posted July 15, 2015 11:57 AM            

In America, it’s illegal to donate money to a candidate without first reporting it to the government. Even then, if you give more than is permissible you might end up in jail. In this country, you can’t add trans fats to your foods or smoke cigarettes in your own bar. Here, Little Sisters of the Poor can’t tell the state they’d rather not buy condoms and bakers can’t tell a couple they’d rather not participate in their wedding.

But it’s completely legal to kill an unborn baby for convenience and then sell its parts for cash.

Let’s forget the legality of the issue for a moment. And let’s forget religion and politics, if that’s possible. Let’s forget the disconcerting economic incentives inherent in these types of transactions and ask: what kind of person nonchalantly describes “crushing” the life from another living being—a being that might have already been named and loved; a loss that might have a tremendous negative impact on a person or family or community—over a glass of wine and some giggles?

Well, an executive at euphemistic Planned Parenthood, that’s who. We can tell ourselves that a life can simply be written off whenever we deem it inconvenient. We can celebrate the right to end life. But the depravity of Deborah Nucatola’s conversation betrays where it all leads—and also where it started.

If this was a video of some product researchers talking about the same process, but describing the vivisection of a monkey or a cat for organ harvesting instead, most Americans would be justly repulsed. Yet, because this is Planned Parenthood, an organization fulfilling its eugenicist founder’s goal of population control, it will be treated as just another dispute in the culture wars, completely devoid of scientific and moral context.

Because this is Planned Parenthood, most of the media will frame this as a political tug of war rather than explore the politics and ethics of allowing Americans to terminate a life and then harvest organs. Some in the media will probably have a difficult time even comprehending why anyone would deem this much of a story at all. You’ll recall how a number of politicians and reporters struggled to explain the distinction between a run-of-the-mill late-term abortionist and Kermit Gosnell. (Answer: one has a license.)

You’re involved, too. You have no “choice.” It is worth reiterating that taxpayers, in part, fund this abortion industry. The fungibility of dollars that flow into Planned Parenthood makes laws like the Hyde Amendment nothing more than a political canopy for Republicans to cower under. Until Planned Parenthood breaks off its abortion/wholesale baby-part business from its women’s health operations, you’re a big investor.

Delaying an abortion to sell parts at a higher price is illegal in theory, but really, like the Hyde Amendment, completely unenforceable in practice.

And women who donate pieces of their babies (and we still don’t understand how this happens, by default or proactively), according to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, they may ask for “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.” It’s probably not a huge moneymaker, but that’s beyond the point. Delaying an abortion to sell parts at a higher price is illegal in theory, but really, like the Hyde Amendment, completely unenforceable in practice.

Planned Parenthood argues that their peddling of human tissue (known to the rest of us as “body parts we need to survive”) is ethical and useful. The not-for-profit was merely negotiating how it would be reimbursed for human tissue—or, as the Associated Press would describe the bartering of aborted baby parts: a discussion about “the disposition of parts from aborted fetuses.” This practice isn’t new.

But killing unborn babies and selling their organs saves lives, says Planned Parenthood. (You only need to peruse the history of the twentieth century to find that line of reasoning disconcerting.) If Planned Parenthood really wanted to save lives, of course, it could start by attempting to convince—or, at the very least inform—its would-be customers that they have real choices. What Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director for medical services, really tells us is that these aren’t just clumps of cells devoid of moral significance or purpose—especially when they don’t meet Dr. Deborah Nucatola’s scalpel. “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that,” she explains, “so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.” She is discussing organs of a baby, evidentially, more useful to her dead than alive.

How many Americans are okay with this practice? We should find out. Liberals never have a problem making expansive arguments on emotional grounds—the single woman without health care tells all we need to know about Obamacare; the lone shooter tells us all we need to know about guns laws, etc. There is simply no reason that Nucatola should not be on television ads everywhere, sipping her wine and intimately describing how abortionists squash the life out of unborn babies for money. How many Americans would accept this policy as normal?

posted July 15, 2015 06:24 PM              

But to offset claims that that's just "my opinion", with the implication that I am un- or mis- informed (perish the thought!), let's put our ear to the horse's mouth:

A PLAN FOR PEACE
by Margaret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood)

First, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.

Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense---defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers' health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives---thus reducing maternal mortality.

The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.

With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.

There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.

In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace.

posted July 15, 2015 06:50 PM            

Had my grandmother had access to birth control when she had TB, my mother aunt and uncle might not have been orphaned.

I dont agree with a lot of Sangers ideas but she was right that lack of birth control kept (keeps) many people in poverty, sickness and misery.

posted July 15, 2015 11:00 PM            

I agree that none of us has the right to force childlessness on anyone for our perceptions of their lack of ability...to bear or raise healthy people..however the sad fact is, that many people who can't even take care of themselves DO - and are encouraged to - have choldren who then become the responsibility of the rest of us.

Again, Sanger wanted to make abortion UNNECESSARYby providing birth control. And the OP which talks about the evil glee of abortionists who supposedly are forcing expectant parents "who already live and have even named" their unborn to have late term abortions is frankly preposterous to me.

People who have late abortions do so for many reasons, but lack of respect for life is seldom one of them. People who don't want babies are Likely to abort as early as possible ..late abortions almost always are due to horrendous complications and risks to mother, child or both.

posted July 16, 2015 11:53 AM            

Because of the graphic nature of the discussion — Nucatola specifically discusses altering abortion procedures to procure hearts, brains, lungs, and livers from the babies whose lives Planned Parenthood ends by abortion — the video immediately lit up social media. Unlike most significant stories about major hot-button social issues, however, no major media reported on the news until 4:30 PM that afternoon. Some are still working on (or working on hiding) their coverage of the story. Let’s look at some of the major media outlets and how they did.

Washington Post

The first story out of the gate from major mainstream media came from the Washington Post. It was originally headlined “Undercover video shows Planned Parenthood exec discussing organ harvesting,” and it was remarkably fair to both Planned Parenthood and those who oppose the harvesting of organs from children killed in abortion.

However, by the time the story appeared on page 1 of the Washington Post, it had been significantly altered. You can get the gist from the new headline: “Undercover video shows Planned Parenthood official discussing fetal organs used for research.”

You’ve heard of the journalism adage “If it bleeds, it leads”? Well how about, “There, that doesn’t sound so bad, does it? Probably don’t even need to read this article, do you!”

The executive is downgraded to an official. The wine she drank as she discussed how good Planned Parenthood has gotten at procuring hearts, livers and lungs is completely excised. In both versions, Nucatola’s clear statements about crushing baby bodies above or below their organs is given distance with a journalistic “apparently.”

The revised story introduced additional errors, including that Nucatola was not caught “explicitly talking about selling organs,” (she was) and claiming that Planned Parenthood doesn’t profit from these organ sales even though Nucatola specifically talks about making more money than breaking even.

Associated Press

The Associated Press national social issues reporter David Crary got his story out just over 13 hours after the video broke. His headline gives a preview of the euphemism pile-on he’ll use: “Covert video targets Planned Parenthood fetal-parts policy.”

His lede practically begs you to stop reading:

Anti-abortion activists on Tuesday released an undercover video showing a senior Planned Parenthood official discussing the disposition of parts from aborted fetuses.

The activists contended the video reveals illegalities, but Planned Parenthood said the activity in question was the legal, not-for-profit donation of fetal tissue to research firms.

Crary didn’t even bother to promote his own story, for whatever reason. He wrote nine stories about the Komen Foundation’s attempts to extricate itself from funding Planned Parenthood, including breaking the story. He wrote a total of two stories about Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia serial murderer and abortionist. You can read this piece for more information on Crary and the Associated Press’ trouble covering abortion, but perhaps of note for this story:

The Komen team described him as a “Planned Parenthood ally,” who had “gushed” over Planned Parenthood in a February 2011 article featuring Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. “The article was essentially a rehashed Planned Parenthood press release,” Handel writes. He’s described as “sympathetic” to Richards and “deeply biased” in favor of Planned Parenthood. Komen’s media person says, “she had never spoken to a national reporter who was so openly biased.”

Reuters

Joining the Associated Press in the “we’re not even trying to be fair” category was Reuters, whose first piece on the scandal was literally headlined, and I want to emphasize I’m not being hyperbolic for effect but accurately conveying the headline: “Planned Parenthood slams secret video as false portrayal of fetus tissue program.”

