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

99–411 PDF 2016

PROTECTING INFANTS: ENDING TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION PROVIDERS WHO VIOLATE 

THE LAW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 

Serial No. 114–75 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California7 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

Ranking Member 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, prepared statement .................................................................................... 103 

WITNESSES

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, Americans 

United for Life ...................................................................................................... 11 

Chart, ‘‘Planned Parenthood Foundation of America,’’ Source: The Center 

for Medical Progress ..................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Additional material submitted for the record 1

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 175 

M. Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom ........................ 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Additional material submitted for the record 2

Judy Waxman, Attorney ......................................................................................... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 180 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Discussion Draft, H.R. lll, the Protecting Infants Born Alive Act, submitted by Mr. Pitts .............................................................................................. 104 

Discussion Draft, H.R. lll, the Protect Infants from Partial-birth Abortion 

Act, submitted by Mr. Pitts ................................................................................. 107 

Memorandum of September 9, 2015, from Committee Democratic Staff to 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Democratic Members and 

Staff, ‘‘Update on the Committee’s Ongoing Investigation of Planned Parenthood Federation of America,’’ submitted by Ms. DeGette ........................... 110 

Article of May 20, 2015, ‘‘How Texas Lawmakers Continue To Undermine 

Women’s Health,’’ by Kinsey Hasstedt, Health Affairs Blog, submitted by 

Mr. Green .............................................................................................................. 128 

Report by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, ‘‘Texas Women’s Health Program: Savings and Performance Reporting,’’ January 2015, 

submitted by Mr. Green ...................................................................................... 131 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF14/20150917/103957/HHRG-114-IF14-Wstate-YoestC-20150917- 

SD002.pdf. 2The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF14/20150917/103957/HHRG-114-IF14-Wstate-MattoxC20150917-SD001.pdf. 

Page

IV 

Article of September 2, 2015, ‘‘Planned Parenthood, Community Health Centers, And Women’s Health: Getting The Facts Right,’’ by Sara Rosenbaum, 

Health Affairs Blog, submitted by Mr. Green ................................................... 140 

Article of August 24, 2015, ‘‘Baby In Undercover Anti-Abortion Video Was 

Stillborn, Not Aborted, Producer Says,’’ by Ray Nothstine, Christian Post, 

submitted by Ms. Castor ..................................................................................... 143 

Article of August 21, 2015, ‘‘Anti-abortion video showed stillborn baby—not 

fetus,’’ by Sarah Ferris, The Hill, submitted by Ms. Castor ............................. 145 

Article of September 4, 2015, ‘‘Anti-abortion leader says Texas funding women’s health services at historically high levels,’’ by W. Gardner Selby, 

PolitiFact Texas, submitted by Mr. Burgess ...................................................... 146 

Article of August 17, 2015, ‘‘If Planned Parenthood Loses Government Funding, Here’s a Map of Health Clinics That Could Take Its Place,’’ by Kelsey 

Harkness, The Daily Signal, submitted by Mr. Burgess .................................. 157 

Article of September 16, 2015, ‘‘What Texas PolitiFact Won’t Admit about 

the State’s Defunding of Planned Parenthood,’’ by Michael J. New, National 

Review, submitted by Mr. Burgess ..................................................................... 162 

Report by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, ‘‘Texas Women’s Health Program Provider Survey,’’ January 7, 2013, submitted by 

Mr. Burgess .......................................................................................................... 164 

Letter of September 17, 2015, from National Health Law Program and National Women’s Law Center to Representatives, submitted by Mr. Kennedy 173 

(1) 

PROTECTING INFANTS: ENDING TAXPAYER 

FUNDING FOR ABORTION PROVIDERS WHO 

VIOLATE THE LAW 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:32 p.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Pitts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Pitts, Guthrie, Barton, 

Shimkus, Murphy, Burgess, Blackburn, McMorris Rodgers, Lance, 

Griffith, Bilirakis, Long, Ellmers, Bucshon, Brooks, Collins, Upton 

(ex officio), Green, Engel, Capps, Schakowsky, Butterfield, Castor, 

Sarbanes, Matsui, Luja ́n, Schrader, Kennedy, Ca ́ rdenas, and 

Pallone (ex officio). 

Also present: Representatives Westerman and DeGette. 

Staff present: Clay Alspach, Chief Counsel, Health; Gary Andres, 

Staff Director; David Bell, Staff Assistant; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Noelle Clemente, Press Secretary; Marty 

Dannenfelser, Senior Advisor, Health Policy, and Director of Coalitions; Jessica Donlon, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; 

Charles Ingebretson, Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; 

Peter Kielty, Deputy General Counsel; Emily Martin, Counsel, 

Oversight and Investigations; Katie Novaria, Professional Staff 

Member, Health; Graham Pittman, Legislative Clerk; Chris Sarley, 

Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Adrianna 

Simonelli, Legislative Associate, Health; Alan Slobodin, Deputy 

Chief Counsel, Oversight; Heidi Stirrup, Policy Coordinator, 

Health; Josh Trent, Professional Staff Member, Health; Jessica 

Wilkerson, Oversight Associate; Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; Waverly Gordon, Democratic Professional Staff Member; Tiffany Guarascio, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health 

Advisor; Una Lee, Democratic Chief Oversight Counsel; Elizabeth 

Letter, Democratic Professional Staff Member; Rachel Pryor, Democratic Health Policy Advisor; Timothy Robinson, Democratic Chief 

Counsel; Samantha Satchell, Democratic Policy Analyst. 

Mr. PITTS. The subcommittee will come to order. I apologize for 

starting late. We were on the floor voting, so have just concluded 

that. And I note that we have a large audience today. 

2 

Today’s hearing topic is one that we all have strong feelings 

about. I respectfully ask that the audience maintain decorum so 

that we can all hear the testimony of the witnesses and the questions of our members, and I thank you for your courtesy. 

The Chair will recognize himself for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Earlier this summer, on July 15, 2015, many Americans learned 

for the first time about some of the torturous and gruesome practices in abortion clinics related to the destruction of unborn babies. 

In recent weeks, our Nation and our Nation’s capital has reengaged 

in an examination about the purveyors of abortion and their grisly 

practices. 

Abortion supporters cloak their support for abortion under the 

guise of women’s right to choose. Yet they conveniently ignore the 

choices of thousands of unborn baby girls. How ironic that prochoice advocates oppose letting unborn babies choose life. 

Yet today advances in medical practice and science confirm what 

we have long known from morality and common sense: Modern 

medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers 

have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn for generic 

problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other 

medical conditions. Science has shown us earlier and earlier 

glimpses of tiny, unborn human beings who can feel pain. What 

must such a baby feel when she is approached by doctors who come 

to kill rather than to cure? 

Anyone who sees the arms and legs of a tiny baby can hardly 

doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for all of us 

is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law, the same right we have. 

Abortion is not just about the unborn child. It is about each of 

us. We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life, 

whether born or unborn, without diminishing the value of all 

human life. When we talk about abortion, we are talking about two 

lives, the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. 

Medicaid, along with CHIP, pays for roughly half of all births in 

the United States each year. At the same time, Medicaid accounts 

for more than 15 percent of all healthcare spending in the United 

States and plays an increasingly large role in our Nation’s 

healthcare system. Medicaid spending accounts for roughly 1 in 

every 4 dollars in an average State budget. 

Today, no Federal funds can be used to perform elective abortions, and yet many in the abortion industry still seek ways to use 

Government, taxpayer-funded resources to support their business. 

Some providers of elective abortions bill Medicaid and CHIP for 

other nonabortion-related healthcare services. 

I support efforts to amend the law and give States the discretion 

to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer funding 

through Medicaid. States currently have broad authority to exclude 

from Medicaid and CHIP providers who violate program requirements, including reasons outlined in detail in Federal statute and 

in State laws. Courts have also upheld the ability of a State to exVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:37 Mar 18, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\114X75PLANNEDPARENTHOODWORKING WAYNE
3 

clude providers suspected of fraud or who are under investigation. 

One of our witnesses will discuss this in more detail. 

Given the factual record, some States have already taken steps 

to block taxpayer funding for providers, including Planned Parenthood, in light of some unconscionable atrocities, both apparent and 

documented, from State judicial and enforcement actions. 

No State should be forced to continue to include providers in 

their Medicaid program who commit reprehensible acts, and taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it. The committee wants to 

ensure States have appropriate flexibility of excluding from their 

Medicaid programs providers who are suspected of serious violations of Federal law. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

[The proposed legislation appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS

Earlier this summer, on July 15, 2015, many Americans learned for the first time 

about some of the tortuous and gruesome practices in abortion clinics related to the 

destruction of unborn babies. In recent weeks, our Nation—and our Nation’s capital—has re-engaged in an examination about the purveyors of abortion and their 

grisly practices. 

Abortion supporters cloak their support for abortion under the guise of ‘‘woman’s 

right to choose.’’ Yet they conveniently ignore the choices of thousands of unborn 

baby girls. How ironic that ‘‘pro-choice’’ advocates oppose letting unborn babies 

choose life. 

Yet, today, advances in medical practice and science confirm what we have long 

known from morality and common-sense. Modern medicine treats the unborn child 

as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other 

medical conditions. 

Science has shown us earlier and earlier glimpses of tiny unborn human beings 

who can feel pain. What must such a baby feel when she is approached by doctors 

who come to kill rather than to cure? Anyone who sees the arms and legs of a tiny 

baby can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for all of us 

is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law— 

the same right we have. 

Abortion is not just about an unborn child, it is about each of us. We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life—whether born or unborn—without 

diminishing the value of all human life. When we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives—the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. 

Medicaid, along with CHIP, pays for roughly half of all births in the United 

States each year. At the same time, Medicaid accounts for more than 15 percent 

of all healthcare spending in the United States and plays an increasingly large role 

in our Nation’s healthcare system. Medicaid spending accounts for roughly 1 in 

every 4 dollars in an average State budget. 

Today, no Federal funds can be used to perform elective abortions. And yet, many 

in the abortion industry still seek ways to use Government, taxpayer-funded resources to support their business. Some providers of elective abortions bill Medicaid 

and CHIP for other non-abortion related healthcare services. I support efforts to 

amend the law and give States the discretion to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer funding through Medicaid. 

States currently have broad authority to exclude from Medicaid and CHIP providers who violate program requirements-including reasons outlined in detail in 

Federal statute and in State laws. Courts have also upheld the ability of a State 

to exclude providers suspected of fraud or who are under investigation. One of our 

witnesses will discuss this in more detail. 

Given the factual record, some States have already taken steps to block State taxpayer funding for providers, including Planned Parenthood, in light of some unconscionable atrocities -both apparent and documented from State judicial and enforcement actions. No State should be forced to continue to include providers in their 

4 

Medicaid program who commit reprehensible acts. And taxpayers should not be 

forced to pay for it. 

The committee wants to ensure States have appropriate flexibility of excluding 

from their Medicaid programs providers who are suspected of serious violations of 

Federal law. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I yield to the 

distinguished vice chairman of the full committee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mr. PITTS. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 

vice chairman of the full committee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to the witnesses. We are grateful that you all are here. 

In 2002, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became law. It 

passed the House on a voice vote. It was in response to troubling 

ideas that abortionists and pro-abortion activists did not regard infants as legal persons when they were born alive during an abortion. The law is explicit in definition that every infant who is born 

alive at any stage of development is a person for all Federal law 

purposes. And yet in 2015 we see evidence that some abortion providers feel that they may interpret this very clear law to suit their 

own purposes. 

At the time the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was being debated on the floor, Senator Boxer said, and I am quoting, ‘‘All people deserve protection, from the very tiniest infant to the most elderly among us,’’ end quote. And I could not agree more. 

It is clear more must be done to protect the lives of those most 

vulnerable. It is why I have authorized the Protecting Infants Born 

Alive Act, which strengthens current law by giving States the authority to exclude providers from Medicaid when they are suspected of violating the law. Furthermore, if convicted, these providers will be excluded from all Federal programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP. It is common sense. I look forward to 

the support of my colleagues. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Green, for 5 minutes for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And like our chairman, I apologize to our guests for being late, 

but they don’t even let us set the schedule on the House floor. 

Unfortunately, instead of using this time to advance legislation 

that improves our healthcare system, we are here in response to 

an aggressive smear campaign against Planned Parenthood based 

on highly edited videos that misrepresent the organization’s practices. These two bills are transparent efforts to give politicians 

power to block women’s access to their doctor of choice, jeopardizing the ability of millions of low-income Medicaid beneficiaries to 

see the provider they trust for their high-quality health care. 

Federal law has long protected the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to receive family planning services. These bills fly in the 

face of a patient’s choice and give politicians unchecked power to 

deny women access to the doctor of their choosing. If enacted, they 

would allow for unprecedented level of involvement by Government 

5 

in family planning decisions of low-income women. This hearing is 

part of an ongoing onslaught on not just choice, but on access to 

quality preventative healthcare services for millions of American 

women. 

I am deeply disappointed by the willingness of some of my colleagues to shut down the Government in response to sensational 

accusations and no evidence of wrongdoing. Efforts to block access 

to care and defund Planned Parenthood would do nothing more 

than prevent individuals who rely on these services from getting 

the care they need. More than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is preventative care, including cervical, breast cancer 

screenings, family planning services, mostly for women with few resources and incomes below the poverty level. 

We should not continue to play politics with women’s health. 

This is real consequences for real people. Using women’s health as 

a political football in order to advance an extreme agenda is nothing new, but this week’s efforts reach a new low. We have real 

challenges that Congress should be spending its time addressing, 

rather than going after, women’s health. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN

Good afternoon. 

Unfortunately, instead of using this time to advance legislation that improves our 

healthcare system, we are here in response to the aggressive smear campaign 

against Planned Parenthood based on highly edited videos that misrepresent the organization’s practices. 

These two bills are transparent efforts to give politicians power to block women’s 

access to their doctor of choice, jeopardizing the ability of millions of low-income 

Medicaid beneficiaries to see the provider they trust for high-quality health care. 

Federal law has long protected the ability of Medicaid beneficiaries to receive family planning services. 

These bills fly in the face of patient choice, and give politicians unchecked power 

to deny women access to the doctor of their choosing. 

If enacted, they would allow for an unprecedented level of involvement by the 

Government in the family planning decisions of low-income women. 

This hearing is part of the ongoing assault on not just choice, but on access to 

quality, preventative healthcare services for millions of women. 

I am deeply disappointed by the willingness of some of my colleagues to shut 

down the Government in response to sensationalized accusations and no evidence 

of wrong-doing. 

Efforts to block access to care and defund Planned Parenthood will do nothing 

more than prevent individuals who rely on these services from getting the care they 

need. 

More than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is preventive care—including cervical and breast cancer screenings, and family planning services-mostly 

for women with few resources and incomes below the poverty line. 

We should not continue to play politics with women’s health. This has real consequences for real people. 

Using women’s health as political football in order to advance an extreme agenda 

is nothing new, but this week’s efforts are a new low. 

We have real challenges that Congress should be spending its time addressing, 

rather than going after, women’s health. 

Mr. GREEN. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 1⁄2

minutes to my colleague and our ranking member of our O&I Subcommittee, Congresswoman DeGette. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Green. 

6 

In 2002, I voted for the Born Alive Act because obviously it is a 

crime to kill a baby that has been born. But this bill goes far, far 

beyond that, and this hearing goes far, far beyond that. The bills 

that we are considering today would redefine the freedom of choice 

of providers that is so critical to Medicaid’s beneficiaries, and it 

would restrict a beneficiary’s ability to seek care from a provider 

who is only suspected of having violated the provisions of the bill. 

This violates due process. This violates all of our justice system in 

this country. 

Furthermore, the Democratic staff of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee did a complete investigation into the allegations made in these deeply altered videotapes. The conclusion 

was that this committee has received no evidence to substantiate 

the allegations that Planned Parenthood is engaged in the sale of 

fetal tissue for profit. It goes on to say the committee has received 

no evidence to support the allegations that the fetal tissue was procured without consent, that Planned Parenthood physicians altered 

the timing, method, or procedure of an abortion solely for the purposes of obtaining fetal tissue, and it goes on. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit that report that we did dated September 9, 2015, into the record. 

Mr. PITTS. I would note that the investigation continues, but 

there is no objection. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the remainder 

of my time to Congresswoman Schakowsky. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the past few months, Republicans have insisted on a witch 

hunt based entirely on highly edited, misleading videos, videos that 

were released by a fraudulent organization that is now facing legal 

problems in both State and Federal courts. And then, when their 

own investigation failed to produce a single shred of evidence of 

wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, Republicans doubled down and 

introduced these incredibly harmful bills. 

