesses to tell us why bipartisan proposals, supported overwhelmingly by the American people and gun 

owners, are somehow too extreme. There has not been a single 

hearing of the 114th Congress on any commonsense improvements 

to our gun laws. The American people are already frustrated with 

Congress for failing to act on gun violence. The time for silence on 

this issue is over. 

You know, at the beginning of the hearing today, one of my colleagues talked about the self-imposed blindness—self-imposed 

blindness. That’s the self-imposed blindness that Congress has to 

gun violence. He said that the humanity of the victims, he hopes, 

becomes so glaring that it moves an entire generation of the American people. I can only hope that the humanity of the victims of the 

thousands—tens of thousands of lives lost to gun violence might 

move this Congress to finally take action. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, 

for 5 minutes. 

And would the gentleman yield to me briefly? 
71 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes, I will. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I’d like to say that there are right now on the 

books hundreds of Federal gun control laws and regulations, and 

yet in the last 6 years, the enforcement—the prosecutions for violations of all of those laws are down by 30 percent. 

It seems to me that an Administration that’s led by an individual 

who calls for more laws every time we have one of these tragedies 

ought to go look in the mirror and determine what’s appropriate to 

do. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I will not yield. It’s the gentleman from Idaho’s 

time. 

Mr. DEUTCH. That’s why we should have a hearing about it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It is a problem that can be addressed with the 

laws that exist now. There are, by the organization that is the actual subject of this hearing today, 350,000, plus or minus, abortions 

conducted by this organization every year—nearly 1,000, nearly 

1,000 a day—and that’s why we’re here, focused on this hearing 

today, to make sure that we’re aware of whether more laws are 

needed to protect the lives of the unborn. 

I yield back to the gentleman from Idaho and thank him. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

making that point that I was also going to make. 

It’s hard to sit here and be lectured about something like that 

when, apparently, there’s no concern for the child—the lives of children, of babies—babies born alive. 

Dr. Levatino, can you tell me how many babies are aborted every 

single day? Do you know? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I have no idea. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you know, Ms. Thayer? 

Ms. THAYER. Well, there’s 13 in Iowa every day, and think of it 

as a kindergarten class every 2 days. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you know how many late-term abortions there 

are every single day in Iowa? 

Ms. THAYER. No, not exactly. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Ms. Fredrickson? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Well, first of all, I don’t think ‘‘late term’’ is 

actually a technical term, so I don’t know how to respond to that. 

But I don’t know the number of abortions that take place every day 

in American. 

Mr. LABRADOR. You don’t. Okay. But you’re a expert on this 

issue. 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. I’m not here to talk about medical procedures. 

I’m here to talk about the law. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. I was just lectured at the number of 

deaths, and I just wanted to know if the panel knew how many 

children who are being killed every single day that we know. Do 

you know? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. I believe it’s almost 4,000 a day, not by 

Planned Parenthood but by the abortion industry. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And do you know how many late-term abortions 

there are—or over 20 weeks? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. No. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you know those numbers? 
72 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. No, I don’t. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Thank you. 

I want to continue to emphasize that this is not simply a question of legality of Planned Parenthood’s actions. We may never find 

the answer to that question whether they’re legal or not legal, but 

reducing human beings to commodities by selling fetal body parts 

for profit, I think everyone should agree, is morally reprehensible. 

Based on the testimony presented today, it would also appear 

that Planned Parenthood has participated in other suspicious behaviors, and all of that at the expense of the American taxpayers. 

I am not convinced that Planned Parenthood will cease to exist 

without taxpayer funding. Furthermore, I am not convinced that 

revoking taxpayer funding from Planned Parenthood would disadvantage women’s health to the extent that my colleagues would 

like to claim. 

I want to talk just about my home State of Idaho. It has three 

Planned Parenthood locations—two in the Boise area, one in southeastern Idaho—and if you look next to that, it has 129 better 

healthcare alternatives. All three of these centers are within 136 

miles of each other in a massive State that stretches for thousands 

of miles and includes a vast amount of rural areas. 

According to Planned Parenthood’s own data, the three centers 

in Idaho served around 7,000 patients 2013. Alternatively, the 

State of Idaho has 76 federally qualified health center service sites 

that served a little over 138,000 patients in 2013. Look at that: The 

difference between 3 and 76; the difference between 7,000 patients 

and 138,000 patients. So anybody who’s making the argument that 

they’re not going to receive health care is really lying to this Committee. These services’ sites cover a much broader cross-section of 

the State and have the capacity to serve a diverse population of 

Idahoans seeking medical care. 

