Planned Parenthood in the news

[zork]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...lanned-parenthood-video-absolutely#.oq9za6Wdp

Wisconsin governor and presidential candidate Scott Walker called an undercover video that purports to show Planned Parenthood’s national medical director discussing the sale of fetal body parts harvested from abortions “absolutely horrifying and disgusting.”

Walker further added Tuesday that Democrats who voted to fund the organization owe the American public an explanation.

“This is absolutely horrifying and disgusting. Planned Parenthood and the Democrats who vote to fund this organization owe the American people an explanation for these heinous, and possibly illegal, actions,” Walker said in a statement to BuzzFeed News Tuesday.

“Practices like this cannot be tolerated, which is why as governor, I defunded Planned Parenthood.”

An undercover video recorded a year ago and released Tuesday morning by the Center for Medical Progress shows Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, speaking in detail about fetal body parts, how they are harvested from abortions, and the costs associated with that procedure, with actors pretending to be from a fetal tissue procurement company. Planned Parenthood said Tuesday the video misrepresents their participation in tissue donation programs.

So selling fetus liver, heart, brain, lung, and other parts is good business for Planned Parenthood? Why would a glob of cells be able to differentiate into those mini organs? I have a sonogram of my son sticking his thumb into his mouth at about 4.5-5 months. He is an amazing glob of cells now as well.

 

[WorsterMan]

This story disgusts me on so many levels.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Who's really going to be on the proverbial "right side of history" (the current middle-brow intellectual twitter hashtag)?

I may disagree with someone's, a liberal's, approach and perspective on certain matters, but whole heartedly respect 1,000x over the value of championing the marginalized/weak/discriminated/disenfranchised in our society. We can do better. And to give credit where it's due, liberals (the sincere ones at least) make this a centerpiece of their politics.

This is what's so confusing to me. How does a liberal who stands for the marginalized/weak/discriminated/disenfranchised reconcile their abortion politics?

I'm not going to lie and say doing the right thing is always easy. It's not. It's incredibly hard. But doing the right thing is almost ALWAYS the hardest and most difficult path. And in the end, whether we take the easy path or bear the hardship we know what the right choices are in life.

 

[Driver 8]

How does a liberal who stands for the marginalized/weak/discriminated/disenfranchised reconcile their abortion politics?

I don't presume to speak for The Liberals but the political issue is simple: a woman's body and her reproductive choices belong to her and nobody else. It’s all-too-convenient conservative rhetoric, and predictably vacuous, to translate this into the filthy immoral liberals like to kill babies.

 

[texas_ex2000]

but the political issue is simple:

Driver, I'm not sure if you're a new poster or an old poster with a new handle, but I remember some of your posts on WM and other forums and you are solid.

But I don't know how you get to "liberals are filthy, immoral, and like to kill babies," from my post. As I said these decisions are incredibly difficult to make. In my post, I give credit to liberals for their compassion. The fact of the matter is, the liberals, proper noun/italicized/with articles...however you want put it, are overwhelming pro-choice.

And they're pro-choice through the optics of exactly what you stated - "a woman's body and her reproductive choices belong to her." This is the Bermuda Triangle where the intellectualism that liberals wear on their sleeve seems to disappear. It is NOT that "simple."

How frustrated do gun control supporters get when an NRA member says, "the political issue is simple: I have the right to defend myself, and in the end when confronted against someone/people who may kill me, I can rely only on myself in that moment."

 

[Driver 8]

I don't know how you get to "liberals are filthy, immoral, and like to kill babies," from my post.

It wasn't anything directly from your post, but the abortion button is a particularly hot one and so it lends itself to overreaching moralizing like that. The pro-choice position is never in favor of abortion per se; rather, abortion is the occasional unfortunate consequence of a woman's freedom to do what she chooses with her body.

The NRA comparison is apt but you framed it in the context of self-defense, which I think is disingenuous. We know very well that the dispute over gun control is most acute in the cases of mass shootings and the lone crazy gunman, not the legitimate protection of one's life and property. Where is the conservative's compassion for the victims of gun violence?

Speaking of guns, rights, and morality, what's the key difference here?

An American citizen has the right to own a gun. Most gun owners will act responsibly, but a small minority will tragically choose to take another person's life.

A woman's body is hers to do with as she chooses. Most women will act responsibly, but a small minority will tragically choose to take another person's life.

