“God bless Planned Parenthood” – PP Uses Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

[Wilikon]

Planned Parenthood Fakes Website Being “Hacked” In Pathetic Bid To Fundraise

https://twitter.com/SooperMexican/status/626606261577097216/photo/1

[Wilikon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8

Published on Jul 30, 2015
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

#PPSellsBabyParts PLANNED PARENTHOOD VP SAYS FETUSES MAY COME OUT INTACT, AGREES PAYMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE SPECIMEN
Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains VP & Medical Director Savita Ginde Discusses Contract Details, Aborted Body Parts Pricing, and How to Not “Get Caught”

Contact: Peter Robbio, probbio@crcpublicrelations.com, 703.683.5004

DENVER, July 30--New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) is a wealthy, multi-state Planned Parenthood affiliate that does over 10,000 abortions per year. PPRM has a contract to supply aborted fetal tissue to Colorado State University in Fort Collins.

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

Since PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in its 2nd trimester procedures, any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law (1 USC 8 ).

“We’d have to do a little bit of training with the providers or something to make sure that they don’t crush” fetal organs during 2nd trimester abortions, says Ginde, brainstorming ways to ensure the abortion doctors at PPRM provide usable fetal organs.

When the buyers ask Ginde if “compensation could be specific to the specimen?” Ginde agrees, “Okay.” Later on in the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing,” Ginde remarks. “If you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”

Ginde implies that PPRM’s lawyer, Kevin Paul, is helping the affiliate skirt the fetal tissue law: “He’s got it figured out that he knows that even if, because we talked to him in the beginning, you know, we were like, ‘We don’t want to get called on,’ you know, ‘selling fetal parts across states.’” The buyers ask, “And you feel confident that they’re building those layers?” to which Ginde replies, “I’m confident that our Legal will make sure we’re not put in that situation.”

As the buyers and Planned Parenthood workers identify body parts from last fetus in the path lab, a Planned Parenthood medical assistant announces: “Another boy!”

The video is the latest by The Center for Medical Progress documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Elected officials need to listen to the public outcry for an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while the 10 state investigations and 3 Congressional committees determine the full extent of Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby parts.” Daleiden continues, “Planned Parenthood’s recent call for the NIH to convene an expert panel to ‘study’ fetal experimentation is absurd after suggestions from Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Ginde that ‘research’ can be used as a catch-all to cover-up baby parts sales. The biggest problem is bad actors like Planned Parenthood who hold themselves above the law in order to harvest and make money off of aborted fetal brains, hearts, and livers.”

###

See the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZ...

Tweet: #PPSellsBabyParts

For more information on the Human Capital project, visit centerformedicalprogress.org.
The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.

[Wilikon]

Planned Parenthood “Hacking” Sure Looks Like An Orchestrated PR Stunt


Planned Parenthood claims on several of its websites that the organization’s web operations have been attacked by “extremists,” but this so-called hacking has all the hallmarks of an orchestrated public relations stunt.

Numerous people on Twitter pointed to evidence suggesting that this so-called hack wasn’t a hack at all:


A review of the source code of the main page that appears at PlannedParenthood.org shows that as of 9:30 a.m. today, the page is listed as a “Campaign” and uses a specific template named “Site Down Tempalte” (the typo is theirs). The same page then directs visitors to the Facebook page of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the political fundraising arm of the nation’s largest abortion provider. The web page for PPAF–which can be accessed via both plannedparenthoodaction.org and ppaction.org–repeats the same hacking claims and contains the exact same source code and template used on the PlannedParenthood.org page.


[...]
Planned Parenthood says it’s been hacked by “extremists,” but a review of the publicly available evidence suggests that the only things being hacked at Planned Parenthood right now are perfectly healthy and viable unborn babies.


http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/30/planned-parenthood-hacking-sure-looks-like-an-orchestrated-pr-stunt/

[Wilikon]

In latest video, Planned Parenthood staff exclaim "It's a baby" as they dissect a young boy for parts for sale.