Ms. Fredrickson, can you walk us through the services that 

Planned Parenthood provides once again? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Well, the vast majority of Planned Parenthood’s services are related to reproductive health care. They provide family planning counseling and contraceptive care as well as 

cervical cancer tests and breast exams. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And how is that different—— 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Pap smears. 

Mr. LABRADOR. How is that different than the other federally 

qualified health centers? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. 2.7 million women in America use the 

Planned Parenthood facilities every year. It’s an absolutely critical 

part of our health care infrastructure. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But more women use the other Federal health 

centers. Is that not correct? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Public health experts say there is no way that 

the public health system can absorb the capacity that would be lost 

if Planned Parenthood was not funded. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But the numbers just don’t speak to that. 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. I defer to the experts as, I think, Congress 

should. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Name one expert. 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. I’ve named in my testimony. 
73 

Mr. LABRADOR. And can you name one right now? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. The American Public Health Association. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Thank you. It took you a couple of seconds 

there. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, it’s legal in the United States of America to have an 

abortion. It’s the law of the land. And we all took an oath to uphold 

the Constitution and the laws of this land, and I’m going to do 

that. 

Now, it’s clear to anybody listening to this procedure that this is 

about Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood offers 

abortions, but they’re not doing anything illegal when they do it, 

and no one here has testified that they’re doing anything illegal. 

They object to the fact that they offer abortions because that’s 

their point of view. They don’t like the law. They can’t change the 

law. They can’t undercut the Constitution of the United States and 

the Supreme Court. So what do they do? They try to sully the reputation of an organization. And you know what? You guys have 

opened one big Pandora’s box here because, on repeated occasions 

here today, the majority and their witnesses have questioned the 

integrity of Members of the minority panel by questioning who it 

is we receive campaign contributions from. 

So, from here forward, we should just open it up, Mr. Chairman, 

every time on any issue. I want to know how much you get from 

the NRA. I want to know every dollar you receive from every—and 

we should just open it up. That would make it great. I’m not that 

worried about it. 

I tell the women of America you are safe because you have a 

President of the United States that will veto any legislation that 

comes out of this Committee and might make it to the floor of the 

House. 

He’ll veto that legislation, and there’s nothing you can do about 

it. He’ll veto that legislation, and they will be safe. 

I’m not worried. They can’t pick—they’ve got 250 Members, and 

they can’t figure out how to pick the Speaker of the House. Do you 

think they’re really going to turn back the clock on women in 

America? They can’t even pick their own leader, so I’m not that 

worried about where we’re going. But I will stand up for women 

because it seems to me that what we’re really talking about here 

today is turning back the clock, turning back the clock, a clock in 

which I grew up. 

When I was born in United States of America, separate but equal 

was still the law of the land when I was born. The only day I was 

White was the day I was born, and they put it on my birth certificate because, apart from that, I was never treated equal—certainly 

separate but not equal—to everybody in this country. And women, 

yes, had to go to back alleys and cross State lines and had to lose 

their lives in order to get reproductive healthcare rights in this 

country. That’s true. We all know it. 

But let me just suggest the following: My mother’s only option 

was the one option the Government of the United States gave her, 

which was sterilization. And for hundreds of thousands of Puerto 
74 

Rican women, that was the only option. There were other options 

that my wife and I had. We have two wonderful daughters, two 

brilliant—and let me just say something. I respect my daughters, 

and I trust my daughters to make decisions as I do for all women 

in this country, and we should all respect women to make the decisions that they fundamentally have to make about their lives and 

their future. 

But, moreover, you know something? There’s an 8-year difference 

between my first child and my second child, and the reason was 

because my wife had control over her reproductive system. And she 

could have a life, and she could take her education, and she could 

have a life, and she could have a career, and she could be everything that she can be. 

My mom didn’t have that ability, and my daughters have greater 

rights and greater abilities. And I will be damned if I am going to 

allow on my watch for the rights of women, especially the women 

who are so important to me in my life, to be turned back by that 

clock. We’re not going to turn back the clock. As much as you wish 

to turn back the clock, gay people are not going back in the closet. 

Latinos and Asians and immigrants aren’t going to disappear. And 

women are not going to get back-alley abortions and put their lives 

at risk again while Americans are standing up for a better, more 

inclusive, and egalitarian future for everybody in this country. 

