Miscarriage

 

A tale of two babies: Nathan Isaiah and #AnotherBoy

By Susan Michelle
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.
It was the best of times for Planned Parenthood workers in Colorado who picked apart the remains of an aborted 11.6-week-old aborted baby while fetal procurement buyers stood there ready to pay money per organ.

He is known as #AnotherBoy .
It was the worst of times in East Texas when Allison and Daniel found out their son, just 13 days older than the baby in Colorado had died in Allison’s womb. He is known as Nathan Isaia h.
As the Planned Parenthood scandal has grown weekly, virtually all of the most read stories on Live Action News have reflected that scandal. But one story has hovered in the top stories, shining light in the midst of the stories heralding death – the story of Nathan and his 13 week and 4 day life.
It seemed a curious thing for a story from September of 2013 suddenly appear on the most-read list again – just weeks before the Planned Parenthood scandal broke. In June, the story suddenly became a most-read story again on LifeSite News, who ran the Live Action story back in 2013, as well. When the Planned Parenthood story broke, it seemed likely Nathan’s resurgence for the four weeks previous would come to an end as the abortion revelations created an uptick in breaking story production.
But Nathan stayed.

Nathan, a contrast to what Planned Parenthood does, has remained a picture of what honoring life looks like. While Planned Parenthood researchers took the dead baby and rifled through for his heart and brain, even finding an eyeball, Allison and Daniel’s story showed the deep loss of a loved child.
At the time, Allison said:

From [the time I found out I had miscarried him] moment, I only had two requests from the Lord. I didn’t know what to expect and how things would go, but I knew that I absolutely did not want my baby ripped apart in an abortion-like procedure and discarded in some trashcan like he was worthless. I wanted to have my baby and take him home and give him the dignity of a burial.

They told me that a DNC is not as effective after 13 weeks in removing everything that needed to be removed and that I would need to be induced and have the baby in the hospital in Labor and Delivery, and that I would be able to take my baby home and bury him. A surge of validation, satisfaction, thankfulness, and relief flooded my heart! Just four days sooner and my baby’s body would have possibly been subjected to unspeakable horrors and possibly discarded like waste. How could such a thing be?

She birthed her son, a statement of honor for his life as a human being. And when he came out of her womb, she noted: “His little body was so perfect, with ten tiny fingers and ten tiny toes. He had a nose, a mouth, two little eyes and ears.”

Of course, #AnotherBoy had the same parts when he came out of the womb at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM). But his parts were put in a pie pan where technician with tweezers picked them apart for procurement to a biotech company.

Neither Nathan Isaiah nor #AnotherBoy received a death certificate. Isaiah was born in Texas, where the law says a baby has to have been at least 20 weeks old to have a death certificate.
#AnotherBoy wasn’t ever considered alive because he died by abortion.

This tale of two babies who died has two different endings. One life has lived on as a picture of hope, redemption, and life. The other has become a picture of death and destruction, bringing despair to women who found out their babies may have been treated the same way.
Allison gave Nathan his name because it means “gift of God.” While Allison and her family cherished their gift, giving him honor in life and death, Planned Parenthood uses these gifts for financial gain and experimental research.

The picture emanating from Planned Parenthood truly shows the worst of times, the darkness of a nation and its complicity with death. It shows a culture that profits off the shedding of innocent blood.

The picture emanating from Nathan shows the best of times, a culture that honors all life as a gift and cherishes it even in death. It shows a culture that grieves loss rather than profits from it.
Ultimately, that’s probably why the picture of Nathan remains on the most-read sidebar on Live Action News even now: Because people know life is sacred and need to see a picture of hope in a nation that is seeing the despair.
Editor’s note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org and is reprinted with permission.

Source: NRLC News

Assisted Suicide

 

The assisted suicide of Gill Pharaoh reminds us that there are actually limits to choice

By Dr. Peter Saunders
Editor’s note. Dr. Saunders is a former general surgeon and CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organization with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members.
Last week I was contacted by the Sunday Times who were planning to run a high profile story about a 75 year old retired nurse being helped to kill herself in Switzerland.
The story of Gill Pharaoh’s death was later published last Sunday under the title ‘Why I’d rather die than get old.’
It was subsequently rerun by national dailies and ITV .
Not to be outdone, the BBC, euthanasia cheerleader extraordinaire, has now made it into an international media story (which incidentally speaks volumes about their ideological bias given their deafening silence on the Planned Parenthood body part scandal ).