This story came out nearly 14 hours after the story broke, reads like a Planned Parenthood press release if Planned Parenthood had less regard for its reputation:

Planned Parenthood said on Tuesday a secretly recorded video that surfaced on the Internet falsely portrayed the reproductive health group’s participation in the sale of tissue and body parts from aborted fetuses.

The non-profit organization said the video had been heavily edited and recorded by a group that was established to damage its reputation. It said in a statement the video “falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research.”

Nowhere in the story (written by Jon Herskovitz, with additional reporting by Patrick Enright and David Bailey in Minneapolis, and editing by Jonathan Oatis and Toni Reinhold) do we we learn that the group put out a complete, unedited, nearly 3-hour video at the same exact time as the edited 8-minute version. The double-claim of falsehood provided by Reuters on behalf of Planned Parenthood in the first two paragraphs is never substantiated, though a meager attempt is made to repeat Planned Parenthood talking points in the final paragraphs.

Newsweek

The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack provided the journalistic service of exposing precisely what talking points Planned Parenthood was sending out to reporters in an attempt to quash or reframe the story. The documents can be found here. One of the pieces of information Planned Parenthood’s public relations firm sent out suggested that David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress, the group that performed the undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood, should not be trusted because he has “written articles for opposition outlet The Weekly Standard and Human Life Review.”

The Weekly Standard is a large, respected weekly magazine whose writers include some of the best writers working today, including P.J. O’Rourke, Matt Labash, Andrew Ferguson, Jonathan Last, Vic Matus, Christopher Caldwell and the dashing Mark Hemingway. The idea that having written a sole article for the publication would be disqualifying is laughable to the extreme. And yet…

Newsweek’s story, authored by Polly Mosendz, shows the influence Planned Parenthood’s backgrounder had on her journalism:

The center’s leader, David Daleiden, has written anti-abortion literature for The Weekly Standard and is referenced on the pro-life website of Jill Stanek. Files uploaded by Daleiden to Scribd include “Prayers for the day,” which Daleiden describes as “one way to structure your prayer life throughout the day that some people may find helpful.”

Though Daleiden’s organization shares a name with the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Medical Progress, a spokeswoman for the institute told Newsweek the groups are “totally separate organizations” who have “never been affiliated.” This is all to say, the video was not made by a purely scientific center, despite the organization’s name, nor in a purely objective manner.

I joke about journalists being hostile to Christians, but I’m not sure I’ve seen someone’s prayer life used in an attempt to discredit someone. I’m almost impressed. Horrified, mostly, but also kind of impressed at how anti-religious the journalism is. Also, way to regurgitate Planned Parenthood talking points! You’re on your way to the big Andrea Mitchell-leagues!

Daily Beast

I don’t think the Daily Beast has gotten around to profiling Deborah Nucatola, the woman who talked about “crushing” babies’ bodies in such a way as to harvest their “lungs,” and “livers,” and “hearts,” and what not, but they did accept their Planned Parenthood marching orders for writing hit pieces about David Daleiden. Here’s Samantha Allen’s version of Media Matters for America’s version of Planned Parenthood’s hit on Daleiden.

CNN

CNN’s first piece on the Planned Parenthood scandal is actually a really good and fair story, in my initial read. It presents alternate points of view without siding with one or the other or accepting anyone’s claims at face value.

I did get a kick out of the accompanying video which begins, “In this heavily and selectively edited video …” What’s funny about this is that 100% of video news reports not involving live guests are very “heavily and selectively edited.” Because that’s how you do broadcast journalism. We don’t see journalists introduce their reports by noting that fact, usually.

New York Times

The newspaper finally put up its story on the matter by 12:30 am the next day. It’s headlined “Video Accuses Planned Parenthood of Crime.” The piece accepts Planned Parenthood talking points completely. Its author, Jackie Calmes, must not have reviewed the transcript of the full video, or the full video. She devotes much space to defending Planned Parenthood against the charge it sells organs to purchasers. Here’s a representative section:

While the video, which was circulated on the Internet, alleges that Planned Parenthood is guilty of the crime of selling fetal remains, the official tells her questioners more than once that the cost, $30 to $100, is reimbursement for clinics’ expenses.

