CNN's Wolf Blitzer hounded Rep. Jason Chaffetz on Wednesday's Situation Room over his hearing on Planned Parenthood's federal funding, and carried water for the abortion giant. Blitzer quibbled over a chart that was used at the hearing that showed the increase in abortions that Planned Parenthood did, and a concurrent decrease in the number of cancer screenings and other preventive services it does. He then touted a chart from the left-wing Vox site that supposedly "gives a more accurate reflection of what was going on." [video below]
The anchor later defended Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards's $590,000+ salary: "It's not a government organization....executives for the American Red Cross; for the American Cancer Society – they get paid huge salaries as well."
Blitzer led the segment with the issue over the chart. He played up that "this was a chart that was put out by this anti-abortion group," and repeatedly interrupted the Utah Republican as he tried to defend its use:
WOLF BLITZER: Let's bring in the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much coming in-
REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, (R), OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Wolf-
BLITZER: So the chart you put out yesterday was misleading. If you had a do-over, you would have done it differently-
CHAFFETZ: No, I disagree. I don't think it's misleading. The numbers-
BLITZER: But this was a chart that was put out by this anti-abortion group-
CHAFFETZ: And that's why we labeled it as such. The numbers are exactly accurate.
BLITZER: But the arrows show-
CHAFFETZ: There is a reduction-
BLITZER: I'll give – I'll give you the two charts that would have been a more accurate way – and we will put them up on the screen. That's the chart you showed, and it shows – the numbers are specific. It shows that from 2006 to 2013, abortions went – from Planned Parenthood – from 289,750 to 327,000; cancer screenings, prevention services went from two million down to just under one million-
CHAFFETZ: Right-
BLITZER: But it makes it look like there's a whole lot more abortions than there are cancer screenings – whereas there's three times as many cancer screenings as there are abortions.
Here's a chart that Vox put out with the exact same numbers that gives a more accurate reflection of what was going on – the decline in cancer screenings, prevention services, the slight increase in the number of annual abortions.
CHAFFETZ: The number of abortions increased. The numbers were exactly accurate. The number of cancer screenings specifically-
BLITZER: The numbers were accurate, but the – but the arrows seem very misleading.
CHAFFETZ: I stand by the numbers. I can understand where people would say that arrows went different directions, but the numbers are accurate. And that's what we were trying to-
BLITZER: I guess the whole question is, it wasn't to scale. It didn't really show an accurate reflection when you show those kinds of arrows.
CHAFFETZ: The reality is the breast care screenings are down nearly 53 percent over the same course of time, and they've had an increase-
BLITZER: And you know why they say they're – they're down like that? Because the federal government has recommended less annual screenings for certain procedures. That's why they say the numbers have gone down.
CHAFFETZ: But their funding has continued to go up, and – and that's the point. They tout that they go – we've heard Cecile Richards talk about mammograms in the past. They don't do any mammograms there at Planned Parenthood.
Here's the point, Wolf: $127 million of revenue more than their expenses-
BLITZER: Most of the money they get – they get about $500 million a year. Most of that are Medicaid reimbursements for cancer screenings – for other procedures – not for abortions, because the federal government doesn't allow Medicaid to reimburse for abortions.
CHAFFETZ: When they have more than a hundred million dollars in revenue over expenses, I would say – look, they don't necessarily need federal taxpayer dollars. They're flying first-class tickets; they're – they're chartering private aircraft; they're sending money overseas. These are not things – their exorbitant salaries, in my opinion, for a not-for-profit organization. We're having a funding discussion. The whole hearing was Planned Parenthood funding. That's what we were targeting.
Later in the segment, the CNN anchor not only defended Richards's steep salary, but forwarded Planned Parenthood's talking points about the supposedly "critically-important services" the organization offers – the same services that federally-funded community healths centers offer:
CHAFFETZ: ...The hearing was about the funding of Planned Parenthood – which was very germane to the discussion we're having about funding of the government. Why should we send taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, when they have more than a hundred million dollars in revenue over their expenses?
BLITZER: Why is it relevant how much she earns every year – Cecile Richards, the leader of Planned Parenthood?
CHAFFETZ: She's had more than – it's something like a $250,000 increase in her overall compensation-
BLITZER: But it's not a government organization-
CHAFFETZ: Exactly! It's a not-for-profit organization!
BLITZER: But they can pay – executives for the American Red Cross; for the American Cancer Society – they get paid huge salaries as well.
CHAFFETZ: And I think that's a problem. If you're a not-for-profit organization and you're scrambling for dollars – our point is, if you want to service more women's health care; if you want to get more dollars to – actually into care, these 13,000 community health centers are probably a better solution.
They are masterful at raising money at Planned Parenthood, but they're very much a political organization. They have a 501(c)(4). They have 527s that are under that. They have shared employees. Cecile Richards also takes money from the – the organization that's involved in the political activity. I'm telling you, from a – it just doesn't make sense.
BLITZER: But you have to admit that Planned Parenthood – even though you disagree with a lot they do – especially the abortions; I know you oppose abortion rights for women – they do do some really important work helping women get screenings for cancer, sexually-transmitted diseases, birth control. They help women, don't they?
CHAFFETZ: I think they do some valuable service, but to suggest that they're the leader in helping women in breast cancer screenings, when they offer no mammograms?
My wife is involved and engaged in helping women who go through this – this process. She works for a plastic surgeon. Women are going through these double mastectomies; and it's very, very difficult work. My mother passed away from breast cancer. To try to characterize Republicans as if we don't care, I take great personal offense to. It's why I led off in the hearing – we do care about this. And I happen to believe, if you want more bang for your buck; if you want to service more people; if you want to provide more access, Planned Parenthood is not your solution.
BLITZER: Because Planned Parenthood says they'll send women to other clinics for mammograms. They don't do mammograms-
CHAFFETZ: Then let's give money right to those clinics that actually offer the mammograms!
BLITZER: Well, those other clinics, as well as Planned Parenthood – they get reimbursed by Medicaid for poor women who can't afford those services. The federal government or the states, in certain circumstances, will step in and reimburse them for those kinds of critically-important services.
CHAFFETZ: There are less than 700 Planned Parenthood facilities; yet, there are 13,000 community health care centers.
BLITZER: But if a hospital does that – that kind of service, they get reimbursed by Medicaid as well – the same kind of reimbursement.
CHAFFETZ: I think the challenge that we have, is that the taxpayers are spending more than $500 million in an organization – they take revenue; they send it overseas. They're buying first-class tickets. They're getting private aircraft. They're paying nearly $600,000 in salary. They're doing all of these things that don't go directly to women's health.
