House Republicans Form Select Committee To Investigate Fetal Tissue Donation After CMP Releases Videos Targeting Planned Parenthood

House Republicans Create “Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives” Following Release Of Deceptively Edited Videos Targeting Planned Parenthood. In October 2015, House Republicans voted to create a special committee to investigate abortion service providers and fetal tissue donation. The vote followed the release of deceptively edited videos produced by the anti-choice group Center for Medical Progress (CMP), which targeted Planned Parenthood officials and fetal tissue procurement companies. The committee was later named the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives. [Huffington Post, 10/7/15]

CMP Founder Has Been Indicted By A Houston Grand Jury While Planned Parenthood Has Consistently Been Cleared Of Wrongdoing

Anti-Choice CMP Has Released Multiple Deceptive Videos Attacking Planned Parenthood -- All Of Which Have Been Debunked. Since July 2015, CMP has released multiple videos containing undercover footage of discussions with Planned Parenthood personnel and staff members of other private, for-profit biomedical procurement companies. CMP has claimed that its videos show that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling fetal tissue and altering abortion procedures in order to profit from the sale of fetal tissue. Scores of media outlets have confirmed that the footage shows no illegal behavior by, or on behalf of, Planned Parenthood, and that the words of Planned Parenthood personnel who were secretly filmed have been “grossly [taken] out of context.” [Media Matters, 8/31/15]

Growing Number Of Planned Parenthood Investigations Have Cleared Organization Of Any Wrongdoing. CMP’s deceptively edited videos have spurred at least 13 states to launch investigations into Planned Parenthood's operations, even though there are “only three states in which Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics can participate in fetal tissue donation programs,” according to Yahoo News. Thirteen states -- Massachusetts, Indiana, South Dakota, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, Kansas, Washington, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina -- and the Department of Health and Human Services have all announced that they found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood or known violations of federal fetal tissue laws. [Media Matters, 8/24/15]

Texas Grand Jury Indicted Two Members Of Anti-Choice Group CMP. In January, a Houston grand jury charged with investigating Planned Parenthood, following the release of CMP’s deceptive videos purporting to show misconduct, cleared the organization of any wrongdoing. The jury instead indicted CMP founder David Daleiden and his associate Sandra Merritt for tampering with a governmental record in creating fake California driver's licenses. Daleiden was also indicted on a misdemeanor charge related to his offers to Planned Parenthood officials in Texas to purchase human organs. [Media Matters,1/26/16]

Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives Held Second Hearing On “The Pricing Of Fetal Tissue”

Politico: Second Hearing Poised To Focus On “Accounting, Marketing, And Other Business Documents” To Allege Wrongdoing By Abortion Providers And Procurement Companies. The Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives held its second hearing on April 20. According to a pre-hearing piece published by Politico, panel Republicans intended to present a report of “accounting, marketing, and other business documents that they say indicate” that providers and procurement companies profited from fetal tissue donation. Democrats on the panel have increasingly voiced doubts about the veracity and sourcing of these documents, warning that they have “led to ‘inaccurate and misleading’ conclusions.” Politico quoted a Democratic committee memo that said, “In reality, the documents themselves are not evidence of unlawful conduct,” even though “Republicans will claim -- and invite their witnesses to agree -- that these documents indicate possible misconduct”:

At a hearing Wednesday, Republicans plan to present a report containing accounting, marketing and other business documents that they say indicate the unnamed procurement company and abortion clinic likely made a profit off the handling of fetal tissue.

[...]

No congressional committee or law enforcement office has concluded there is evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood or the fetal tissue handlers. Daleiden, however, was charged with using false government documents and trying to buy fetal tissue — allegations that he denies.

Democrats on the committee say the documents, some of which lack sourcing information, have led to “inaccurate and misleading” conclusions.