Of course, the official also specifically said that affiliates like to “do better” than “break even,” which Calmes doesn’t mention:

If it’s just reimbursement for clinics’ expenses, what in the world would Nucatola mean by that? Further, how do we know that these price claims represent actual expenses? What are the expenses for baby organ harvesting, exactly?

When someone read the following paragraph to me, I thought it must be an editorial from the New York Times because the language was so hystrionic:

As conservatives condemned Planned Parenthood for what they called “selling baby parts,” the reaction threatened to incite the sort of opposition that has led congressional Republicans in recent years to try to shut down the government unless Planned Parenthood was stripped of federal money.

Nope, just New York Times “news” writing. And it actually gets worse. She just fully editorializes throughout the piece. She also makes it seem like Planned Parenthood does breast cancer “tests” instead of just telling women they should go get breast cancer tests, but that’s a separate issue entirely.

Anyway, thanks to one journalist who got me thinking about the comparison, I thought it would be interesting to compare how the New York Times wrote up another undercover video hurting a Republican. When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was surreptitiously videotaped in a private fundraising session making comments about “47 percent” of Americans, the New York Times didn’t wait terribly long to get it up on the site.

So the New York Times, which only had edited, snipped remarks from Romney, published a story on the matter in under three hours. For the Planned Parenthood scandal, with a full, unedited, nearly 3-hour video released at 8:00 AM, it took the publication around 16 hours to get a story up. The Romney story ran on the front page the next day. The Planned Parenthood scandal ran on page A16 the next day.

The New York Times story on Mitt Romney rightly focused not on how the video was obtained or the Democratic operative who obtained it but, instead, on the snippet of the statements it revealed. Reporters Michael Shear and Michael Barbaro’s headline was “In Video Clip, Romney Calls 47% ‘Dependent’ and Feeling Entitled.”

By contrast, the New York Times story on Planned Parenthood focuses entirely on criticism of the group behind the video, devoting the first 10 paragraphs to Planned Parenthood framing and spin and failing to speak with a single person who disagrees with the harvesting of baby organs. The story even failed to include the most interesting quotes from the video, such as the one where Deborah Nucatola discusses crushing babies in such a way as to preserve their valuable organs. Despite the fact that Nucatola is quite explicit about the harvesting of babies’ brains, hearts, lungs and livers, the story doesn’t mention anything even touching on the issue.

Imagine, if you will, the New York Times failing to quote Mitt Romney’s notorious 47% line (for the record, a search of the New York Times website shows that the paper has 1,010 mentions).

Justin Miller, senior editor at the Daily Beast, claimed that the Romney video “wasn’t edited with cuts,” while the Planned Parenthood video was. That’s actually not true.

In fact, the nearly 3-hour unedited video of the discussion of baby organ harvesting was released at the same time as the shorter, edited clip. And what’s more, the media ran with the Romney video story well before the full 68-minute video was released.

The original Mother Jones story on the matter had only five brief snippets of those 68 minutes, running 1:06, 1:45, :37, :46, and :53. The lack of context for these brief remarks didn’t prevent outlets such as the New York Times from running with the story.

It’s only been two years since the media struggled to even cover the story of Kermit Gosnell, the abortion doctor and serial murderer. After being shamed into covering the “local crime story” by readers and viewers who had requested coverage for years, the media offered a few mea culpas and promised to improve coverage of the abortion topic and present the issue more fairly.

They have repeatedly failed, whether the story was cheerleading for late-term abortion supporter Wendy Davis or accurately covering religious Americans opposition to paying for abortifacients.

posted July 16, 2015 12:14 PM            

"[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds ... a deadweight of human waste ... [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to the race."

posted July 16, 2015 01:12 PM              

If I ever find the time, I'll spend more of it investigating Sanger herself than the ten seconds it took me to find what I posted.

I have a vast archive of information at my disposal, both in my brain and on my hard drives, but Sanger hasn't had her turn being a target of acquisition yet. She's a bit player in a long play...