Gill Pharaoh

Pharaoh requested help to kill herself in a Basel ‘clinic’ because she found the reality of old age ‘awful’, did not ‘think old age is fun’, did not want to end up as a ‘hobbling old lady’ and because she did not want to be a ‘burden’ to her children. ‘The thought that I may need help from my children appalls me’, she wrote.

She added that expecting help from one’s children is ‘a most selfish and unreasonable view’.
And yet the former nurse had no major health problems and was on no medication. She had intermittent back pain following a bout of shingles and had tinnitus–about par for the course for a person of her age.

This evening I found myself live on ITV London in one of the most surreal TV debates of my life.
The debate was barely three minutes long and sandwiched between an account of a bus having its top taken off and an interview with a couple who had been married for 25 years after meeting on Cilla Black’s ‘Blind date’.

The show passed seamlessly from story to story with each being treated with an equal seriousness that only TV presenters could manage whilst keeping a straight face.
I started by saying that most people had been shocked and appalled by the Pharaoh case and that it had led to outrage on social media. The key question was why a woman encountering the usual maladies of growing old might resort to such desperate measures.
Sitting opposite me on the programme was Michael Irwin, retired GP and Director of the Society for Old Age Rational Suicide (SOARS).
Irwin is a seasoned euthanasia campaigner and was in fact struck off [removed] by the General Medical Council (GMC) in 2005 for attempting to help an Isle of Man politician take his own life.
He was subsequently thrown out of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (now renamed Dignity in Dying) for his propensity to break the law as a means to having it changed.
Irwin has helped over 20 people with advice about how to kill themselves in Switzerland and has actually accompanied four to their deaths. But he has somehow managed to evade prosecution for ‘encouraging or assisting suicide’, a crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison under the Suicide Act 1961.
I asked Irwin before the debate why he felt his life – at 84 he is nine years older than Pharaoh and hobbles with a walking stick – was worth living whilst Pharaoh’s was not. He said it was all about ‘choice’. She had had enough but he had not.
What was it that gave his life meaning and purpose and made him think that life was worth living? Apparently being able to have debates on media on the issue with people like me! His commitment to the cause gave him a reason to live.

And here we come to the nub of the debate. This is not really about pain, or terminal illness or disability or even old age because these are not the real things motivating those who make one way trips over the English Channel.
It’s really about meaning, purpose and hope. This is borne out by the published facts from jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal.

In the US state of Oregon those making use of the Death with Dignity Act give ‘loss of autonomy’ (93%), ‘loss of enjoyment of life’ (89%) and ‘loss of dignity’ (73%) as the top three reasons for ending their lives. In Washington 61% cite ‘fear of being a burden on others’.
These are not medical reasons – they are existential or, perhaps more accurately, spiritual reasons.
And feeling this way is not strongly correlated with health status either. There are many sick, elderly and disabled people (the overwhelming majority) who desperately want to live – to grow old with their loved ones, to enjoy the last vestige of what life has to offer.

Similarly there are able-bodied people who desperately want their lives to end – either because they have lost hope or, as in Pharaoh’s case, because of what they fear might happen to them in the future.
Which should surely, I would have thought, prompt the response of us doing all we can, both to restore hope and allay fear, by caring for the physical, social and spiritual needs of the whole person. Not to pass over a barbiturate-spiked drink or provide accompaniment for a grisly last journey.
Pharaoh’s (and Irwin’s) main argument is autonomy – choice. But choice is a two edged sword.
If choice really trumps all then why deny assisted suicide to anyone who wants it – including the ‘troubled teen’ and the ‘bereaved elderly’ as Philip Nitschke has put it? Why not set up euthanasia booths on every street corner and offer partakers ‘a martini and a medal’ before offering them the lethal draught, as novelist Martin Amis has seriously suggested?
That is surely what consistency about choice should lead us to accept.

But the truth is that choice, although resonating with the zeitgeist of our postmodern secular humanist society, is a lame and vacuous argument.
Each one of us actually believes that there are limits to choice. That is precisely why in a free democratic society we have laws. I’d even suggest it is in fact those laws which actually make us free. I am not free to speed on the freeway or to throw a brick through my neighbour’s window, or to run off with his wife – out of respect for my neighbour’s freedom and dignity.
Choice has limits and that is actually what this debate should be about – where those limits lie and why.