Just two days after the release of video showing Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood employees picking apart a recently aborted child for parts, the Center for Medical Progress released another video featuring a conversation with Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains VP & Medical Director Savita Ginde. Here are 8 disturbing moments from the video.

While Planned Parenthood’s public relations campaign resorts to euphemisms about “fetal tissue,” Planned Parenthood officials such as Ginde speak more clearly about the organs they harvest from aborted children. Here Ginde talks about organs, including “the whole brain” coming out as abortive waste.


http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/30/8-shocking-moments-from-4th-planned-parenthood-video/

[Wilikon]

Pro-Life Group Tells Dana Loesch “The Videos Get Worse” – TX Group Makes $120,000 a Month Selling Body Parts


Daleiden explains more about the Houston clinic, which, as discovered today in a Texas senate committee hearing, makes $120k a month from the harvesting of aborted infant body parts.

“A six story tall abortion clinic … they have been selling aborted fetal tissue for over ten years at this point.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2T_NZbDsrE



http://danaloeschradio.com/video-center-for-medical-progress-says-the-videos-get-worse

[Wilikon]

Planned Parenthood Changes Story On Website Being “Hacked” To Just “Undergoing Maintenance”…

[...]

Later Thursday, the original message was taken down and replaced with a note that made no mention of the hack at all. "Our normal site is currently undergoing maintenance," it said. "Below you will find information to help you find a Planned Parenthood health center, book an appointment, and get involved with Planned Parenthood." Instead of redirecting users to another page on the site, the button now provides a phone number for donations.

As of Thursday afternoon, Planned Parenthood had not removed its Facebook post on the hack which says that "today, anti-abortion extremist hackers brought down plannedparenthood.org."

The alleged hack comes in the wake of several undercover videos that reveal high-level Planned Parenthood executives trafficking fetal organs and just days after Planned Parenthood hired crisis PR firm SKDKnickerbocker.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2569277?utm_content=buffer44cdc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Wilikon]

Dana Talks With The Man Behind The Planned Parenthood Videos



"I'm Sad To Say The Video's Do Get Worse"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2T_NZbDsrE

[Wilikon]

White House Says Planned Parenthood Videos Are Fake, Cites Planned Parenthood



The White House expressed its firm belief Thursday that recently-released videos attacking Planned Parenthood are “fraudulent.” Their source: Planned Parenthood.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, was speaking with reporters when they raised the matter of the videos released by the Center for Medical Progress which appear to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of fetal organs for profit, a violation of federal law. He claimed the videos were released in a “fraudulent way” with “not a lot of evidence” behind them.

“There is ample reason to think that this is merely the tried and true tactic that we’ve seen from extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release this edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person that’s actually speaking,” Earnest said.

But Earnest indicated that the reason he thought the videos were fraudulent was because, well, Planned Parenthood had told him as much.

“Planned Parenthood has indicated that’s exactly what occurred here,” he said. “And any review of the policy that PP says they implement indicates the views expressed in the videos, or at least the way they’re pictured on the videos, is entirely inaccurate.”

In other words, Earnest said, because the images on the videos don’t correspond to Planned Parenthood’s official policies, they must be untrue. Earnest even encouraged reporters looking for more information to simply contact Planned Parenthood.

Earnest admitted he did not know if President Obama had actually watched any of the videos.

“I do know he has been following this story in the news,” he said.

Even if Obama had not watched the videos, though, Earnest said he was sure the president would oppose any effort by Republicans to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

“The President certainly will not support another effort by Republican to try to defund an organization that offers important and needed healthcare services to women across the country.”


http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/30/white-house-says-planned-parenthood-videos-are-fake-cites-planned-parenthood/

[Wilikon]

N.O.W. President: Our “Beloved” Planned Parenthood “Has Nothing To Apologize For”…




Continuing the effort on the now-cancelled MSNBC’s Now to defend Planned Parenthood from its video scandal, National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill joined host Alex Wagner on Thursday to gush over how the “beloved” provider of abortions and alleged seller of body parts from aborted babies “has nothing to apologize for” and mocked female GOP senators who want to defund the taxpayer-funded group.