And don’t be fooled by the claim that these bills are about protecting infants. It is clear that their true purpose is to eliminate 

Planned Parenthood. And whether or not you agree with abortion, 

it is constitutionally protected and a choice that should be only 

made by women and their doctors, not politicians. But because Republicans can’t overturn Roe v. Wade, they try every other way 

possible to erode this fundamental right. They try to cut off funding 

to the clinics that provide abortions, criminalize doctors that perform abortions, restrict access for millions of women every year. 

Let me just end with a comment by a women from Illinois: 

‘‘When I was sexually assaulted, I didn’t know who to turn to for 

help. As the trauma I experienced during that event built up, I 

knew I needed to seek help, and I was encouraged to go to Planned 

Parenthood, and for $10 received a full health screening and help 

coping with my trauma.’’ That is what Planned Parenthood is 

about. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

7 

And just as a courtesy, I might mention we have two Members 

who are not on the Health Subcommittee sitting with us. Mr. 

Westerman, who was interested in attending, is sitting. He will not 

participate. But Ms. DeGette, who is a member of the full committee, without objection, will sit and be a part of the hearing. 

And at this point the Chair recognizes the chairman of the full 

committee, Mr. Upton, 5 minutes for his questions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Every human life deserves a voice, and that is why we are here 

today. This committee has spent the last couple of months investigating Planned Parenthood and a series of videos that raise important questions about if it or its affiliates are violating existing 

law. That investigation is ongoing, and we will continue to use the 

tools in the toolbox available to get to the facts. 

In the meantime, there are steps that we can take today to help 

ensure that the laws, in fact, are being followed. The two bills 

being discussed today take important steps toward protecting infant lives and ensuring existing laws are being followed. The new 

vice chair, Marsha Blackburn, and Renee Ellmers have both demonstrated their leadership in authoring these bills to bolster the 

Born Alive Infants Protection Act and Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 

Act. 

Today, Medicaid, as we know, pays for about half of the births 

in the U.S. Medicaid is also a significant portion of Planned Parenthood’s revenue. And while States have some ability to enforce 

existing laws under Medicaid, these bills help ensure that States 

have more of the tools that they need to ban someone who is suspected of taking the life of an innocent baby from the State’s Medicaid program. 

These are commonsense measures to help ensure laws are being 

followed. And if healthcare providers break the law, of course they 

should be banned from Federal health programs. Further, if States 

suspect providers are violating the law, they should have the ability to ban that provider from Medicaid. 

This hearing, these bills, and our ongoing investigation are about 

ensuring taxpayer dollars support human dignity, respect for all 

life, and adherence to all Federal laws. 

I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Washington 

State, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Every human life deserves a voice. That’s why we are here today. This committee 

has spent the past nearly two months investigating Planned Parenthood and a series of videos that raise important question about if it or its affiliates are violating 

existing law. That investigation is ongoing and we will continue to use every tool 

available to get to the facts. 

In the meantime, there are steps we can take today to help ensure that the laws 

are being followed. 

The two bills being discussed today take important steps toward protecting infant 

lives and ensuring existing laws are being followed. Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn and Rep. Renee Ellmers have both demonstrated their leadership in 

8 

authoring these bills to bolster the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and PartialBirth Abortion Ban Act. 

Today, Medicaid pays for about half of the births in the United States. Medicaid 

is also a significant portion of Planned Parenthood’s revenue. While States have 

some ability to enforce existing law under Medicaid, these bills help ensure that 

States have more of the tools they need to ban someone who is suspected of taking 

the life of an innocent baby from the State’s Medicaid program. 

These are commonsense measures to help ensure laws are being followed. If 

healthcare providers break the law, of course they should be banned from Federal 

health programs. Further, if States suspect providers are violating the law, they 

should have the ability to ban that provider from Medicaid. 

This hearing, these bills, and our ongoing investigation are about ensuring taxpayer dollars support human dignity, respect for all life, and adherence to all Federal laws. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the committee for their work in advancing the 

cause of life, for Vice Chairman Blackburn’s work introducing H.R. 

3494, the Protecting Infants Born Alive Act, and for Congresswoman Ellmer’s work on her legislation to prevent providers acting 

in contravention of the partial-birth abortion ban from getting tax 

dollars through Medicaid. 

It has now been 2 months since the first undercover video surfaced, and the public concern has not subsided. These videos challenge all of us as legislators and as human beings to reflect and 

to work towards better protections for women, children, and families. 

Today, the President promised that he would veto a bill that says 

babies that survive an abortion do not deserve life-saving care. It 

is unthinkable to me that we live in a country where we let living, 

breathing babies die simply because they were born during an 

abortive procedure. And the President doesn’t want to just not let 

this happen, he is actively opposing efforts to save babies that were 

born alive. 

This is a radical, extreme departure from what I know to be 

right. And I am grateful for this committee’s work on this important issue and for my colleagues’ important work here today. 

And I would like to yield to the lady from North Carolina, Mrs. 

Ellmers. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you to my colleague from Washington. 

And thank you to the panel for being here today for this very important hearing. 

I thank the chairman for holding this important hearing. 

We are here today to talk about protecting the life of the unborn 

and clarifying States’ ability in their Medicaid programs to work 

with qualified providers. The legislation I have put forward provides States with greater clarity with respect to excluding those 

bad actors that perform partial-birth abortions. 

Democrats have argued that the bills before us today and the 

bills on the floor would harm women’s access to health care. This 

is false. As a nurse, I know these bills would protect the unborn, 

respect taxpayers, and preserve access to health care for millions 

of women. 

If Planned Parenthood funding is put on hold or a State takes 

action against a clinic, women can still access care. Federally funded qualified healthcare centers provide healthcare services for over 

22 million Americans. Planned Parenthood only provides services 

9 

for 2.7 million individuals, only a portion of whom are women. And 

the only services Planned Parenthood offers that Federally qualified health centers do not is abortion. Yet health centers provide 

more types of important healthcare services than Planned Parenthood does. 

Today and tomorrow we are not decreasing access for women. We 

are talking about legislation to protect the lives of the youngest 

and most vulnerable among us, babies, who have no voice to speak 

in their own defense. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the remainder of this 

time. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes 

the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, 5 minutes 

for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a real shame that we are here today to continue what is 

nothing more than a Republican assault on women’s rights. I had 

hoped that our committee could rise above the fray, that we would 

not use misleading and unsubstantiated videos by antichoice extremists to attack Planned Parenthood, an organization who is responsible for providing care to millions of women across the Nation. 

This concerted effort by Republicans under the guise of falsified 

videos is not about strengthening current law. It is about restricting access to women’s health care. And if Republicans continue 

down this path, it will lead to a Government shutdown. 

Make no mistake, Republican policies under consideration here 

today would roll back the clock on longstanding provider choice 

protections that allow a woman to see a doctor that she trusts. 

Their end goal is to eliminate a woman’s constitutional right to 

choose. 

These proposals will have an immediate and chilling effect on access to care. They would give States the unprecedented ability to 

unilaterally eliminate providers from State Medicaid programs and 

eliminate providers from all Federal health programs wholesale 

based purely on unsubstantiated allegations, and that means suspicion alone. 

With the attempted efforts by States like Indiana and Louisiana, 

this will surely give credence to their actions, and this is not the 

American way. Like abortion, due process is a fundamental right. 

I can’t stand by and allow this committee and this Congress to 

support a witch hunt against Planned Parenthood, and I will not 

support undue, unconstitutional Government intervention into a 

women’s personal decisions with her doctor. Republicans must end 

this extreme agenda to roll back the clock on women’s rights. 

I have, I think, about 3 minutes left, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to split that between Representative Matsui and Representative 

Capps. So I will yield first to Representative Matsui. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

10 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s a real shame that we are here today to continue what is nothing more than a Republican assault on women’s rights. I had hoped that our committee could rise above the fray. That we would not use misleading and unsubstantiated videos by anti-choice extremists to attack Planned Parenthood—an organization who is responsible for providing care to millions of women across the Nation. 

This concerted effort by Republicans, under the guise of falsified videos, is not 

about strengthening current law, it’s about restricting access to women’s health care 

and if Republicans continue down this path, it will lead to a Government shutdown. 

Make no mistake, Republican policies under consideration here today would roll 

back the clock on longstanding provider choice protections that allow a woman to 

see the doctor that she trusts. Their end goal is to eliminate a women’s constitutional right to choose. 

These proposals will have an immediate and chilling effect on access to care. They 

would give States the unprecedented ability to unilaterally eliminate providers from 

State Medicaid programs and eliminate providers from all Federal health programs 

wholesale—based purely on unsubstantiated allegations—that means suspicion 

alone. With the attempted efforts by States like Indiana and Louisiana, this will 

surely give credence to their actions. This is not the American way—like abortion, 

due process is a fundamental right. 

I cannot stand by and allow this committee and this Congress to support a witch 

hunt against Planned Parenthood. And I will not support undue, unconstitutional, 

Government intervention into a woman’s personal decisions with her doctor. Republicans must end this extreme agenda to roll back the clock on women’s rights. 

I yield 1 minute to Rep. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 

The hearing today is looking for ways to deny low-income women 

and families access to health services by excluding Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program. The termination of Medicaid 

funding for Planned Parenthood would create a serious deficiency 

in women’s health providers across our country. 

Medicaid serves nearly 12 million Californians, and Planned Parenthood provides services to nearly 1 million people at 117 health 

centers in California alone. Defunding Planned Parenthood would 

leave millions in California and across the country without access 

to essential health services. We should not allow politicians to deny 

a woman access to health care and to infringe upon her right to 

make decisions about her own body. 

Even more appalling is the idea of the Government infringing 

upon these rights, specifically for low-income women. That is not 

right. Our colleagues would deny women’s health and Medicaid 

services because they don’t like Planned Parenthood. They are even 

threatening to shut down the Government in order to advance 

these extreme views. 

I stand in opposition to these bills. I urge my colleagues to put 

aside partisan politics and refocus on efforts to expand and improve 

programs that our constituents rely upon. 

And I yield to Representative Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you for yielding. 

Mr. Chairman, I must say I am disappointed in this committee. 

I am disappointed that here we have worked so hard this year to 

find common ground and compromise for the American people. We 

are now succumbing to the political theater that has taken over the 

rest of Congress. 

The legislation we are being asked to considered is supposedly in 

response to heavily altered, deceptive videos that try to cast a 

shadow over one of the Nation’s most trusted women’s healthcare 

11 

providers. But as our colleague on the Oversight Committee has 

testified, that committee has not found any evidence of wrongdoing, 

and without any basis in reality, we are still here considering bills 

in search of a problem. 

In my years as a nurse in the public school system, I worked so 

closely with teen parents whose lives and education were disrupted 

by an unplanned pregnancy. These young mothers and students 

still had such promise, but now they were faced with the difficult 

role of balancing their responsibilities as parents and students, 

often limiting their opportunities. 

We know it doesn’t have to be this way. Comprehensive sex education and access to a wide range of birth control options, this is 

what Planned Parenthood brings to our communities, and they are 

exactly the types of education and interventions that prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion in the first place. 

These bills before us would end these important services in our 

communities all for political gain. It is unacceptable. We need to 

stop being distracted and get this committee back to work on real 

issues facing this country. 

I yield back to my colleague from New Jersey. 

Mr. PALLONE. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

As usual, all the opening statements of the members will be put 

into the record if you submit them in writing. 

And at this point, we will go to our witnesses. Let me introduce 

them in the order that they will present. 

First of all, thank you for coming. We appreciate you coming to 

present testimony today. And on our panel we have first Dr. 

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life. 

Welcome. 

Then Mr. Casey Mattox, senior counsel for Alliance Defending 

Freedom. And finally Judy Waxman, an attorney. 

So you will be each be given 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. Your written testimony will be part of the record. But you 

will be recognized for 5 minutes. And you will have a series of 

lights. The green will stay on for 4 minutes. And then, when the 

red comes on, that is the time for you to conclude. 

So at this point the Chair recognizes Dr. Yoest for 5 minutes for 

her opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF CHARMAINE YOEST, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE; 

M. CASEY MATTOX, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM; AND JUDY WAXMAN, ATTORNEY 

STATEMENT OF CHARMAINE YOEST 

Dr. YOEST. Thank you, Chairman Pitts and members of the committee, for inviting me to testify on behalf of Americans United for 

Life, the legal architects of the pro-life movement. 

The videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, which 

document senior-level Planned Parenthood staff callously discussing its practice of harvesting the organs of aborted babies in 

exchange for money, are deeply troubling. We have previously subVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:37 Mar 18, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\114X75PLANNEDPARENTHOODWORKING WAYNE
12 

mitted a legal analysis of the videos to the Energy and Commerce 

Committee detailing six potential felonies shown on the videos. 

Today, I will focus on three issues that have received less attention to date, specifically Planned Parenthood’s involvement in killing infants born alive after an abortion, performing illegal partialbirth abortions, and coordinating potentially unethical and illegal 

organ and body part harvesting at the corporate level. 

The flagrant disregard for both life and law at Planned Parenthood that the videos depict is, unfortunately, not surprising. One 

of AUL’s primary functions is promoting meaningful legislative protections for all human life, including laws to protect infants born 

alive after an abortion and health and safety standards. Yet 

Planned Parenthood regularly and publicly fights against these 

commonsense laws. 

The videos provide insight into why Planned Parenthood desperately fights against lawful standards, even protections for babies born alive, like it recently did in Colorado. In one Colorado 

video, Dr. Savita Ginde, who is the vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, remarked, 

quote, ‘‘If someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then they are intact. But that is not what we go for.’’ 

The videos raise credible concern that babies are regularly surviving an abortion, providing probable cause for investigating possible violations of the Federal Born Alive Infant Protections Act. 

Multiple people throughout the videos refer to the delivery of an intact specimen. For most of us, that is a baby, begging the question, 

Was that child born alive? 

In multiple instances throughout the videos, that appears to be 

true. For example, Dr. Ben Van Handel, executive director of 

Novogenix Laboratories, notes: ‘‘There are times when after the 

[abortion] Procedure is done that the heart is actually still beating.’’ Cate Dyer, CEO of StemExpress, says intact babies are common. Quote: ‘‘If you had intact cases, which we have done a lot, we 

sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety.’’ 

The videos also provide probable cause to investigate whether 

Planned Parenthood violates the Federal prohibition of partialbirth abortion in order to harvest more usable baby organs. It is 

important to note that Planned Parenthood actively opposed the 

Federal ban on partial-birth abortion and unsuccessfully tried to 

have it struck down in the courts. 

Even so, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, who is the senior medical director of corporate Planned Parenthood, defiantly dismisses the Federal law, describing it as, quote, ‘‘up to interpretation,’’ end quote, 

for abortionists like herself. Consider her description about, quote, 

‘‘steps that can be taken to try to ensure,’’ end quote, procurement 

of brain tissue. The abortion process she describes, deliberately 

changing the baby to breach presentation, has a very troubling 

similarity to the description of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure. 

And finally, the videos document a nationwide network of affiliates in close communication with and endorsement from the corporate headquarters of Planned Parenthood. As an organization, 

Planned Parenthood’s enterprise liability is illustrated by the 

knowledge and complicity of its senior-level staff who set and direct 

13 

policy. Dr. Nucatola stated multiple times that the legal department at Planned Parenthood was well aware of the harvesting and 

selling of infant body parts by affiliates but advised against issuing 

written national guidelines regarding the practice. Dr. Ginde made 

similar statements. 

In fact, as this chart demonstrates, the undercover videos show 

that the scandal is extensive and reaches the highest levels of 

Planned Parenthood. 

[The information follows:] 

14 

15 

1 Additional information submitted by Dr. Yoest has been retained in committee files and also 

is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF14/20150917/103957/HHRG-114-IF14- 

Wstate-YoestC-20150917-SD002.pdf. 

Dr. YOEST. For example, the videos include discussions with corporate Planned Parenthood’s senior medical director, the president 

of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Directors’ Council, the vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain, 

which is one of their largest affiliates, and the national director for 

Planned Parenthood’s Consortium of Abortion Providers. 

In conclusion, on behalf of Americans United for Life, I encourage you to take two legislative responses as a beginning. First, redirect the tax dollars that presently support Planned Parenthood to 

true healthcare providers not plagued by scandal. This abortion 

giant receives over $1.25 million per day—per day—in Government 

funding. We support the proposals to address Medicaid funding 

that is subsidizing Planned Parenthood because Americans should 

not be forced to fund the Nation’s number one abortion provider. 

And second, strengthen the Federal Born Alive Infant Protection 

Act with criminal penalties to ensure meaningful enforcement of 

the most basic human right to life for these infants who survive attempted abortions. 

Additionally, hold abortion workers to their legal duty to report 

crimes to law enforcement. Planned Parenthood cannot be permitted to operate while violating laws that protect human rights. 

Having shown and demonstrated that it cannot resist the financial 

incentive for delivering intact babies to harvest their organs, 

Planned Parenthood cannot be allowed to continue their inhumane 

practices unchecked. 

And let me conclude by saying thank you for addressing this very 

important issue and holding this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Yoest follows:]1

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes 

Mr. Casey Mattox, 5 minutes for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF M. CASEY MATTOX 

Mr. MATTOX. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. 

Planned Parenthood benefits substantially from Medicaid. Despite providing only a limited selection of medical services, it annually receives over a half-billion taxpayer dollars. Over the last decade, Planned Parenthood’s own annual reports indicate it has almost doubled its tax revenues, and it has reported $765 million in 

what it calls excess revenue, $127 million of that last year alone. 

During the same time period, Planned Parenthood has reduced 

its cancer screenings by half and increased the number of abortions 

it performs even as the national abortion rate has declined, giving 

it a 40 percent market share, as Planned Parenthood’s senior medical director, Deborah Nucatola, bragged in the first CMP video. 

Planned Parenthood receives taxpayer dollars in many ways, but 

principally from Medicaid. Yet Planned Parenthood is unlike many 

other providers, not only because of its profits, but also because it 

has also been able to resist much of the corrective action that other 

Medicaid providers with its track record would expect. And unlike 

other Medicaid providers, Planned Parenthood has spent millions 

of dollars in recent elections supporting its preferred candidates. 

Planned Parenthood has a long history of actions that would have 

jeopardized its State Medicaid contracts were it any other provider. 

The States regulate medicine, and the States supply their own 

tax dollars to Medicaid. Thus Congress did not create one Medicaid 

program. It created 50. States are free to craft their own programs 

to best serve their own citizens’ needs, choosing which providers 

they will entrust with taxpayer dollars. The Medicaid Act itself and 

its legislative history affirm that States have broader authority 

than even the Federal Government to exclude providers from their 

Medicaid programs, and the courts have agreed. 

Thus, over the last two decades, over 9,000 of the now 554,000 

Medicaid providers in this country have been disqualified from 

State Medicaid programs. Those decisions are usually 

uncontroversial, but recent actions by the Federal Government to 

protect Planned Parenthood have undermined that Federal-State 

balance. When States choose not to contract with abortionists and 

their Medicaid programs, reasonably concerned that taxpayer dollars would subsidize those abortions, the administration issued a 

new interpretation of the Medicaid statute that purports to deny 

them the right to administer their State Medicaid program. 

Recently, after several States terminated contracts with Planned 

Parenthood specifically, the administration expanded that interpretation, claiming that those States lacked the right to exclude individual providers suspected of violating the law, at least where 

Planned Parenthood is concerned. This despite the fact that each 

State has hundreds of other low-cost healthcare options for the few 

Planned Parenthood clinics’ limited service. 

The administration’s actions are robbing the States of control 

over their own State Medicaid programs to protect a politically 

powerful but ethically and legally challenged organization. ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:37 Mar 18, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\114X75PLANNEDPARENTHOODWORKING WAYNE
35 

1 Additional information submitted by Mr. Mattox has been retained in committee files and 

also is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF14/20150917/103957/HHRG-114- 

IF14-Wstate-MattoxC-20150917-SD001.pdf. 

gress can restore the proper balance, allowing States to determine 

which providers they trust with taxpayer dollars. 

Any other Medicaid provider subject to multiple whistleblower 

lawsuits by former employees alleging tens of millions of dollars in 

waste, abuse, and potential fraud, which paid $4.3 million after 

being accused of submitting false claims by the Obama administration Department of Justice, which has been specifically identified 

as the source of over $8 million in Medicaid overpayments by Government audits, including submitting claims for abortion-related 

services, any other provider like that would not be surprised to 

have its Medicaid billing privileges suspended or even terminated. 

Any other Medicaid provider caught having failed to report sexual abuse of minors at least a dozen times, including most recently 

a 14-year-old girl in Mobile, Alabama, who was returned twice, 

after two abortions in Mobile, returned twice to her abuser without 

reporting that information to authorities, any other Medicaid provider in that position would be surprised to only have their Medicaid privileges terminated. 

Any other Medicaid provider that was paid by a for-profit company, StemExpress, for baby body parts where that company has 

claimed in writing to provide ‘‘financial profits,’’ quote, and ‘‘fiscal 

rewards’’ to abortion clinics in marketing materials bearing the endorsement of that Medicaid provider whose CEO acknowledged to 

Congress—we are not talking about the videos—acknowledged to 

Congress that it had received $60 per baby body part and could 

provide no evidence that actually connected those payments with 

any actual expenses that Planned Parenthood experienced, whose 

top-level management has been captured on hours of videos negotiating prices for those organs and the alteration of abortion methods 

against the mother’s knowledge to obtain those organs for sale 

would rightfully expect that its Medicaid contract would be in jeopardy. 

But Planned Parenthood is not any other Medicaid provider. It 

is a politically powerful organization that spends substantial sums 

from its sizeable excess revenues to maintain its funding and its 

political power, and Planned Parenthood is being protected by this 

administration. 

Congress can reaffirm that the States have the authority to govern their own State Medicaid programs and make decisions that 

are in the interest of their citizens, even where Planned Parenthood is concerned. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mattox follows:]1

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

Ms. Waxman, 5 minutes for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF JUDY WAXMAN 

Ms. WAXMAN. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here 

today. 

I have two points to make today. One, the two bills at issue here 

today clearly, as you heard already, have a single purpose, and 

that is to make it easier for State officials to target Planned Parenthood and other women’s health providers. 

The Medicaid program is rooted in due process protections for 

both patients and for providers. These bills are not. The two bills 

would amend Medicaid to allow State officials to exclude a provider 

from the program if they or one of their employees is simply suspected of violating either of the laws we are discussing today. The 

standard is unduly vague, and as Congressman Pallone said, it is 

not the American way. 

Two, Planned Parenthood is, in fact, a respected, high-quality 

provider that provides essential healthcare services for millions of 

women nationwide. The Medicaid funds that they receive are reimbursement, and I will say even low reimbursement, directly for the 

services that they are providing these women—family planning 

services, breast screening, STD screening, et cetera. And by giving 

States carte blanche to exclude these providers from Medicaid 

based on a politician’s suspicion only, these bills will definitely put 

the health of millions of women at risk. 

The bills before the committee today go dangerously beyond what 

the law currently provides. Based on a hunch or a rumor, all services the provider offers to Medicaid patients could totally evaporate. There would be no due process or any process at all for determining whether an accusation is true. The bills give unlimited 

power to exclude a provider without so much as an investigation, 

evidence to support the accusation, a hearing, court proceedings, an 

opportunity for the entity to defend itself, or appeal. 

The result of giving the States this unlimited power would be 

that they would be free to wreak havoc on programs that advance 

women’s health, and healthcare services for millions of women, particularly low-income women, around the country would be at risk. 

Yesterday’s Census Bureau report found that in 2014, fully 20 

percent of all women and girls in this country received Medicaid to 

cover their healthcare services, which explains why Medicaid is so 

important to women throughout their lives. And because reimbursement rates for Medicaid is generally lower than other payers, 

there are just not always that many Medicaid providers available. 

The role that Planned Parenthood plays is to provide critical, essential care, and that role cannot be overstated. If Planned Parenthood were not available to Medicaid patients, unfortunately, unintended pregnancies and the number of abortions would increase 

dramatically. As the Guttmacher Institute found, in two-thirds of 

the almost 500 counties in which Planned Parenthoods are located, 

they serve at least half of all the women obtaining contraceptive 

care from safety net health providers. And in many communities, 

Planned Parenthood is, in fact, the sole safety net provider. 

58 

So what would happen if Planned Parenthood was defunded. 

Well, let’s take Texas for example. In recent years, Texas decided 

to get out of the Medicaid program for family planning services so 

they could cut Planned Parenthood out of their networks, and as 

a result other clinics could not handle the deluge of new patients. 

In Hidalgo County alone, community health centers said they 

would require a 500 percent increase in capacity for women’s 

health, something they simply could not do. Medicaid claims 

dropped 26 percent and contraceptive claims dropped 54 percent. 

That tells me women were not getting care. 

Two other programs are cited as having the ability to fill the gap, 

Title X and community health centers. And while Title X offers 

critical services to women who need family planning services, it is 

already woefully underfunded and under severe attack. In fact, the 

House Appropriations Committee voted just this summer to totally 

defund this program. 

As for community health centers, let’s be realistic. CHCs have 

grown nationwide since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, but 

they can’t handle the patients they have now already, which, in 

fact, is a good thing. Many more people have insurance. But according to their own accounts, for every patient served at a CHC, 

nearly three go without access to primary healthcare services. And 

while some private doctors of course do see Medicaid patients, 

there will be enough of them, unfortunately, to fill the gap. 

These bills give States an unprecedented ability to deny Medicaid 

enrollees from getting the healthcare services they need from their 

trusted healthcare provider. It is the women, and particularly the 

low-income women, that will be the losers if these bills are enacted. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Waxman follows:] 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the lady. 

That concludes the opening statements of the witnesses. We will 

now begin questioning. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for 

that purpose. 

Before we begin, let me just warn the audience that the pictures 

that you are about to see are quite graphic. It is important to show 

exactly what we are talking about here. 

So the first clip, please. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. PITTS. Let me read those words in case you couldn’t hear 

them: ‘‘It had a face. It wasn’t completely torn up. Its nose was 

very pronounced. It had eyelids. Since the fetus was so intact, she 

said, ‘OK, well, this is a really good fetus, and it looks like we can 

procure a lot from it. We are going to procure a brain.’ That means 

we are going to have to cut the head open. 

‘‘She takes the scissors. She makes a small incision right here 

and goes, ‘I would say, maybe a little bit through the mouth.’ And 

she is like, ‘OK, can you go the rest of the way?’ And so she gave 

me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of 

the face, and I can’t even describe what that feels like,’’ end quote. 

That is the whistleblower. 

Next clip. 

[Video shown.] 

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I have to object to this. You don’t 

have any context for this. What we understand from all of the investigations is that these are manufactured videos, highly edited, 

selective. And I would object and say you need to run these by the 

minority so that we can provide some context. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. Now that is the second video, and Dr. 

Nucatola, the senior director of the Planned Parenthood Medical 

Services, says, ‘‘We have been very good at getting heart, lung, 

liver, because we know that. I am not going to crush that part. I 

am going to basically crush below——’’ 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Mr. PITTS. ‘‘I am going to crush’’—let me finish, I am on my time, 

please. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I am raising a point of order, Mr. Chairman, 

to prevent you from going further. Did you rule on the gentlelady 

from Florida’s objection just a moment ago? 

Mr. PITTS. Would you please state your point of order? 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Did you rule on the gentlelady from Florida’s 

objection a moment ago? 

Mr. PITTS. I did not. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Would you please make a ruling for the 

record? 

Mr. PITTS. She did not state her point of order. Reclaiming my 

time. 

And so it says, ‘‘I am going to crush above. I am going to see if 

I can get it all intact. I would say a lot of people want liver, and 

for that reason most providers will do this case under ultrasound 

guidance so that they will know where they are putting their forceps,’’ end quote. 

All right. The final clip. 

[Video shown.] 

66 

Mr. PITTS. All right. This is the clip of the unedited conversation 

which Dr. Nucatola explains how she plans her day, procedures 

around the baby’s organs she would like to maintain intact. As she 

plans her day, these babies are not different than anyone else of 

us, and yet it, frankly, gives me chills to think about how someone 

could even think about removing their organs. 

And so these clips have shown the gruesome reality we are talking about. They are available in the public domain. None of us can 

forget the images and words that we see when we look at these and 

the blatant disregard for human life. And no organization, especially one that receives millions of dollars from the Federal Government, should be able to participate in such horrific actions. That 

is why we are here today, and that is why we are going to act. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Green, 5 

minutes for his questions. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Frankly, this is unprecedented, what you have done, because this 

is a group, the shadow org called Center for Medical Progress. And 

let me—what is already in the record, the staff and the memorandum has found, to date the committee has received no evidence 

to substantiate the allegations that Planned Parenthood has engaged in the sale of fetal tissue for profit. 

Furthermore, the committee has received no evidence to support 

the allegations that fetal tissue was procured without consent, that 

Planned Parenthood physicians altered the timing, method, or procedure of the abortions solely for the purposes of obtaining fetal tissue, or that Planned Parenthood physicians performed—violated 

the Partial-Birth Abortion Act in order to preserve fetal tissue for 

research. 

I think this is a new low for our committee. We can’t question 

this video, but I know the group that presented it. And for the last 

10 years, this is the 10th attack in 15 years that abortion opponents have used the doctored evidence, and now it has been presented by our chair to a committee. 

Now, I want to proceed to my questions. 

Professor Waxman, I would like to ask you about the impact 

defunding Planned Parenthood would have on women’s access to 

life-saving reproductive and primary care services. Unfortunately, 

this is not hypothetical in Texas. A few years ago, former Governor 

Perry decided to refuse Federal Medicaid funds for our State planning program in order to exclude Planned Parenthood from its network, which is what the bill talks about. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter 

a House Affairs post entitled ‘‘How Texas Lawmakers Continue to 

Undermine Women’s Health,’’ and it is a report by the Texas 

Health and Human Services Commission on Texas Women’s Health 

Program, which found a 54 percent decrease in contraception 

claims as a result of the exclusion of Planned Parenthood from its 

women’s health. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

67 

Professor Waxman, what was the reason for this exclusion? Do 

you acknowledge that there is anything wrong with the services 

Planned Parenthood was providing? 

Ms. WAXMAN. It is my understanding that it was simply the administration in Texas that did not want to allow Planned Parenthood to operate anymore and to be able to provide services for 

women with Medicaid dollars. 

Because there was really not a legal way for that to be accomplished, what the Governor did was just simply end the program 

through which Texas was getting family planning services. 

Mr. GREEN. What happened in Texas as a result of the exclusion 

of Planned Parenthood? 

Ms. WAXMAN. What happened was what we have already seen, 

and you said 54 percent decrease in services, in contraception services—— 

Mr. GREEN. And that is just not restating it, that is a State agency that did a study on Texas? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Yes. And clearly women are not getting the care 

that they need, and this is a travesty that obviously some want to 

have happen all over the country. 

Mr. GREEN. Do you think the impact of these cuts disproportionately fell upon low-income women? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Absolutely. By definition, women who are on Medicaid are low-income, and those are the ones that are bearing the 

burden. 

Mr. GREEN. What do you think about the impact on patients’ continuity of care, which again Planned Parenthood provides? As I 

said before, 90 percent of what they do, at least, is women’s health. 

Ms. WAXMAN. Absolutely. Planned Parenthood is a trusted provider. About 1 in 5 American women have gone to see a Planned 

Parenthood. So if you see Planned Parenthood being wiped off the 

face of the country, one thing that will happen for sure is millions 

more unintended pregnancies and possibly close to a million more 

abortions because services will just not be available. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I am from Texas, a native Houstonian, and I 

am proud of being there. But I really don’t want the Nation to do 

what Texas tried to do. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to my colleague, Congresswoman Schakowsky, for a parliamentary question with the remainder of my time. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair recognizes Ms. Schakowsky for the question. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The questions I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether the committee majority is in possession of the unedited—you claim these are unedited, although the music behind the 

person I am sure wasn’t a part of the scene—from the Center for 

Medical Progress. A number of our committee members have been 

quoted in the press as having seen the videos before they were released to the public, and others have referred to the existence of 

thousands of hours of additional tapes. Is any member of the committee, Mr. Chairman, in possession of any of the unedited videos 

from the Center for Medical Progress? 

Mr. PITTS. The committee is not. They are publicly available. 

Anyone can access them. 

68 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Has any member of the committee majority received any documents from the Center for Medical Progress? 

Mr. PITTS. What is the parliamentary inquiry? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The question I was asking, has any member 

of the committee majority received any documents from the Center 

for Medical Progress? 

Mr. PITTS. All right. The gentlelady’s question relates to the investigation taking place in the Oversight Subcommittee. It is my 

understanding that the minority has received its own copy set of 

all the documents produced to the committee in response to committee requests, and minority staff has also been present at the 

briefings and interviews conducted in this investigation. So there 

is no basis to raise the rule. 

And I will at this point recognize Chairman Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know a number of members have indicated, they have said during the hearing that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. I would 

just like to make a point that the investigation itself is far from 

complete. We have asked a number of questions we don’t have the 

answers to yet. We have asked to speak to a number of witnesses, 

even a good number of weeks ago, and we have not yet had access 

to those particular individuals. Many are asking for legal counsel. 