Every law on the statute books stops some person doing what they desperately want to do. But laws are necessary simply because the exercise of one person’s freedom may endanger or undermine the reasonable freedoms of another. The fact that I desperately want something is not sufficient reason to change the law so that I may have my wish granted.
And it has been consistently the judgement of parliaments, doctors’ groups and disability rights’ activists in this country that any law allowing assisted suicide would place a burden on vulnerable sick, elderly and disabled people to end their lives for fear of being a burden on others. It would undermine their freedom precisely because their choice would not thereby be free – it would rather be a coercive offer.

Being a burden is part and parcel of being human. All of us at some time of our lives – not least at both ends of life – will be a burden. But ‘mutual burdensomeness’ is what true family and community is all about.

Because a truly free and humane society is one in which the strong willingly make sacrifices for the weak, rather than sacrifice the weak to preserve their own freedoms.
By promoting the idea, as Pharaoh has (with the assistance of the British media), that it is ‘selfish and unreasonable’ to expect one’s loved ones (and the wider community) to offer care and support in times of need, is very dangerous indeed.
It will have the effect of intensifying the guilt that drives vulnerable people to contemplate suicide as a solution to ordinary human problems.
We should have no truck with this. There is a far better way of ministering to those paralysed in their choices by fear, dependence and lack of hope.

Bearing one another’s burdens is, after all, the essence of the ‘law of Christ’ (Galatians 6:2).
Editor’s note. This appeared at pjsaunders.blogspot.com and is reprinted with permission.

Source: NRLC News

Thoughts on De-Funding Planned Parenthood

 

The day after the debate over Planned Parenthood funding: Some thoughts

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-life Senator Joni Ernest (R-Iowa), sponsor of S.1881

The most important takeaway from yesterday’s vote on S. 1881 is not–repeat not–that the Democrats were able to block a bill that would end all federal funding of the nation’s largest abortion provider. While unfortunate, the inability of pro-lifers in the Senate to get 60 votes to “invoke cloture” (move the bill forward) is a mere bump in the road. Here’s what really matters.
#1. The vote was 53 to 46. But one pro-lifer was absent and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) switched his vote to opposition only so that he would be eligible to enter a motion to reconsider. So the real number is 55. Four years ago only 42 senators voted for the cutoff. Think about that for a second because

#2. That huge jump is primarily a reflection of your work at helping elect pro-life senators and the shock and horror engendered by the first four undercover videos filmed by the Center for Medical Progress. As ghastly and revolting as they were, there are many more to come. Today’s fifth video shows Planned Parenthood at its worst–so far. If anyone was genuinely on the fence–in or out of the U.S. Senate–this could well be the tipping point.

#3. Defenders of Planned Parenthood went to the attic and dusted off the old reliables. For example, that pro-life Senate Republicans were pandering to the “most extreme anti-choicers”; that without Planned Parenthood massive numbers of women would not receive needed health care, and (of course); that there were more important issues to occupy the Senate’s time.
From the viewpoint of PPFA’s most ardent supporters, you do what you have to even if it defies reason. But….

Only “extreme anti-choicers” grow nauseous watching and listening to leading PPFA executives paw through intact hearts and livers and lungs and brains? Really?
Only PPFA can provide basic health care? As was pointed out repeatedly, PPFA refers for mammograms, it does not (with perhaps one or two exceptions) actually perform them. It’s a variation on the “too big to fail” idea and is misleading from beginning to end.
And, honestly, is a discussion over infrastructure spending of more lasting significance than what a blatantly politicized organization–PPFA–can get away with because of almost uniform support by Democrats?

There are many others, here’s just one.
#4. In the most gentlemanly fashion, pro-life Sen. James Lankford (R-Ok.) refused to be browbeaten by the shrill and tiresome “war on women” mantra or by the haughty declaration that no father ever has a voice in what happens to his unborn children. He is the father of two daughters. I am the father of three daughters and a son. Like us, all fathers need to rise up to take a stand on behalf of the lives of their unborn children.

Monday’s vote is the first of many steps in the journey to de-fund an organization whose viciousness toward unborn children is matched only by its willingness to traffic in their body parts.

Great Read

 

Abby Johnson

Confessions of a former Planned Parenthood director

We've all been had. Even top pro-abort leaders are now admitting the obvious: that contraception access INCREASES the abortion rate.

Sorry folks. Contraception access increases abortions. And here’s the proo

Every time I post something on my Facebook about abortion, there will inevitably be someone who makes a comment that says something like this, "Don't women know how to use birth control these days? What is wrong with them? With so many birth control options these days, no one should ever have an abortion."