Gleefully surmising that Republican women in Congress who are leading the funding effort “are not going to hold their seats much longer, quite frankly,” O’Neill charged that “[t]he Republican leadership has an unfortunate history of chewing up women and spitting them out” in that “[t]hey use them and as long as they’re useful, they use them sort of as cover for their losing the women’s vote.”


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2015/07/31/now-president-beloved-planned-parenthood-has-nothing-apologize?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.j0SMU6ce.dpuf

[Wilikon]

Damage control, indeed: Democrats don’t have a response to Planned Parenthood videos



It’s their own fault, really. After abandoning the “safe, legal, and rare” position adopted by Bill Clinton in the 1990s for absolutism on anytime-and-anywhere abortions, Democrats left themselves exposed for backlash from an electorate mostly inclined to limit abortions if the true nature of the act ever got played out on a national stage. Now that disaster has arrived, Democrats have no idea how to handle it, thanks to their abandonment of moderation:

The videos, produced by the anti-abortion nonprofit and self-described “citizen journalist” project Center for Medical Progress (CMP), have put Planned Parenthood on the defensive—and the Democratic candidates for president, too. For Democrats, the push against Planned Parenthood is eerily reminiscent of a debate their party started to lose nearly 20 years ago, when abortion opponents used the politics of revulsion to sway public opinion on so-called partial-birth abortion.

In other words, the CMP videos have given pro-lifers plenty of gross-out pull quotes, leaving Democrats in the presidential race struggling to respond. …

But ask a Democratic candidate about the videos, and answers are less than forthcoming. In fact, it’s not even clear if Hillary Clinton and her primary competitors have watched them.

Asked by the New Hampshire Union Leader on Wednesday if she had seen the videos, Clinton responded, “I have seen pictures from them and I obviously find them disturbing.” She stopped short of calling for an investigation, however, saying only that if there were to be a congressional inquiry then “it should look at everything and not just one part of it.”



That response has Democrats and abortion supporters panicking, Dave Weigel reports for the Washington Post:


That line had the intended effect. It rattled abortion rights supporters, reminding them that the Democratic frontrunner for president had hedged on their issue. The fight to defund Planned Parenthood is only the latest in a series of conservative attempts to shift the conversation on abortion, from one that bedevils Republicans to one that flummoxes Democrats. Instead of speaking generically — and popularly — about “women’s health care,” the Planned Parenthood sting forced Democrats to confront the little-covered and gruesome issue of fetal tissue sales.

Clinton’s “disturbing” comment, made in an interview with New Hampshire’s Union Leader, landed poorly. It did not matter that Planned Parenthood’s CEO Cecile Richards had apologized for the conversations in the video sting. The Democratic frontrunner, seemingly, had been forced into a defensive crouch. “She needs to clarify what her [point of view] is, and articulate it strongly and without apology,” former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt told MSNBC’s Irin Carmon. “I just think that when candidates get to the firing line of a campaign they get thrown off balance and waffle.” …

Conservative news sites, spotting an opportunity, have repeatedly asked the Democratic presidential candidates to talk about the videos. None have been willing to defend the videos’ contents.


That might be because they’re indefensible. Instead of attempting to rationalize the horrors within these videos, including today’s eye-popping comments “it’s a baby” and “another boy!” from Planned Parenthood personnel, Planned Parenthood and its apologists have tried to change the subject. Any subject other than the clear message that abortions kill human life will do, whether it’s the ethics of using covertly recorded conversations (which didn’t bother these same people when it happened to Mitt Romney) or claiming victimhood at the hands of political opponents.