“Nevertheless, we anticipate that the Republicans will claim — and invite their witnesses to agree — that these documents indicate possible criminal misconduct that warrants this Panel’s and the Justice Department’s investigation,” the Democratic committee staff wrote in a memo to members. “In reality, the documents themselves are not evidence of unlawful conduct as any dollar amounts that they contain or discussion of pricing and costs may represent lawful, reimbursable costs associated with fetal tissue research.” [Politico, 4/19/16]

In The First Hearing, The Select Panel Relied On “Evidence” Pulled Directly From CMP's Website. Previous Media Matters research found that during its first hearing, the select panel presented “evidence” of wrongdoing pulled directly from CMP's website and previous videos. For example, when Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) introduced exhibit A3, she presented a form that she described as “the consent form that is used in some of these [abortion] clinics.” This same form was listed on CMP's website as a “Planned Parenthood fetal tissue donation form.” In its latest video, CMP confirmed that its document was the source of exhibit A3 by transposing the forms on top of one another and removing the redaction bars -- indicating that the two were identical. [Media Matters, 3/7/16]

Second Hearing Cited CMP’s Deceptively Edited Videos As Hearing Catalyst And Evidence Of Wrongdoing

Panel Chair Blackburn: “There’s Been A Lot Of Heated Debated About The Horrible Videos,” But The Hearing Will Present “Documents That Reveal” Wrongdoing. In her opening statement, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) argued that the second hearing would present evidence validating the claims made in CMP’s deceptively edited videos. She noted that although “there’s been a lot of heated debate about the horrible videos,” the hearing would present “documents that reveal” that abortion providers and procurement companies are guilty of profiting from fetal tissue donation. From Blackburn’s opening statement:

MARSHA BLACKBURN: Now there’s been a lot of heated debate about the horrible videos that came out last year, but today’s hearing will present business documents, invoices, marketing brochures, and management documents that reveal that one for-profit procurement business and several abortion clinics may have violated the intent of the statute and the Waxman prohibition passed overwhelmingly by a Democrat controlled house.

[...]

Now turn the page and look at exhibits B4 and 5. The procurement business started in 2010 with three clinics, two years it was up to 30, and two more years it had nearly 100. Further, they were negotiating a contract to have over 250 clinics by this year but the co-marketing negotiations with the national abortion trade organization fell apart just about the time the videos came out last year. [Opening Statement of Chairman Marsha Blackburn for the Select Investigative Panel On Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

Sen. Ben Sasse: We All “Watched With Grief The Video Footage” From CMP Showing “Abortion Doctors Discussing The Sale Of Baby Body Parts For Profit.” In his statement, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) thanked the committee for its investigation and pointed to CMP’s videos as a source of inspiration for the committee’s work. He said that many Americans “watched with grief the video footage” from CMP that showed “abortion doctors discussing the sale of baby body parts for profit”:

BEN SASSE: Many of us in the Senate like many of you in the House  and, more importantly, like millions of Americans, watched with grief the video footage of abortion doctors and others discussing the sale of baby body parts for profit. As a legislator, but  more importantly as a father -- I have three little kids, three precious ones -- one of my little girls traveled with me from Nebraska to D.C. this week and she’s here with us today. More importantly, as a father I support your investigation and your commitment to get to the bottom of what’s going on here. [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

Witness With Ties To  Alliance Defending Freedom, An Anti-LGBT Giant, Invoked CMP Videos In Testimony As Evidence. Michael Norton, a senior counsel with anti-LGBT legal giant Alliance Defending Freedom, testified as a witness during the second hearing. In his statement, Norton asserted that wrongdoing was “revealed by one of these undercover videos” and that “it was clear from the videos that Planned Parenthood had been actively engaged in harvesting and trafficking for profit the body parts of babies whose lives Planned Parenthood had ended”:

MICHAEL NORTON: In 2015, it was revealed by one of these undercover videos that Denver’s Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains was indeed making a profit by harvesting and trafficking the hearts, the brains, the lungs, the eyes, the livers, and other body parts of babies whose lives Planned Parenthood had ended by abortion. These gruesome revelations came from a series of videos released by this Center for Medical Progress that the committee has talked about. And it was clear from the videos that Planned Parenthood had been actively engaged in harvesting and trafficking for profit the body parts of babies whose lives Planned Parenthood had ended. Those videos have not created a general queasiness about surgery and blood. No matter how one stands on the issue of abortion, no one who has viewed these videos can come away thinking that Planned Parenthood’s harvesting and selling of these baby body parts is consistent with our values or consistent with the law. [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue 4/20/16]