And to talk a little bit further about that in terms of the record 

not being complete, which is the reason why we have asked the 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee to pursue this, I would 

yield to the chairman of that subcommittee, Dr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the chairman for yielding so I can offer 

some clarification here, because I feel obligated to take this time, 

speaking as chairman of the committee’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, to address the remarks made by my colleague, 

the gentlelady from Colorado, regarding the status of the subcommittee’s investigation. 

Statements have been made to indicate the investigation is complete. It is not. The investigation we are conducting with invitations extended to our Democrat colleagues for every meeting is far 

from complete. In fact, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is in the preliminary stages—preliminary stages—of its 

investigation into the practice of procuring and selling the tissue 

and parts from babies who have been aborted. A few witnesses 

have been interviewed, and many have not. Some documents have 

been obtained. Others will be sought and reviewed, and these will 

be shared. 

The videotapes of these practices put very important issues into 

the public domain. It is our shared responsibility to collect the facts 

and present sound information to the American people. It is premature to draw any conclusions to this ongoing investigation. It is 

going to take a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of this 

practice, and at this point we simply cannot conclude that there 

has been no wrongdoing. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, 

5 minutes for his questions. 

Mr. UPTON. I yield back. 

69 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair yields back. 

Now we recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Pallone, for his questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask these questions of Ms. Waxman. We are having 

this hearing today because of a series of videos that purport to 

show illegal and unethical activity on the part of Planned Parenthood, but what they actually show is something very different. 

Professor Waxman, did you know that the first four short videos 

released by Mr. Daleiden have over 40 separate splices and edits 

that remove crucial context? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I did not know that. I knew they were doctored, 

but that is an interesting detail. 

Mr. PALLONE. Did you know that the edits removed key exculpatory statements, such as, and I quote: ‘‘Nobody should be selling 

tissue. That is just not the goal here.’’ Or second, quote: ‘‘This is 

not a service they should be making money from. It is something 

they should be able to offer to their patients in a way that doesn’t 

impact them,’’ unquote. Or, quote, thirdly: ‘‘We are not looking to 

make money from this. Our goal is to keep access available.’’ 

Ms. WAXMAN. So in other words, the pieces we see are taken totally out of context? 

Mr. PALLONE. Right. And the statements where the Planned Parenthood individuals are saying that, you know, that they would not 

do any of these things have been taken out. 

Let me ask you this: Do these seem like relevant statements to 

include in the videos? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I think that given that these videos are clearly 

doctored and that they are taken out of context, they don’t seem 

really appropriate to be seen here today, to me. 

What I do know is that Planned Parenthood has said that only 

about 1 percent of the activities they are engaged in have anything 

to do with fetal tissue. And I know fetal tissue research is, obviously, a controversial issue. I think if that is what the concern is, 

that seems to be another day for another hearing on that. 

But in terms of what these videos show, I think without the 

whole context and without the splicing, I would say I am not sure 

it shows anything much. 

Mr. PALLONE. Did you know that in one of the videos, there are 

at least 16 substantial unexplained edits, including the removal of 

nine instances where the Planned Parenthood staff said there is no 

profit related to tissue donation? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Very interesting. 

Mr. PALLONE. Does that seem like relevant material to include 

in the video? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I would think not. 

Mr. PALLONE. And does it seem misleading and fundamentally 

dishonest to remove statements like that? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I would say it is fundamentally dishonest. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now, see, that is why the videos have been denounced as a total crock, distorted, unfair, dishonest, grossly misleading, and politically irresponsible, and swiftboating in editorials 

across the country. And it is also why a forensic analysis by expert 

70 

investigators concluded that the videos have no evidentiary value 

and cannot be relied upon. 

Yet our committee Republicans launched an investigation based 

on these discredited videos, and now they are using these videos 

as a pretext for shutting down the Government—and, of course, as 

part of the hearing today—to say that States cannot allow Planned 

Parenthood to receive any Medicaid funding. 

I just think it is so irresponsible, you know, to use this type of 

material, false, false material, false videos, inaccurate videos, misleading videos, to make any case at what is supposed to be a legislative hearing. 

And, you know, this is what is so upsetting to us on the Democratic side, is that these are presented as if, you know, they have 

some evidentiary value to make a decision about the legislation 

that is before the committee, and the fact is that they have no evidentiary value. 

And that is why we issued a report a few days ago, I think Ms. 

Schakowsky mentioned it, saying basically that while it may be 

true that the committee continues to conduct investigation—at 

least, you know, the Republicans want to continue the investigation—nothing that has come before this committee gives us any indication that Planned Parenthood has done anything illegal, anything improper. And if they want to use these videos to make that 

case, then I think the Republicans have to show the unedited 

version, and that is not what we are getting. And the chairman 

even said the committee doesn’t have the unedited version. 

So, you know, this is really a charade. As some of my colleagues 

on the Democratic side said, it is a new low for a committee that 

usually operates not only on a bipartisan basis, but also based on 

the facts and the evidence, and we are not getting the facts and 

the evidence here today, Mr. Chairman. We are simply not. Thank 

you. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes, sure. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Furthermore, what I don’t understand, if, as my 

friend Mr. Upton, the chairman, says, the investigation in Oversight and Investigations is far from complete, why now today in the 

Health Committee’s hearing the majority is showing these videotapes that are under the investigation, which the majority now 

claims is incomplete in the other subcommittee? It is obvious it is 

just a pretext for trying to move this legislation along, and that is 

far beneath the standards of this august committee. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We are voting on the floor. We still have 13 minutes, so we will 

continue. And the Chair recognizes the vice chairman of the full 

committee, Mrs. Blackburn, 5 minutes of questions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I will remind my colleagues, we are not having a hearing 

today on the tapes. What we are having a hearing on is legislation 

that will strengthen the ability to keep these children alive. And 

it is important that we refocus that and return to this. 

Yes, these videos are in the public domain now. And we are talking about babies. We are talking about human life. And we are 

71 

talking about life rights. And it is important for us to return to 

that focus. 

Dr. Yoest, I would like to come to you, if I may, please. You noted 

that the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act needed to be strengthened and that there needed to be some criminal penalties put in 

place that would ensure enforcement. And I would like for you to 

describe what you see as the weaknesses. I would like to hear from 

you about what you think we need to do. And then, of course, the 

legislation that I have brought forward that would address some of 

those flexibilities for the States. 

So if you will take a couple of moments and do that, I would appreciate it. 

Dr. YOEST. Thank you, Congressman Blackburn, I appreciate the 

opportunity to address many of the issues that have been raised. 

And particularly thank you for your legislation, which I believe is 

a tremendous first step in the direction of addressing some of these 

really troubling issues that we are discussing today. 

I think one of the things that has been most surprising for many 

of us in getting into this time period where we have been looking 

at these questions is many people aren’t even aware that the BornAlive Infants Protection Act, as it was passed years ago, was simply a descriptive bill. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. If I may add there. It passed in 2002 on a voice 

vote in the House. Go ahead. 

Dr. YOEST. It passed in a voice vote here, and in the Senate it 

was unanimous. And every Senator was present, including Senator 

Hillary Clinton and many other very prominent abortion right supporters. 

So what I think is important to note is that this is an issue that 

is really common sense for everyone. 

Most people aren’t aware that there is no penalty attached to not 

providing humane care for a baby who is born alive after an abortion. And what we see in our work as Americans United for Life 

is just earlier this year I was invited to testify in front of the Colorado State Legislature, who was looking at a State-based protection 

for babies born alive. And the Colorado Planned Parenthood came 

and testified that babies are never born alive after an abortion. 

And what particularly, I think, should be a concern to all of us 

from a human rights perspective is that when a baby is born alive 

after an abortion, they are at the mercy of someone who has been 

hired to ensure that their life is not continued. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let me interject right there and stop you and 

ask again, are you aware of cases that have demonstrated that 

abortion survivors, infants born alive from a botched abortion, that 

they are killed or denied treatment after birth? Do you know of any 

cases? 

Dr. YOEST. Yes, ma’am. There was a very prominent incident 

with a pro-life nurse, Jill Stanek, who became pro-life after witnessing a baby that was discarded and set aside and left to perish 

after being born alive. 

And going to the point about the veracity of the videos, I would 

just argue that what we are looking at is a question of probable 

cause for investigation. If we have a situation where a whistleblower has had the courage to come forward and state for the 

72 

record that she observed a beating heart of a baby after an abortion, I think the burden of proof is then on Planned Parenthood to 

prove that this is not happening. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

I have just a couple of seconds left, and I would like for you to 

weigh in on this. There was a memo circulated to members yesterday, it was a Planned Parenthood memo that warned the BornAlive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that the House is going to 

vote on tomorrow, and I am quoting, ‘‘rolls back a carefully crafted 

bipartisan agreement reached in 2002 and would leave’’—and I am 

quoting again— ‘‘significant uncertainty about what the bill actually does,’’ end quote. 

Would you talk about that just a moment, please, what the bill 

does? 

Dr. YOEST. Well, I think the advantage of having this legislation 

right now is that it actually clarifies what the situation is. Because 

to have something as serious as a situation where a person is born 

alive and it is unclear as to what the approach is to that person’s 

life—for example, Planned Parenthood a couple of years ago testified in Florida when another State-based born-alive bill was being 

considered, the Planned Parenthood representative was asked what 

their policy is when a baby is born alive, and she said: Well, that 

is left up to the doctor. 

So this legislation would clarify that if a baby is born alive it is 

a person and that not providing the humane standard of care that 

is available to a baby that is born in the same circumstances of 

timing under any other circumstances, that it is a question of fairness. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes 

the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In theory, we are here to address two bills, but we have yet to 

see any reliable evidence to show that these bills are anything 

more than a quote/unquote ‘‘solution in search of a problem.’’ 

In reality, though, the problems they would create for women 

and families across this country are very real. Any sort of chilling 

effect on women’s health providers or barring of Federal grants and 

reimbursements for preventive healthcare services at Planned Parenthood would affect millions of Americans. And contrary to what 

some might claim, defunding Planned Parenthood would have a 

significant impact on the healthcare safety net in our communities. 

Professor Waxman, I want to ask you a few questions about how 

defunding Planned Parenthood would jeopardize women’s access to 

critical health services. Last week in the journal Health Affairs, 

Professor Sara Rosenbaum wrote a piece describing the potential 

impact of defunding Planned Parenthood. She wrote, and I quote: 

‘‘A claim that community health centers readily can absorb the loss 

of Planned Parenthood clinics amounts to a gross misrepresentation of what even the best community health centers in this country would be able to do. For the millions of poor women who depend on Planned Parenthood clinics, this scenario would mean the 

73 

loss of affordable and accessible contraceptive services and counseling, as well as breast and cervical cancer screenings and testing 

and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. The assertion 

that community health centers could step into this breach of this 

magnitude is simply wrong and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the healthcare system works.’’ 

Similarly, last month, the California Primary Care Association 

wrote a letter to Senator Boxer about the impact of defunding 

Planned Parenthood on the Community Health Center Network. In 

it they say, and I quote: ‘‘Eliminating Planned Parenthood from our 

State’s comprehensive network of care would provide untenable 

stress on the remaining providers. We do not have the capacity for 

such an increase in care.’’ 

This is direct from the providers, who some claim could easily 

pick up the slack if Planned Parenthood is defunded. 

Now three quick questions for you. 

Professor Waxman, do you think removing funding for the largest provider of contraception would increase or decrease the number of unintended pregnancies? 

Ms. WAXMAN. According to the Guttmacher Institute, it would increase unintended pregnancies by about 2 million. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Do you think it would improve or weaken women’s 

access to essential life-saving healthcare services? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Clearly, it would be a serious blow to women who 

need these services through Medicaid. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And would this loss of services primarily affect 

wealthy women or would it disproportionately affect poor and minority women? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Disproportionately poor and minority women. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Republicans are willfully putting their heads in the sand. They 

think it is no big deal to shut down hundreds of clinics offering essential services that are not available anywhere else. They may 

think it is worth shutting down the Government to achieve this 

goal. 

Moreover, I would just like to emphasize, these women have chosen to go to Planned Parenthood for their care. Suggesting they can 

just get their care from other providers is both callous and condescending. With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle, which provider a woman chooses to go to for her reproductive health care is not your decision to make, or at least it 

should not be. 

I yield back. 

I am happy to yield to someone—no. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thank the gentlelady, and now recognize 

the chair emeritus of the full committee, Mr. Barton, 5 minutes of 

questions. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to make a 

brief opening statement, which I didn’t get to, so let me just summarize before I ask my questions. 

My lifetime voting record on pro-life issues is right at 100 percent. I consider myself to be a pro-life Congressman. I think every 

life is precious. I think the Congress should do everything that we 

can to protect that life. I do recognize Roe v. Wade is the law of 

74 

the land, and under that court ruling, I recognize a woman’s right 

under legal conditions to choose to have an abortion. 

That is not what this debate is about. This debate is about a procedure that Planned Parenthood utilizes to take body parts and 

sell. That, I don’t think, is in contention. I don’t think there is any 

dispute that this practice is occurring. The question before the committee and to some extent the Congress, should we allow that practice or should we stop that practice? And if Planned Parenthood is 

the practitioner of that practice, should we stop funding Planned 

Parenthood because they continue to utilize it? That is the question. 

With that, I want to ask Dr. Yoest, does Planned Parenthood provide any service that other women’s health organizations could not 

provide? 

Dr. YOEST. Thank you very much for that question, Congressman 

Barton. 

The short answer is no. And I appreciate having the opportunity 

to address that question, because as a woman and a breast cancer 

survivor, it is very troubling to me that Planned Parenthood continues to offer themselves as a first-line responder to issues like 

cancer and particularly breast cancer. They do not provide mammograms. They simply refer out for that service. And on occasion—— 

Mr. BARTON. I have got limited time. 

Dr. YOEST. Sorry. 

Mr. BARTON. So Planned Parenthood is not the exclusive provider of services that other women’s health organizations can also 

provide. That is correct, am I not right? 

Dr. YOEST. That is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. Does Planned Parenthood, under current Federal 

law, have a guaranteed entitlement right to Federal Medicaid funding? 

Dr. YOEST. No, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. They do not. 

If Congress were to explicitly strip Planned Parenthood funding, 

are there other women’s health organizations already in existence 

that could accept those funds and provide the same services? 

Dr. YOEST. Yes, sir, to a very large degree. 

Mr. BARTON. So all of these other women’s health services, there 

are other organizations that don’t utilize this procedure that could 

provide all the services that Planned Parenthood does provide that 

are for women’s health, not for abortion and not for harvesting 

body parts for sale? 

Dr. YOEST. Yes, sir, and they can do it much more comprehensively. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Is there any, on this particular procedure, 

which I think is immoral and abhorrent, is there any medically 

necessary reason to utilize that procedure to get a body part to use 

in another medical situation? 

Dr. YOEST. No, sir, there is not. And, in fact, one of the more 

troubling issues in the videos is that they appear to be changing 

their procedure in order to get parts that they can then sell. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. I assume that you have seen all of these videos. Is that correct? 

Dr. YOEST. Yes, sir, myself or my staff. 

75 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Now, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, has indicated they have been heavily edited, 

and that may be true. If he says it is true, I am going to assume 

that it is true. But what has been made available publicly, to your 

knowledge, has anybody from Planned Parenthood disputed what 

has been made publicly available? In other words, has anybody 

said, ‘‘That is not true, we don’t do that’’? Has anybody at Planned 

Parenthood said, ‘‘We don’t conduct these procedures, we don’t sell 

these body parts, we don’t utilize this’’? 

Dr. YOEST. No, sir, not to my knowledge. 

Mr. BARTON. So they admit that they are doing it? 

Dr. YOEST. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, would you yield just a second? 

Mr. BARTON. You can have the 20 seconds that I still have. 

Mr. GREEN. I would ask you to look at—when you are questions 

about can other providers do it, our Health and Human Services 

Commission in Texas in their report showed that they couldn’t provide what Planned Parenthoodhas been doing. And, again, it is not 

my agency. It is a State of Texas agency. 

Mr. BARTON. I respect my friend from Houston, we are good 

friends. On this one, I am told in Texas there is not anything that 

Planned Parenthood is doing that other agencies in Texas that are 

already certified could not also do. 

Mr. GREEN. But the report shows they can’t do it. So be that as 

it may. 

Mr. BARTON. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. 

Schakowsky, 5 minutes for her questions. 

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. I want to just make a couple of things 

clear. 

You know, this is a very, very emotional issue. The issue of abortion is at the heart of this. And I just want to say that when Roe 

v. Wade passed it was not the beginning of abortions in the United 

States of America. It was the end of women dying from abortions. 

Abortions are legal because women will continue to have abortions 

and make their own decisions. So that is where I am coming from. 

I want to be clear about that. 