Just wanted to add whatever weight my voice carries to support exposing the negative intentions that underlie Planned Parenthood.

posted July 16, 2015 01:36 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
I agree that none of us has the right to force childlessness on anyone for our perceptions of their lack of ability...to bear or raise healthy people..however the sad fact is, that many people who can't even take care of themselves DO - and are encouraged to - have choldren who then become the responsibility of the rest of us.

---

Spot on, Catalina. And how sad is it that many of those realistically incapable yet still cranking out new welfare recipients are from demographic segments regarded by society as perfectly capable?

Good thinking follows the pattern of good writing -- one starts with general concepts and then refines those concepts with specific details. The general concept is perfectly stated in the title of this thread. Whether they're advocating forced sterilization (then) or harvesting fetus organs (now), those activities are just details-of, and all support rather than disprove the thesis.

posted July 16, 2015 02:05 PM            

I f ind organ donation at whatever age a mixed blessing/curse. But the fact that organs are "harvested" from fetuses does not mean the rest of the body was viable. Even at 30 weeks many critical functions of a body are not fully developed hence many preemies spend their first weeks on mechanical support or would die.

But as I said late abortions are extremely rarely sought for any but the most urgent medical reasons. The Catholic church orders that the new child be saved even at cost of the mothers life..which is no less reprehensible as it robs the baby and any siblings of their mother...

Its all a very sticky wicket

posted July 16, 2015 07:37 PM              

When the wickets get sticky, stand back from the entire game and look at the big picture. We can't always be 100% correct, but we can reduce our possibility of error.

quote:

---

As to sequestering "dysgenics" in a place where they may or may not be rehabilitated before being deemed fit to breed..disgusting.. as disgusting as the fact that Casey Anthony was allowed to bring children into the world only to destroy them .

---

posted July 17, 2015 08:40 AM            

Hannibal Lecter ain't got nothing on the profit-maximizing abortion ghoul caught on tape hawking aborted baby parts as she swilled wine and nibbled on a gourmet salad.

In newly released undercover footage from the pro-life Center for Medical Progress, seasoned abortionist Dr. Deborah Nucatola, who serves as national senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, chitter-chattered eagerly about fulfilling the bloodthirsty demand for intact hearts, lower extremities and lungs.

Price tag? You know, I would throw a number out, she babbled breezily as she twirled her fork. I would say it's probably anywhere from $30 to $100 per specimen.

Hollywood couldn't conjure monsters this chillingly, banally evil.

Nucatola exulted at how fetal livers have become tres chic: A LOT of people want them.

She then spoke of the new hot trends in body-parts trafficking as if she were raving about the latest craze for crop tops or artisanal cheese.

I was like wow, she gushed to her potential clients about the market for unborn baby hearts, I didn't even know!

Like wow.

This master of murderous euphemism repeatedly referred to an unborn baby's head as a calvarium and casually described the tricks and techniques she and her fellow abortionists use to increase your chance of success. Rotating the babies so they are delivered breech before being mutilated and slaughtered by the practitioners of Planned Butcherhood works fabulously, in case you were wondering.

Pausing only to swig more luxury libations from her jumbo wine glass, the loquacious death doc explained to investigators posing as fetal tissue company executives how her providers use ultrasound guidance to target the coveted body parts so they'll know where they're putting their forceps.

In a singsong recitation, this lettuce-chomping Mengele in a silk tank top detailed how the providers use ultrasound to become cognizant of where you put your graspers.

This method is not employed to reduce the pain and suffering of unborn baby and mother, mind you. It's to get good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that so I'm not gonna crush that part. I'm going to basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact.

Think about that. Planned Parenthood has officially declared it torture for women to see their unborn children through ultrasound before submitting to abortion. The billion-dollar abortion industry has lobbied vociferously against increasing ultrasound access to pregnant women on the fence about abortion.

But when the same imaging technology is used to help Planned Butcherhood's providers place their forceps strategically to protect their precious organ commodities, it's invaluable guidance.

Now you know if you didn't already or if you were in abject denial. Planned Parenthood's fetish for late-term abortion stems not from compassion for mothers, but from the cold-blooded drive to drum up cold, hard cash. The practice has continued for at least 15 years, when Planned Parenthood's human harvesters in Kansas were first uncovered.

Can it get any more stomach-turning? Brace yourselves. This video is just the first in a series by the Center for Medical Progress, which has been investigating Planned Butcherhood's illegal, immoral trafficking of aborted fetal parts for almost three years.