Witness Representing The Anti-Choice Charlotte Lozier Institute Argued That CMP’s Videos Revealed Wrongdoing To the Public. Representing the anti-choice Charlotte Lozier Institute, Catherine Foster argued that “the public learned of these back-alley transactions last year when undercover videos” released by CMP “surfaced online.” She argued that these videos and the subsequent documents presented  by the panel proved that “clinics and procurement companies have been getting away with charging far more than allowed costs” for tissue donation:

CATHERINE FOSTER: The public learned of these back alley transactions last year when undercover videos of the organ business brokers surfaced online. Indeed, the trade in fetal body parts is a business. As demonstrated by the evidence presented by this panel, clinics and procurement companies have been getting away with charging far more than the allowed costs for harvesting, transporting, and warehousing body parts as they wait for customers. [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

During Hearing, Panel Members Relied On Discredited Evidence From CMP To Attack Researchers And Abortion Providers

1. Exhibit B2

Chair Marsha Blackburn: Exhibit B2 Is “A Procurement Company Brochure” That Promises “Financial Benefit To Your Clinic.” In her opening statement, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced exhibit B2 as evidence of “what the procurement business was trying to do.” In her description, Blackburn stated that it was “a procurement company brochure” given out at conferences to abortion providers, promising “financial benefit to your clinic” and that a partnership would be “financially profitable”:

MARSHA BLACKBURN: Next I want to walk the witnesses through the exhibits. I know that all the lawyers in the room like to focus on every detail -- and that is why you are here -- but it is also important to understand the big picture of what the procurement business was trying to do. Especially in light of the Waxman prohibitions against profiting from the sale of baby parts in the ‘93 NIH [National Institutes of Health] Revitalization Act.

Please turn to the B exhibits, beginning with B2. This is the procurement company brochure that is handed out at national conferences where abortion clinic managers were in attendance. Notice it says “financially profitable,” “fiscally rewards,” “financial benefit to your clinic.” [Opening Statement of Chairman Marsha Blackburn for the Select Investigative Panel On Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

Rep. Joe Pitts: Exhibit B2 Shows A Procurement Company That “Markets Itself On Its Brochure As A Way For Clinics To Make Additional Income.” Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) described exhibits B2 and B3 as evidence that at least one procurement company “markets itself on its brochure as a way for clinics to make additional income.” Pitts pointed to the use of particular words like “financially profitable” and “financial benefit” on the brochure as proof of his claims:

JOE PITTS: As seen on exhibit B2 and B3, the procurement business markets itself on its brochure as a way for clinics to make additional income by allowing the procurement business -- procurement technicians -- to take fetal tissues and organs from aborted babies immediately after the abortion was completed, using the words “financially profitable,” “fiscally rewards,” “financial benefit” on its brochure. [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

Rep. Sean Duffy: Exhibit B2 “Seems To Indicate That There Could Be Financial Profitability For An Abortion Provider” If They Donate Fetal Tissue. While questioning one of the panel’s witnesses -- Kenneth Sukhia, a lawyer called by the Republicans to testify -- Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) argued that exhibit B2 “seems to indicate that there could be financial profitability for an abortion provider” if they donate fetal tissue. In response to Duffy’s questioning, Fay Clayton -- a lawyer with experience defending procurement companies against baseless attacks -- argued that if the exhibits were “anything like the videotape [CMP’s] I would start with the assumption that they have probably been altered”:

SEAN DUFFY: I want to have the panel refer to exhibit 2 -- I’m sorry -- exhibit B2 and B3. Starting with B2. I believe that this was a document that was received from a national abortion provider conference and it seems to indicate that there could be financial profitability for an abortion provider if they engage with the blocked out middleperson, right? So if we look at the statute it prohibits valuable consideration to be paid for the transfer of body parts. Is that right?

KENNETH SUKHIA: Absolutely.

DUFFY: And so if someone is getting reimbursed for a body part it’s pretty tough to make a profit, isn’t it? If you’re just getting reimbursed you can’t make money -- am I missing something? Mr. Sukhia?

SUKHIA: I agree.

DUFFY: OK. So but if you’re getting more than just reimbursement you can make a profit.

[...]

DUFFY: Ms. Clayton, I’m sure you’ve had a chance to look at B2. Is it your testimony that this document has been altered in any way?

