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: