Sep 01

First the kill the small human life, then they market his or her body parts, counting profits, but missing the true cost.

In the case of other horrifying stories, like just over a year ago when ISIS burst onto the global radar of awareness with beheadings graphically carried out on video that got posted online, the crimes against humanity continued at such a pace that they a) didn’t all make the news, nor even a small percentage of the mass scale of atrocities carried out weekly, daily, against innocent human lives, and b) got no less inhumane and barbaric, but did get more familiar and therefore part of the landscape of modern crises we must steel ourselves against when they come cascading out in the news. Remember Boko Haram? Remember the Rwandan genocide? Remember the atrocities in Kosovo?

Here’s what President Bill Clinton said about the latter:

“We see these pictures of the refugees on television every night and most people would like another story, but we must not get refugee fatigue.”

That’s the usual human response. Crisis fatigue. Outrage fatigue. Inability to feel the shock and horror anymore.

Not so with the video revelations coming out of the abortion industry, filmed at Planned Parenthood clinics or at other locations with their officials talking about the business of selling the dismembered body parts of aborted babies. The outrage is building.

Enough is enough.

Here’s the ninth video, just released, focusing on “Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc. (ABR), the small and secretive company that has harvested and sold fetal body parts at Planned Parenthood clinics longer than any other entity…”

The video features undercover conversations with Dr. Katharine Sheehan, the long-time medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest until 2013; Perrin Larton, the Procurement Manager for ABR; and Cate Dyer, the CEO of rival fetal tissue procurement company StemExpress.

At one point, Larton said

“I literally have had women come in and they’ll go in the [operating room] and they’re back out in three minutes, and I’m going, ‘What’s going on?’” Perrin said. “Oh yeah, the fetus was already in the vaginal canal whenever we put her in the stirrups. It just fell out.”

This is so sick, so devoid of any sense of human life in the abortion business. The industry already profits hugely from doing abortions, taking the human life from the womb of his or her mother by any number of gruesome and barbaric procedures. These videos reveal how much more that industry profits, Planned Parenthood in collaboration with multiple businesses for the buying and selling of baby body parts, and each video is worse than the last.

The video also reveals that organ brokers vying with one another for access to Planned Parenthood’s “volume” of aborted babies’ body parts sometimes boast that, by paying taxes, they fund the abortion giant.

That’s right, this is still a taxpayer funded organization, as mind-boggling as that is. Until these videos came out, attention was focused on abortion as a ’cause’, whether “pro-choice” (a true misnomer), or “pro-life”. Organizations like Project Rachel and others directed people, energy, resources, to helping post-abortive women. Who thought about post-abortive babies?

Planned Parenthood and ‘bioscience’, ’tissue procurement’ companies. And all the while, Larton said in this latest video

federal policy had focused on banning taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research, but medical experimentation on aborted cadavers “got lost in the mix,”…

So they were easily able to get away with it, with no real push back from an unaware public.

No more. One of the most vocal and active pro-life leaders, National Director of Priests for Life and  Abolishing Abortion author Fr. Frank Pavone, said this:

“The bottom line is simple. To deny the fact that Planned Parenthood sells body parts, alters the abortion procedure to do so, and is involved in this illegal activity at the highest corporate level, is now tantamount to asserting that the Earth is flat…

“As Congress convenes again next week, Priests for Life, and numerous other national and local pro-life organizations, will press our elected officials to do their job and investigate Planned Parenthood and hold the organization accountable for its actions.”

This is indefensible. Planned Parenthood has no cover anymore. They may have complicit partners in media and politics trying to silence growing opposition to their callous and unethical treatment of women and barbaric handling of aborted human bodies, but they cannot erase what we have now seen nor silence what we have now heard.

Everyone in or running for public office will be held accountable for what they do to protect and defend human life and dignity, at the most vulnerable stages, no matter what.

Tagged with:
Aug 26

Like an earthquake, they keep coming, and keep fraying nerves and alerting people to pay attention.

They’re paying attention. Nationwide rallies were held last weekend to rattle the consciences of Planned Parenthood workers, and everyone else complicit in dealing in killing babies and dealing in selling their body parts. A California Planned Parenthood security guard quit over the realization of “the atrocities” happening in the clinics. While most of the media ignored the story or barely mentioned it, the video revelations have had major consequences. They can always and quickly be found here.

The Washington Post reported on the rallies at more than half of the country’s Planned Parenthood clinics, though written in different language.

Thousands of antiabortion [pro-life] activists descended upon Planned Parenthood clinics on Saturday to participate in a nationwide protest aimed at cutting off federal funding for the controversial health-care organization.

Why should the abortion giant receive taxpayer dollars when they make a huge profit from abortion and now we know they continue to profit from selling baby body parts? If that’s not controversial, nothing is.

The demonstrations unfolded at about 320 clinics around the nation, according to organizers, with some gatherings drawing a few dozen protesters and others drawing hundreds and perhaps thousands more.

They’re calling for investigations. (Warning: Raw reading here.)