FAY CLAYTON: B2? I have no knowledge of any these documents and if these documents are anything like the videotape I would start with the assumption that they probably have been altered.

But I don’t have any personal knowledge one way or the other -- I never saw them until they were sent to me by email, I think it was yesterday. [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

CMP Described A “Flyer” Used By A Procurement Business As An “Advertisement For Planned Parenthood Clinics To Sell Fetal Tissue.” CMP’s website lists a “Stem Express flyer” as an “advertisement for Planned Parenthood to sell fetal tissue.” CMP claims that the flyer “promises ‘financial profits’ and ‘fiscal growth’ to clinics that partner to supply fetal tissue”:

StemExpress advertises its fetal tissue business to Planned Parenthood clinics using this flyer. It promises “financial profits” and “fiscal growth” to clinics that partner to supply fetal tissue. It features an endorsement from Planned Parenthood Medical Director Dr. Dorothy Ferguson. [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed April 2016]

Comparison of Panel’s Exhibit B2 And CMP Documents Reveals That They Are Identical

2. Exhibit B3

Chair Marsha Blackburn: Exhibit B3 Is “A Website Screengrab” Stating That Partnership With The Procurement Business Is “Financially Profitable” For Clinics. Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) described exhibit B3 as a “screengrab” from a procurement business’s website, promising clinics that a partnership would be “financially profitable.” She concluded that the procurement business was in violation of a federal statute prohibiting the sale of fetal tissue because the business “evidently … is not familiar” with it:

MARSHA BLACKBURN: Look at exhibit B3, which is a website screengrab of the procurement business. Once again, “financially profitable” -- “while also providing a financial benefit to your own clinic.” Evidently, the procurement business is not familiar with the Waxman prohibition. [Opening Statement of Chairman Marsha Blackburn for the Select Investigative Panel On Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

Sen. Ben Sasse: “Today’s Documents And Exhibits” Prove That The Partnership Is “Precisely About Profit As Their Marketing Literature Says.” During his comments, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) also referenced several of the “documents and exhibits” presented by the panel. Although Sasse did not refer to any of the exhibits by name, the quotations he repeated from the documents indicate he was referring to exhibit B2 or B3. He stated that the documents evidenced a relationship between abortion clinics and procurement companies that was “precisely about profit, as their marketing literature says”:

BEN SASSE: Words are important. The report language and the floor debate created a very clear legislative intent that no one should profit -- no one -- from the sale of fetal tissue. Yet here, in today’s documents and exhibits, we see a business brochure and a website urging, “partner with us and improve the profitability of your clinic,” “improve your bottom line,” “be financially profitable” -- these are quotes. That procurement business offers a payment per tissue to abortion clinics and it offers to do all the work. That would appear to mean that the abortion clinic has no costs, and it would thus appear to be precisely about profit, as their marketing literature says. [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]  

CMP: Video Features Screenshot Of A “Partnerships” Webpage Showing “Financial Profits.” In CMP’s deceptively edited video “Human Capital - Episode 1: Planned Parenthood’s Black Market In Baby Parts” there is a screenshot of a procurement company’s webpage about “Partnerships.” Animated underlining is added to the screenshot as the video progresses to emphasize the words “financial profits” and “a financial benefit to your clinic.” [Center for Medical Progress, 7/28/15]

Comparison Of The Panel’s Exhibit B3 And CMP’s Screenshot Reveals That They Are Nearly Identical

3. Exhibit C3

Chair Marsha Blackburn: Exhibit C3 Is a “Website Screengrab” That Shows “How To Buy Baby Body Parts Online.” In her opening statement, Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced exhibit C3 to the panel by describing it as “a website screengrab from the procurement business of how to buy baby body parts online.” Although Blackburn did not call the exhibit by name, an image of exhibit C3 was displayed on a projection screen as she spoke and described the image:

MARSHA BLACKBURN: The second chart is a website screengrab from the procurement business of how to buy baby body parts online. Now there is a new website and the baby body parts procurement business has been spun off to a new entity. That chart shows the drop-down box for every part imaginable -- heart, eyes, scalp, liver, hands -- then you click on the next box and you pick the gestation period. Then you click and proceed to checkout to select your form of shipping.  [Opening Statement of Chairman Marsha Blackburn for the Select Investigative Panel On Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