They also want to shut down the discussion by blocking the release of any more videos, and momentarily succeeded with a judge in Los Angeles. That ruling, though, turns out to be very narrow — and probably unenforceable anyway, as Ken White explains at Popehat:


Under this doctrine, if you try to get a court to prohibit a publication in advance — or order it taken down — on the grounds that it’s defamatory, you’ll almost certainly fail. The remedy is to seek damages afterwards. But StemExpress’ complaint isn’t about defamation. It’s about illegal recording and about violation of a nondisclosure agreement — an agreement that CMP operatives signed, attached to StemExpress’ complaint as an exhibit.

Recordings made secretly in violation of California Penal Code section 632(a) are inadmissible — you can’t illegally record someone and then use that recording as evidence against them in a case.1 But I see no authority suggesting that the general rule against prior restraint is relaxed when the communication in question is an illegal recording under California law. Courts have generally declined to create broad exceptions to the prior restraint doctrine for illegally recorded materials, particularly in a “investigative reporting” context. The recordings — and maybe even the publications of them — can be punished, but there’s not strong authority for them being prevented in advance.So: to the extent this TRO purports to rely upon the fact that the recording was illegal, it is of very dubious constitutionality.

Remarkably, StemExpress’ TRO application contains no prior restraint analysis whatsoever. Its sole concession to the First Amendment is an argument that (1) this isn’t a First Amendment violation because it’s an illegal recording, and (2) it’s not a First Amendment violation because the defendants are free to speak or write about what happened at the meeting, they just can’t release the recording. We don’t have a transcript of the hearing, and we don’t know what other arguments the court may have considered, but this is troubling.


And it could already be moot:


Right now CMP is bound by the order: its options are an emergency appeal or a knowing violation with all the consequences that follow. However, if CMP already provided the video to someone else independent of them, that person has the right to publish the video, and almost certainly can’t be subject to prior restraint. The Supreme Court has made it very difficult to prevent the media from publishing illegally-obtained materials of public interest when the media in question wasn’t complicit in getting those materials.


How much do you want to bet that this has already taken place?

At any rate, the notion of prior restraint is ironic in this debate. Had Democrats continued their “prior restraint” on abortion, the backfire from these videos would be much less problematic for their candidates up and down the 2016 ticket. Instead, they backed the extremist position, and now they find themselves in a corner over it. They have no response, because the truth in these videos cannot be denied — abortion kills human beings, abortionists know it and profit off of the destroyed human life, and Democrats want to protect the destruction of life all the way to birth.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/30/damage-control-indeed-democrats-dont-have-a-response-to-planned-parenthood-videos/

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Thanks for the update.

I highly believe they gave the video to others before publishing even the first one. They probably set it up in a way, even if they died, they would be released at some point. Guest a guess though.

[Wilikon]

Thanks for the update.

I highly believe they gave the video to others before publishing even the first one. They probably set it up in a way, even if they died, they would be released at some point. Guest a guess though.

This is a clear David Vs Goliath situation here. I hope they brought more than a shepherd's sling to the fight, and have more as backups...

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Thanks for the update.

I highly believe they gave the video to others before publishing even the first one. They probably set it up in a way, even if they died, they would be released at some point. Guest a guess though.

This is a clear David Vs Goliath situation here. I hope they brought more than a shepherd's sling to the fight, and have more as backups...

You say that as if Goliath won...

[Wilikon]

Thanks for the update.

I highly believe they gave the video to others before publishing even the first one. They probably set it up in a way, even if they died, they would be released at some point. Guest a guess though.

This is a clear David Vs Goliath situation here. I hope they brought more than a shepherd's sling to the fight, and have more as backups...

You say that as if Goliath won...

No I did not.

[Wilikon]

Planned Parenthood Received Millions of Dollars After Lobbying Clinton’s State Department

Planned Parenthood and international affiliates received more than $100 million from USAID

Planned Parenthood lobbied the Department of State many times during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there and received tens of millions of dollars from foreign policy agencies over the past few years, according to a new report.