The expose comes after years of undercover journalistic work by Lila Grace Rose and Live Action, who have caught government-supported Planned Parenthood officials covering up for sexual predators, promoting gendercide, flouting health regulations and disclosure laws, soliciting money from racist eugenics zealots who want more black babies aborted, and perpetuating a homicidal racket in the name of reproductive health.

Nucatola is no rogue underling. She's Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services with years of scalpel-wielding, hands-on abortion training. She bragged not only about her own expertise in procurement of baby body parts, but about the everyday trafficking that goes on behind closed doors at countless affiliates.

When you've recovered from your nausea, ask yourselves this: What kind of country do we live in where law-abiding businesses are fined, threatened and demonized for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, but barbaric baby butchers are hailed by feminists, Hollywood and a president who asked God to bless them?

posted July 17, 2015 01:41 PM            

Improved access to ultrasounds before abortion? You mean FORCED ultrasounds to rub women's noses in their "inhumanity" when they have already made that decision! Got your "A" branding iron ready for those that abort, do you?

Did you practice abstinence to avoid having 13 children? How would you advise a woman on welfare whose husband is Prone to forcing himself on her...stay away from Planned Parenthood! They will refuse you birth control in favour of getting pregnant so they can abort you at 30 weeks for the cash they will receive for your baby's remains! Right.

According to some this video is propaganda. There were some forced sterilizations over the years, not by planned parenthood but by various States for various excuses.
http://m.dailykos .com/story/2015/07/16/1402922/-Planned-Parenthood-President-Cecile-Richards-Makes-Official-Statement-About-Under-Cover-Video?detail=facebook

posted July 17, 2015 04:42 PM            

Trying to change the subject isn't going to work. These evil bast@rds and biatches sold baby kidneys, livers, hearts and extremities...to make money. And all those are not only illegal but they're also disgusting and contemptible.

posted July 17, 2015 05:17 PM            

Tell me...Have you volunteered your organs for medical use after death? Do you think those are procured free? No payment of professionals for their work, removal , transport and implantation? Are you equally incensed that Dick Cheney is alive because someone else died? Was it evil that tha t heart was "ripped" from its body for his use?

Now how much more evil tha t a fetus' viable organs/cells be donated for medical purposes, to save Other Lives? If you leave out the insinuation that this doctor is gleefully murdering babies "wanted, loved even named" which you are taking on someone else's word and against another person's. ..how evil is it that the viable organs are donated to the living?

Profit? Did you hear the amounts mentioned?

posted July 17, 2015 08:56 PM            

Whether I signed an organ donor card is absolutely none of your business. Further, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Planned Parenthood butchers running baby chop shops.

posted July 18, 2015 12:41 AM            

I am not asking about your private habits jwhop and dont worry i won't send planned parenthood around to remove your liver. Relax. Ill be back when ive had time to wade thru 3 hours of whatever is on there. So far theres little alarming about what I've seen

And by the way the callous salesy remarks about livers etc being "hot items" now..made by the phony interviewers not the doc.

If they are doing illegal sidelines they should be tried of course. Why has no one charged them, instead of profiting off telling tales for the eager-to-be-shocked public?

posted July 18, 2015 12:50 PM            

Planned Parenthood has accused two undercover citizen journalists of editing their covertly recorded video that featured Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, talking about selling organs, body parts, and tissue from aborted babies (my word, not hers) and misrepresenting what the doctor said. This complaint has been echoed elsewhere, and even alleged to ultimately damage the pro-life cause.

So I watched the unedited video, which runs a little under 3 hours, and referenced the transcript. Planned Parenthood looked even worse (if that’s possible) after hearing the conversation in its entirety.

For those not familiar with the video that circulated this past week, two citizen journalists (referred to as “Buyers” in the transcript) posed as representatives from a fetal tissue procurement company looking to partner with Planned Parenthood to acquire organs, body parts, and/or tissue from aborted fetuses that the company would then sell to biotech firms doing stem cell research. Procurement companies provide a way for abortionists to get around a law that prohibits the sale of fetal tissue. Clinic Quotes reports:

Technically, it is against the law for any clinic to sell fetal remains for money. The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 saw to this….