So, look, nothing here that any of the witnesses have said, even 

those afforded by the minority, is going to change anything. We’re 

good. We’re in a good place because there is a new, growing coalition in America. We all know what it is. It’s people who care about 

Mother Earth. It’s people who care about women and their rights. 

It’s people who care about gays and lesbians. It’s people who care 

about immigrants. It’s people who care about making sure that we 

have fair and decent salaries. 

And you want to know something? Donald Trump likes to talk 

about the polls. Well, I’ve got a poll. And in my poll, the vast majority of the American people want to move forward and not turn 

back the clock. 

Thank very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes. 

And would you yield to me very briefly? 

Mr. POE. I’ll yield to the Chair. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I just want to make one point that when we 

passed the Pain-Capable Abortion Act, we introduced into the 

record evidence that in every demographic group, men, women, 

people of various races, age, in every demographic group, a majority of the people in this country support prohibiting abortions after 

20 weeks. 

I thank the gentleman and yield back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the Chair. I want to try to get back on the subject that we’ve been talking about. When Mr. Johnson, on the other 

side, asked does Planned Parenthood do political contributions, if 

I remember the testimony, two of you said that Planned Parenthood didn’t give contributions to anyone. 

Ms, Thayer, do you know whether Planned Parenthood contributes to Federal candidates? 
75 

Ms. THAYER. Yes, they do. They have a PAC. 

Mr. POE. And what is the name of the PAC, do you know? 

Ms. THAYER. No. I don’t remember. It’s just called a PAC. 

Mr. POE. Planned Parenthood PAC? 

Ms. THAYER. Yes. 

Mr. POE. Would it surprise you in the election cycle 2014, 

Planned Parenthood PAC contributed a little over $400,000 to Federal candidates? 

Ms. THAYER. No. That wouldn’t surprise me at all. 

Mr. POE. One hundred and thirty-eight Federal candidates, 

would that surprise you or not? 

Ms. THAYER. No. 

Mr. POE. $400,000, seems like you could do a lot of other things 

with $400,000 instead of giving it to people running for Congress. 

Ms. THAYER. Well, one thing they could do with it is take some 

of that money and put doctors or nurse practitioners in the rural 

centers. In Planned Parenthood in Iowa, we had a nurse practitioner 2 hours a week. And in my almost 18 years there, we had 

a doctor in the facility probably 3 or 4 times. So all those pills are 

being dispensed by nonmedical people. I think that would be a 

much better use of their money. 

Mr. POE. And since the minority did bring it up, Mr. Chairman, 

I would like to introduce in the record the open secrets document 

of contributions by Planned Parenthood PAC. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, it will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 

Mr. POE. The talk has also been about—and I resent the other 

side talking about, generalizing those of us over here are against 

women. I resent that. I have four children, three daughters. I have 

11 grand kids, 7 granddaughters. One of those is adopted. And I’m 

not a female. I agree with that comment. But the idea that we 

don’t like women is absurd. I think many of us are trying to look 

out for the life of new women coming into the world. What about 

those women? And I think they’re women when they’re harvested 

for their body parts. I’m concerned about those women. So I’m not 

going to put up with saying that, me, that I’m opposed to women. 

Let’s talk about those women. If Congress doesn’t speak for them, 

who speaks for them? You all speak for them. So I know that’s not 

the issue. 

The issue is Planned Parenthood. It’s also, I think Planned Parenthood seems to do a pretty good job of marketing Planned Parenthood. Would you agree with that, Ms. Thayer? 

Ms. THAYER. Yes, very much so. 

Mr. POE. Do you have any idea how much money Planned Parenthood spends on marketing Planned Parenthood? 

Ms. THAYER. In Iowa, they marketed the family planning waiver, 

spent lots and lots of money at the expense of staff raises that year, 

and made it sound like the family planning waiver was their own 

creation. And it was actually State dollars. 

Mr. POE. I want to apologize to you for the insinuation that you 

did something wrong by being a whistleblower, and you’re being attacked because you talked about or brought evidence about an organization. That’s what we do, unfortunately, we attack whistleblowers across the board it seems like. 