The other thing is that these attacks on Planned Parenthood I 

believe are a baseless smear campaign started with David 

Daleiden, an anti-abortion extremist, who spent years trying to entrap Planned Parenthood staff and then deceptively editing the videos he reported to stoke partisan anger. Again, I want to just note, 

I don’t walk around with music behind me. Clearly, that was edited 

in. 

Four congressional committees have started investigating 

Planned Parenthood and States around the country are rushing to 

investigate. But not merely enough focus has been paid to Mr. 

Daleiden and his numerous unethical and potentially illegal activities. Mr. Daleiden and his associates obtained their nonprofit status from the IRS by representing themselves as a nonprofit focused 

on biomedical research aimed at curing life-threatening diseases. 

They did not indicate that they were an anti-abortion political acVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:37 Mar 18, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\114X75PLANNEDPARENTHOODWORKING WAYNE
76 

tivist organization. They lied on tax forms and applications to the 

IRS, which is a serious and even criminal, that is under investigation, matter. 

The California law prohibits forgery, fraud, and perjury. And Mr. 

Daleiden and his associates created fake driver’s licenses and those 

may have violated the law. And his activities may have also violated California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, its prohibition of false 

charitable solicitations, and its law against impersonation and Federal and California laws against credit card fraud. 

And Mr. Daleiden continues to withhold key information from investigators and the public at large, and his attorneys say he intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid testifying in 

court. And it seems to me that Mr. Daleiden should release documentation about his organization’s funding, affiliations, or practices, and release the full unedited versions of his video. 

So I believe that the majority should either suspend its one-sided 

investigation of Planned Parenthood or should fully investigate Mr. 

Daleiden. And I just resent the fact that we have been having this 

hearing using these videos in as explosive way as possible to color 

the discussion of these bills. 

And, by the way, even just the suspicion based on these highly 

edited videos could be enough then for a State to deny Medicaid 

funding. And let’s be clear, if we want, as Ms. Waxman said, if we 

want to a discussion about the use of fetal tissue for medical research, then that is a separate conversation, used for investigating 

Alzheimer’s and diabetes. 

And there is no proof, in fact I think there is proof to the contrary, that Planned Parenthood made a profit on this. It was in 

order to transport the tissue with the consent of the woman and 

done to pay for the transportation. 

I want to ask a question, though, just a quick yes or no of Dr. 

Yoest and Mr. Mattox. The Hyde amendment does have exceptions 

that would have exceptions including rape, incest, and endangering 

the life of the mother. I would like to know if you support exceptions to the Hyde amendment in the case of rape, incest, or endangering the life of the mother? 

Dr. Yoest. 

Dr. YOEST. Would you mind clarifying the context? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The Hyde amendment. 

Dr. YOEST. Right, but how you are applying it in this situation? 

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. I am asking you a question as testimony relevant to these issues, these two bills that are before us, and I 

would like to know if you believe that there ought to be exceptions 

to abortion? 

Dr. YOEST. Americans United for Life was the organization that 

defended the Hyde amendment in front of the Supreme Court. 

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. So is the answer yes? 

Dr. YOEST. We strongly support the Hyde amendment and we 

support the law as it is written. 

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. And Mr. Mattox. 

Mr. MATTOX. I strongly support the law as it is written. 

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thank the gentlelady. 

77 

We have no time left. There are 100 people who still haven’t 

voted. So we will recess for five votes on the floor. We will reconvene approximately 5:20. The subcommittee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PITTS. All right. The subcommittee hearing will reconvene. 

And the Chair recognizes the vice chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to begin by saying how I am disgusted with the videos 

that we saw. And I know every time it comes up, people are saying: 

Oh, if you see them on TV, or wherever, they are highly edited and 

they are out of context. 

But as Mr. Barton asked and we found out, that nobody is debating the quotes that are in there. I mean, we need to look at the 

whole video, I agree with that. Nobody is debating the quotes. And 

those quotes, I am not sure you can take those out of context. I am 

not sure what context those are acceptable. And I am sorry just to 

hear that. 

First, I want to ask Mr. Mattox. In your testimony you say the 

courts have upheld the rights of a State to exclude, quote, ‘‘an entity from its Medicaid program for any reason established by law,’’ 

unquote. Can you elaborate on that? 

Mr. MATTOX. Sure. Under the Medicaid Act—and the legislative 

history of Medicaid Act also makes this very clear—the Federal 

Government has certain bases that it can exclude providers, but 

States are much more free. States can exclude for any other reason, 

is the term used in the Medicaid Act. They have a lot more power 

than the Federal Government does to exclude. And so States have 

excluded Medicaid providers on a number of bases that aren’t set 

out for the Federal Government to exclude. 

That includes, in the Ninth Circuit—and I am not typically in 

the position of citing decisions from the Ninth Circuit—but in the 

Ninth Circuit, in Guzman v. Shewry, the court held that during a 

pending investigation, that a provider can be excluded. 

What that recognizes is that there is no liberty interest or a 

protectable right that Planned Parenthood or any other provider 

has to continuing to receive Medicaid funds. That is a privilege 

that they need to be able to earn from the taxpayers. They can go 

through an administrative process to appeal that if they would like 

to. But they don’t have a right during a pending investigation to 

continue to receive those funds. 

And I think if you step back from this for a moment and imagine 

that we are talking about something other than Planned Parenthood, that that is a self-evident proposition. The idea that a Medicaid provider that, for example, is a gynecologist that has been accused of abusing women, the idea that we would require that Medicaid continue to provide funding to that doctor until a jury actually convicted them would be abhorrent to most people. So that is 

not the rule—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I would like to continue with a couple more questions for you, if I can continue. 

Mr. MATTOX. Sure. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Your testimony also outlines a number of categories of misconduct from Planned Parenthood, and my underVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:37 Mar 18, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\114X75PLANNEDPARENTHOODWORKING WAYNE
78 

standing, most of these, in your testimony, were not from the videos. There were other things that you cited. All of which seems to 

be ground for State Medicaid programs to exclude that Planned 

Parenthood provider, clinic, or affiliate. 

What have States done to exclude Planned Parenthood in the 

Medicaid program? 

Mr. MATTOX. States have acted in several ways. First of all, 

Texas actually made a decision to exclude Planned Parenthood 

from its Women’s Health Program, which is a Medicaid waiver program. 

Interestingly, when it made that decision, I have heard some discussion about that here today, Planned Parenthood excluded them, 

and the number of contraception claims did immediately drop, but 

the actual pregnancy rate in Texas declined, as did the abortion 

rate in Texas. So we haven’t seen in Texas the sort of public health 

catastrophe we were told to expect. 

But Texas has done that. Indiana has also taken action, as well 

as Arizona. And the Federal Government stepped in and told them 

they were no longer permitted to act in that way to manage their 

own Medicaid programs because Planned Parenthood was involved. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Which leads to my next question, is that you also 

note that, quote, this is from your testimony, ‘‘Medicaid providers 

cannot usually rely on the support of the Federal Government, including reinterpretation of the Medicaid Act, when a State disqualifies them from its Medicaid program. Planned Parenthood is a 

unique case.’’ 

Can you elaborate on this? 

Mr. MATTOX. Sure. There have been over the last two decades or 

so about 9,000 providers excluded from Medicaid, and in most of 

those cases they are completely uncontroversial. People don’t question that at all. When it is Planned Parenthood, however, you have 

the Center for Medicaid Services reinterpret the Medicaid statute 

to deny States the opportunity to exclude those providers. That is 

a privilege that other providers don’t get to have. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thanks. And discovering that a provider violated 

Federal laws related to fetal tissue procurement certainly sounds 

like a provider failing to act in an ethical manner and should be 

grounds to terminate their status as a provider. Can you elaborate 

on that statement? 

Mr. MATTOX. Sure. That is actually from a decision from the Seventh Circuit decision. The Seventh Circuit clarified that while an 

entire class of providers couldn’t be excluded, but when you are 

talking about the State’s power to exclude an individual provider, 

that the State absolutely had the authority to exclude not only on 

legal grounds, but also on ethical grounds a provider, which I 

would think most of us would think is a good thing. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. In my last 10 seconds, I am just hopeful that we 

can clarify the Federal law, ensure States are able to allow or exclude providers from their Medicaid program. 

I thank you for the witnesses being here, and I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you. 

79 

Well, I respect my colleagues and my neighbors and many Americans have deeply held beliefs on the issue of personal health matters. But that is not what this is about. Today we are spending our 

time on a politically manufactured distraction. Republicans in Congress hope that you will be distracted from their failure to meet 

their fundamental responsibility of passing a budget because we 

are 6 legislative days away from shutting down the Government. 

But make no mistake about it, this is also an insult to women 

and families all across America. I am very disappointed in this 

committee, Mr. Chairman, very disappointed, because this committee is party to lies, a smear campaign on Planned Parenthood, 

doctored videos. I objected early on because a few weeks ago press 

reports established the fact that the Center for Medical Progress, 

that video that you showed, was wholly inaccurate, and they said 

it was inaccurate, and you showed it anyway. 

And I will read from the Christian Post: ‘‘The Center for Medical 

Progress clarified that in its most recent video, the baby depicted 

is from a stillborn birth.’’ It is not a second trimester baby from 

Planned Parenthood. And I would have to think that your professional staff and maybe even some of the members on your side 

knew that. It was reported in the Christian Post. It was reported 

in The Hill. It was reported in other publications. 

You know that stillborn baby, where that picture came from? It 

came from the blog of the grieving mother. It is not what you purported it to be. It is not what this group that is smearing and putting out these doctored videos said that it was. And the committee 

should not be a party to that. 

I will submit for the record these press reports and ask that you 

please read them. 

But you know, this is a disturbing pattern, and I wanted to focus 

also on what has happened in my home State of Florida. Because 

in July, after these videos surfaced, my Republican Governor, Rick 

Scott, ordered an investigation of all Planned Parenthood clinics 

across Florida, not other clinics, and it was determined, after investigation by the Agency for Health Care Administration, that there 

was no ‘‘there’’ there. 

What happened subsequently falls into this pattern of doctoring 

evidence and distortions. You see, the Agency for Health Care Administration then put out a press statement, a press release, to establish the fact, and here is their language, they put out a press 

release, said, ‘‘Our investigation last week into Planned Parenthood 

clinics,’’ blah blah, blah, ‘‘however, there is no evidence of the mishandling of fetal remains at any of the 16 clinics we investigated.’’ 

But the press, the reporters in Florida did a public records request after the final press release came out that omitted this line, 

and it turns out that the press shop in the Governor’s office took 

the Agency for Health Care Administration’s press release and 

scrubbed it of that finding. 

Just yesterday, the communications director from the Agency for 

Health Care Administration resigned. I am sure the Governor was 

not happy with the fact that emails were discovered by the press 

in Florida where the communications director said, ‘‘I would have 

thought a line on no handling of fetal remains would be included, 

as that is what questions will be on.’’ The agency’s secretary said 

80 

agrees with the comment. Reporters subsequently obtained both 

versions, and it has been uncovered the Governor’s office scrubbed 

it. He orchestrated the whole thing. This is part of a very disturbing pattern all across the country based on manufactured evidence, lies, and a smear campaign. 

It is beneath the dignity of this committee. It undermines the important work we do to ensure women’s health care, and I would 

hope that everyone would disavow what is happening here, this 

smear campaign on women’s health and the clinics they rely on. 

I will yield the remaining time to Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

Ms. CASTOR. Oh, excuse me. I will ask unanimous consent that 

those be admitted into the record. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, these will be made part of the 

record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. GREEN. I would like to ask questions of Dr. Yoest and also 

Mr. Mattox and even Ms. Waxman. There is a report I submitted 

from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, and your 

testimony in question said that there was no results. I want to call 

your attention to it. 

And I am going to read it, Mr. Chairman. This is by a State 

agency that did a study on what happened after 2011. We actually 

saw a 25 percent drop in clients served in the Human Health Services Commission area, 25 percent loss from ’11 to ’13. So somewhere along the way, a lot of women, in a time Texas was growing, 

are no longer getting healthcare services in every region except the 

Upper Rio Grande Valley. The High Plains area, a loss of 53 percent, West Texas, a loss of 64 percent of services, people getting 

services. 

So there is a problem here. And, Mr. Chairman, again, I am 

going to use this every time I get a chance because your testimony 

does not go with the facts that a Texas State agency used. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Dr. Murphy, 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I am going to yield to Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. 

And these are difficult issues, and I think, as I told some of the 

folks on the panel, those of us who are pro-life and vote that way 

who have served many, many years, we are saddened that these 

things still occur in our country. 

On Tuesday, I did a press conference tour of my district outside 

three Planned Parenthood clinics. Tuesday. One was closed, wasn’t 

even open. So I want to talk about the access to care issue a little 

bit. 

But before I do this, some of this moral outrage, and one of the 

benefits of being a MSember for a long time is you have the benefit 

of history. And we had a hearing when Republicans were in the minority on secret videos taken in a meatpacking plant. Downed 

cows. There was more outrage over the treatment of downed cows 

than we have of treatment of downed kids, babies. And there was 

no objection to the videos being presented. In fact, they didn’t even 

81 

call the video people to the hearing. It is just unfortunate that, 

again, I do think there is a double standard. 

And also I want to mention the healthcare aspects. The other 

thing I did in Illinois, why I went to them is because federally 

qualified healthcare clinics in Illinois, we have 670 better alternatives for women’s health care and only 18 Planned Parenthood 

locations. So this debate about our ability to affect women’s health 

care, in fact, by these bills that we are going to move through the 

House, we are going to be able to provide better care because 

Planned Parenthood clinics don’t provide all the range of health 

care. 

I am not a supporter of the Affordable Care Act, I didn’t vote for 

it, I don’t believe in it, I think it was terrible, but the premise of 

the Affordable Care Act was medical homes for people could go to 

have a medical home and a medical location for records. Guess 

where your medical home is? It is not in a Planned Parenthood 

clinic. Your medical home is found in a federally qualified 

healthcare clinic. 

So we are on the right track if we move this debate to improving 

access to health care, expanding federally qualified healthcare clinics, rural clinics, in my case. I am in southern Illinois, three 

Planned Parenthood versus 40 accesses to rural care or community 

health clinics. 

Mr. Mattox, the question I have, going back to the videos, do you 

believe these videos actually depict Planned Parenthood’s practices? 

Mr. MATTOX. I believe—first of all, you actually have a letter 

from Cecile Richards, which I assume is an unedited letter from 

Cecile Richards, in which she actually says that Planned Parenthood is receiving $60 per part. At no point in that letter does she 

also say how they are actually accounting for that, how that applies in some way to any actual expenses. And remember that 

StemExpress, at least, is actually coming into the clinic. I have 

often seen the citations to, well, these are situations where, you 

know, this is compensating for transportation or storage. Well, it 

is not compensating for transportation or storage in those cases. 

And that is outside of the videos. 

The full versions of these videos, let’s be absolutely clear, if you 

have access to YouTube, you have access to the full versions of 

these videos. They are on YouTube. I know that because I have 

watched the full versions of the videos. They are there. As a matter 

of fact, without music. 

So you can watch the full versions of the videos. The only portions of the videos that have been edited out are the portions when 

Mr. Daleiden or someone is in the bathroom, and I think we can 

all be grateful that he edited those portions out, and the portions 

where no one else is in the conversation, where it is him sitting 

alone or otherwise. So the full versions are available. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In follow-up, do you think States should be able 

to take action on these videos? 

Mr. MATTOX. Absolutely. The Guzman case in the Ninth Circuit 

indicates that States do not have to wait when they have reasonable belief that the law has been violated. They can suspend a 

82 

Medicaid provider without having to have that person convicted by 

a jury. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

And I am just going to finish by, obviously there is a list of services provided under federally qualified healthcare clinics versus 

those services provided by Planned Parenthood. The services provided by Federal healthcare clinics, family homes, far outweigh 

anything provided at the Planned Parenthood clinics. And I yield 

back my time. 

Mr. PITTS. Did you say you wanted to submit that for the record? 

I didn’t understand. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, I didn’t. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now 

recognizes Ms. Matsui, 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I just want to point out that you are saying that 

these are—people have said that there are unedited videos out 

there, but we don’t have any proof that they are unedited videos. 

So that is just out there. We don’t believe that they truly are unedited. And I want to go back to my questions here. 

Now, Professor Waxman, I am going to get back to these radical 

bills. Each gives States the power to cut off funding to any provider 

that is, quote, ‘‘suspected of violating the partial-birth abortion ban 

or causing the termination of an infant born alive.’’ I want to see 

if you can help me understand what this evidentiary standard 

might mean in practice. 

If these bills became law, could a State that suspected a health 

center was violating these laws based on an anonymous tip cut off 

funding? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I believe so, yes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Could a State that suspected a violation based on 

doctored videos released by an anti-abortion extremist cut off funding? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I don’t see why not. 