I supposed that is a really common misconception...that birth control reduces the abortion rate. But is that true? Look at this quote from Ann Furedi, the former director of British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Britain's largest abortion provider:

Often, arguments for increased access to contraception and for new contraceptive technologies are built on the assumption that these developments will bring down the abortion rate. The anti-choice movement counter that this does not seem to be the case in practice. Arguably they are right. Access to effective contraception creates an expectation that women can control their fertility and plan their families. Given that expectation, women may be less willing to compromise their plans for the future. In the past, many women reluctantly accepted that an unplanned pregnancy would lead to maternity. Unwanted pregnancies were dutifully, if resentfully, carried to term. In days when sex was expected to carry the risk of pregnancy, an unwanted child was a chance a woman took. Today, we expect sex to be free from that risk and unplanned maternity is not a price we are prepared to pay.

It is clear that women cannot manage their fertility by means of contraception alone. 

Contraception lets couples down. A recent survey of more than 2000 women requesting abortions at clinics run by BPAS, Britain’s largest abortion provider, found that almost 60% claim to have been using contraception at the time they became pregnant. Nearly 20% said that they were on the pill. Such findings are comparable to several other smaller studies published during the last decade… It is clear that contraceptives let couples down… The simple truth is that the tens of thousands of women who seek abortion each year are not ignorant of contraception. Rather they have tried to use it, indeed they may have used it, and become pregnant regardless.

Here's a statistic from the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm. This stat makes Planned Parenthood look terrible, so I can't imagine that this is not accurate. They have absolutely nothing to gain by putting this out there: "More than half of women obtaining abortions in 2000 (54%) had been using a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant."
How is it that abortion supporters understand that birth control does not reduce abortion, yet pro-lifers don't? Birth control was created so that we could separate sex from procreation. How do we not get that, pro-lifers? When you separate the act of sex from babies, of course abortions occur.

Let's look at a quote from Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, famous abortion-supporting feminist: "Until a 'perfect' method of contraception is developed, which will probably never happen, periods of heightened consciousness and extended practice of birth control will inevitably mean a rise in abortions."
In a book written by Petchesky, she comments on the research of demographer and feminist Susan Scrimshaw who linked rising abortions to wide acceptance of the birth-control pill:

But Scrimshaw reminds us that the pill, as a more effective method of reversible contraception that women had ever known, contributed to a climate of expectations that women need not and should not have to fear an unwanted pregnancy. Having a baby when you didn't want to became "unthinkable" for new generations of women, or for older generations in new stages in their lives. This change consciousness undoubtedly contributed to the rising abortions, for women who did not use the pill as well as those who did.

I'm not saying that you should only have sex when you are fertile. But to be perfectly honest, you should only have sex when you are open to life. Because believe it or not, babies are many times a result of sex. And that's the way it was intended to be.  
Look at these studies and articles, all showing that as the contraception rate increases, the abortion rate increases.
- Habit Persistence and Teen Sex: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?
- Adolescent sexual health in Sweden
- The False Promise of Contraception
- Greater Access To Contraception Does Not Reduce Abortions
Bottom line: Contraception does not reduce abortion. You may say, "Well, I'm on birth control for xyz health problem." Okay. I wrote an article specifically for you. You can view that here.
The great news is that you don't have to use birth control to space your children. Natural Family Planning works and is as effective, and sometimes more effective, than the birth control methods out there. Check out these websites for more information.
- Facts About Fertility
- I Use NFP
- Natural Womanhood

Source: LifeSite News

Alternative Health Centers

 

But where will all those poor women go for health care if we defund Planned Parenthood? Everywhere

11:45 am, Aug 3, 2015 Susan Michelle 6 Comments

If Planned Parenthood is defunded, health care access to poor women would expand.
Planned Parenthood is good at some things, admittedly, but its best skill is mastery of rhetoric. The abortion giant has done an effective job of convincing the American people of the lie that women need them for their healthcare. But that’s what it is, a complete lie.
There are approximately 59 affiliates that operate 700 Planned Parenthood clinics in the United States. Not all of those clinics offer a full-range of the few health care services some Planned Parenthoods offer. A Washington Post article says that there are actually 669 Planned Parenthood clinics in the United States now. But among the remaining clinics, even the few health care services they do are declining.
This is demonstrated in a graphic from Americans United for Life:

