In case you haven’t noticed, Planned Parenthood has become the new bogeyman on Capitol Hill–arguments over its funding had, until very recently, the potential to spark a government shut down. This summer, a group called the Center for Medical Progress released heavily edited, now debunked videos that insinuated that Planned Parenthood did a bunch of awful things, including selling fetal tissue for a profit. Despite the fact that these videos were deceptively edited, and investigations of Planned Parenthood have determined that the non-profit didn’t act in any illegal ways, conservatives on the Hill have latched onto a witch hunt aimed at the organization. Yesterday, Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood’s president since 2006, attended a hearing hosted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. There she was subjected to hours of inappropriate questioning, interruptions, and bullying by some of the House Republicans present. There were so many ridiculous moments to chose from, but here are the top five from yesterday’s hearing.

5. Richards’ Exchange with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)

Shortly after the first video was released, Richards put out an apology:

Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion, this is unacceptable and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.

As Richards explained during the hearing, she was apologizing for the fact that she believed the conversation that was taped by the Center for Medical Progress was in an inappropriate context and setting. But Jordan, like a dog with a bone, fixated on the fact that she apologized for “statements” and demanded to know exactly which statements she was apologizing for. Despite Richards explaining again and again that she was apologizing for the overall situation, Jordan refused to take that answer. Here’s the exchange:

Richards answered his question many, many times. But it wasn’t good enough for Jordan, and that’s really kind of the whole point of the hearing that happened yesterday. It wasn’t about getting answers, it was about berating Richards and showing conservative supporters that the reps were willing to be “tough” on Planned Parenthood. It’s nice that Jordan was able to make that so abundantly clear from the get-go.

4. Questions about Richards’ Salary

At one point Richards was subjected to questioning about her salary by the chair of the committee, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). Now Richards is paid a fair salary for her job as head of an absolutely enormous non-profit, a bit over $500,000. Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood is the 38th largest non-profit in the United States, running it is no easy task, and here in the United States it’s important to pay people competitive salaries for the jobs they do.

Yet Chaffetz saw that as ammunition against Richards, and by extension, Planned Parenthood. Some of the Democratic Reps defended Richards on this front, including this powerful speech from Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), but it still stood out as an inappropriate line of questioning.

3. Richards Could Barely Get a Word In

Normally, when people are brought to sit in front a group of Representatives for questioning, they are allowed to answer the questions. Unfortunately that wasn’t true in this case, as Richards was interrupted by pretty much every Republican questioner on the panel, yet another indication that many of them found what they had to say significantly more interesting than what she was saying. Slate’s XXFactor put together a truly fantastic/infuriating rundown of every single time that Richards was interrupted, but the top prize goes to Representative Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) who admitted that he didn’t want to actually hear the answers to his questions when he said told Richards “This is my time. This is my time. So don’t interrupt it.” The audio is below, and it’s pretty clear that Gosar wasn’t there to listen:

2. Everyone Freaked Out About Mammograms

One of the big criticisms about Planned Parenthood brought out at the hearing was that the organization does not provide mammograms, despite being an organization that does provide a relatively inclusive array of health services. Over and over, the reps questioning Richards tried to insinuate that because Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide this one particular service, it renders all of the other things it does useless.

The thing is, mammograms require very specific tools and trained professionals and for providers be accredited by the American College of Radiology. They take place in hospitals or radiology centers, because those are the places that are equipped to provide them. Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be condemned for not providing services that it is not equipped to provide, moreover the organization works with some radiology centers to provide mammograms to low income women when possible. A lack of mammogram services on site does not mean that all of the other services it provides are no longer useful, legitimate, and very much needed. But nice try, Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) who attempted so very hard to imply that’s the case.

1. Really Just the Worst Chart

By now, most of you have probably heard of or seen the chart that Chaffetz displayed, that stood contrary to pretty much all logic and math.

Whatever you think of Planned Parenthood, this is a terrible and dishonest chart http://t.co/9p4OwETuoX pic.twitter.com/VtLhy3ayOj

— Vox (@voxdotcom) September 30, 2015

The red line is supposed to portray the number of abortions conducted by Planned Parenthood; the pink line cancer screening and prevention services (these are not the only services that Planned Parenthood provides, but the two that were cherry-picked for the purposes of this chart.) The chart is attempting to show that overall number of abortions performed has gone up from 2006 to 2013, and the number of cancer screening and prevention services has gone down over the same time period. But the chart isn’t anything even remotely to scale, as it makes 327,000 look like it’s a larger number than 935,573. That is obviously incorrect.

Chaffetz then asked Richards to explain the chart. She couldn’t, because she’s presumably a sane human being, and then explained to Chaffetz:

My lawyers have informed me that the source of this is Americans United for Life which is an anti-abortion group so I would check your source.

To which Chaffetz paused and replied: “Then we will get to the bottom of the truth of that.”