 

[Clean]

An American citizen has the right to own a gun. Most gun owners will act responsibly, but a small minority will tragically choose to take another person's life.

But they don't turn around and sell their victim's body parts for profit, like Planned Parenthood apparently does. That is truly disgusting.

and as far as:

a woman's body and her reproductive choices belong to her

Yes. Right up to the point when another human life is conceived. When that happens, she is no longer the sole person in the equation.

 

[texas_ex2000]

The NRA comparison is apt but you framed it in the context of self-defense, which I think is disingenuous.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'll refer you to, "the political issue is simple: a woman's body..."

We know very well that the dispute over gun control is most acute in the cases of mass shootings and the lone crazy gunman, not the legitimate protection of one's life and property.

The "dispute" is whatever the gun control lobby wishes to make a dispute over. The actual homicide rate due to mass shootings (whatever definition you want to use) in the country is minuscule. http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/18/navy-yard-whiplash-are-killings-going-up-or-down/ And exactly how would outlawing pistol grips/collapsable stocks/30 round magazines prevent mass shootings? A semi-auto rifle with a 30 round magazine is the best home defense system for a wide variety of people (handicapped/elderly/rural landowners etc), and arguably the best for every home owner. They're also just a lot of fun to shoot at the range.

Most women will act responsibly, but a small minority will tragically choose to take another person's life.

http://www.lifematterstv.org/abortioncounters.html

* In January 2014, the Guttmacher Institute reported: * 1.05 million abortions in the US in 2012; * 4.8% of abortions in the US occurred from week 16 of pregnancy to week 32 (50,400). US 2014 STUDY on abortions: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

World Wide STUDY on abortions: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.pdf

* The National Right to Life Committee reported on their 2/2014 fact sheet (http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf ) that the total of USabortions since 1973 (RVW) through 2013 was 56,405,766 basedon state government health organization data & the Guttmacher Institute data including factoring in the possible 3% undercount cited by GI for their own figures.

* The number of abortions executed by Planned Parenthood shown in the counters come from PP's Annual Reports. They reported 329,445 in 2010, 333,924 in 2011 and 327,166 in 2012.Their latest annual report.

 

[towersniper]

Another episode of Gullible's Travels! Please. Did you watch the obvious edits? Do you really think human organs are being black marketed for $30?

 

[Horn6721]

Here is the full unedited vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UjIM9B9KQ

 

[towersniper]

Here is the full unedited vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UjIM9B9KQ

Thanks, Horn6721. I will look at that, though it looks pretty long. It will be interesting to see how fair or unfair the editing is in the the viral extract.

 

[towersniper]

Yup. Deceptive editing.
Really deceptive. Many of Those who oppose abortion will understandably find the concept of donating, harvesting and transferring fetal body parts inherently abhorrent, but that gets back to the it basic objection to abortion. The full video adds nothing of much substance to the debate; it does not support the claims that PP is profiting from the sale of body parts. Those of you who were horrified by the viral video - serious question. Did you really believe that This was evidence of a black market in body parts? Did $30-$100 per donor sound realistic for the for profit sale of body parts? Or were you just horrified, again ( and understandably) by the (trying to avoid loaded terms here, so I'll use a sanitized term--) "unpleasant" nature of all abortions? Now that the full video is out there, who, besides me is offended by these O'Keefe style deceptively edited videos? Does the end justify the means, or are you offended by those, such as this sting video group, who deceive in the name of God? They hide behind the fact that the full 2 1/2 hour video is available, knowing that not one in 10,000 will watch the full video, but millions will see the viral version. This is cheap shot politics. (I just saw that the full video has gotten 10,000 hits, no telling how many viewed the whole thing. The viral video has millions of views.)

 

[Monahorns]

So PP doesn't make money selling baby parts? I guess I am confused. Do people pay PP money for the ownership of organs? Does PP or do they not extract the babies in a way so that they don't damage the organs that they intend to sell?

 

[towersniper]

Just to be clear, I am not in a particular camp on the abortion issue. I often change my views. How one feels about abortion will largely be determined by what one thinks about whether and when a fetus is/becomes a human baby. We've all heard all the arguments. It is a difficult issue for most people. A few cannot see the difficulty and attribute ill motives to those who have come to the opposite view. I regret that such approach seems to be very popular on the West Mall, but that is the way it is.