Also the comment was made that we got to have Planned Parenthood, or there’s no other answer. Well, I have this chart, maybe it’s 

on the screen, Mr. Chairman, of Texas where I’m from. And most 

of these, you can’t see them too well; they’ll be on the far right on 

the screen, the Planned Parenthood areas are in the metropolitan 

areas, 38 of them. But most of Texas is not in the metropolitan 

area. I mean, the State is the vast State. There are parts over here 

on the other side with all the white dots where you have federally 

funded healthcare centers. I would submit to you and to the record 

there are places in Texas that there are federally funded 

healthcare centers that aren’t on Google Maps. They’re in remote 

districts like where Louie Gohmert is from or in west Texas, in 

small little towns. So that’s not an accurate portrayal of women’s 

health care in the country. 

The federally funded healthcare units are everywhere, rural, city. 

And Planned Parenthood in Texas, anyway, is just in the metropolitan areas. Is that the way you understand it, Ms. Thayer? 

Ms. THAYER. Well, and the really important—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. Ms. 

Thayer will be allowed to answer. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. THAYER. It’s important to remember that all those FQHCs 

have doctors there. And they don’t charge Medicaid-eligible women, 

unlike Planned Parenthood. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, recognizes the 

gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, for 5 minutes. 
84 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just clear up some things that, Mr. Chairman, you volunteered some statistics on how many gun laws we have. That’s exactly why we’re asking for a hearing. This Committee could do 

great things. We had a hearing on GSA’s failure to meet the needs 

of the judiciary, which was the cost of courthouses, building of 

courthouses in Members’ districts. So we really could do big things. 

But we waste it on things like this. 

And my colleague on the other side said what he resents. I resent 

a whole bunch of stuff. And if people say you oppose women—I 

didn’t say it—but that’s between you and women. But I won’t have 

is you saying that Planned Parenthood may or may not have donated to someone affects their positions on choice and other things 

because I think people make those decisions long before they get 

to Congress. 

The other thing I would say is that the hypocrisy in the room is 

unbelievable. This year in the State of the Union, the President 

mentioned that abortions were at an all-time low, which I would 

think is our goal. Everybody in the room, the goal is to get to zero. 

The President announces it’s at an all-time low, not one person on 

the Republican side stood up or cheered. 

There’s a bunch of ways we can try to get to zero. You can try 

it by doing a law. The rich will fly out of the country and still have 

them. The poor will go in the alleys and risk their lives so that 

they can have them. 

Or we can still invest in prenatal care, paid parental leave, investing in our foster care system, raising the minimum wage so 

that women can raise a child. We can do all of those things. 

But we’re not because we’re so stuck on saying that I’m pro-life. 

Yeah, until the baby is born. And then when the baby is born, 

you’re like: You’re on your own. We’re not going to help you do anything. 

So if we’re going to have a conversation and if it’s about Roe v. 

Wade, well, we can’t do anything about it. As much as the other 

side would like to be the President and tell him how to handle immigration, Benghazi, and all those other things, you’re not the 

President. As much as you would like the Court to overturn Roe 

v. Wade, none of you are on the Supreme Court. But you’re able 

to run for President. And you’re able to express an interest in the 

Supreme Court. 

But we in Congress have a bunch of things that we could be 

working on and having meaningful hearings to figure out how we 

get to the ultimate decision or ultimate desire that we want. And 

if it’s zero abortions, then let’s talk about how we get there. But 

you know you’re not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

So I just hate that we’ve come here and we drag witnesses here 

and put them in the position of testifying on things that they can’t 

control just so we can do messaging. And that is the problem in 

this country. When we could be actually trying to accomplish something. 

And we keep talking about Benghazi. I’m okay with letting the 

facts play out how they’ll play out because I think it is important 

for the American people to see how government works. And when 

there’s something wrong, you figure out what went wrong and you 
85 

try to fix it. But it’s too often we try to play gotcha moments when 

there are no gotcha moments. Instead of being respectful for the 

deceased, the people who gave their life for this country, and trying 

to figure out how we prevent things like that from happening 

again. 

So, you know, let me just say, and I’ll ask Ms. Stoltenberg, since 

I do have a minute, do you think that if the law just said you can’t 

have an abortion, that we would go to zero abortions? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. No. I don’t believe we would go to zero abortions. But I believe there are many women dying today from legal 

abortions, probably more so because there are more abortions being 

done than there were when it was back alley. And there’s more 

women being maimed and hurt and harmed like I was. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Do you think the law of the land would have 

made a decision on your decision? If it was illegal then, do you 

think it would have made a difference in your decision? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. In my decision? Oh, most definitely. I didn’t 

illegal things. So I would not have had an abortion. And I would 

be able to see who my children are today. 