On Monday, August 24, Live Action and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) sent a letter to California’s top government officials. The letter described the likely illegal actions of Planned Parenthood and StemExpress, as recorded in the Center for Medical Progress’ seventh video.

The video recorded the testimony of Holly O’Donnell, a StemExpress whistleblower who detailed her experience working for StemExpress in the San Jose Planned Parenthood clinic. O’Donnell was instructed by her supervisor to use scissors to cut open the face of a baby boy to harvest its brain. After an attempted abortion, this baby boy was born alive, as evidenced by his beating heart. Nevertheless, the boy was not provided with the medical care required under law. Instead, he was killed, after being born alive.

(More on that latest video here.) States are being petitioned to investigate. When Congress reconvenes, they will too.

Live Action and ADF assert that Planned Parenthood needs to be immediately defunded, as its barbaric, unethical conduct does not deserve one more cent of taxpayer money – especially since approximately 13,000 health centers stand ready to serve the real healthcare needs of women around the nation.

ADF Senior Counsel Mike Norton pointed out:

No organization that traffics in the hearts, lungs, heads, and livers of unborn babies is entitled to taxpayer dollars. The only thing it’s entitled to is a federal and state investigation. Taxpayer money should fund local community health centers, not a scandal-plagued billion-dollar corporation. Thousands of community health centers can be trusted with our hard-earned money, while Planned Parenthood has proven for decades that it can’t be trusted.

At National Review Online, Kathryn Jean Lopez and other writers and contributors have been covering that part of the story extraordinarily well, saying the weekend rallies were protesting inhumanity.

This is an opportunity. We all find this disturbing, right? Even Hillary Clinton said so. So lets do better. Four decades into Roe, this is where we are. Let’s end this. No late-term abortions. No supply and demand for aborted body parts. No sending our loved ones to clinics that kill. Encourage, support, demand something better.

And she follows that with examples of “something better“.

“Women need to know they have a choice.” They don’t have to go to an abortion clinic to verify their pregnancy, she says, and she adds, “We’re free. And we give women what they want and what they need.” Fundamentally, if a woman Googles “pregnancy testing” and comes up with Avail, she has found a place that will give her “time” and “space” to think through her decision. If she is asked some strategic questions, Bishai explains, her “values” are likely to rise to the surface. Avail works to be “the safest place for making decisions,” as its staff provide a listening ear and “holistic” support. Avail wants a woman to be able to carry her baby to term if that is her decision. Women’s empowerment is very much in the air here.

And here.

The legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood instantly makes that money available “to other eligible entities to provide such women’s health care services” — entities like community health centers, or CHCs.

As a former medical director and family physician at two different community health centers in the Washington, D.C., area, I understand women’s health-care needs, especially those of the poor and underserved. I have witnessed firsthand how CHC medical professionals and staff provide comprehensive health care for women, as well as for men and children of all ages, including those yet to be born…

For all these needs and more, CHCs are there. Today, they serve the primary health-care needs of 23 million patients in over 9,000 locations across America. That’s about nine times more than the 2.7 million women and men Planned Parenthood serves at its 700 health centers. And CHCs provide all kinds of health care, including everything that Planned Parenthood does and then some — except abortions. For example, as a family physician, I cared for women whether they were seeking prenatal care or wanted to postpone pregnancy. I provided the full range of preventive health services and helped patients manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and high blood pressure. I also cared for children from their very first newborn visit to their school physicals and visits for acute and chronic illnesses. My colleagues and I cared for adults of all ages, addressing their physical and mental-health needs.

This is where the funding needs to be, and the publicity. Read the whole piece, it’s written by a doctor in the trenches.

I’m proud to be a family physician and to have had the privilege of working at CHCs providing truly life-saving care for women and men of all ages. With more funding, CHCs could do even more to expand access to comprehensive health care. Rather than give federal dollars to Planned Parenthood — an organization tainted not only by abortion but now also by its unethical and possibly illegal trade in human body parts — let’s give the money to CHCs, which can truly care for the full range of women’s health-care needs.

This is what people really want, and they need to know where to find it and where to avoid dangerous traps. It’s becoming clearer. Before Congress is even back in session, there will be much more information pouring out. People are engaged. It’s about time.

Tagged with:
Aug 12

They should drop the claim that patients consent, for one.

And that they’re not about profit-making, just ‘recovering delivery costs’.

This sixth video released Wednesday in the ‘Human Capital series highlights someone who’s been doing business with Planned Parenthood revealing the back story on those claims.

Holly O’Donnell, a former StemExpress procurement technician, discusses the industrial process of abortions and the lack of care shown to the patients. More problematic for Planned Parenthood, O’Donnell explains that she has witnessed clinics not getting consent before harvesting blood and organs, despite the organization’s insistence that women are fully informed before procuring human organs and tissues from their abortions…

O’Donnell describes a pressure situation on procurement technicians to get as many opportunities for harvesting as possible, and that leads to shortcuts on consent or even informing the patients at all. The video shows a “gestation tracking log” in which technicians are expected to track all abortions by their stage, and how many consents they got signed from them. “The environment is morbid,” O’Donnell tells CMP. “You can feel it.”