I have no interest in defending PP's activities in relation to abortion. My comments were focused on the ******** manipulation of emotions by those who make these undercover videos. Upon reviewing the full tape, it is clear that whatever one thinks of the morality of abortion, the full tape does not establish that PP is selling organs, any more than my alma mater is selling kidneys, when it charges a transplant recipient for the cost of non destructive removal, preservation and transportation of the kidney. If PP were selling fetal tissue for $10,000, that would be selling for profit. $30 to $100? Of the competing claims, PP's claim that they are recouping cost seems closer to the truth than claims that they are engaged in performing abortions to gain the princely sum of $30. That is just preposterous.

Monahorns, I suspect that you are using a rhetorical device when you say "I guess I am confused," unless you did not listen to the entire video. (I didn't have the patience for that, but I found a transcript online, and blasted through it, admittedly cursory, in about 20 minutes.) It is hard to believe that you are confused about the difference between selling for profit, as a business, and recovering the cost. There are costs associated with tissue donation of any type. There is a cost to obtain preserve and transmit research tissues, or a cost to slaughter a baby and butcher it for body parts depending on how you want to load up the language. Does money change hands? Yes. Does PP "make money selling baby parts?" I don't know, but the tape is not evidence that they do. The edited tape, however, leaves room for no other conclusion, because of ******** editing.

As for the second part of your question, it sounds like PP doctors do perform abortions in ways to preserve useable tissue. Does this amount to altering the method of abortion for the sole purpose of later using the tissue for research? That is not the issue that is generating all the outrage, but it is a legitimate inquiry, and one that I know nothing about, and I haven't read up on it since that issue has started to receive emphasis. If they are violating the law, it needs to be addressed. That would not, however, justify the red meat, emotion stirring, intentionally deceptive editing job by these pious ******** who put together these viral videos. I know that politics is largely the manipulation of the emotions of each party's suckers, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[Monahorns]

The second part of my question is answered directly by the Planned Parenthood representative in the video. She explains that they actually rotate the body 180 degrees in the womb before extraction and grasp for extraction in locations that don't damage the organs that other people pay money for.

The first part of the question is obfuscation at best. The "customer" could oversee preservation and transportation and pay for it on their own. The abortion itself is being paid for by the woman or the government. I understand some people don't care about this kind of thing. That is up to the individual. But I think what is being done is fairly obvious. $30 for one kidney is one thing but $30 multiple organs for multiple abortions could add up to some large sums rather quickly.

It also highlights the humanity of those aborted. These aren't clumps of cells that are being harvested but human livers, kidneys, lungs, brains (I don't know exactly which organs are in question). The emotion stirring as you call is due to a woman talking callously about essentially baby organs. It doesn't take dishonest editing to evoke that emotional response in most people. The video had to be edited someway to get a larger number of people to watch it and the full video was made available, so I have trouble heaping blame on those making the video, except the deceit involved by obtaining it.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I understand and respect the fact that many people view fetuses as living people, and that aborting a fetus is sinful and repugnant. But if the fetus is going to be aborted, I don't see why it is any worse to do the procedure in a non-destructive way, so that the fetus's organs can be used to save or improve a baby's life. In fact, I'm glad to hear that that is done -- making lemonade out of lemons, I guess.

I do see two potential issues, but I don't know enough about the situation to know whether either one is implicated in this case.

• The mom should be informed that the organs are being donated. That is her decision, not Planned Parenthood's.

• Planned Parenthood should not be profiting from the sale of organs. If they are merely covering the extra cost of the procedure, that is properly charged to the organ recipient.

 

[zork]

more to come apparently:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry..._55ad3b63e4b0caf721b3633d?utm_hp_ref=politics

if baby parts selling isn't bad for some of you, how about racially charged PP activities?

 

[NJlonghorn]

Zork -- I'm trying to zero in on exactly what you find offensive about Planned Parenthood's conduct, and have a couple of questions:

1. Do you see it as immoral for doctors or hospitals to recoup their costs when carrying out patients' instructions to donate organs or tissue?
2. For that matter, do you consider organ and tissue donation itself immoral?

 

[Mr. Deez]

if baby parts selling isn't bad for some of you, how about racially charged PP activities?