As secretary of state, Clinton attacked the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funding of abortion overseas. Her husband revoked the policy during his administration and President Obama lifted the ban upon taking office in 2009. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which is tied to the State Department, steered more than $100 million in funding to Planned Parenthood, its international affiliates, and the pro-abortion Population Council between 2010 and 2012, according to the Government Accountability Office—about 20 percent of the nearly $500 million pro-abortion organizations received from taxpayers during that time frame.

The taxpayer dollars that Planned Parenthood received dwarfed the $3.4 million that Planned Parenthood spent on lobbying during President Obama’s first term, according to a report from Women Speak Out PAC, a partner of the Susan B. Anthony List, and American Rising. Government records document more than 30 instances of Planned Parenthood lobbying federal agencies, including the State Department while Clinton was serving there.

Congress is now considering bills to deny taxpayer funds to the nation’s largest abortion provider after undercover video surfaced from the non-profit Center for Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the harvesting of fetal organs and the price of body parts. The group released a fourth video Thursday showing executives at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains carving up aborted babies while saying “it’s a baby” and “another boy.” The executive identified as Savita Ginde also tells the undercover videographers, who posed as prospective organ buyers, how Planned Parenthood justifies the sale of those organs.

“In public I think it makes a lot more sense for it to be in the research vein than, I’d say, a business venture,” she said. Planned Parenthood has responded to the scandal of the videos by claiming the fetal body parts are used for research on numerous occasions.

Clinton is the top recipient of campaign donations from workers at the nation’s largest abortion provider, including a $2,700 donation from the CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Vicki Cowart. The nearly $10,000 she received from Planned Parenthood employees and executives is about 20 times more than the rest of the presidential field combined.

Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to requests for comment.

Pro-life activists, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of SBA List, have criticized Clinton’s support for abortion and Planned Parenthood throughout her political career.

“For more than two decades, her cozy relationship with Planned Parenthood was a source of cash and powerful political support. In light of yet another video brutally detailing the reality of abortion and harvesting of baby organs, it is a massive liability,” she said.

The Clinton campaign has drawn heavily from pro-abortion professionals. One of its top officials in Iowa, the nation’s first primary state, is Lily Adams, daughter of Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards. Jane Emerson, the women’s outreach director of Clinton’s failed 2008 campaign, previously served as CEO of the abortion provider’s South Carolina operations.

Planned Parenthood has also partnered with Clinton’s controversial family foundation, helping with six projects under the Clinton Global Initiative umbrella. The Clinton Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.

Clinton, a recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award, initially defended the billion dollar organization when the Center for Medical Progress released several hours of undercover video showing Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the harvesting of fetal organs and the price of body parts. Those videos captured numerous officials and medical personnel discussing the various techniques that the abortionist employees to recover intact body parts, which would violate federal law. Three congressional committees are now investigating Planned Parenthood over these violations.

Clinton has since backed away from outright support of the organization. After a third video was released Tuesday showing a former organ retrieval technician discuss how clinics financially benefit from the practice, Clinton told the New Hampshire Union Leader that she found the imagery “disturbing.”

“I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing,” she said. “This 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 … If there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one [organization].”

Dannenfelser said that Clinton’s tepid support for the investigation was smart politics as voters react to the video scandal.

“Hillary Clinton, like many Democrats have painted themselves into a corner by supporting abortion on-demand, up until the moment of birth, paid for by taxpayer dollars. The more Americans learn the truth about this extreme position, the more they will reject it,” she said.


http://freebeacon.com/politics/planned-parenthood-received-millions-of-dollars-after-lobbying-state-department-parterning-with-clinton-foundation/

[Wilikon]

“In a meeting with their top leadership, they admitted that they sometimes get fully intact fetuses shipped to their laboratory from the abortion clinics they work with, and that could be prima facie evidence of born alive infants. And so that’s why they’re trying to suppress that videotape and they’re very scared of it.”


http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/planned-parenthood-fourth-video/index.html

[protokol]

Can someone explain to me exactly what the problem is with this? If the law is the problem, according to this link it's legal to sell fetal body parts: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-sale-of-fetal-body-parts-is-gruesomebut-its-also-legal.