Yes Chaffetz, please do get the “bottom of the truth” of who made this truly horrendous and non-sensical chart.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Most Ridiculous Moments From the Planned Parenthood Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

Pretty much every big name in Hollywood has a preferred charity or two. You hear Elton John, and you think AIDS research. Similarly, Bono is well known for his charitable work in Africa. Before his death, Paul Newman’s charity created camps for children suffering from serious illnesses all over the United States. The work that celebrities do for charities is admirable, and I have no intention of discounting their efforts in any way. But there’s a fine line between being an invaluable part of a charitable movement, and being an expert in that field. And this week, some people are arguing that Congress has blurred that line.

Ben Affleck and Seth Rogen will testify in front of Congress about each of their pet charities. Affleck will speak to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Democratic Republic of the Congo , and Rogen will go in front of a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee to talk about the economic impact of Alzheimer’s research. But does active involvement in related charities qualify them to testify about those causes?

These two scheduled appearances on Capitol Hill have spurred a series of debates over the validity of their Congressional testimonies. Regarding Affleck’s testimony, an anonymous GOP Senate Aide stated, “people serious about resolving problems – especially problems related to life and death – want to have serious conversations with experts and leaders in the field; not celebrities.” Another Republican aide said, “the meeting would be inappropriate given the wide offering of other experts available to speak on the issue.” Seth Rogen sparked slightly less ire, but critics did take to Twitter to mock his supposed expertise on Alzheimer’s.

Now at first glance, I agreed with these critics. But the more I think about it, the more I’m OK with celebrities testifying before Congress — if they’re qualified. So here are the top four reasons that we should be glad Affleck and Rogen are testifying this week.

4. They won’t be alone.

Both Affleck and Rogen will be involved in panel-style discussions, with the former appearing alongside Russell Feingold, the U.S. Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region of Africa; Roger Meece, former U.S. Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Dr. Raymond Gilpin, Academic Dean of the Africa Center for Strategic Studies. Rogen will join Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Michael Hurd, Director of the RAND Center for the Study of Aging, among others.

Neither of these celebrities is testifying in front of the panels as standalone experts who can give a full view of the problems surrounding the DRC or Alzheimer’s. Rather, they are focusing on their experiences in charity work, and their experiences with people directly affected by war and Alzheimer’s — both angles are important to consider. Affleck founded the Eastern Congo Initiative a few years ago to advocate for the people of that region and to provide much needed grants. Similarly, Rogen and his wife Lauren Miller founded Hilarity for Charity, a foundation to raise funds for and awareness of Alzheimer’s research. Now in my book, that makes them qualified to testify about their experiences with those foundations and the people they impact. Both of the panels will involve discussions of aid and money, and Affleck and Rogen can, at the very least, provide valuable insight into those topics.

3. They have unique access. 

Celebrities have unique access in a way that politicians and diplomats sometimes do not. Affleck has been to the DRC many times, and has interacted with a wide variety of players involved. In 2008 his travels were filmed by ABC in an effort to bring attention to the region. He met with refugees, child soldiers, members of parliament, and warlords.

Both of these men occupy places of financial privilege. They are able to travel the globe and talk to way more people than say, a professor with expert knowledge on the subject, or most diplomats. For them to be able to use that privilege to help people is pretty great.

 2. It brings media attention to the issue. 

Having celebrity spokespeople come and testify about something does cause a media buzz. I guarantee you that if these panels didn’t include Affleck and Rogen, they’d be getting almost no attention. Congress hears from experts all the time, but celebrities are rarer, and they bring  heightened attention to the issues. Obviously this is a phenomenon that should be used sparingly, but I think in the case of the Congo and Alzheimer’s, more media attention is deserved. The U.S. government spends around $500 million a year on Alzheimer’s research, which sounds like a lot, but is actually very little when you realize that 5.5 million Americans are estimated to have the degenerative illness. And the Congo, a region that has been war torn for years, does receive foreign aid, but not nearly enough to fix all the systemic issues there. I’m not necessarily suggesting that these issues should receive more federal funding, but attention to them from the private sector and the media can’t possibly hurt.

1. It makes them good role models. 

Americans, especially young people, look up to their favorite celebrities. Affleck and Rogen are well known faces, each with their own devoted fan bases. So, I can’t help but think that it’s a good thing for them to be so heavily involved in their charities that they are asked to testify before Congress. It shows that it’s sexy and cool to help others, educate yourself on contentious issues, and find causes about which you’re passionate. Despite some criticism, Affleck will be the new Batman.

Everyone loves Batman, and Affleck has the potential to affect the kids who grow up admiring their favorite superhero. He has the potential to be a great role model for those kids.

Same with Rogen, who I assume will continue his comedy career over the coming years. He’ll be another great role model for involvement and giving back. At the end of the day, say what you want about their qualifications to testify in front of Congress. In my book, their involvement in these great causes, and the fact that they are able to advocate for them in the public sphere makes them much better role models than most celebrities.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [WEBN-TV via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 Reasons Why Celebrities Testifying as Experts is Okay appeared first on Law Street.