That pressure ends up pushing technicians to get blood and organs even when the women expressly forbid it. In one case O’Donnell recalls, a late-term mother refused consent, which O’Donnell explained to the other technician. “You have to make sure you get her,” O’Donnell’s colleague told her, but O’Donnell said she had refused consent. That didn’t stop the technician, however. “If there was a higher gestation, and the technicians needed it, there were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”

Right. It’s a highly profitable, powerfully political, globally connected  business. And it’s about profit, moneymaking, no matter what it takes. Forget the pink signs and fuzzy assurances that Planned Parenthood cares. They care about profit.

O’Donnell has no illusions about what the abortion-organ harvesting industry is all about. “I’m not going to tell a girl to kill her baby just to get money,” she says, “and that’s what this company does. Straight up. That’s what this company does.”

Tagged with:
Aug 09

Defenders can keep deflecting attention from the truth. But now we know.

The White House won’t comment on what they claim no one there has seen.

The president commented on the “atrocity” of killing humans and harvesting their body parts. In another context, on another continent. But the ethic is consistent, right?

No. This is what he said in Africa:

“Young people, you can lead the way and set a good example. But it requires some courage because the old thinking, people will push back at you and if you don’t have convictions and courage to be able stand up for what you think is right, then cruelty will perpetuate itself,” he said. He added, “If there’s one thing I want YALI leaders to come out with, it’s the notion of you are strong by taking care of the people who are vulnerable, by looking after the minority, looking after the disabled, looking after the vulnerable. You’re not strong by putting people down you’re strong by lifting them up. That’s the measure of a leader.”

But with the ongoing release of videos from Planned Parenthood clinics and in other setting with Planned Parenthood officials revealing the cruelty of abortion perpetuating itself in that industry and profiting from harvesting body parts of the most vulnerable human beings, the Obama administration was already in the process of investigating…the group releasing the videos of vulnerable human life being slaughtered, dismembered and sold with price tags for different body parts.

There’s no defending this anymore. It’s time to defund.

Planned Parenthood is in full damage control mode. It is working on impugning the credibility of pro-life undercover investigators from the Center for Medical Progress who…released another video on the abortion provider’s barbaric practices.

It is also defending the technical legality of its practice of harvesting organs for a fee during abortions, deploying its allies in the media and the White House, and seeking desperately to restore its carefully constructed and ferociously defended image as an organization primarily focused on women’s health, and only secondarily involved in providing abortions.

But the edifice is cracked and no amount of attacking the messenger or hair-splitting legal argument can change the fact that Planned Parenthood’s own medical directors have unwittingly offered rare and much-needed clarity about the nature of the business that Planned Parenthood has chosen, and shared (if inadvertently) the truth about precisely whose lives are destroyed as a result…

The being killed by Planned Parenthood’s abortionists is a human being, albeit at the earliest and most vulnerable stage of her life. Indeed, her organs are valuable to others precisely (and only) because they come from a human being.

Crushing human bodies. Evacuating human skulls. Harvesting human vital organs for a fee. This is what Planned Parenthood does. This is its business.

And business is booming. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the world.

It’s about time this central, major point is made clearly.

The American people should be thankful for Dr. Nucatola’s and Gatter’s words [in video revelations], and even for the coarse and graphic manner in which they were delivered.

In doing so, they offered a rare glimpse of the horrible truth about the nature and human cost of Planned Parenthood’s work. Thanks to them, Planned Parenthood’s slick corporate image as merely an altruistic defender of women’s health is shattered. Having its true face revealed, the path forward is clear. No minimally decent society can support an organization whose business is killing and harvesting body parts for money. Defund Planned Parenthood now.

Because of the videos and the turning point they provide in the abortion debate, the subject came up in the GOP debate last Thursday, both abortion and defunding Planned Parenthood. It likely won’t when Democrats debate in October for the first time.

But Democratic commentator Kirsten Powers took it to the Democrats now.

Democrats like to talk about the importance of being on the “right side of history.” This phrase was invoked frequently during the same-sex marriage debate. Yet when faced with a series of videos detailing grotesque human rights abuses against unborn children by Planned Parenthood Federation of America doctors, Democratic Party forces have eschewed all concern for historical or moral rightness.

Pope Francis has correctly described the unborn as “the most defenseless and innocent among us.” But in the sordid tale of strategic crushing of the unborn to better harvest their hearts, lungs and livers, many Democrats have incredibly cast an organization with a roughly $1.3 billion annual budget in the role of the innocent and defenseless. Hillary Clinton emerged as Planned Parenthood’s highest profile protector Monday, decrying the “assault” against her allegedly helpless campaign donors.

The Democratic Party shilling for barbarism — whether by politicians, liberal media outlets, union officials or unrestricted abortion advocates — is not likely to be viewed favorably by future generations. These Democrats will be remembered for demonizing the activists who lifted the veil on a previously sanitized process and for seeking restraining orders to silence truth tellers. They will be remembered for publishing dehumanizing decrees — as The New Republic did — that people stop criticizing Planned Parenthood because as a medical matter, “The term baby … doesn’t apply until birth” (that thing on your sonogram is nothing more than a “product[] of conception.”) And they will be remembered for demanding investigations into citizen journalists for meticulously exposing atrocities in our midst.

I don’t use the word atrocity lightly.

Watching the videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s practice of dickering over the body parts of unborn humans, one is immediately struck by the age of the “fetuses,” to use the medical term for what parents-to-be and their gynecologists still call a “baby,” lectures from The New Republic notwithstanding.

What a refreshing blast of clarity Powers provides, when few other Democrats are willing to comment on the stunning revelations of the abortion industry profiteering on baby body parts.

[Planned Parenthood Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah] Nucatola noted that one-quarter of Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles abortions occur in the second trimester (3,000 out of 12,000, she said).

Did you get that? Nucatola appears to be saying that three thousand second trimester abortions occur every year in just one Planned Parenthood region. In another video, Dr. Savita Ginde, identified as Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, explains: “We’re doing procedures at seventeen weeks, so we have fairly large identifiable [body] parts.” She then discusses the need to train abortion doctors so they don’t crush the desirable organs of these four-and-a-half-month old fetuses.

Guess who supports second trimester abortions, barring extreme extenuating circumstances? Almost nobody.

The edifice is cracked and crumbling fast. Hopefully, the sham is over.

“Even the most pro-choice people aren’t sold on abortion rights beyond the first trimester.”

This was the general position even prior to the release of videos demonstrating the harsh reality of such abortions. Following the meeting with Dr. Ginde, the undercover video makers are taken to a Planned Parenthood pathology lab where a medical assistant called “Jess” picks at an aborted fetus. “I just want to see another leg, with a foot,” she says. Ginde chimes in: “Here’s the heart.” At one point Dr. Ginde inexplicably murmurs: “It’s a baby.”

Even the abortionist can see it’s a baby. So what’s wrong with the Democratic Party?

While we’re waiting for an answer, the latest video is analyzed here, with a Planned Parenthood Director of Research referring to babies bodies and body parts as “line items” in the abortion calculus.

Latest video, that is, until the next one drops. Which should be any day now.

Tagged with:
Aug 04

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!”

Whatever one thinks of Walter Scott’s 19th Century epic poem perhaps best remembered by that line, you have to give him and his writing credit for pithy insight.

Enduring insight, given the politics of our time. Take this Wall Street Journal column by William McGurn, for instance.

‘When the science is inconvenient, when the facts don’t match up with the ideology, they are cast aside.”

So charged Sen. Barack Obama in a Planned Parenthood speech in 2007. The line was a dig at George W. Bush for his approach to abortion and reproductive rights. Eighteen months later, the new president repeated his snipe in his inaugural vow to “restore science to its rightful place.”

Today President Obama is the one finding the science inconvenient. In the past, the president hasn’t hesitated to weigh in on other controversies while they were in progress—from an altercation between a black Harvard professor and a local white cop to more recent comments about the rape allegations against Bill Cosby. Suddenly, however, he has nothing to say about two [now five] secretly recorded videos that include one Planned Parenthood doctor talking about a “less crunchy” abortion technique that would leave fetal organs intact for harvesting.

Nothing.

Then again, for all Mr. Obama’s talk about restoring science to its proper place, his promises made clear that, if elected, he would not only be the first African-American president but have a good claim to be deemed as the first Planned Parenthood POTUS as well. The price was jettisoning the soothing Bill Clinton language—“safe, legal and rare”—for a more militant approach in which no abortion is beyond the pale.

In the process, President Obama has had to overlook the contradictory approach to science among his own allies. Take sonograms, or ultrasounds. In the first video, Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Deborah Nucatola describes using ultrasound to help those doing the abortion “know where they are putting their forceps.”

On “Fox News Sunday” last weekend, Carly Fiorina underscored the contradiction. Planned Parenthood lobbies against laws requiring women to have an “opportunity to look at an ultrasound before she makes an incredibly difficult choice to end the unborn life within her,” said the Republican hopeful. “And yet they are using that same technology to harvest body parts.”

Just follow the logic. And the story line.

At other times when the facts don’t match up with his ideology, Mr. Obama retreats to silence. In 2013, when Kermit Gosnell’s abortion horrors were before the American people, Mr. Obama’s then-spokesman Jay Carney told reporters the president couldn’t comment on an ongoing trial.

The reporter pressed for an answer, noting that the president’s position had special relevance for this case. As an Illinois state senator, he pointed out, Mr. Obama had opposed a bill that would have provided medical care “to babies who would be born after a botched abortion” like those that Dr. Gosnell was accused of killing.

That’s worth pausing on for a moment, since it was so overlooked during both election cycles. This was all foreseeable, for those who paid attention.

Two weeks after that White House news conference, Mr. Obama made history as the first sitting president to address Planned Parenthood. Two weeks later, Dr. Gosnell was convicted of murdering three babies. Still, the president has said nothing.

Now we have two Planned Parenthood docs on film [and five videos so far] talking about the value of human organs in a fetus whose humanity they would deny. In private the euphemisms disappear. “When they talk to the public or to women about to get an abortion they talk about ‘tissue,’ ” says Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life. “But when they talk to someone buying body parts, it’s about intact hearts, livers and lungs.”

Tuesday, the WSJ Opinion page carried this response from Gail Finke.

William McGurn’s “The Political ‘Science’ of Planned Parenthood”… about President Obama’s sudden ignorance of science when it comes to abortion doesn’t go far enough.

Abortion advocates say that a fetus is a baby only if the mother wants it to be. A woman is 10 weeks pregnant with a baby if she wants to be a mother; another woman whose “fetus” is exactly the same age but who doesn’t want to have a baby can pay a doctor to “evacuate” the “products of conception.” If four embryos are created in one round of in vitro fertilization and two are implanted in a woman’s uterus, they are much-wanted children. The other two, their biological siblings, are nothing more than “extra embryos” that can be frozen or otherwise disposed.

The only difference between the thing being discussed (the person being discussed) is what the woman wants. You can call that many things, but one thing you can’t call it is science.

The tangled web is unraveling.

The fifth video was released Tuesday, involving negotiation of harvesting and selling body parts of five month old babies. More on that in the next post…

Mollie Hemingway lays out the different major strands of this sequential eruption of truth that is happening beyond the reach or control of the power elite who have controlled the message for so many years now, until now. She tells you that Planned Parenthood sought and got a temporary restraining order against the release of more videos, but that the injunction was not constitutional. Two more videos have been released since then.

She reports that Planned Parenthood hired a crisis communications firm to help manage its public relations crisis. The background is interesting.

There’s the suspicious claim that Planned Parenthood was hacked  in “an attack by extremists”, an intriguing account Hemingway unravels.

And the diminished attention major media outlets have given this major story.

The reaction last week by Hillary Clinton is very interesting, and Hemingway notes that, along with the link to Clinton’s interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader piece in which the Democratic front runner for the presidency called the videos “disturbing”. But since I first read that piece last week, it has been updated to read differently, giving Planned Parenthood a good deal of cover.

“Planned Parenthood is answering questions and will continue to answer questions.

(No, they’re really not.)

I think there are two points to make,” Clinton said. “One, Planned Parenthood for more than a century has done a lot of really good work for women: cancer screenings, family planning, all kinds of health services.

(Another myth. “In 2013, abortions made up 94% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services, while prenatal care and adoption referrals accounted for only 5% (18,684) and 0.5% (1,880), respectively”, according to study findings by the Susan B. Anthony List.)

Hemingway continues on Hillary Clinton’s remarks:

And this [video series] raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country.”

(Actually, the video series is about Planned Parenthood’s practices in our country.)

“And if there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one part of it,” she said.

How about both/and. It indeed should look at everything in the abortion industry and ideology and the whole abortion culture. And it should look at Planned Parenthood’s harvesting and marketing of baby body parts in particular, and whether that breaks the law, as some of the videos seem to reveal. Like the latest one.

Captured on video is Planned Parenthod Gulf Coast Director of Research Melissa Farrell discussing with a potential buyer about the best way to harvest organs from aborted babies. Farrell states at 8:05 in the video that at Planned Parenthood, “if we alter our process, we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers.” She also notes that they are willing to modify the abortion procedure to collect body parts, saying, “We deviate from our standard in order to do that.” Modifying an abortion procedure to obtain organs is prohibited under federal law.

And let’s put that claim of screenings, at least mammograms (number 10 in Hemingway’s piece), to rest finally.

No…97 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work is not mammograms. In fact, zero percent of Planned Parenthood’s work is mammograms because Planned Parenthood doesn’t do a single mammogram. Planned Parenthood falsely made the claim that they did during their campaign to shame the Komen Foundation into continuing to fund them, and some media asserted it as well. President Obama has regularly made the claim during his War on Women messaging.

The only problem is that it’s just not true. From a Washington Post fact check a few years ago:

“The problem here is that Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms or even possess the necessary equipment to do so.”

So let’s get to the truth. And stop the deceptions.

Tagged with:
Aug 02

Read it and weep.

The simpler, clearer version of what’s going on in the abortion industry all this time.

If you haven’t watched the damning videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue donation (or, in plain language, exchanging aborted babies’ body parts for money), you should watch them now before you read further.

The first alarming question is whether Planned Parenthood illegally sells aborted fetuses’ organs and tissue. This is what Planned Parenthood and its defenders have repeatedly focused on, insisting that they are compliant with all laws.

But it is what precedes that “fetal tissue donation” that needs attention. Specifically, does Planned Parenthood regularly flout the federal ban on partial-birth abortion using loopholes? How do they get away with this? Do their patients—the women who apparently choose to donate the “fetal tissue”—know what’s going on in explicit terms?

Good questions. Let’s be clear about what’s really going on in abortion clinics, behind the sterile terminology and semantic gymnastics.

Many Americans may not know that the term “partial-birth abortion” is not a medical one but a legal one. And, according to Planned Parenthood doctor Deborah Nucatola, some abortion providers don’t consider it with any seriousness. In her own words, “It’s not a medical term, it doesn’t exist in reality.” What?

It’s clear Nucatola thinks the law is irrelevant—or, as she says, up for “interpretation.” She explains how abortion providers get around the law by injecting a fatal quantity of digoxin, a cardiotoxic drug, into the baby’s heart before dismembering or delivering it.

As hard as those videos are to watch, this is hard to read. Read on.

She explains: “Providers who use digoxin use it for one of two reasons. There’s a group of people who just use it so they have no risk of violating the Federal Abortion Ban. Because if you induce a demise before the procedure, nobody’s going to say you did a ‘live’—whatever the federal government calls it. Partial-birth abortion.” The second reason providers use it is “because they actually think it makes the tissue softer and it makes it safer and easier to do the procedure.” She counts herself in the second group.

So, if you “dig,” you’re guaranteed a dead baby and a successful abortion without having to worry about the law. Moreover, you’ll find that a baby that has already died from a heart attack is apparently “softer” and easier to pull apart with metal instruments.

We are talking about a human life here. In each and every case. The sheer lack of recognition of that basic fact in this kind of discussion about these kinds of procedures takes the breath away.

And it gets worse. When you follow the ‘abortion logic’ explained here. As horrible as the thought, language, and reality is of ‘crushing’ parts of a baby above and below valuable organs, this is the reality, for selling body parts. I can’t believe we’re at this point…

These babies are being strategically maneuvered, crushed, and dismembered under ultrasound guidance—while still alive.

This poses an ethical question. Do the women consenting to fetal-tissue donation understand what’s happening during the procedure? Do they know that their babies are alive at the start of the butchering? A 2001 study showed that 91 percent of women in the study “preferred their fetuses were dead before the abortions.” How “informed” is their informed consent?

It also poses a legal question. Is Planned Parenthood breaking the law—whether in its procedures for “donating” fetal tissue or by altering abortion methods—in order to get better specimens? If so, stripping it of federal funding would be a half-measure.

If Planned Parenthood is not breaking the law, then we need to change the law.

Full stop.

Tagged with:
Jul 31

Abortion clinic toll includes the living.

What happened to Planned Parenthood workers to deaden their sensibilities about human life? Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote this piece after the first of now four videos, some terribly graphic, that reveal the abortion industry giant’s business practice of marketing baby body parts.

When we think of evil, we think of something violent or demonic, something filled with hatred and wretchedly hungry to devour the good.

But what if evil eats a salad at lunch and is polite, speaking rationally with nice table manners?

I’ve just seen a video where evil casually spears lettuce on a fork and calmly, scientifically, discusses the market for the body parts of aborted fetuses, while sipping a glass of wine.

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior medical director for Planned Parenthood, says in the video…

This absolutely horrific video was recorded last year by investigators from the Center for Medical Progress, a California-based group that is opposed to abortion.

They allege that federally subsidized Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider and abortion rights advocate, is illegally selling body parts in violation of the law. The group said it plans to release other video in coming days.

They have. There are now four available for viewing, all over the internet. Like here.

John Kass characteristically spoke from the heart, and said what so many Americans have said, on every social media platform they have, after these videos started coming out.

What’s chilling is the absolute calmness in her voice.

I’m certain Dr. Nucatola — enjoying a nice lunch of salad and red wine and discussing organ harvests of the unborn — doesn’t consider herself to be evil. Perhaps you don’t either.

But I do. I have no other way to see it…

You’re free to go online and see for yourself. You might see things differently. But the way I see it, the way I hear it, is that this is the way evil works best, not as a growling beast crouching in the darkness, but in a rational, scientific voice. It is the way it’s always worked, the way it worked years ago, the way it works now…

Conservatives are publicly angry, but liberals haven’t handled this well at all. Some have argued for a more strident defense of Planned Parenthood’s organ policy. It’s obvious that they’d like a good dose of righteous moral indignation. But how do you invoke morality to defend this?

The left has recently celebrated Roman Catholic Pope Francis, who shares their position on global warming. They’ve used the pope as a cudgel in political debate, to mock those who think “climate change” is little more than a slogan for big government and redistribution of wealth.

So here’s my suggestion: Why doesn’t the left call the Vatican and ask Pope Francis to weigh in on this one? Ask him when life begins, and if there’s any morality in harvesting the organs of fetuses for research.

One evolving argument of Planned Parenthood, parroted by their media and political advocates, is that if no profit is made, then it is legal to sell the parts for research, since payment goes to defray expenses in transportation of the fetal organs and other costs.

But who cares if it’s legal? I don’t care if it’s legal. Slavery was legal once too, and not just in America, but just about every other country in the world. The powerful have always legalized their subjugation of the less powerful. And in our the modern world, there is nothing less powerful than life in the womb.

 

Tagged with:
Jun 30

Read this open letter to the Gay Community from a loving daughter.

She wonders why there isn’t more attention on the rest of this story, namely the children raised by two mothers or two fathers.

Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.

I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn’t need or want a man. Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary…

I’m not saying that you can’t be good parents. You can. I had one of the best. I’m also not saying that being raised by straight parents means everything will turn out okay. We know there are so many different ways that the family unit can break down and cause kids to suffer: divorce, abandonment, infidelity, abuse, death, etc. But by and large, the best and most successful family structure is one in which kids are being raised by both their mother and father.

And she wonders why gay people’s kids can’t be honest in talking about the realities, for them, of gay marriage.

It promotes and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that we don’t need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we’re not. We’re hurting.

She notes that children of divorced parents, adopted children of biological parents they never knew, are “allowed” to speak out about their pain, suffering, longing, feelings.

But children of same-sex parents haven’t been given the same voice. It’s not just me. There are so many of us.

One of the first to publish such an account was Robert Lopez, and his account of being ‘raised by two moms’ clearly reveals his love for his mother, but also the long term impact that home life had on him. It opened the door for many other children of same-sex parents who were afraid to speak up because they loved them and didn’t want to hurt them.

In the past couple of days, that link has become inaccessible, and the online journal that published it has been dealing with technical issues. Which may or may not be related to the silencing Heather Barwick referred to in her honest, open letter.

If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater.

This isn’t about hate at all. I know you understand the pain of a label that doesn’t fit and the pain of a label that is used to malign or silence you. And I know that you really have been hated and that you really have been hurt. I was there, at the marches, when they held up signs that said, “God hates fags” and “AIDS cures homosexuality.” I cried and turned hot with anger right there in the street with you. But that’s not me. That’s not us.

That’s not most of us. It’s the extreme left and right doing the most outright condemnation. Most of us who are trying to engage at all, are trying to do so reasonably and charitably. Many of us make efforts to speak clearly and listen closely, with the courage of conviction and respect for the dignity of those who challenge and even try to silence our beliefs, beliefs which at core witness to human dignity.

So Heather Barwick closes her letter to the Gay Community in which she was raised, with which she identified most of her life, who she understands with great compassion, and appeals to now as a children’s rights activist, with this:

I know this is a hard conversation. But we need to talk about it. If anyone can talk about hard things, it’s us. You taught me that.

Tagged with:
Jun 28

The court didn’t interpret a law. It invented a right.

And it turned on the feelings and thoughts of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion and proved to be its pivotal player. No matter how prepared the experts in jurisprudence I’ve dealt with for years thought they were for this decision, they were all stunned when it came out, so sweeping was its usurpation of judicial power and lack of recourse to history and tradition.

So historic and pivotal a moment as this requires full examination, there are so many angles and issues. For now, start with law professor Helen Alvare’s early assessment of what happened, and especially whether and how the ruling considered a largely overlooked population of people generally left out of gay marriage debates: children.

Regarding children’s interests, until the first same-sex marriage opinions began to emerge in the states, every state and the US Supreme Court had grounded marriage recognition in the state’s interest in linking children with their parents. Adults received rights respecting marriage and parenting, because they first had duties — duties to the children the vast majority of marriages produced.

Today, the Supreme Court rules instead, however, that marriage is about adults’ “defin[ing] and express[ing] their identity,” adults’ desire for “nobility,” “fulfillment,” “aspirations,” “autonomy,” “self-definition,” avoiding of “loneliness,” and desire for “companionship and understanding”. The list goes on.

Regarding children? Who have now been stripped completely out of any definition of marriage that any state is permitted to have? The majority opinion assumes that there will be trickle-down benefits for children. But of course it could offer no evidence on this point. In fact, the vast majority of children (86%)[1] reared in same-sex homes have a legal mother and father and will not be affected by the new marriage rights of the same-sex couple in their home; they were conceived in a prior heterosexual relationship by one of the now-LGBT partners. And the testimony of now-adult children reared in same-sex homes reveals their deep longing and loss respecting the absent parent of an opposite sex, even as they often loved the adults who raised them.

More on that to follow here in the days ahead, with adult children of same sex parents now speaking out in greater numbers.

As for Helen’s footnote [1], here it is:

[1] Gary J. Gates, Family Formation and Raising Children Among Same-Sex Couples, Nat’l Council on Fam. Rel.: FAMILY FOCUS, Winter 2011, at F1 [hereinafter Gates, Family Formation] (“[One research study] suggest[s] that offspring of lesbian and gay parents are more often the product of different-sex relationships that occur before individuals are open about their sexual orientation.”); GARY J. GATES, WILLIAMS INST., LGBT PARENTING IN THE UNITED STATES (2013) (providing a statistical summary of the demographics of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) households); Ronald Bailey, “The Science on Same Sex Marriage,” The REASON FOUND. (April 15, 2013),  (“Nearly 20 percent of same-sex households . . . reported having children, and 84 percent contained children biologically related to one of the householders.”).

Links are on the Crux post of her opinion piece, which should be thoroughly read.

So should this piece by Professor Alvare.

Today’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which invents a constitutional right to same-sex marriage applicable to the 50 states, is a story of judicial pride, successful marketing by same-sex marriage groups, and the triumph of modern therapeutic individualism. It is not a legal story. It has “nothing to do with” the Constitution, as Chief Justice Roberts so accurately states in his dissent…

Roberts warned same-sex marriage advocates that they had “lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause,” because such opportunities require legitimate democratic process, not constitutionally illegitimate fiat.

This is only the beginning of a better understanding of what’s happened here. And what is about to.

Tagged with:
Jun 25

That’s how the Wall Street Journal described the second Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act, as written.

Which is precisely what was at the heart of the case before the justices yet again, what the AFA said. Here’s the later version of the WSJ story, though the news alert that dropped into my inbox said this in opening summary:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Obama administration can continue to subsidize health-insurance purchases by lower-income Americans across the country, a decision that preserves a centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act.

The ruling marks the second time President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement has survived a near-death experience in the courts, and leaves the law on a firmer footing for the remainder of his time in office.

And thus

rescuing for the second time the most ambitious social program in nearly 50 years and ensuring that the law’s ultimate fate will be in the hands of the political process.

Which nearly everything is, these days. In the hands of the political process, that is. Except for those matters  in the hands of the judiciary, though that wing has long been bending in the direction of the prevailing political winds.

As usual, there’s a lot of coverage out there, something to fit any viewpoint. Though I’m a legal and policy wonk, my angle is of a purist, how carefully we adhere to the truth and meaning of language of law, policy, and everything else from political promises to social realities, scientific statements to biomedical facts, faith claims to gospel teachings, and all things as they uphold human dignity.

So the key issue for me is how words were so central to this case and final ruling. Leaving aside the specifics of the AFA, otherwise known as Obamacare, I believe everyone deserves health care. How that is best delivered is debatable. Interestingly, two allegedly conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, differed widely (and wildly) in their views of how to handle the Obamacare wording and challenge to it. And the wording of the opinion and dissent.

The WSJ reports:

The 6-3 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld a signature achievement of President Barack Obama’s tenure. In buttressing the health law’s legal foundation it raised the odds that it may become as entrenched as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The case turned on wording, as the WSJ and any other responsible media reported, no matter how else they reported it. In particular, four words: “established by the State”.

Carrie Severino explains at NRO:

On the Chief’s appeal to context, Scalia points out that context “is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.” But, as Scalia explains, the Chief’s opinion does not merely redefine the words “established by the State,” it effectively deletes them from the statute because the majority’s position is that they add precisely no meaning to the law. Yet Congress used this apparently meaningless phrase over and over. “It is bad enough for a court to cross out ‘by the State’ once. But seven times?”

To which dissenting Justice Scalia went to great lengths by delivering his lively and blistering dissent from the bench, which is unusual.

To mention just the highlights, the Court’s interpretation clashes with a statutory definition, renders words inoperative in at least seven separate provisions of the Act, overlooks the con­trast between provisions that say “Exchange” and those that say “Exchange established by the State,” gives the same phrase one meaning for purposes of tax credits but an entirely different meaning for other purposes, and (let us not forget) contradicts the ordinary meaning of the words Congress used. On the other side of the ledger, the Court has come up with nothing more than a general provision that turns out to be controlled by a specific one, a handful of clauses that are consistent with either under­standing of establishment by the State, and a resemblance between the tax-credit provision and the rest of the Tax Code. If that is all it takes to make something ambiguous, everything is ambiguous. (emphasis added)

There was a lot of buzz about judicial activism on this ruling. NRO’s Peter Augustine Lawler posted this in response.

I’m sympathetic with Roberts’s statesmanlike view that the judiciary is not the branch of government equipped, all alone, to save us from Obamacare. So he refuses an opportunity for “judicial activism.” But, from another view, he turns out to be quite the activist, telling Congress what it really meant by its incompetently drafted, screwed-up law. And so if judicial activism is a synonym for judicial legislation, that’s what we have here. Someone might say that Scalia was uncharacteristically the activist for wanting to strike part of the law down. But he claims to be doing the least activist thing by sending the law back to Congress. It should figure out what it really meant and then say that…

All in all, there are some interesting separation-of-powers issues here, as well as the one about the extent to which the Court should scope out the political environment before deciding whether or not to strike a law down.

Yes. Which is precisely the point. It was the point when the Blackmun court wrote abortion into law and cited the Constitution as grounding for it, making that up as it went. It was the point going back to the Dred Scott decision on slavery. Both issues involve classes of human beings denied human rights by the high court.

With this ruling, Justice Scalia said in his dissent, “words no longer have meaning”.

How that atmosphere impacted the decision on how the definition of marriage was deliberated and decided is about to become clear. The task of restoring the meaning of language in communicating human truths is as vital as ever. The merits of Justice Roberts majority opinion may be understandable to many people. But Justice Scalia’s clarifying blast is a valuable call for truth in justice.

Tagged with:
preload preload preload