Ms. MATSUI. Does the legislation say anything about what evidence a State must provide to satisfy the standard for suspecting 

a violation? 

Ms. WAXMAN. No, it does not. 

Ms. MATSUI. Does the legislation say anything about the due 

process a State must provide before it cuts off funding? 

Ms. WAXMAN. No, it does not. 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, these bills would give State politicians who 

are opposed to abortion free rein to slash funding for women’s 

health care based on nothing more than their own political views 

and a suspicion. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Definitely. 

Ms. MATSUI. Let me ask you another question. What do you 

think the impact of these bills would be? Would States start slashing funding for women’s health centers? Would access to reproductive health care increase or decrease? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I think the goal of this particular legislation is 

clearly to go after Planned Parenthood and other—I will assume, 

although it hasn’t been mentioned—other healthcare providers that 

perform abortion. This bill is about abortion. 

83 

There could be, you know, a hospital system in your State where 

in fact the hospital does do abortion, and it could very well happen 

that a politician might have some suspicion that there was wrongdoing in that hospital system, and then the whole system loses its 

Medicaid funding, all the services that it would provide. 

There is in the Medicaid statute already, as has been testified, 

ways that if someone is convicted of a crime that would hurt the 

beneficiary of the program, they can then be excluded from the program. That is already law. If somebody would break the law, and 

that is actually be convicted of a partial-birth abortion, that already exists. If someone is convicted in a State, and I assume the 

State law would have laws against terminating a live birth, that 

person could be excluded. 

Obviously, due process protections would apply, but if someone 

really did break these laws, the provisions already exist to exclude 

that provider from the program. And putting a law out there that 

just makes the suspicion the cause for ending Medicaid funding 

goes way, way beyond any law, I believe, in the whole country. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Now, the majority continues to claim that current Planned Parenthood funding could be redirected to existing 

community health centers and that with this additional funding 

these community health centers could adequately absorb the increased demand that would inevitably follow if Planned Parenthood 

were to close its doors. 

Can you describe if there are enough clinics, if there is adequate 

capacity in existing the healthcare system to absorb all of Planned 

Parenthood’s patients? 

Ms. WAXMAN. There seems to be, I think, some talking across 

each other in that Planned Parenthood does not get blocks of 

money from Medicaid to do whatever it wants. Like any medical 

provider, like a private doctor, if they perform a service that is covered for a covered individual, then they get reimbursed, and, again, 

generally, at a pretty low reimbursement, unfortunately. 

So it isn’t as if there is some kind of pot of money that is helping 

them exist. They are professionals that do these very high-quality 

services in this area. And if people come to them that have Medicaid or private insurance, that is the reimbursement that they get. 

Now, the community health centers have already said that they 

don’t have the capacity right now to actually provide care for the 

patients that are coming their way. They have said, for every patient they serve, another three are going without primary care. We 

would have to enormously increase the number of community 

health centers if we really wanted to make sure the capacity was 

there. 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, thank you. 

Ms. WAXMAN. Additionally, as I mentioned in my testimony, 

there is a public program, Title X, that gives dollars for family 

planning. This body, the Appropriations Committee has already zeroed that out in the next budget, so we wouldn’t be able to count 

on them. 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, thank you very much. My time has run out. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady, and now recognizes 

Dr. Burgess, 5 minutes for questions. 

84 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you 

began your questioning by showing us three film clips, and in that 

third film clip where the discussion was ‘‘you crush above, you 

crush below, and you get the part that you want in between,’’ and 

this was all done under sonographic guidance, I would just ask, Mr. 

Chairman, I do want the committee, the subcommittee, to make an 

effort to retrieve any ultrasound electronic media that may have 

been created during the performance of these procedures because 

I believe it could be instructive to the subcommittee to actually 

have that. 

Dr. Yoest, let me just ask you. Is your organization affiliated 

with the Texas—is there a Texas organization that is an adjunct 

of yours? Texas Alliance for Life, is that associated with you? 

Dr. YOEST. No, sir. 

Mr. BURGESS. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, I do want to submit for the record an article that 

discusses the Texas Alliance for Life. This is a PolitiFact article 

where the leader of the Texas Alliance for Life asserts that funding 

for women’s health is actually at an all-time high in the State of 

Texas. 

His statement was taken to task by PolitiFact. And as we know, 

they tend to be relatively left leaning. But the conclusion—and I 

do want to submit the entire article to the committee—the statement that was made that in Texas funding of women’s health services is at historically high levels. And they have just increased 

their level another $50 million for the next 2 years. 

And, again, Texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more 

for women’s health services than before, including a $50 million 

bump. And I would just parenthetically add, it was my State senator, Senator Jane Nelson, who is the chairwoman of the Senate 

Finance Committee, who was responsible for that $50 million 

bump. 

But the bottom line on this PolitiFact article is, ‘‘We rate this 

claim to be true.’’ And again, PolitiFact is not always friendly to 

conservative causes. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BURGESS. Now, Mr. Mattox, Mr. Green has been talking 

about a report from the Health and Human Services Commission 

from January of 2013. Do you have that report? Are you familiar 

with that? 

Mr. MATTOX. I have seen that report. I have read that report. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I guess that I am confused, because Mr. 

Green is sort of outlining a case where Texas is in pretty dire 

straits as far as being able to provide services, and, gosh, if we go 

after any one dime in Planned Parenthood funding it is going to 

create all kinds of havoc in the State of Texas. 

But this article or this report that he is referencing, here is the 

conclusion: ‘‘Overall, the Texas Women’s Health Program patient 

capacity survey results are positive. In most areas, the survey 

found that the State has the capacity to serve even more women 

in 2013.’’ Remember, this was done in response to the fact that 

Governor Perry in 2011 said we are not giving any money to 

Planned Parenthood. 

85 

‘‘Capacity was especially robust in the Rio Grande Valley, San 

Antonio, Houston, Austin, and the Abilene areas. The survey identified one area, San Angelo, where there was likely a capacity deficit.’’ But it is not really—the tenor of the report is not exactly that 

which was portrayed by the ranking member of the subcommittee. 

So do you have any thoughts on this report that has been talked 

about at some length today and what the state of these services are 

in the State of Texas? 

Mr. MATTOX. Certainly. Texas’ experience is that after Planned 

Parenthood was excluded, there was a very initial period where 

Texas had difficulty trying to find the right providers. They found 

those providers. And the result now in Texas is that—and these 

are uncontroversial conclusions from the State—the abortion rate 

has declined in Texas, the pregnancy rate has declined in Texas. 

So that has happened. 

What we found is that when Planned Parenthood was taken out 

of the picture, the abortion rate and the pregnancy rate declined. 

Whether that is causation, I don’t know. 

But one reason why you might have seen the drop in claims actually submitted, another audit was just filed in March this year 

from HHS OIG that found another $129 million in overbilling to 

the same Women’s Health Program, the same Texas Women’s 

Health Program by Planned Parenthood. 

So it very well may be that a lot of these contraceptive claims 

that Planned Parenthood was no longer filing were claims that 

they never should have been filing in the first place. 

Mr. BURGESS. It is an interesting point and one that I, again, I 

think does deserve further study by this subcommittee. And I hope 

we have an opportunity to do that. 

But let me just ask you: Is it really that unusual for CMS to 

withhold funding in an area where they think something is amiss? 

Is this really a drastic departure from any normal behavior by 

CMS? 

Mr. MATTOX. Well, for CMS to act this way, it certainly is. For 

a State to act that way, no. For CMS to say we are no longer going 

to allow a State to make a decision about its Medicaid program because you have excluded a provider is a very new thing, and it is 

something that they have done with respect to Planned Parenthood, and I am not aware of any other provider that has received 

that kind of treatment. 

For a State to act that way and say we are going to exclude certain providers because we think they are in violation of the law, 

States do that with some frequency. And there should be no question as to a State’s power to do that, not only when there are convictions, but I would hope we could all agree that when a provider 

is suspected of fraud, as was the case in the Guzman case, that we 

are not going to require the Government to continue to provide taxpayer money to an organization suspected of fraud, for example, 

while we find out if they are actually going to be convicted of that. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

86 

Dr. Yoest, did you use the videos that were shown earlier at this 

hearing as part of your investigation? 

Dr. YOEST. I am sorry? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you use the videos that were shown as part 

of this hearing in your investigation that you quoted, and you got 

a chart put up earlier detailing the investigation that you have entered into to try to say that Planned Parenthood engaged in these 

activities? 

Dr. YOEST. I consulted the videos in putting together the chart, 

yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. OK. Did you ever conduct an analysis of the authenticity of those videos? 

Dr. YOEST. Of the authenticity of the videos. As the chairman 

stated, the full videos are available online—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you conduct—— 

Dr. YOEST [continuing]. And our team has reviewed the full videos that are available online. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So the full videos, not the videos that we saw then 

up here, but the full videos, you say, you didn’t, and that informed 

your investigation. 

Dr. YOEST. Yes. And we have submitted to the Energy and Commerce Committee a 28-page legal analysis of the full videos. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Of the full videos. OK. Thank you. 

Do you have any idea how many, currently, how many House 

committees are conducting investigations of Planned Parenthood? 

Dr. YOEST. I believe it is three. Three here and one in the Senate. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And do you have any idea how many States are 

conducting independent investigations of Planned Parenthood? I 

will give you—— 

Dr. YOEST. It is 12ish. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Twelveish is fine. Do you have any idea of how 

many of those in total 16 investigations have resulted in criminal 

charges to date? 

Dr. YOEST. With all due respect, sir, I think it is still really 

early—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. To date, ma’am. 

Dr. YOEST [continuing]. With an investigation that is—as it was 

stated earlier—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. Zero is the answer, right? 

Dr. YOEST [continuing]. Investigations are still ongoing. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So I believe that is an answer, then zero, correct? 

Dr. YOEST. So far. 

Mr. KENNEDY. OK. 

Ma’am, it has been a little while since I was trying cases. You 

mentioned in response to a question to one of our colleagues that 

the burden of proof would be on Planned Parenthood to try to disprove part of the allegations that were being made. Under what 

theory of criminal law would the burden of proof shift to them to 

disprove the allegations that a criminal charge would be brought? 

Dr. YOEST. Can I clarify what my comment was? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Please. 

Dr. YOEST. My assertion would be that the burden of proof is on 

Planned Parenthood to respond to something that is as serious an 

87 

accusation with evidence that is as troubling as what we have seen 

to having their senior medical director on tape saying that she considers the law to be a suggestion—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. But the burden of proof is not in a criminal sense 

at all. 

Dr. YOEST. Pardon? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Not in a criminal sense at all, because if a charge 

is brought criminally, the burden of proof—I am asking you what 

legal theory—under what legal theory does the burden of proof 

shift to a defendant? 

Dr. YOEST. I wasn’t asserting a legal theory. I was asserting common decency. 

Mr. KENNEDY. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to enter into the 

record from the National Women’s Law Center and the National 

Health Law Program a letter about the role of Medicaid in ensuring low-income women’s access to health care. The letter, Mr. 

Chairman, states, quote: ‘‘It is no overstatement to say that if H.R. 

3134 were to become law, our country would face a significant public health crisis.’’ 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Ms. Waxman, I have about a minute and a half for you. A couple 

of questions. 

Mr. Mattox had indicated in his testimony that States are permitted to suspend Medicaid providers during the pendency of an 

investigation into whether a provider violated a State or Federal 

law. Is that your understanding as well? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I think what he is referring to is this one case that 

he has mentioned a couple times where in fact there was one individual in an egregious situation and one circuit court that said it 

was OK to suspend the individual’s Medicaid payment during that 

time. But beyond that, I don’t think so. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And, Professor Waxman, in your expertise and review of this legislation, do the bills in question define what ‘‘suspicion’’ means? 

Ms. WAXMAN. No, it did not. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So to clarify, a provider system or healthcare system under this legislation could potentially lose Medicare dollars 

on the suspicion that one of its doctors or medical providers had 

violated some aspect of what this legislation contemplates. 

Ms. WAXMAN. That is right. 

Mr. KENNEDY. The entire system. 

Ms. WAXMAN. That is right. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So in other words, is it fair to say that these bills 

undermine the ‘‘any willing provider’’ principle of Medicaid regulations as well as due process? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Without a doubt. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So, ma’am, in your opinion, is that what happened 

last month in Louisiana when the State terminated its agreement 

with Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast provided that it does not provide any abortion services at all and was found to be in compliance 

88 

with all State and Federal law, and were due process principles 

and the ‘‘any willing provider’’ principle violated there? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Yes. The ‘‘any willing provider’’ provision, because 

there aren’t that many Medicaid providers, that is why the law recognizes anyone who is willing to take that reimbursement should 

take patients, any qualified provider, of course, and that is why 

Louisiana could not eliminate Planned Parenthood. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mattox, you stated in your testimony that you explained how 

CMS issued a new set of interpretations based upon the existing 

statute. The new interpretation was in 2011 related to States’ use 

of qualified medical providers. Could you explain in a little more 

detail what CMS did and your reviews on what CMS did in 2011 

based upon an underlying statute that predates 2011? 

Mr. MATTOX. Sure. What CMS did was to interpret—issue an interpretation of the Medicaid Act to say that States could not exclude a provider where it would violate this ‘‘free choice of provider’’ provision, applying that specifically—or a class of providers—applying that specifically to decisions made by Indiana and 

later Arizona to exclude abortionists broadly. 

More recently what CMS has done is to take that decision, saying that you can’t exclude a class of providers, and apply it to a 

State’s decision to exclude an individual provider in Planned Parenthood. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. Ms. Waxman or Professor Waxman or Dr. Waxman, is that your understanding of what occurred with the CMS 

in 2011? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Yes. I don’t know what the last item he was referring to, but certainly before that, in the earlier date, that is true. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. So I am trying to reach a situation where 

we can agree on what the state of the law is before we change the 

law, and it is my view that everybody on the panel should have the 

opportunity to speak. I think you have been before this panel before, and that has been my position before. 

Now, in the wake of CMS’ 2011 interpretation, the Seventh and 

Ninth Circuits have held, on the basis of Medicaid free choice and 

qualified provider provision, that States may not exclude an entire 

class of otherwise qualified providers. Is that accurate? Do you both 

agree with that? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MATTOX. Yes. 

Mr. LANCE. However, as I understand it, also that the courts 

have ruled that a provider can be excluded so long as it is not 

based upon an entire class. And I cite Planned Parenthood v. Indiana, of Indiana v. Commodore, is that right, is that the case, Mr. 

Mattox? 

Mr. MATTOX. Commissioner. 

Mr. LANCE. Commissioner. I guess because one of my degrees is 

from Vanderbilt, the Commodores. And that was the Seventh CirVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:37 Mar 18, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\114X75PLANNEDPARENTHOODWORKING WAYNE
89 

cuit, and the cert was denied by the Supreme Court of the United 

States. Is that accurate? 

Mr. MATTOX. That is correct, yes, sir. 

Mr. LANCE. And so that stands as the law in the Seventh Circuit. 

Is that the law in any other circuit or has only the Seventh Circuit 

ruled on this? 

Mr. MATTOX. Only the Seventh and the Ninth Circuit have ruled 

on that. 

Mr. LANCE. And the Seventh Circuit is in the Middle West and 

the Ninth Circuit is in the West. 

Mr. MATTOX. Right. 

Mr. LANCE. And so we have two circuit decisions that have permitted the disqualification of individual providers based upon the 

views of the State Government. 

Mr. MATTOX. Well, those two decisions said that you couldn’t exclude an entire class of providers. What the Seventh Circuit then 

went on to say was that the State does have very broad power, 

much broader than the Federal Government, to exclude an individual provider—— 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Mr. MATTOX [continuing]. For both legal and ethical reasons. 

Mr. LANCE. And that is a decision, according to those circuits, or 

at least the Seventh Circuit, that can be made, and it is not a 

standard of proof based upon the criminal standard of proof, that 

States have broad discretion in this regard. 

Mr. MATTOX. That is correct. 

Mr. LANCE. And so we are not discussing here proof beyond a 

reasonable doubt, the criminal standard that, quite appropriately, 

applies in this country and should continue to apply regarding all 

matters of indictment for a criminal offense. We are not in that 

area of law regarding the broad discretion of States, under the sovereign power of States. And I come from a State legislature, I was 

the minority leader, and I believe in the powers of States, comity 

with what we do here, and certainly the courts have ruled, to the 

extent that they have ruled, that States have broad discretion in 

this regard. Is that accurate? 

Mr. MATTOX. That is correct. And in this case you actually have 

a—you know, this a question of whether a provider is entitled to 

Government money. They are not entitled to Government money. 

Mr. LANCE. This is not a situation where they are entitled. 