Rep. Joe Pitts: Exhibit C3 Is An Online “Menu For Baby Organs” That Makes It “The Amazon.com Of Baby Body Parts.” During his statement, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) described exhibit C3 -- a screenshot of a website order form -- as a “menu for baby body organs” and likened it to “the Amazon.com of baby body parts”:

JOE PITTS: Exhibit C3 -- the procurement business order form. Or the drop-down menu for baby organs shows just how easy this is. First it asks on the left side,“What type of tissue would you like to order?” And I suppose you could respond -- anyone could respond to this -- “I would like to order brains.” And then it says “number of specimens” -- well, six, let’s say -- baby brains. Gestational range start and end, well, be 16 to 18 weeks. And then here’s another question, “Add another tissue type?” You could say yes -- another tissue type listed female reproductive system and ovaries -- you could say, “I take five of those at 15 weeks.” You could add, you know, five baby tongues. Shipping options, you could respond, “Yes I want it rush ordered.” So, for crying out loud, this is the Amazon.com of baby body parts. [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

CMP: Video Shows An “Actual Order Form” For Fetal Tissue. In a deceptively edited video from July 2015, CMP showed someone utilizing an “actual order form” for fetal tissue. The form appears to ask “What type of tissue would you like to order,” and to seek information on the “number of specimens” and gestational age range sought. The viewer can also see a drop-down menu listing different types of tissue available. [Center for Medical Progress, 7/14/15]

Comparison Of Panel’s Exhibit C3 And CMP’s Screenshot Reveals That They Are Nearly Identical

4. Exhibit C4

Rep. Diane Black: Exhibit C4 Is An “Order For Certain Baby Body Parts” And Proves That The Procurement Technician Is Looking For “Very Specific Tissue.” In a statement introducing exhibit C4, Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) described the email as an “order for certain baby body parts” which she said proved that the procurement technician was looking for “very specific tissue” samples:

DIANE BLACK: So let’s walk through the day -- a day -- in the life of a procurement tech. And if you would please turn to exhibit C for this question. In exhibit C4 you will see that the tech gets an email from -- gets an email like the one that’s on C4 -- and she reads the order for certain baby body parts including the gestation period and knows what she needs to harvest for that day. And I want to reference the second from the bottom line, it says that she will need a brain 16 to 20 -- excuse me, 16 to 18 weeks -- and complete but can be in pieces. So she has a very specific tissue that she is looking for. [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

CMP: “Aborted Fetal Parts Order List” Shows Evidence Of Intent To Purchase Fetal Tissue. According to CMP's website, one document found in the course of its investigation into Planned Parenthood was an “aborted fetal parts order list” from the procurement company StemExpress. CMP's website described the form as a “record” that “shows orders for fetal body parts from March 20 and March 21, 2013”:

This record from the StemExpress task page shows orders for fetal body parts for March 20 and March 21, 2013. 16 baby parts were ordered on 3/20, and 3 on 3/21. [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed April 2016]

Comparison of Panel’s Exhibit C4 And CMP’s Document Reveals That They Are Identical

5. Exhibit C5

Rep. Diane Black: Exhibit C5 Is a “Gestation Tracking Log” Used To Match Patients With The Company’s Ideal Samples. Using exhibit C5, Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) described the process that she believed procurement technicians followed when collecting tissue. According to Black, C5 is “a gestation tracking log” that was used by the technician as a way of “matching the patient with her needs” for particular tissue samples:

DIANE BLACK: So let’s follow on then with exhibit C5. The procurement tech then reviews the medical files -- which is another subject of whether this is a HIPPA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] violation, whether she has the rights to be looking at those files of the patients to learn their names and the gestation time of their baby. And she records this in a gestation tracking log -- essentially matching the patient with her needs. Not the patient’s needs, but with her needs of what she’s been given as her job for the day. [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

CMP: “Procurement Log” Shows The “Baby Parts Harvested From Planned Parenthood” Clinic In San Jose, California on “January 10, 2013.” CMP’s website lists a “procurement log” as among the documents discovered during the group’s smear campaign. CMP argues that the documents show a record of “baby parts harvested from Planned Parenthood” at a clinic in San Jose, California on “January 10, 2013.” According to CMP this means that clinic “yielded $450” in profit that day. [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed April 2016]