Of course, Margaret Sanger had a pretty odd (retrospectively odd - not odd at the time) record on race issues. She wasn't anti-civil rights, but she made some statements about blacks that sounded like something out of Mein Kampf. She opposed extermination of supposedly undesirable racial groups but wasn't too keen on them reproducing, which I suppose makes a big difference to the people who were living at the time, but if it was up to her, most blacks in America today would never have been born.

 

[texas_ex2000]

But if the fetus is going to be aborted, I don't see why it is any worse to do the procedure in a non-destructive way, so that the fetus's organs can be used to save or improve a baby's life. In fact, I'm glad to hear that that is done -- making lemonade out of lemons, I guess.

That's a very technocratic way of viewing the issue. We can't waste resources that may be helpful for research.

Sadly, in the United States of America in the 21st Century, technocratic efficiency seems to be the only principle driving our laws.

 

[Horn6721]

NJ
You asked, "Do you see it as immoral for doctors or hospitals to recoup their costs when carrying out patients' instructions to donate organs or tissue?"
I did not know that all women who have abortions sign an agreement donating the baby parts>Do you know?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

The pro-choice position is never in favor of abortion per se; rather, abortion is the occasional unfortunate consequence of a woman's freedom to do what she chooses with her body.

That's not true, but part of the issue is how you define "in favor of." The fact is that many on the left have been pushing for several years now to de-stigmatize abortion. In fact it went so far that many have called Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" statement to be offensive, in that they don't believe we should paint abortion as something that should be rare. I don't know how you say that and then claim to not see abortion as at worst value-neutral, and in most cases an option that should be considered the desirable option for an unwanted pregnancy.

I would say that you're also understating the level of objection by some who call themselves "pro choice". The surveys tend to focus on the question "do you think that the government should determine whether a woman can abort a child", and not "do you believe abortion is a morally wrong choice". There are plenty of people who are pro-choice who still see abortion as a terrible thing and one they would never do or encourage. It would be very interesting to see how the abortion discussion would change if we posed the question as "illegal abortion", "individual choice abortion" or "acceptable abortion" - or something along those lines. Is our goal to get rid of it in all circumstances, allow for it but discourage it and promote other options more actively or do we want to "mainstream" it?

 

[towersniper]

Is The University of Texas selling body parts when they receive reimbursement for the harvesting, preservation and transport of a kidney for transplant? The difference is that the kidney is harvested from a willing donor or a person who died of other causes, not an aborted fetus. I suspect your outrage at the "sale" is truly redirection of your outrage at the existence of legal abortion. You may be right, but that is a separate argument. Until there is evidence of for profit sale of fetal tissue (and the unedited video is not it - the cow excrement editing job allows the viral video to masquerade as such evidence) the argument remains whether abortion itself should be legal. If evidence surfaces that someone at PP is selling tissue for profit they, like in any tissue donation situation, should pay the price. This is a political hatchet job. Planned Parenthood may be a disreputable organization, but the debate should be based upon real evidence.

 

[NJlonghorn]

NJ
You asked, "Do you see it as immoral for doctors or hospitals to recoup their costs when carrying out patients' instructions to donate organs or tissue?" I did not know that all women who have abortions sign an agreement donating the baby parts>Do you know?

I have heard that Planned Parenthood does indeed get consent before harvesting organs, but I don't trust the source (a die-hard liberal) so I can't answer the question with confidence. This is why I previously posted the following point:

I do see two potential issues, but I don't know enough about the situation to know whether either one is implicated in this case.

• The mom should be informed that the organs are being donated. That is her decision, not Planned Parenthood's.

I would be very concerned if, in fact, the mom's consent is not a prerequisite for a fetal-tissue donation.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Is our goal to get rid of it in all circumstances, allow for it but discourage it and promote other options more actively or do we want to "mainstream" it?

That question has a continuum of responses, and no single answer can be attributed to the pro-choice movement generally. In my opinion, the radical-left position ("abortion is a right, never to be impeded") is worse than the radical-right position ("abortion is immoral and should never be allowed"). Both sides fail to recognize the inherent conflict between the competing rights of mother and fetus.

When rights compete, any just resolution is inherently arbitrary. Thus, I accept the fact that there is no precise line to be drawn. The line should reflect a conscientious effort to make abortion available to women who reach a well-informed decision and do so in a way that is reasonably safe and not unduly delayed. The longer the pregnancy proceeds, the more regulations I would allow.