However, many abortion clinics are able to get around this law….

…. The research institutes and the abortion clinics have joined with a third party, the fetal tissue wholesaler. The fetal tissue wholesaler pays the abortion clinics a “site fee” to place employees, known as “procurement agents,” who collect various body parts of the aborted fetuses as soon as the abortion process is finished and ship them to various research institutes….

The wholesaler is technically renting the space to harvest the body parts rather than paying for the tissue itself. The abortionist then “donates” the tissues to the wholesalers. At the other end of the transaction, the wholesaler will “donate” the fetal material to researchers but bill them for the cost of retrieval. Thus the business deal is complete.

The “Buyers” focused on the need for fetuses that were at least 18-20 weeks old. (No one in the video talked about developing babies. Once you’re involved with the abortion industry, a baby becomes a “fetus,” at best. Often he or she is referred to as “tissue,” and eventually that developing human will be referred to as “waste.”)

While twenty weeks was desired, the “buyers” said that twenty-four weeks would be even better and the doctor eagerly helped them brainstorm possible contacts for that.

Omitted from the edited video were parts of the conversation where the doctor talked about how increasing numbers of women want to donate organs, body parts, or other tissue from their aborted fetus for research. This omission was regrettable since it did not dilute the power of what the journalists uncovered and only made it seem as if they were trying to hide something.

In addition, this omission resulted in some prominent individuals having incomplete information when putting out statements, including Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz suggested that Planned Parenthood may have broken as many as three federal laws, citing, among other things, the need for written consent from the mother for any transfer of tissue. But even if consent is obtained as the doctor claimed, there is plenty of reason for Cruz, and now House Republicans, to be calling for a federal investigation. (I’m not holding my breath.)

Consent aside, there is no doubt Planned Parenthood is selling organs, body parts, and tissue from aborted fetuses to procurement companies. Planned Parenthood claims they don’t make a profit and only recoup money for the additional time involved in speaking with women about the donation option and gathering consent.

Irrespective of whether Planned Parenthood is making a profit, they are collecting money from procurement companies in exchange for “tissue” from developing babies who have been intentionally killed, otherwise known in the abortion industry as “fetal demise.” (The abortion industry renames many things in order to make life abstract, sterile, and ultimately worthless.)

However, as was noted earlier, using procurement companies as a kind of middle man exploits a loophole in the law. In my view, any investigation of Planned Parenthood must also include close examination of the role these procurement companies play and the law must be revisited to ensure this work-around comes to an end.

In addition to the 1993 law, Congress also passed the National Organ Transplant Act in 1984 which outlawed selling human organs on the open market. It appears that procurement companies are expected to partner with health care providers to harvest organs according to the legal consent of patients or family members, and in accordance with strict guidelines. In the case of transplants, patients receiving organs are responsible for covering procurement costs and it is one of many services billed to the patient’s insurance company.

I don’t know if what Planned Parenthood is doing is illegal. If it’s not, it should be.

It certainly is unconscionable.

The barbarity is shocking. And the incredible nonchalance with which the doctor on the video tape spoke about abortion, killing fetuses, and harvesting parts of these once-thriving babies in the womb is physically sickening.

She spoke about the subject of fetal tissue procurement in a matter-of-fact, sometimes breezy tone of voice, with brazen body language. She expressed not a shred of reverence for life. In fact, she’s “proud” of what she does.

The doctor’s demeanor was so callous that Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, put out a statement apologizing for it. In essence she said sorry for the tone but we stand behind what we do. In fact Richards used the apology platform as an opportunity to plug Planned Parenthood.

In her own way, Richards was as disgraceful and shameful as the doctor on the undercover video – a woman who never ran out of outrageous things to say and despicable ways to say them.

Among other things, the doctor equated women having abortions who want to donate fetal “tissue” as being the same as people who want to be organ donors when they die (which is a Planned Parenthood talking point).

What?

Donating organs, body parts, and/or tissue from an aborted fetus is not the same as adults who want to be organ donors when they die. Nor is it like tragic situations when a parent loses a child and they make the child a donor after their short life comes to an untimely end. These scenarios are not the same thing as a woman deciding to destroy the baby growing inside her and then afterwards donating that baby’s organs to science. It’s not even close.