I see everyone shouting about how awful it is, but no real justification about why. Would you just throw the fetuses in the bin instead?

I guess in an ideal world, the clinics would give the fetuses for free to research companies.

[Wilikon]

Can someone explain to me exactly what the problem is with this? If the law is the problem, according to this link it's legal to sell fetal body parts: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-sale-of-fetal-body-parts-is-gruesomebut-its-also-legal.

I see everyone shouting about how awful it is, but no real justification about why. Would you just throw the fetuses in the bin instead?

I guess in an ideal world, the clinics would give the fetuses for free to research companies.

You do not need the help of anyone to find out why it would be evil and illegal to profit from the sale of human body parts. That is why pp is stating and fighting back hard, saying those videos are not showing negotiations of a business transaction but the cost of reimbursement...

Why would a "good doctor" joke about getting a Lamborghini if all they were doing was talking about cost reimbursement? Wouldn't be more appropriate to have pp's Certified Public Accountant be doing the talking and not the doctors, haggling over price of baby body parts, in a meeting in a restaurant?

If this was legal, why denying it? PP should be open and free to push forward your argument: "Although a fetus is just a goop of cells, we need to sell it because it has value on a open market. Why trash it when we can make $$$"


I do not see what the big deal is. Be open. Let the people see it. Don't try to use the black robes to stop more videos to surface. Show everything. Free speech. Fully...

I hope you agree with me.

 

[protokol]

Can someone explain to me exactly what the problem is with this? If the law is the problem, according to this link it's legal to sell fetal body parts: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-sale-of-fetal-body-parts-is-gruesomebut-its-also-legal.

I see everyone shouting about how awful it is, but no real justification about why. Would you just throw the fetuses in the bin instead?

I guess in an ideal world, the clinics would give the fetuses for free to research companies.

You do not need the help of anyone to find out why it would be evil and illegal to profit from the sale of human body parts. That is why pp is stating and fighting back hard, saying those videos are not showing negotiations of a business transaction but the cost of reimbursement...

I kinda do, that's why I asked for it to be explained. I just posted a link (from a pro-life religious group) explaining why what they're doing is probably legal. And I don't see why profiting from the sale of human body parts is necessarily evil. In this case, would it not be morally worse to simply burn the fetuses and waste them? I assume I'm correct in thinking no girls were solicited into having an abortion for monetary gain by any party?

Why would a "good doctor" joke about getting a Lamborghini if all they were doing was talking about cost reimbursement? Wouldn't be more appropriate to have pp's Certified Public Accountant be doing the talking and not the doctors, haggling over price of baby body parts, in a meeting in a restaurant?

I agree, it would be more appropriate. Probably more expensive too. I don't know why the "good doctor" joked about a Lambo, don't see how it's relevant.

If this was legal, why denying it? PP should be open and free to push forward your argument: "Although a fetus is just a goop of cells, we need to sell it because it has value on a open market. Why trash it when we can make $$$"

I do not see what the big deal is. Be open. Let the people see it. Don't try to use the black robes to stop more videos to surface. Show everything. Free speech. Fully...

I hope you agree with me.

 

If it's illegal, tell me about the law they broke. They might well act shady and deny certain things, even if what they are doing is fully legal, because PR ≠ The Law.

You put a bit of a spin on my argument there, but essentially, that's what I think. I mean, this isn't even a debate about the actual abortion, the thing is already dead FFS. It's like having someone shit in your toilet, and you having the option to flush it or sell it for money. It's a crude analogy, but if I'm wrong, explain why.
As I said, in an ideal world it would be given for free, but unfortunately there's no such thing.

