cutting women's funding. republicans voted to extend the low rates and only by paying for it by eliminating money to fund preventive health care. that's true. but they are cutting prevention funding for everyone. those are facts. we have reported on this before. but it didn't stop moveon.org from taking out this ad. it goes on to say they, meaning republicans, will "only keep rates low if they cut funding for women's health. keep stafford loan rates low, and do it in a way that doesn't try to pit students against women." keeping them honest, it doesn't. it zeros out a portion devoted to preventive medicine progal control, immunizati immunization, fighting obesity. but nothing for mammograms, pap smear s, prenatal care. now the obama administration wants to include breast and cervical cancer programs in next year's funding. $260 million, but so far it's only a proposal. and make no mistake. though eliminating all funding for preventive care would have a big impact, but it's an impact on everyone. that's not the issue. that's not how moveon.org is framing it. the issue is claims like these. >> the way to pay for this assistance for students is not to shut down health for the women of this country. >> a continuation of their assault on women's health. >> pile on on that assault on women's health care. >> continuing their all out assault on women's health. >> attack women's health and children's health. >> they now are attacking women's health. >> it's interesting that the fund they keep going back to, particularly benefits the reproductive health care, chald baring, preventive health care that's necessary to women. >> this is a fund that democrats voted to cut earlier this year. keeping them honest, even if democrats were pursuing this line, they have been moving the goalpost. 60% of the billion-dollar fund goes to women and children. not women. women and children. that's a huge difference. a spokesman says i think we're on solid ground. but some disagree. the post awarding the claim two out of four pinocchios. i talked with justin rubin. >> the funding that rlicans want to cut is not specific women's health. it's funding for a lot of different services as you know. nutrition programs, hiring more doctors, and these are services that benefit men, women, and children. how can you say republicans are pitting students against women. >> you have student it loan rates that are going to double on july 1st. it's a huge problem for students that are groaning under the weight of all these loans. and republicans are under a lot of pressure for blocking efforts to fix that. then their latest has been to turn around and say we're going to cut the health care programs, which predominantly benefit women. >> that's not true. >> it is true actually. >> how can you say that? >> there's two things. first of all, 60% of the funding overall goes to basically programs that benefit women and their children. and then you have -- >> wait a minute. now you're including children on th. but i mean, you can't say 60% of the funding goes for women and children. it'sot broken down for that. mostoes for hiring doctors and anti-smoking efforts and anti-obesity efforts. >> rblicanve c fing fohealare programs the president said, okay, i'm going to use this fund to pay for essential cervical and breast cancer screening programs in the 2013 budget. republicans then respond by saying, we're going to cut that whole fund, including the funding for those programs. >> it's fund iing for obesity, r hiv, for a lot of things. factcheck.org says you cannot say this is funding specifically for women. in fact, when the democrats agreed to cut billions of dollars from this a couple months ago, moveon.org didn't say they were tarpgting women's health. it's only now that it benefits your agenda. >> i think that's just not true. >> president obama himself agreed to take money out. his budget for 2013 specifies taking money out for this. but you don't think he's targeting women do you? i haven't heard you say president obama is targeting women's health. now it's republicans targeting women's health because they are wanting to do it. >> the fact is we have -- >> so when president obama -- >> we fought president obama all the time. >> where's your ad? >> the fact is if you want to look at who is consistently targeting women, who is the party that's trying to eliminate funding for planned parenthood? who has consistently been trying to cut funding for pap smears? that's the republicans. they are going to try to dodge and get away from that. but it's true. there are over $200 million of 2013 funding they are zeroing out. we shouldn't be having this conversation. >> my job is to report on facts. not to meet your agenda. when president obama suggests in his budget cutting billions of dollars from this, i don't see a moveon.org ad saying president obama is attacking women. you only seem to be targeting republicans because that meets your political agenda. >> i just don't think that's true. >> so when president obama wants to cut this, that's not target ing women? yes or no? does that target women when president obama wants to take billions of dollars out of this? >> when president obama is taking billions of dollars out of that, it's wrong. >> so he's targeting women. >> i don't think president obama is waging a war on women. >> but republicans are? >> yes. you have a bill in virginia that -- >> i'm not talking about virginia. i'm talking about this. >> i feel like this isn't rocket science. you have a billion dollars of funding. overall, most of that is going to programs that are women-specific. >> they benefit everybody. i'm not arguing dpr for cutting the program. >> if you look at this, the majority of the people who benefit are women. then you have hundreds of millions -- >> it says you can't say that. hiring of doctors, anti-obesity -- >> if you take that program for example, because you have more women of child baring age because they are obese, that funding goes to women. >> what it is is it goes to community grants to do environmental things like walking paths to benefit everybody. to say a walking path benefits women more than men. i understand your argument. >> i think we're splitting hair for cervical cancer and breast screenings. is ial p r warepublicans h n. it's an attack on health care generally. i mean, come on. there's a way to pay for these student loans. that's to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. >> that's a separate discussion. i understand your argument. i appreciate it. thank you. >> thanks for having me. >> the political impact of this, do you think it's