And how insane, upside down, and backwards is it that abortionists take special care when performing the abortion to ensure certain organs and body parts remain vital for donation? How deplorable to dismember a fetus while going to great lengths to make sure, for example, that the torso be removed perfectly intact. Because for anyone who might be wondering, when the abortionist knows ahead of time that the fetus they’re about to kill is also a “donor,” they pay extra attention to how they abort him or her to ensure the organs, body parts, and/or tissue to be donated is removed in excellent condition.

Ah, what thoughtful murderers to make sure, for procurement purposes, that they don’t “crush” certain parts of the fetus and to be careful as to what they “grab first.” What a relief it must be for women to know that when their baby is aborted, it will receive the best of care while being methodically destroyed.

What’s not a relief is the amount of “tissue” Planned Parenthood is stuck with at the end of the day – “tissue” they must remove according to strict guidelines.

The doctor discussed how procurement companies can gain an edge in the competitive market and benefit Planned Parenthood at the same time because, you see, when procurement companies remove “tissue” for research purposes, Planned Parenthood has “less tissue they need to worry about.”

Oh, I see. That’s what they’re worried about: The amount of “tissue” they’re stuck with as a result of the abortion machine running all day.

And if you’re curious about just how much “tissue” that might be, the doctor can give a pretty good estimate (after she takes a few more bites of her salad and another sip of wine).

On any given day her “procedures” produce around “18 liters.” Of that, whatever isn’t “donated” (another carefully chosen word to protect Planned Parenthood) goes to a waste management company that handles “biological waste,” or in the case of fetuses, “pathological waste.” The take away point being that it’s “waste.”

Apparently that’s what each life growing in a mother’s womb boils down to for these people. A waste product comprised of 18 liters of tissue that is a pain in the @$$ to dispose of. If someone would just take these mangled, butchered, dismembered, crushed, bloody, dead fetuses off their hands and save them the trouble of boxing it up and dealing with the special handling it would be so very much appreciated.

Every aspect of aborted fetuses and research using fetal tissue seemed to fascinate the doctor. She was brimming with ideas for finding ways to make fetal tissue more available for research and appeared eager to see relationships between Planned Parenthood and procurement companies grow and solidify on a national level. And although she felt the time was not right for this, politically, she confirmed there are conversations happening behind the scenes to advance and “elevate” this agenda. She also expressed interest in how to “frame” the issue of fetal tissue procurement and seemed convinced that if it could be framed it in a positive way for the public it would be a “win-win.”

I guess the fetus isn’t factored into that celebration.

How about this slogan to help “frame” the issue: Kill a fetus. Save a life!

But you know what? For all of that, on one level, I appreciated this doctor.

I appreciated the fact that she spoke freely about “tissue,” “waste,” “high quality yields,” “volume,” and the “17-weeker” she’s considering as a good candidate for fetal tissue procurement.

I’m glad she put on display for all the world to hear, her glib references to the “culture war” on “infetacide” and her sharing in a joke about a family planning clinic reluctant to donate tissue from 2nd trimester abortions because perhaps the Sheriff in the town is paying attention.

It’s important that people hear her bluntly complain about providers not “pushing the envelope” in the area of late-term abortions. And to hear her say patients are not coerced into giving consent for “donation” only to contradict herself by describing how women who initially refuse “donation” are approached by reps from biotech companies on the day of their abortion, which typically results in women changing their mind and companies getting more “specimens.”

She never once used the word “abortion.” Because, you see, she does “procedures” and is involved with “family planning.”

The doctor seemed so utterly disconnected from any sense of a soul that she revealed the truth about the abortion industry like no other. Unlike Cecile Richards, who had a feigned look of compassion when she recorded her video apology for the doctor’s “tone,” the doctor and her callous inhumanity was the true face of Planned Parenthood.

posted July 18, 2015 02:39 PM            

You fail to understand that late abortions, indeed most abortions, are not gleeful occasions endured for convenience. The donation of the fetus organs is no more macabre than other organ donors and I'm guessing you don't know many surgeons either.

As i said i haven't seen the whole thing yet. While you may call me lazy there are actually many reasons I haven'T got thru it. .called things to do when you aren t retired.