Mr. RICHMOND. But you do agree some women would, would still 

have it, even though—if Roe v. Wade was reversed, you agree that 

some women would still have them in back alleys? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. Would still have abortions? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes. 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. Probably, yes. They probably would. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And the rich would still fly out of the country 

and have them in other places? 

Ms. STOLTENBERG. Possibly they could. But there would be many 

lives that would be spared, many. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. So I 

yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS [presiding]. I recognize Ms. DelBene from Washington. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I am deeply disappointed that this Committee is holding another 

one-sided hearing that’s more about politics than factfinding. 

The attacks on women’s health just never seem to stop. Meanwhile, we’re ignoring a long list of bipartisan policies that deserve 

our attention. Right now, we could be talking about the much needed updates to email privacy laws. We could be talking about leveling the playing field for brick-and-mortar stores. Or we could finally get to work on our country’s broken immigration system. 

But, instead, we’re wasting even more time on an investigation 

that the majority clearly prejudged before receiving a shred of evidence from Planned Parenthood. 

It’s shameful, Mr. Chairman. This Committee should be focused 

on facts, not ideology. 

And so far, there are no facts to substantiate the claims made 

by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, no evidence that 

Planned Parenthood has engaged in unlawful activity, period. So 

let’s talk about what we do know: We know that 2.7 million Americans receive essential health care every year through Planned Parenthood. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood patients are 

low-income, with incomes at or below 150 percent of the Federal 
86 

poverty level. In my home State of Washington, Planned Parenthood annually provides more than 34,000 cancer screenings. And 

across the country, the services provided by Planned Parenthood 

help prevent more than 500,000 unintended pregnancies every 

year. 

That last number should give my colleagues pause. If we want 

to reduce the number of abortions provided in this country, attacking Planned Parenthood is certainly not the way to do it. 

But, at this point, it’s clear that this investigation isn’t about 

gathering facts at all. It’s just part of an extreme ideological agenda to defund Planned Parenthood and take away a woman’s constitutional right to choose. 

Ms. Fredrickson, your testimony mentioned that Planned Parenthood provides birth control and family planning counseling to 2.1 

million patients each year. Could you speak about how women’s access to birth control is related to their economic security? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Absolutely. It’s a vital part of women’s economic security. Women being able to control when, whether they 

have children has been a critical part of them being able to enter 

not quite into equal status in the American economy, unfortunately, but they’re on their way. Women are doing better. Women 

are able to provide better for their families by ensuring that they 

have the families that they can, at the time when they want to 

have families or not to have children when they don’t want to have 

children. 

Ms. DELBENE. And what would be the impact on women if access 

to birth control through Planned Parenthood would be restricted? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Well, there would be many more unintended 

pregnancies. And, ultimately, there would be many more abortions. 

So the consequences of defunding Planned Parenthood would certainly lead to an increase in abortions in this country. And it would 

certainly undermine women’s access to basic contraceptive care, 

which would undermine their ability to earn a living and control 

their own economic well-being. 

Ms. DELBENE. So you believe that it would be harder for women 

to plan their families, plan their careers if Congress decided to 

defund this organization? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. It’s been a vital part of women being able to 

have independence, to be able to exercise, to determine their own 

fertility, to determine when and whether they have children. It allows them to enter into the workforce. It enables them to take care 

of the children that they have. It enables them to be treated more 

fairly in the workplace because they do have the choice about 

whether and when to have children. 

Ms. DELBENE. And my colleagues have been, across the aisle, 

have been talking about how if Planned Parenthood wasn’t, if 

Planned Parenthoods were not available in their regions, it would 

have no impact on women’s access to health care. Again, I ask you 

what would be the impact on women throughout our country if 

Planned Parenthood was not available for health care? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Well, I think the fact that already we’ve discussed how 1 in 5 American women, that’s 20 percent of American 

women, in their lifetime will use Planned Parenthood services. 

That’s an enormously large number. And 2.7 million people per 
87 

year use Planned Parenthood’s services. The loss of those, the ability to use a Planned Parenthood health center would be enormous. 

Ms. DELBENE. And I think you referenced a study that says that 

there are not other community health centers or other places who 

would be able to serve that same population. 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Right. The expert opinion of the American 

Public Health Association says that there’s just not the ability to 

absorb that capacity, that those women would just go unserved. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. The Chair now yields to Mr. Jeffries from New York 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

This is an enormous waste of taxpayer money for us to sit here 

at this hearing when we realize or should realize this is not a legitimate congressional exercise. This is not a factfinding hearing. 