accurate for democrats on capitol hill to be saying this specifically, this idea of you know the student loan bill by offsetting it by eliminating these services is part of an attack on women specifically? >> i looked at factcheck.org. i think they are right. ym with on.o because it's har to into us aboutowepublica are screwing up priorities in the budget these days and taking programs from the needy to serve other programs. if you have decided that student loans is something we ought to do to help, then don't do what you did two weeks ago which was pass $45 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthy. fund student loans. don't take it from the health grant. >> but does it help their argument to be stretching the facts? there's plenty of things they can argue about if they want to argue about war on women or whatever. this particular one it doesn't seem to hold water. >> the preventive held fund is a discretionary fund. in many instances, it's up to the secretary for the programs it will fund. and president obama and house democrats are hoping they will fund certain things and they are hoping they will be programs for women in preventive health. but again, like okay, you're right. you've got them on the specific language. but that doesn't mean that that's like the end oaf the debate. the worthy debate here is how are republicans choosing their priorities? they are not choosing the right priorities. >> is it fair for when the democrats earlier this year to extend the payroll tax cuts to take money from this preventive health care fund and when president obama's budget talks about taking money from this fund, no one seems to be arguing they are attacking women. but when republicans are doing it, they are attacking women. >> good for you, anderson. this is a total case of being absolute double standard by the democrats on this issue. president obama proposed a $4 billion cut in this same program. in february when they passed the payroll taxes, they had bipartisan support. democrats voted to cut this very program. you know, the bigger problem here, anderson, is when people say you can't cut anything and they turn it into a war against women or children, this is why the government is so big, spends so much and we have trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. there are no budgets in washington. the senate hasn't passed a budget in three years. the house is at least trying. and president obama has given up on trying to bring the parties together to achieve a consensus because it's an election year so he won't even try. so washington is broken and this is one of the biggest reasons why. it's picking these fights over issues, war on women, war on children, when people are trying to make rational delgs decision. i don't know why the federal government is in the student loan business to begin with. this is something that the private business should be in. >> the private sector was in the business and they ripped off students and charged them usury rates and people had the federal government come in for very good reason to regulate an out of control, greedy business. >> they took it over. >> let's go back to the issue that ari raised, where is the federal budget and how are these priorities being set? because the truth is that federal spending is down. and when we look at the overall increase in jobs, they are increasing in the private sector, not in the public sector. so what we have is a necessary choice about priorities to make. when the republicans push tax cuts instead of helping needy folks in preventive health or food stamps or day care, just the things they will be voting on on monday. they will be voting on a bill to give tax cuts again to people earning over $1 million and cut food stamps and cut day care and cut education support. this is about priorities. . this is not about a bloated budget. if this were about a bloated budget, they wouldn't give tax cuts because tax cuts cost mo y money. >> ari? >> moveon.org got two pinocchios. the fact of the matter is spending was $2.7 trillion in 2007. now it's $3.5 trillion. federal spending just keeps skyrocketing. the economy under president obama is so weak. the percentage has come down because the economy is not doing well. the taxpayers are going broke. >> then stop giving the money away. >> that's the fundamental problem. there haven't been any tax cuts passed. i don't know why hilary is saying give it away. president obama is the one that extended the tax cuts. >> they haven't been passed. >> the government spends so much. we're all in deficits and debt and all going broke. >> hilary, very briefly. >> ari is fill bustering the discussion here. but the fact is mitt romney's plan is to increase tax cuts to give more money away. if republicans were worried about the federal budget, they would not do that. they would focus on pure spending cuts. but that's not their agenda. their agenda is to eliminate federal programs for the needy while they give friends a tax cut. >> it's called trying to achieve growth. >> appreciate it. let us know what you think. we're on facebook. follow me on twitter. i will be tweeting tonight. also the showdown with china. he escaped house arrest. left the embassy. he was forced out. now he wants to get out of china enti entirely. what is really going on and is the obama administration hanging him out to dry? we'll talk to "the new york times" and get the latest from beijing, next. it's very important to understand how math and science kind of makes the world work. in high school, i had a physics teacher by the name of mr. davies. he made physics more than theoretical, he made it real for me. we built a guitar, we did things with electronics and mother boards. that's where the interest in engineering came from. so now, as an engineer, i have a career that speaks to that passion. thank you, mr. davies. aspirin? i don't really know what it's for. isn't aspirin like a vague pain reliever? aspirin is just old school. people will have doubts about taking aspirin for pain. that's why we developed bayer advanced aspirin with micro particles. it enters the bloodstream fast and rushes relief to the site of pain. we know it works. now we're challenging you to put it to the test. visit fastreliefchallenge.com today for a special trial offer. then try it yourself and tell us what you think. yoyou u wawalklk i intna coconvnvenentitiononalal ms ststorore,e, i it't's s rert ababouout t yoyou.u. ththeyey s sayay, , "w"weleu wawanted a a f firirm m bebed dn lilie e onon o onene o of " wewe p prorovividede t thet inindidivividudualalizizatat yoyourur b bodody y neneede. ohoh, , wowow!w! ththatat f feeeelsls r reae. itit's's a aboboutut s supuppope yoyou u fifindnd i it t momost. toto c celelebebraratete 2 25 5f bebetttterer s sleleepep-f-forof yoyou u - - slsleeeep p nr inintrtrododucuceses t ther ededititioion n bebed d st inincrcrededibiblele s savf $1$1,0,00000 f foror a a l li. ononlyly a at t ththe e slsleeer ststorore,e, w wheherere n drama of chen guangcheng. today chen made a direct appeal to the u.s. congress talking in front of speakers at a congressional hearing. a translator delivered his message in eng lish. sglt sglt sglt sglt sglths. >> translator: i want to meet with secretary clinton. i hope i can get more help from her. i also want to thank her face to face. so the thing i most concerned right now is the safety of my mother, my brothers, and i really want to know what's going on with them. >> we're going to put on the left-hand side of our screen a look at our signal from china. last night when we broadcast this story in china, we were taken off the air on cnn international. just a clear example of sensorship of the chinese regime. we'll be monitoring to see if we're taken off the air again in chi china. chen hopes they will ensure the legal rights of his relatives and wants his freedom of travel guaranteed. he's staying at a hospital after leaving the embassy after a deal. secretary of state hillary clinton was due to arrive for scheduled trade talks. the timing was awkward. the situation has gotten more complicated. the state department said that chen left willingly and never said he wanted to leave china. but fears for his family's safety and hopes to get on a plane with secretary clinton when she leaves. the state spokesman was asked what u.s. officials plan to do. >> we're not sure, in fact, what his intentions are or what his goals are now. >> i think he made it clear what his goals are. he said he wants secretary of state hillary clinton to take him back on a plane with her. >> i'm not going to speculate. in washington, i'm not going to speculate on a possible outcome. >> this is a high stakes issue for china and the u.s. during our report last night. chinese state television blacked out our signal. it was restored after our report end ended. you can see it go back to the program after our story ended. we'll keep a picture in the bottom of the screen. we think it's worth noting since this is world press freedom day. stan, you spoke -- and it just went to black as we saw. we have now just been censored in china. you spoke to chen today. what did he tell u, stan? >> reporter: he's very resolute. there's one message here. and that is he wants to get out of china. there's no debate about that. there's no doubtbout that. there's no confusion about that. he has said that time and time again. we first spoke to him on thursday morning. through us he made an appeal to president obama. please, mr. president, get me and my family out of this country and to the united states. he has reiterated that time and time again. he's in fear for his life. when he met his wife, his wife said how she had been tied to the chair and beaten after guards discovered he had fled from house detention. is he going to achieve it? that's going to be the big question here. he's appealing directly to hillary clinton. he wants to meet with the secretary of state face to face. his appeal to president obama as of right now though he's in the hands of a government that has jailed him in the past and considers him an enemy my of the state. >> so he's still in the hospital now? >> reporter: he's in the hospital and surrounded by guards. his health is not good. over the past months being under house arrest, he says he's been eat skpn not had full medical treatment. friends talk about internal bleeding. he damaged his leg in the get away. ds mhe neeical treatment, but he's also guarded. he can't move around. there's a strong presence outside. yesterday there was an extraordinary image. che first is of a supporter of 'sho came t seak out in front of cameras. he was dragged away forcibly. that shows the guards there don't care what the rest of the world sees. the other image a senior official from the u.s. embassy standing outside the hospital because e he couldn't get in. >> he also spoke to the ambassador to china. did he leave the door open to the u.s. trying to help him out? >> reporter: absolutely. he maintains throughout that chen has said to him time and time again, i want to stay in cho china. i want to fight for freedom in this country. and i want to leave the embassy and be reunited with my family. you saw the images. he was smiling and hugging officials when they took him to the hospital. but everything changed after he went to the hospital. then he said, no, i don't trust the chinese government. threats have been made. we need to get out of here. the ambassador said they are going to continue to talk to try to negotiate something. but here's the problem. to actually get asylum, he needs to be on u.s. ground. that could be the embassy itself. the one that he walked away from 24 hours ago. >> appreciate it. be careful. it's friday in china on the screen there. we're still blacked out being censored in china. it just went to black when stan began his report. secretary clinton heads to bangladesh on saturday. i spoke to david gerken about this. >> the honor of the united states is at stake with its handling of mr. chen. how so? >> the united states has long been one of the foremost advocates for human rights. we stood up to the soviet union. we stood up in regards to china. of course, the united states relationships were taking place with china in a broad array of issues. but this one is so simple and straight forward. it's about the life of a hero who is blind, who escaped from chinese authorities. most americans say when he comes into the u.s. embassy, his protection is a matter of national honor for us. >> if he disappears gerngs the obama administration will be humiliated? >> absolutely they had him under their protection and there were promises from the foreign ministry, which is a delvish element. now he's in the hands of the security forces. >> do you think the u.s. is being up front when they say that chen changed his mind? >> as far as i can tell, that is indeed what happened. a lawyer who was brought in by chen guangcheng confirms that account. and today chen guangcheng he confirmed that. he left voluntarily. he thanked the embassy. he did leave voluntarily. then he got shaken up when he talked to his wife and lawyer. >> the u.s. and china are on a collision course for conflict. what's the potential