 

[Horn6721]

Yup
deceptive editing for sure. That PP Doc meant to ask for a Ferrari, no word on what the baby's mother asked for.
No matter which side of the debate one is on surely this is sickening and disgusting and if not against the law is should be.
Who wants wine with that baby brain?

 

[zork]

Zork -- I'm trying to zero in on exactly what you find offensive about Planned Parenthood's conduct, and have a couple of questions:

1. Do you see it as immoral for doctors or hospitals to recoup their costs when carrying out patients' instructions to donate organs or tissue?
2. For that matter, do you consider organ and tissue donation itself immoral?

Just back from a long day out.

If 1 and 2 are about consenting adults then no and no.

I think, according to HuffPost reporting of the organization that recorded a lot of the PP talks, there is more coming out so I don't know what to think yet about PP conduct in total.

(rant on)
"Just clumps of cells", etc, was generally the excuse or one of the main reasons for why it was allowed for mothers to have abortions. That it was not recognizable as human when it clearly is. It is why the pictures showing the aborted fetii(is that plural for fetus?) are always decried since it shows reality of what is being aborted and hurts the pro-choice argument.

Since it isn't a human, it is just a clump of cells that will become human some day. But not till born! And born doesn't mean head sticking out of the mother either.

Whether it is moral or not is not the key to me. At absolute minimum it is about what the government should claim is the responsibility of the mother at what point in the life of the fetus. It is the crux of the whole abortion debate and then who pays what if the government gets involved.

The point of fetus/baby viability is a huge concept that should be the point that is argued. But there are costs involved once you logically take the conclusions reached as you travel down the path of all fetus/babies will be taken care of once viability is reached. Kinda like all men who father babies will pay child support once it is established that the father is that. Why not hook the mother up to the same responsibility once the point of viability is reached? (/rant mostly off)

But back to PP. Isn't it against the law to use aborted fetus tissue for research?(I don't honestly know) It just came out that more African American babies were aborted in NYC than African American babies were born for X period. Planned Parenthood is likely a huge reason for that but that is not what the story was about originally.

The law of the land says that abortion is legal under x,y, and z conditions. Apparently you can only do x things with the parts once aborted or the costs thing or payment for the parts thing is probably a gray area to be talked about going forward. It is all unseemly for me and moreso since I have been through two kids being nurtured in the womb and then born.(as a dad later in life and with a wife who was 35+ for both which meant we got more regular sonograms than from younger parents(or moms really)).

 

[zork]

More news for PP
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/23/p...donors-after-coca-cola-ford-and-xerox-object/

Looks like some of their sponsors don't want to be involved with selling the body parts of aborted fetii perhaps?

 

[Joe Fan]

Like irony?

 

[Al V]

...Where is the conservative's compassion for the victims of gun violence?

Speaking of guns, rights, and morality, what's the key difference here?

An American citizen has the right to own a gun. Most gun owners will act responsibly, but a small minority will tragically choose to take another person's life.

A woman's body is hers to do with as she chooses. Most women will act responsibly, but a small minority will tragically choose to take another person's life.

Driver,

the difference is in how our society endorses/facilitates/restricts these choices. Yes there will be women who make their own choice in violation of the law just as there are people who choose to use a firearm in violation of the law. It doesn't invalidate the law.

It's already an offense to take the life of another being, who's not in the womb. Support for the right to keep & bear arms does NOT revoke nor inhibit compassion for a victim of any circumstance, least of all those of firearm violence. I don't understand that perspective and I don't understand how that connection is made. Therefore, I object to that declaration.

We are seeing the fruit of the sanctioned destruction of innocent life ... the 60+ million in the country, the almost 4K/day being killed because their existence was/is inconvenient. yeah, there are some which qualify as TRULY difficult choices where there is only an agonizing decision, and you know what ... I and plenty of others like me have full sympathy for those persons in that condition. However, that is certainly NOT the overwhelming preponderance of this hideous procedure being promulgated "at will." Those relatively rare circumstances can certainly have allowance made in the law ... the position of the mother being the dictator as to whether it will be legal for that unborn baby to live or die is obscene. It is itself, an abomination.

I think we are finally realizing that, but the abortion lobby won't die without a fight. It's their cash cow. When we start talking about reducing/eliminating dollars ... well, we'll all fight for our cash cow to some extent. So I understand THAT part of the fight, but for failure to recognize ... one might as well support selling heroine to 5th graders to have no more of a moral compass than that.