This is theater. This is a charade. This is stagecraft. This is nothing more than a political hit job on a woman’s right to choose, 

which, by the way, is constitutionally protected. 

And I’ve got the benefit of being one of the least senior Members 

here, and so I get to sit through much of the hearing. And there 

are only one or two of us left. And this hearing has gone on for 

hour after hour after hour. And yet no one has presented a shred 

of evidence, a scintilla of evidence that Planned Parenthood has 

done anything wrong. 

So I’ve got a few moments and let me see if I can uncover some 

evidence of wrongdoing. The hearing is called ‘‘Planned Parenthood 

Exposed’’—dramatic—‘‘Examining Abortion Procedures and Medical Ethics at the Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider.’’ 

Dr. Levatino, you’re the only doctor on the panel, correct? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Do you have any evidence that any Planned Parenthood doctor, nurse, physician has engaged in wrongdoing, violated medical ethics, or lost their license? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I do not have such evidence. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And you’re the only doctor on the panel, correct? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Does anyone else on the panel have any evidence 

that someone has violated their medical ethics? 

Ms. THAYER. Well, I would consider it a violation of medical ethics to do Web cam abortions without ever seeing the client or expecting nonmedical people to do medical procedures. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, let’s have a discussion. You were at Planned 

Parenthood for 18 years. Is that correct? 

Ms. THAYER. Right, about. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And you were terminated? 

Ms. THAYER. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And one of my colleagues asked whether you were 

a disgruntled employee, correct? 

Ms. THAYER. That already come up, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And you disagreed with that characterization I assume, correct? 

Ms. THAYER. I did. They were downsizing, let me go. 
88 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, you alleged that Planned Parenthood 

was wrought with fraud. Is that correct? 

Ms. THAYER. Correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. In fact, you brought a Federal court action claiming that they’ve engaged in fraud, true? 

Ms. THAYER. Correct. False Claims Act. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, under that False Claims Act, you would it 

be what is called a relator, correct? 

Ms. THAYER. Correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And the government has intervened as well in that 

action, true? 

Ms. THAYER. The what? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. The government has intervened in that action? 

Ms. THAYER. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And this was brought where? In the Southern District of Iowa? 

Ms. THAYER. Correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, you testified earlier that you had no idea if 

you prevailed, whether you would receive monetary benefit. Did I 

hear that correct? 

Ms. THAYER. I said we hadn’t discussed it. I had not discussed 

it with my attorney. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. You have not discussed that with your attorney? 

Ms. THAYER. No, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, you allege in this action that Planned Parenthood engaged in $28 million of fraud, correct? 

Ms. THAYER. Correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And as a relator, you’re entitled, under Federal 

law, to between 15 and 25 percent, correct? 

Ms. THAYER. I don’t know. We’ve never discussed that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. So you have a licensed attorney who has never discussed with you the fact that if you were to prevail in this lawsuit 

where you allege $28 million, that you could receive at much as $7 

million? That’s your testimony here today under oath? 

Ms. THAYER. Sir, for me, this is not about the money. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. 

Ms. THAYER. Yeah, it is not about the money. I’m here to try to 

tell the truth about Planned Parenthood and what I experienced in 

all those years there. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, you don’t have any evidence that Planned 

Parenthood engaged in fraud, correct? 

Ms. THAYER. I engaged in fraud every single day that I was 

there. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Was your action dismissed at the district court 

level? 

Ms. THAYER. It was dismissed at district court and then reinstated by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Actually that’s inaccurate. I’ve got the decision 

right here and I want to place it into the record. 

First of all, the district court judge dismissed your action because 

you had no evidence of fraud. By the way, it was a judge appointed 

by G.W. Bush. You then appealed it to the Eighth Circuit. And 

they affirmed the decision that you’ve got no evidence of fraud, remanded on a separate ground, good luck. But I will point out that 
89 

the Eighth Circuit Court judges concluded, based on the district 

court’s decision, you failed to plead fraud with specificity pursuant 

to 9(d). 

Mr. FRANKS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And it’s a matter of public record. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. The gentlelady can answer the question if she 

wants to. 