The big deal is, even if something is legal, it doesn't make it universally acceptable. They would be stupid to be fully open because they would get crucified by the public, because most people don't think rationally. There are other sectors which have this problem, such as the meat industry and the government (lol). PR is extremely important.

I'm all for free speech, but free speech doesn't mean everyone has to tell everyone else everything.

[Wilikon]

Can someone explain to me exactly what the problem is with this? If the law is the problem, according to this link it's legal to sell fetal body parts: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-sale-of-fetal-body-parts-is-gruesomebut-its-also-legal.

I see everyone shouting about how awful it is, but no real justification about why. Would you just throw the fetuses in the bin instead?

I guess in an ideal world, the clinics would give the fetuses for free to research companies.

You do not need the help of anyone to find out why it would be evil and illegal to profit from the sale of human body parts. That is why pp is stating and fighting back hard, saying those videos are not showing negotiations of a business transaction but the cost of reimbursement...

I kinda do, that's why I asked for it to be explained. I just posted a link (from a pro-life religious group) explaining why what they're doing is probably legal. And I don't see why profiting from the sale of human body parts is necessarily evil. In this case, would it not be morally worse to simply burn the fetuses and waste them? I assume I'm correct in thinking no girls were solicited into having an abortion for monetary gain by any party?

Why would a "good doctor" joke about getting a Lamborghini if all they were doing was talking about cost reimbursement? Wouldn't be more appropriate to have pp's Certified Public Accountant be doing the talking and not the doctors, haggling over price of baby body parts, in a meeting in a restaurant?

I agree, it would be more appropriate. Probably more expensive too. I don't know why the "good doctor" joked about a Lambo, don't see how it's relevant.

If this was legal, why denying it? PP should be open and free to push forward your argument: "Although a fetus is just a goop of cells, we need to sell it because it has value on a open market. Why trash it when we can make $$$"

I do not see what the big deal is. Be open. Let the people see it. Don't try to use the black robes to stop more videos to surface. Show everything. Free speech. Fully...

I hope you agree with me.

 

If it's illegal, tell me about the law they broke. They might well act shady and deny certain things, even if what they are doing is fully legal, because PR ≠ The Law.

You put a bit of a spin on my argument there, but essentially, that's what I think. I mean, this isn't even a debate about the actual abortion, the thing is already dead FFS. It's like having someone shit in your toilet, and you having the option to flush it or sell it for money. It's a crude analogy, but if I'm wrong, explain why.
As I said, in an ideal world it would be given for free, but unfortunately there's no such thing.

The big deal is, even if something is legal, it doesn't make it universally acceptable. They would be stupid to be fully open because they would get crucified by the public, because most people don't think rationally. There are other sectors which have this problem, such as the meat industry and the government (lol). PR is extremely important.

I'm all for free speech, but free speech doesn't mean everyone has to tell everyone else everything.

You agree we should see all the videos and see if they found something that was illegal or not. That would be the best logical outcome, don't you think? Why prejudge what took them almost 3 years undercover, 300 hours of videos. Let's see everything.

Your turd was never alive. Even if you keep it inside for 9 months it won't generate another bigger better turd, smart enough to play with bitcoin one day. Unless you've been eating gold all your life it won't have any value for another human to play with. The golddingers in india spend a lot of times in sewers for that exact reason. Maybe for them it will have value if your trade was in jewelry for years and years.

A goop of cells has no value, according to the abortion industry... Until it does. Beside the humans who are paid to cut up little baby fingers still alive (the baby needs to be alive to keep the meat fresh for consumption), who do you know on this planet who would be OK with the practice in the videos? The cowboys and the meat industry you say? They do not keep the cattle alive while cutting it up in little pieces. Also anyone can see what they are doing. It is fully open. But you pretend it is the same.. Who am I to tell you it is not. We all have to believe in something.



I'm all for free speech, but free speech doesn't mean everyone has to tell everyone else everything.

Yes. It does. See... I read everything you tell me. Thank GOD for free speech! And the freedom of the press!