Comparison Of Panel’s Exhibit C5 And CMP Documents Reveals That They Are Identical

6. Exhibit C8

Rep. Diane Black: Exhibit C8 Shows The Process For Gaining Patient’s Consent That Wrongly Informs Women They Can Either “Incinerate This Baby” Or “Give This Baby Up For Research.” Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) described exhibit C8 as detailing the process for a technician to gain a patient’s consent to donate fetal tissue. According to Black, these directions are “leaving out” information about fetal burial, giving women the false choice between either saying “incinerate this baby” through normal biomedical tissue disposal, or “give this baby up for research”:

DIANE BLACK: Let’s next turn to exhibit number eight. Next, the procurement office -- the procurement tech -- approaches the patient waiting for this abortion and many times this is a young woman who is afraid,  not always certain about what she’s doing, and needs advice and counseling -- but that’s not what we see her getting here. She doesn’t have -- this tech doesn’t have -- much time, and she must match her orders with the patients who are at the right gestation time. So she asks for the patient by name and then she consents with them to donate by saying that her baby tissue is about curing for potential diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s, and heart disease, and I want to also reference the second paragraph here where she actually says that the law in the state of California -- which is where this is being done -- requires that the tissue from your procedure be incinerated.

If you go and look at the law there, you do -- she’s leaving one thing out. She could offer to this mother to actually bury this baby. But that’s left out, she is given -- I think -- decisions that are very difficult, either you’re going to incinerate this baby or you’re going to give this baby up for research. I think that you certainly should be counseling and giving all options to this young woman who is in a very difficult situation and making that decision. [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

CMP: “Procurement Instructions” Provide Guidance On “Consenting Patients” For Donation. CMP’s website points to a packet of “procurement instructions” as evidence of the procurement company’s problematic intent. On one page of this packet, there is a form with information on “consenting patients” to donate either “blood and tissue” or “blood only.” [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed April 2016]

Comparison Of Panel’s Exhibit C8 And CMP’s Document Shows That They Are Identical

7. Exhibit C9

Rep. Diane Black: Exhibit C9 Shows Procurement Technicians Unduly Influence Abortion Procedures Because They Are Instructed To “Inform The Staff Clearly Of What You Are Procuring.” According to Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), exhibit C9 shows that procurement technicians are unduly influencing how an abortion might be performed because they are instructed to “inform the staff clearly of what [they] are procuring” prior to a procedure. Black’s implication is that by informing providers of the desirable tissue samples before an abortion the technicians may alter the procedure to meet the procurement request:

DIANE BLACK: Now if we can turn to C9 -- exhibit C9. And then she informs the abortion clinic staff of what she will be procuring on that day. And we actually see there on the first line where she communicates with the assistant manager and says “upon arrival inform the staff clearly of what you are procuring for the day.” [Statement from Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, Hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, 4/20/16]

CMP: “Procurement Instructions” Direct “Procurement Technicians To Coordinate Body Part Harvesting With Planned Parenthood Management.” CMP’s website lists a form of “procurement instructions” as evidence that “procurement technicians” are told to “coordinate body part harvesting with Planned Parenthood management.” In particular, CMP pointed to the instruction to “inform the staff clearly what you are procuring for the day” as evidence:

This training document from StemExpress instructs Procurement Technicians to coordinate body part harvesting with Planned Parenthood management. Under “Communication with the Assistant Manager and HSS’s,” techs are told to “upon arrival, inform the staff clearly what you are procuring for the day.” [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed April 2016]

Comparison Of Panel’s Exhibit C9 And CMP’s Document Shows That They Are Identical

In The Panel’s Full Set Of Exhibits There Are Three More Documents Directly Sourced From CMP

1. Exhibit C10

Comparison Of Panel’s Exhibit C10 And CMP’s Document Shows That They Are Identical

2. Exhibit C11

Comparison Of Panel’s Exhibit C11 And CMP’s Document Shows That They Are Identical

3. Exhibit C14

Comparison Of Panel’s Exhibit C14 And CMP’s Document Shows That They Are Identical