Ms. THAYER. Well, sir, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court. And it’s now back in district court. We’re 

waiting on a ruling from them. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I would just ask the Chair because you didn’t respond to my request, sir, to enter as a matter of record both 

the—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

Mr. JEFFRIES [continuing]. District court decision and the Eighth 

Circuit Court decision. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 

Mr. FRANKS. The gentleman from Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses. 

I’ve now sat through the entire hearing. And I still don’t exactly 

know what we’re doing here. It’s clear that this is not a hearing 

about the wrongdoing of Planned Parenthood because there is no 

evidence of wrongdoing. There is no testimony that has been presented that Planned Parenthood engaged in any wrongdoing. There 

have been six States that have reviewed this and concluded that 

Planned Parenthood has done nothing wrong. Seven other States 

cited a lack of evidence of wrongdoing and declined to investigate. 

Then somebody suggests it’s about defunding Planned Parenthood. I’m not sure that’s it. 

What I think the hearing is about, as best I can tell, having listened to every single one of my colleagues is, a fundamental view 

of some of the witnesses here that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. You have a right to that opinion. But what you don’t have 

a right to do is smear a vital healthcare organization to advance 

that argument. 

There are people, and I respect deeply, there are people who 

have different views on whether or not Roe v. Wade was rightly decided, whether women should have full control over their reproductive health. I happen to think it was properly decided. You may 

disagree. But what I think is wrong and really regrettable is rather 

than having a hearing that says, ‘‘Was Roe v. Wade decided properly,’’ and we could have a public forum and have a debate about 

it, but this hearing is entitled and tries to insinuate that Planned 

Parenthood has done something wrong. The title of the hearing is, 

in fact, ‘‘Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining Abortion Procedures and Medical Ethics of the Nation’s Largest Abortion Providers.’’ 

So the hearing is intended somehow to suggest that by just attacking Planned Parenthood, we can undermine the decision of Roe 

v. Wade. 

I think it’s very clear that Planned Parenthood provides critical 

services to women all across this country: 2.7 million individuals 

access health care through Planned Parenthood. That includes, by 

the way, and specifically, Ms. Fredrickson, that includes a range of 

breast cancer screenings, Pap smears, exams for sexually transmitted diseases, HIV tests, cervical cancer, a whole range of services. Is that correct? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Yes, sir. 

That’s the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Ninety-seven percent of the services they provide, 

is that correct? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. Yes. That’s correct. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And Planned Parenthood is a respected 

healthcare organization. And some have suggested: Well, if we just 

close Planned Parenthood, people can get services elsewhere. 

As you’ve indicated in your written testimony, the experts who 

have looked at that said it is ludicrous and people who make such 

a claim fundamentally misunderstand the healthcare system. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. FREDRICKSON. That’s absolutely correct. 
111 

Mr. CICILLINE. And so we’re left with a hearing that lasted several hours in which people have made some assertions, played videos, some of which had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, 

presumably made some claims that have nothing to do with the 

procedures followed by Planned Parenthood in an effort to bolster 

their position against the decision Roe v. Wade. What I think is regrettable is that I think Planned Parenthood 

has demonstrated unequivocally that it is a vital healthcare organization, that millions of women and families rely on Planned Parenthood, that the individuals who work there are professional, individuals of integrity who do their jobs and take their jobs seriously. 

And there was a suggestion that they’re all motivated by profit. 

I’ve been to Planned Parenthood. I’ve been to a clinic. I’ve spoken 

to the individuals, the men and women who work there. And I 

want to say that my experience has been just the opposite. These 

are dedicated, committed professionals. 

And I think it does a disservice to the seriousness of the debate 

about the issue of abortion to malign an organization that does important work and that is saving lives. We can have a real debate 

as to whether or not the Supreme Court should change its decision 

on Roe v. Wade. I think they shouldn’t. 

But it is settled law. It’s the law of the land. And the way you 

challenge that is you bring a case and you make a different legal 

argument. You don’t attack individuals who are following the law, 

who are performing a legal medical procedure that is saving lives 

of women in this country. I regret that we spend time doing that. 

I thank the witnesses for being here. I hope that we can focus 

on the real issues that were mentioned: immigration reform, making sure we pass the Marketplace Fairness Act, dealing with the 

scourge of gun violence in this country. The agenda of this Committee is very long. Let’s get to work on the issues that matter to 

the American people. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I want to thank all the witnesses for being here 

today. This concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to our audience. 

And, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 

to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. 

And, with that, thank you, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:40 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(113) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 

f 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 

Æ