States have broad discretion. 

With 12 seconds to go, my point, Mr. Chairman, is that I believe 

in the power of States to have broad discretion, and I would hope 

that that might be the rule, if it were to be established by the Supreme Court, if this were ever to reach the Supreme Court. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Ca ́ rdenas, 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Witnesses, I only have a short period of time, so I would appreciate yes-or-no answers to my questions. 

Congress is remarkably transparent. You can see the cameras 

filming us right now, and you can watch us on C–SPAN when you 

90 

get home or any time you would like you can bring it up. You don’t 

even have to have a hidden camera here. We are very transparent. 

That having been said, I have a question first to Dr. Yoest. Have 

you seen any pro-life organizations who have created similarly manipulated videos showing this Government making cuts in prenatal 

care funding? Yes or no? Have you seen any videos like that? 

Dr. YOEST. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question? 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Have you seen any videos, manipulated or not, 

that show this Government making cuts to prenatal care? 

Dr. YOEST. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Thank you. 

Same question to you, Mr. Mattox, are you familiar with any videos like that showing those actions? 

Mr. MATTOX. I am aware of something very similar where there 

was an organization, NARAL, who did investigations of pregnancy 

resource centers. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Yes or no, please. 

Mr. MATTOX. So, I mean, NARAL did those investigations secretly, and you had a report that was actually submitted, the Waxman report, which is a well-known report, that was based on that 

sort of surreptitious evidence. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Mr. Mattox, have you seen any pro-life organizations who have created similarly manipulated videos showing 

the Government making cuts to medical care for infants in this Nation? 

Mr. MATTOX. Other than NARAL’s efforts, I don’t know of another example like that. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. 

And, Dr. Yoest, have you seen any pro-life organizations who 

have created similarly manipulated videos showing this Government making cuts in early childhood education? 

Dr. YOEST. I can’t say that I recall that. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Thank you. 

Finally, Mr. Mattox, have you seen any pro-life organizations 

who have created similarly manipulated videos showing the Government making cuts in funding for food and medicine that otherwise would go to starving sick children and mothers in this Nation? 

Mr. MATTOX. I would first have to object to the term ‘‘manipulated,’’ because these videos, the full versions of the videos have 

been released. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. You didn’t show full versions here as you made 

your presentation, so that is what I am going on, sir, what you presented today—excuse me—what Dr. Yoest presented today before 

both of your testimonies. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think that we need to clarify. 

He did not present those videos. Mr. Mattox did not present those 

videos. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. I just clarified that he did not. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, whose time is being used on this? 

Shouldn’t it be a parliamentary inquiry instead of taking Mr. 

Ca ́ rdenas’ time? 

Mr. PITTS. Yes, it should be. 

Do we have a point of parliamentary inquiry? If not, Mr. 

Ca ́ rdenas, you are recognized. 

91 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. You reserving my time or—OK. 

So the videos that were shown today in this committee were not 

the full-length videos, suffice it to say. So I will go on. 

Ms. Waxman, you heard all of these questions. Have you heard 

any pro-life organizations making videos that create similar outcries and false narratives in this area? 

Ms. WAXMAN. No. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you. 

You know, I have asked you these questions because I have not 

seen a pro-life organization come out and attack my friends on the 

right who have devastated every service that provides for the 

health of babies once they are born. In fact, I have heard so much 

about personhood lately and about life beginning at conception that 

it caused me to realize something, and that is that people who say 

life begins at conception seem to believe it ends at birth when we 

look at all the cuts to what I just mentioned. 

The people who say they are pro-life who will go to the ends of 

the Earth to defend a fetus have consistently, over decades and 

decades, made budget cuts with anti-science rhetoric and outright 

disregard for the lives of children whose hungry and sick cries echo 

throughout our Nation and have cut to the bone funding to keep 

them healthy and alive. 

We have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world. More American babies die in infancy in this country 

than in Canada, in Croatia, and even in Cuba. I can’t help but 

think maybe because there is no political gain to be had in caring 

for our kids, but there is plenty of money to be made in riling up 

people with anger and misinformation. 

The vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is to keep 

mothers, children, and families healthy, and now there is an attack 

to even cut that. 

I have a question for you, Ms. Waxman. Have you noticed that 

my Republican colleagues have failed to admit the truth about the 

contributions of Planned Parenthood overall? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I would say yes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Thank you for answering the question. 

Basically too many people in this room are dodging the real 

issue, and if I wanted to see people dodge, I would go someplace 

else. I would never think that I would have to be in the committee 

of Congress to see that happen. 

Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Dr. YOEST. May I respond very briefly? 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. I yield back my time. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Griffith, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Dr. Yoest, you wanted to respond briefly. Please 

do so. 

Dr. YOEST. Thank you, sir. 

I would just like to briefly object to the characterization of the 

pro-life movement, and I would like to invite you, sir, to visit a 

pregnancy care center in California that takes care of babies after 

they are born. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much. And, Dr. Yoest, I am going 

to read you some testimony from the past. 

92 

‘‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs 

and pulled him down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the 

baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept 

the head right inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were 

clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. 

‘‘Then the doctor struck the scissors into the back of his head, 

and the baby’s arms jerked out like the startled reaction, like a 

flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors and stuck a high-powered suction tube 

into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. 

‘‘Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the umbilical cord 

and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby into a pan, along 

with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’’ 

Do you recall that testimony being in a prior case? And if you 

don’t, that is OK. Yes or no? 

Dr. YOEST. Roughly speaking, yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, ma’am. And at the time—that was partialbirth abortion—and at the time, Roger Evans, Planned Parenthood’s senior director for public policy litigation, says, ‘‘There is no 

substance to the opponents’ arguments. That is ideological poppycock, totally unsupported by the medicine.’’ Evans says, ‘‘The 

judges who have heard the testimony on the subject have consistently concluded it is a safer method of abortion for many women 

and it is a medically necessary method of abortion for women in 

some circumstances.’’ That is a quote from CQ Researcher back in 

2006. 

And the quote I gave you earlier actually came from the 

Gonzales v. Carhart case in the majority opinion where they were 

talking about partial-birth abortion and how bad it was. 

Now, earlier we heard testimony from Ms. Waxman that, you 

know, if somebody was found guilty of violating partial-birth abortion that, you know, they would be convicted and that would be a 

different story. 

You made the point earlier that you were not making a legalistic 

case, you were making a moralistic case in answering questions 

from Mr. Kennedy, and I think that is instructive. Because just 

like the O.J. Simpson case, you may not have the evidence to put 

somebody in jail because that is a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt 

standard, but you might have the evidence to take their money 

away from them, which is exactly what happened in the O.J. Simpson case. 

And isn’t that what these bills are about, is to say that if you 

do something wrong, even if we don’t have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you should lose some of the money that you might get 

otherwise? Isn’t that what these bills are really about, Dr. Yoest? 

Dr. YOEST. Yes, sir. I am very glad that you read from Gonzales 

v. Carhart because the ban on partial-birth abortion was a very 

hotly contested issue in our country, and the Supreme Court was 

very clear in upholding its legality. 

And I didn’t have a whole lot of time to elaborate on Dr. Deborah 

Nucatola’s scoffing at the partial-birth abortion law, but after she 

made the quote about the fact that she thought this was basically 

just kind of a guideline for her behavior, she went on to say that 

93 

she felt that intent came into play in that if she didn’t intend to 

perform a partial-birth abortion, that it didn’t count. 

But in actual fact, to switch back to talking about the law, aside 

from common decency, the law is very clear that intent doesn’t let 

you off the hook from performing a partial-birth abortion. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And there should be punishments, not only the 

criminal punishments but punishments to those providers who 

allow people to do these things by taking away their monetary 

sources. 

I mean, if somebody determines that they are charging excessively or something else, they have the right to take away their reimbursement. Shouldn’t that be the same case if there is good reason to believe that they, in fact, have violated the law whether with 

a baby that is born alive or by doing a partial-birth abortion in 

order to get more organs to harvest from our babies? 

And I don’t know this, so I want to track this down. I tried looking it up and I couldn’t find it. Ms. Waxman, were you in favor of 

partial-birth abortion? Did you argue against either publicly or as 

a part of your law class against partial-birth or for partial-birth? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I was not part of that debate. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. You were not part of that debate at all. OK. I appreciate that. Thank you. I wanted to have that out there. 

These are very serious issues, and it is not a matter of determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is trying to decide 

whether or not somebody is doing it the way the law intends it to 

be done or not to be done and whether or not taxpayer dollars 

should be used to reimburse those people for doing those acts. 

And I appreciate both you, Mr. Mattox, and you, Dr. Yoest, for 

being here, and also you, Ms. Waxman, because in this country we 

always have the opposing side, and that is the way it ought to be. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing. Very important hearing. 

Mr. Mattox, in your testimony you mentioned that Planned Parenthood has had great financial success in Medicaid. Unlike other 

Medicaid providers, they have been able to avoid some of the oversight and corrective actions that most Medicaid providers would expect. Can you elaborate on what they have been doing, and maybe 

what they have been getting away with all these years? 

Mr. MATTOX. Sure. First of all, Planned Parenthood has received 

over the last 10 years about $4 billion in taxpayer funds. And the 

HHS OIG does investigations every so often of family planning programs. Usually those are not as to a specific provider, but in a few 

instances they are. 

And what they have found in just 45 recent public audits, and 

these are all publicly released, we have a report that was just out 

this morning that details all of the publicly released audits, and 

what that shows is that Planned Parenthood specifically has been 

pointed to as having overbilled the Government by $8.5 million in 

those publicly released audits from HHS OIG and some from State 

sources. 

94 

In addition to that, you have another $4.3 million that Planned 

Parenthood Gulf Coast paid to the Justice Department when the 

Obama administration Justice Department said that they thought 

that Planned Parenthood had overbilled the Federal Government 

in the Texas Women’s Health Program and the Texas Medicaid. 

So in addition to that, you have a number of False Claims Act 

cases that ADF and others have represented around the country 

representing whistleblowers from Planned Parenthood, these are 

individuals who have worked at Planned Parenthood for a number 

of years, Abby Johnson, Sue Thayer in Iowa, and others who have 

alleged tens of millions of dollars in Medicaid fraud, and there are 

several of those cases that are ongoing around the country. 

So there is a substantial reason for the taxpayers to be very concerned this is an organization that is able to profit off of Medicaid. 

As a matter of fact, if you look at their annual reports, again, you 

see $127 million in excess revenue last year. We have heard testimony earlier that Medicaid is not usually a program that you can 

profit from, but it seems that Planned Parenthood has found a way. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Next question. For you, Mr. Mattox: Federal law states that, 

quote, ‘‘No alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to 

terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purpose of obtaining the tissue,’’ end quote. 

In the videos, the Planned Parenthood representative seemed to 

almost be boasting that they are flaunting the law. Does that seem 

to be the case to you? And do you think that this should be sufficient grounds to terminate Medicaid funding? 

Mr. MATTOX. Having watched the videos, the full videos, I have 

seen those quotes, and that does seem to certainly violate Federal 

law. That was a bipartisan law on how we are going to handle this 

fetal tissue donation question, and Congress agreed that we are not 

going to have people changing the way they are doing abortions for 

that purpose, and it certainly seems that is the case. And as a matter of fact, Cecile Richards in her letter of August 27 stated that 

that was the case, that they would adjust the procedures. 

So I am not sure. Setting the videos aside, we have the current 

statement from the CEO of Planned Parenthood saying that they 

would adjust the procedures in order to obtain better tissue. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

And Representative Griffith touched on this, but I want to elaborate a little bit. 

Dr. Yoest, does the Planned Parenthood video show that they are 

willing to do partial-birth abortions in defiance to the law? Can you 

explain these types of abortion procedures, what they are? 

Dr. YOEST. Yes, sir. If I could connect it to your previous question 

of Mr. Mattox. One of the things that is most troubling, through 

this whole process I think many of us have become much more familiar with abortion procedures than we would ever care to be. But 

the hard truth of the matter is that in order—the reason it is so 

relevant, this question of them changing their procedures, is that 

in order to get useable tissue they cannot use the most lethal and 

most—forgive me—most effective way of ending the baby’s life by 

using a chemical called Digoxin that kills the baby before it is born. 

95 

So by moving away from using that procedure and altering their 

technique in order—because, excuse me, I failed to mention that 

Digoxin then makes the baby’s tissues unusable for harvesting and 

selling it—and so that is what moves them toward doing these 

kinds of procedures that are much more likely to result in partialbirth abortion and live births. 

And so I think that is a really important point for all of us to 

understand, that there is a cohesive whole here in terms of the violation of the law, the targeting of the organs that they want, of 

maintaining tissues that are the most financially marketable for 

them. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here today. 

Ms. Waxman, have you watched any of these videos, edited, unedited, whatever you want to call them, but the recent videos that 

have come out—— 

Ms. WAXMAN. I saw them today. 

Mr. LONG [continuing]. At Planned Parenthood? I am sorry? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I saw excerpts today. 

Mr. LONG. Does it bother you to watch those? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Let’s say all medical procedures bother me. When 

I hear doctors talk about many different kinds of things, I am uncomfortable. So, yes, it is uncomfortable. 

Mr. LONG. So it was disturbing to watch them. 

Ms. WAXMAN. I would say uncomfortable. 

Mr. LONG. Yes. I would say you are right, because I didn’t watch 

them today. I have watched them before. I was watching you. You 

have got a video monitor 90 degrees to your right, you have got a 

video monitor 90 degrees to your left, and you looked up once or 

twice. 

Ms. WAXMAN. I don’t think that is true, Your Honor. I did. I 

watched them. And I have seen them before. 

Mr. LONG. But it is disturbing to you is my point. I am not getting on you for not doing it. Some people can’t watch them. They 

are very disturbing. So you are disagreeing with what I said? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I think I answered the question. I do find them uncomfortable. 

Mr. LONG. I am not trying to be argumentative at all. I don’t 

know where you think I am going. You act like you are defensive, 

like I am trying to be—— 

Ms. WAXMAN. OK. I find them uncomfortable. I think I said that. 

Mr. LONG. Yes. Sure. A lot of people do, and there is nothing 

wrong with that. I am not trying to trap you. I am not a lawyer. 

I don’t play one on TV. 

Ms. WAXMAN. We are on the same page. 

Mr. LONG. I have got a friend that can’t watch those videos either. And the reason—I know nothing about your background, but 

I do know his background—the reason he can’t watch those videos 

is that when his mother became pregnant with him at a young age, 

her family, her friends told her to abort him, said that your life will 

96 

be a lot better, you will have a very hard life if you carry this child 

to term. And thankfully she didn’t listen to her family and her 

friends and people that told her to abort the child, and today he 

is a United States Congressman. He is not the one sitting before 

you. It is not my story. But he is a United States Congressman. 

He says, ‘‘I cannot watch these videos,’’ he said, ‘‘because when 

I watch them, I see myself. I see myself as that baby that my mom 

thought about aborting,’’ and it is extremely upsetting to him. And 

I think that it is extremely upsetting to a lot of people. 

And like I said, I am not trying to be argumentative with you, 

but I noticed, I was watching you as they were playing it, and you, 

as you admitted, you know, they are kind of tough to watch. 

Ms. WAXMAN. May I respond? 

Mr. LONG. Not yet. If I have time at the end, I will be glad for 

you to. 

When I came up to this hearing, it has been a few hours ago 

now, but when I came up to this hearing the elevator door opened 

as we were getting on the elevator down on G3 to come up here 

to floor 1, and a lady—I didn’t even focus on her, but she was pushing a baby carriage. And she had a screaming—I guarantee you, 

I am not a doctor, I don’t know how old the kid was, but he was 

less than a month old, all red, screaming. The Congressman that 

got on with me, as she got off pushing her baby in the baby carriage, said that is the most beautiful sound in the world. 

And I graduated high school in 1973. In 1973 Roe v. Wade came 

down, the ruling. And the people say: Oh, the pro-lifers are doing 

this for everything. I didn’t understand abortion when I was a senior in high school when they ruled it legal at the Supreme Court. 

I still don’t. I don’t make any apologies for that. But seeing that 

young baby as we come into here, it just, you know, a few months 

ago, would have been OK to take that life. I make no apologies, but 

I don’t understand that. And so when we have hearings like this, 

it is difficult for me. 

I was at a luncheon today, Speaker Pelosi was there, Gene Green 

was there, the ranking member, his wife was there. It was the 23rd 

Annual Congressional Families Cancer Prevention Luncheon. I sat 

next to my daughter, who is 26 years old, that had her last chemotherapy treatment on August 10 of this year. She is doing great. 

She has a PET scan coming up here, and we think she is fine. 

But to think of what people do to save themselves and to prevent 

cancer and to treat cancer once they have cancer and to fight for 

life, the emcee was Jennifer Griffin of Fox News, national security 

correspondent, 46 years old, I believe, breast cancer. The other 

lady, I can’t call her name right this second, but a cook on TV, 49 

years old. But when you see the emotion that the people in the 

room, Democrat, Republican, rallied together for the 23rd time, 

23rd luncheon, to fight for life, it just, to me, it is just a real shame 

that it is OK to kill a child 3 months before it is born, but you kill 

it 3 months after it is born and you are going to go to jail. And 

I just, you know, I am sorry, but I don’t get that. 

There was a lady that had an opportunity to abort a United 

States Congressman, didn’t do it. I don’t know how many Congressmen have been aborted over the years, how many Senators, how 

many Presidents, how many brain surgeons, whatever. But those 

97 

of us that people want to call us pro-life or whatever, we don’t come 

to it because we are Republicans, we don’t come to it for political 

reasons. Some of us just don’t understand stopping a beating heart. 

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

Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman. 

And I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Mrs. 

Ellmers, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, I thank the panel for being with us today. 

Dr. Yoest, it is good to see you. And I want to ask you a couple 

of questions. And my colleague, Mr. Griffith from Virginia, was 

touching on some of the discussion and some of your testimony regarding Dr. Nucatola. In the quote that she had made, quote: ‘‘The 

Federal abortion ban is the law and the laws are up to interpretation,’’ unquote. 

Now, I think you clearly state that that is not your view, that 

it is not just up for interpretation, that it is very clear. Am I correct? 

Dr. YOEST. The law is very clear about what it has banned. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. And I did want to touch back on the comment you 

made about the Supreme Court and their review of the current 

partial-birth abortion ban and upholding it. Is that correct? 

Dr. YOEST. Yes. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. So, you know, like my colleague Mrs. 

Blackburn, I have one of the bills. And, you know, just for the 

panel and the discussion of clarifying the situation for our States, 

I just want to state that I would like to say to the panel that my 

draft bill seeks to clarify existing State authorities over providers 

serving Medicaid patients so that those States who suspect a provider may have violated the partial-birth abortion ban can immediately end their State’s relationship with that provider. If a provider was proven guilty under the draft law, he or she would also 

be mandatorily excluded from the Federal healthcare program. 

I don’t think that is unreasonable to allow States to provide that 

ability. I believe that States should have those rights. 

Dr. Yoest, have you seen or read anything recently over these 

past few weeks that causes you to think that some providers are, 

indeed, violating the partial-birth abortion ban and billing Medicaid for it? 

Dr. YOEST. Well, I think, you know, there has been a lot of conversation about the context and the editing of the videos. But I 

think that in looking at the full totality of Dr. Nucatola’s testimony, I just don’t see that context is helpful at all when she is 

quite clear that she starts the day with a list of organs that she 

is targeting, and then she describes a procedure that she uses in 

order to ensure that those organs that she is harvesting are then 

usable. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. You know, and I would just like to say, as a 

nurse and dealing with these issues of, you know, taking care of 

patients and dealing in the world of health care, I agree. As difficult as it is to watch the videos, and as difficult as it is to hear 

her describe in such a matter-of-fact manner how she kind of tallies up the day and moving forward—my husband is a general surgeon, and we have many discussions about the surgeries that he 

98 

will have that day, and, you know, what his hopes are, obviously, 

to take good care of those patients and hopefully everything will go 

well. 

That is what I hear her talk about, only from a perspective of, 

again, retrieving fetal body organs in the best possible manner that 

she can do that. And it is chilling to me, and it truly is sickening 

to hear that because of the matter-of-fact manner in which she 

does that. 

Furthermore, Dr. Yoest, you noted in your testimony and I will 

quote what you had said: ‘‘Planned Parenthood has a track record 

of opposing partial-birth abortion bans.’’ And I do believe that you 

have stated that and that in the past that this is something that 

they have done. And I will just further quote you: ‘‘States should 

be permitted to withdraw or deny Medicaid funding to individuals 

and entities that violate the letter and spirit of the widely supported laws against infanticide,’’ unquote. 

In addition to the bills that we are considering, that my colleague 

from Tennessee and I are moving forward in the committee this 

week, and, you know, with our chamber, what other Federal approaches would you recommend we consider to better protect the 

lives of our most vulnerable young Americans? 

Dr. YOEST. Well, I think that in addition to—well, first, can I just 

say that we do appreciate both what you and Congresswoman 

Blackburn are doing with your bills and that we just very much appreciate that. 

There is also the bill that I believe will soon be introduced by 

Congressman Franks to add criminal penalties to the Born-Alive 

Infants Protection Act. And then I believe there is also another bill 

to be soon introduced by Congresswoman Black to propose a moratorium on Planned Parenthood funding. 

So I think that there is a lot of conversation going on right now, 

and I think that there are quite a few different approaches that we 

can take that could be a productive approach. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you so much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, 5 

minutes for questions. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to thank you for your comity in allowing me to waive onto this committee. It is a tough topic, and it is important. 

The title of this hearing is ‘‘Protecting Infants: Ending Taxpayer 

Funding for Abortion Providers Who Violate the Law.’’ Ms. Waxman, under current law, the Federal Government right now, if 

somebody who violates any law is found by due process to violate 

that law, Federal funding can be cut off right now under current 

law, correct? Yes or no? 

Ms. WAXMAN. Yes, if what we are talking—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

Ms. WAXMAN. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So the real issue is, has Planned Parenthood violated the law, correct? 

Ms. WAXMAN. That would be the issue. 

99 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. 

Now, at the beginning of this hearing we were shown some small 

film snippets. But I just want to ask, Dr. Yoest, you, yourself, did 

not make those film snippets, correct? Yes or no? 

Dr. YOEST. No, ma’am. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And, Mr. Mattox, you, yourself, did not make 

those films, correct? Yes or no? 

Mr. MATTOX. I did not create them. I have watched them. 

Ms. DEGETTE. You have watched them. 

And, Dr. Yoest, you and your staff also watched film clips on the 

Internet, yes or no? 

Dr. YOEST. We have watched—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. You have watched the films on—— 

Dr. YOEST [continuing]. The unedited ones. 

Ms. DEGETTE. You watched what you are told are unedited films 

online, yes? Correct? 

Dr. YOEST. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But you don’t know for a fact—you didn’t make 

those films, so you don’t know from personal experience that they 

are unedited, correct? Yes or no? I mean, you didn’t make the film, 

so you don’t know if they are edited or not? 

Dr. YOEST. No, I can’t. You are right, I can’t. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And same with you, Mr. Mattox, you didn’t make 

the films, right? 

Mr. MATTOX. I did not make the films. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So, Mr. Chairman, we have been told, the minority has been told on Oversight and Investigations and this committee that we have been provided with all of the unedited films 

online, but we haven’t had the person from the Center for Medical 

Progress who made those videos here. He is not here today. We 

haven’t had him in the committee. On the Oversight Subcommittee, we take testimony under oath. And what I would like 

to see—and I see my chairman is here, Mr. Murphy—what I would 

like to see is, I would like to see him come in to the committee 

under oath and talk to us about how he made those videotapes. 

But let’s accept the assertions from our witnesses that the unedited videotapes are online, let’s accept that. So today, Mr. Chairman, what we did, this hearing started out with several film clips. 

The first film clip was of a baby who apparently was not an aborted fetus. It was a baby named Walter Fretz, who had been born 

prematurely at 19 weeks. And along with a picture of that baby, 

there was a woman talking. She apparently was a woman who 

used to work for an organization that was a procurement technician talking about late-term abortion procedures, which was totally 

unrelated to the baby, Walter Fretz, who was shown. 

And to make this even more horrifying to me as a mother, apparently, Walter Fretz’s mother did not agree that her baby, her precious baby, could be used in this way. 

So that was the first video clip that we were shown today to give 

us the impression that Planned Parenthood was somehow harvesting organs from this little baby. I can hardly get over that. The 

second and third and fourth clips were very small clips from what 

are many, many, many hours of videotapes that were apparently 

taken. 

100 

So the Oversight and Investigations Democrats reviewed all of 

the videotapes that we were given, which the majority tells us are 

all of the videotapes. There was no illegal activity found. There was 

no illegal activity found in what we saw. 

When we pointed that out today, you know what the majority 

says to us? They say, ‘‘Well, that is because the O&I investigation 

is not completed.’’ Well, I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, and I 

would ask you, Chairman Murphy, if there is more information 

that we haven’t been given in order to have this legislative hearing 

today, I would suggest that the majority should produce it to us. 

Because otherwise all we are going on is allegation and innuendo. 

And the lives of millions of American women are being put at 

stake at this: 4.2 million visits to Planned Parenthood centers last 

year, not for abortions, for mammogram, for cervical cancer screening, for well-women screening, 4.2 million visits last year are in 

jeopardy because of innuendos and allegations and videotapes that, 

for the purposes of the hearing today, were highly edited, misconstrued, and doctored. And that is why we are so mad. 

And, again, I thank you for letting me talk. I thank you for doing 

this. But I think we should take this very, very seriously. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Dr. Murphy, you can respond briefly. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that we will continue to investigate this thoughtfully as you and I do with the 

Oversight and Investigations Committee, continue to invite you to 

be thoroughly involved, will continue to share all information together, each side will do that. 

There is a lot to review here. I will restate, as I said before, it 

is premature for any of us to draw conclusions. There is a lot to 

review and investigate this. As you know, we do with all of our 

hearings gather information and we follow the facts where they 

take us, and we will continue to be thoughtful in our approach. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I certainly will look forward to that hearing. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentleman, Dr. Bucshon, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say, I am a physician who has operated on premature babies as young as 23 weeks gestation. In fact, the smallest 

baby I operated on in my practice weighed only 650 grams. I did 

a specific operation call a patent ductus ligation of premature babies. And so I find the discussion, the callousness of the discussion, 

particularly appalling in the videos based on that, as well as the 

fact that I am a father of four and a pro-life person. 

But also as a physician, I take access to health care very seriously, and it is very important to me. And that is why I think it 

is such a ridiculous argument that the minority makes that Republicans in some way want to limit access to health care for women. 

That is a debunked argument. It has failed politically and it has 

failed factually many, many times. But they continue to make it 

because that is the only thing they have. 

So with that, I want to also outline some statistics on Planned 

Parenthood about access to health care. And this is their own data. 

They treat just 2 percent of the Nation’s women for any reason, 2 

101 

percent. Ninety-eight percent of women get their health care other 

places other than Planned Parenthood. 

They also don’t offer women some basic primary care. Mammograms were just mentioned. But, Ms. Waxman, does Planned Parenthood perform mammograms? 

Ms. WAXMAN. You know, my own doctor doesn’t—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. That is a yes-or-no answer. Does Planned Parenthood—— 

Ms. WAXMAN. It is no, as most primary care don’t. 

Mr. BUCSHON. So Ms. DeGette’s statement was false, they don’t 

perform mammograms, OK? 

Ms. WAXMAN. They do breast exams, however. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Well, any physician can do that. In fact, you know 

it is the law that if a woman comes into your office and they 

haven’t had a breast exam within a year, even a cardiovascular 

surgeon must perform a complete breast exam? Do you know that 

that is true? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I don’t, but that is great. 

Mr. BUCSHON. That is the fact. 

Ms. WAXMAN. That is great. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes. Do they provide cardiovascular blood tests for 

women? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I don’t know. 

Mr. BUCSHON. They don’t, I will tell you. 

Do they offer bone mass measurements for women, which is very 

important, as you know, because women are at risk for 

osteoporosis? Do they do that? 

Ms. WAXMAN. I don’t know. 

Mr. BUCSHON. The answer is no, they don’t. 

And I think you do know this one: Their cancer screenings have 

decreased by half over the past 10 years. 

Ms. WAXMAN. I don’t know that, either. 

Mr. BUCSHON. The answer is yes, it has. 

So the argument here, and I am speaking from a physician’s 

standpoint, this is purely about pro-choice people trying to protect 

the organization that performs, what, 40 percent of the abortions 

in the United States. This is not about women’s health care. Republicans want all women to have access to quality, affordable 

health care regardless of their ZIP code, regardless of what socioeconomic status they are. That is just a false argument. 

And to stand here and try to say that if we don’t redirect money 

to health centers that can be funded by the Federal Government 

and that Planned Parenthood loses their funding that all of a sudden women aren’t going to have access to health care is just a false 

argument. I mean, it is just not true. 

The other thing is, you know, I looked up the laws in Indiana 

about if you did this to a pet, you know, if you did some of the 

things described in these videos to, you know, an animal that was 

born alive and you destroyed them and took their body parts, in Indiana you would go to prison for 180 days and $1,000 fine. That 

is for a pet. And so to argue that we shouldn’t have—that this 

should be something we should just callously talk about, about a 

human being, is ridiculous. 

102 

So I just think that we need to seriously look at our country and 

whether or not, as a people, we are willing to accept this activity, 

and quit trying to protect people that are doing things that really 

are morally and potentially legally not correct. 

I would yield my last 30 seconds to anyone that wants to make 

any final comments. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I yield to Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 

that we have spent the time on this issue. 

As Ms. DeGette was questioning Dr. Murphy about where we 

continue, I think it is important to note, we are at the beginning 

of an investigation and we are just starting this process. We do 

know from Planned Parenthood’s own statistics that they perform 

over 300,000 abortions a year. Compare that to the 1,800 adoption 

referrals that they make and the 18,000 prenatal health visits they 

give for women. 

So, you know, as all of this has tried to be made a discussion 

about the videos, I think it is imperative that we refocus this, Mr. 

Chairman. We are here to make certain that women and children 

are protected and that unborn children, children that are yet unborn, have the right to life. That is the point of this discussion. 

And I yield back to the gentleman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. That concludes the questions of the members. 

We will have some follow-up questions that we will send to you 

in writing. We ask that you please respond promptly. 

I remind members that they have 10 business days to submit 

questions for the record, and so they should submit their questions 

by the close of business on Thursday, October 1. 

I want to thank the members, the witnesses, everyone, for staying late and long. You have been very patient, but this is a very 

important issue. 

We have a UC request? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Mr. PITTS. Go ahead. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent to place into the record a Texas Policy Evaluation Project 

research paper, since Texas’ coverage has been an issue. Also, an 

article from healthaffairs.org, ‘‘How Texas Lawmakers Continue to 

Undermine Health Care.’’ And also from the Health Affairs organization, ‘‘Planned Parenthood, Community Centers, Getting the 

Facts Straight.’’ 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. PITTS. And without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. PITTS. Go ahead. 

Mr. BURGESS. So the Texas Women’s Health Program Provider 

Survey: Patient Capacity Report, January 7, 2013, from the State 

of Texas; National Review, ‘‘What Texas PolitiFact Won’t Admit 

About the State’s Defunding of Planned Parenthood’’; and the Daily 

103 

Signal, ‘‘If Planned Parenthood Loses Government Funding, Here’s 

a Map of Healthcare Clinics That Could Take its Place.’’ 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. PITTS. With that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is important that we recognize why today’s hearing is taking place. Despite its incendiary title, the goal of this hearing is not to ‘‘protect’’ anyone. If it 

were, we would not be debating the merits of an organization that provides life-saving care to more than 2 million Americans, most of whom have nowhere else to 

turn. 

We are here because the Majority has again chosen to spend precious legislative 

days reigniting the same tired battles of years past, and bringing our Government 

to the brink of a shutdown, all for the purpose of rolling back women’s ability to 

control their own health and bodies. 

This time, their attacks are focused on Planned Parenthood—an organization 

that, despite contrived and unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, has not violated any State or Federal laws, but has provided breast exams, cervical cancer 

screenings, HIV tests, and other invaluable services to our country’s poorest and 

most underserved women and men. 

Some have argued that other providers, such as community health centers, could 

fill the void that would be created if Planned Parenthood clinics closed their doors 

and offer these patients the same level of care. 

More than half of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in rural areas, 

medically underserved areas, or health professional shortage areas. My district contains such ‘‘shortage areas,’’ where access to health care is already too limited. 

It is not difficult to understand, then, why the American Public Health Association called the notion that community health centers could simply take on all of the 

patients who rely on Planned Parenthood ‘‘ludicrous.’’ 

It is also not difficult to imagine how unlikely it will be that women and men in 

these underserved areas would be able to access life-saving breast cancer 

screenings, cervical cancer screenings, STI tests and HIV tests in a timely manner 

if Planned Parenthood centers were to disappear. 

Make no mistake: the bills under consideration today will do nothing to ‘‘protect’’ 

our constituents. On the contrary, they will put the health of our country’s most vulnerable women and men in jeopardy. 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

174 

175 

176 

177 

178 

179 

180 

181 

182 

183 

184 

Æ