What is not declining are health care services in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC), which is the secret Planned Parenthood doesn’t want people to know. FQHCs are nonprofit or public organizations that offer services to all persons, regardless of the person’s ability to pay, and, unlike Planned Parenthood, “provide comprehensive primary care services.”
By contrast, there are over 1100 FQHCs in the United States that operate at about 6000 sites, and in addition, the Washington Post reports there are 9,059 community health care clinics, saying, “Throughout the country, community centers vastly outnumber Planned Parenthood, totaling 9,059 to 669. It would appear that women could still get the health care they need.”
The difference in patients served, also, is striking. Planned Parenthood says it offers its services to 2.7 million women per year (the majority of services to pregnant women, about 94 percent, are abortion services, so the health care services that don’t include abortion would be lower), and FQHCs served 21,726,965 people in 2013 alone. The numbers alone debunk Planned Parenthood’s assertion that poor people depend on them for health care services.
Of all areas where Planned Parenthood has played the “women need us to survive” card, Texas is probably the most notable after it passed its sweeping pro-life bill, HB2, which limited abortion access statewide. Planned Parenthood says this bill has actually hurt poor women who “depend on Planned Parenthood” for their basic health care. When HB2 passed, Planned Parenthood Action said “by virtually banning abortion [Governor Perry is] further denying women access to health care.”
What Planned Parenthood doesn’t tell you is that in the state of Texas there are 71 FQHCs (more than the total  number of national Planned Parenthood affiliates), that operate at 300 sites across the state. The list of clinic locations is also striking because it includes clinics in border towns, where Planned Parenthood has argued it’s difficult for poor women to have health care without their presence. The argument that Texas women need Planned Parenthood for basic health care is nullified by the facts.
But what about smaller states and rural communities? Planned Parenthood doesn’t have many offices in rural communities anyway because there isn’t much profit there. But take a look at this map of the nation’s FQHCs:

Clearly, there are multiple health care centers in rural communities across the nation. FQHCs are also located in large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago and Dallas. In short, there are many more FQHCs than there are Planned Parenthoods, and the defunding of Planned Parenthood would add half a billion dollars to the funding for these clinics.
Even the remote state of Maine with a total population of 1.33 million people has a abundance of health resources, as the Washington Post points out that “Maine has four Planned Parenthood installations and 135 community health centers that could accommodate women’s basic health needs.”
Even if Planned Parenthood’s money were not re-allocated, there would still be more access for poor and underserved women (and men, for that matter) than  is available at Planned Parenthood. But the money will likely be reallotted to these FQHCs. For example, the current Senate bill to defund Planned Parenthood, the one the White House has indicated it would veto, specifically says:

All funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities to provide women’s health care services

Planned Parenthood’s rhetoric has been effective to unsuspecting Americans, but the truth is out. The abortion provider is in it for the money, not for women’s health care. There are multiple free and low-cost health care providers in every area of the United States, including those Planned Parenthood doesn’t serve. By law, these FQHCs have to provide services to people regardless of their ability to pay.
The truth is, Americans need more FQHCs and the money Planned Parenthood takes from the government could be much more effectively used at these clinics nationwide. FQHCs are actually a funding designation, not a specific building; therefore, it is possible for other clinics to apply an qualify to provide even more services to poor Americans. Right now Planned Parenthood has half a billion dollars of money that could be helping many more people if it were dispersed appropriately.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s friendship with the abortion provider has clouded his judgment. He says he cares deeply for the poor of this nation, but when he has the opportunity to expand their health care services, he chooses the needs of his friend Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, instead of the needs of the poor people in rural communities and inner cities who need basic health care.

Source: LiveAction News

De-Fund Planned Parenthood

 

BREAKING: Senate will vote today to completely defund Planned Parenthood

  Kristi Burton Brown 

Today the U.S. Senate is set to vote on a bill, S.B. 1881, to completely defund Planned Parenthood.
The abortion giant has been embroiled in scandal since the mid-July release of a video series by the Center for Medical Progress. The videos show top Planned Parenthood officials breaking federal law and violating federal regulations by selling baby parts, modifying abortion procedures to harvest the parts, and likely performing partial-birth abortions. The fourth video – released just last Thursday – may prove that babies in their second trimester are being born alive and killed or left to die at a Planned Parenthood mega center in Denver, Colorado.

Since the original video (which has now been viewed over 2.7 million times), 12 states and three Congressional committees have announced investigations into Planned Parenthood. The public has responded with outrage, and the mainstream media – usually hesitant to cover the topic of abortion – has been constantly discussing the abortion giant.

Today’s bill to defund Planned Parenthood will not strip federal healthcare funds from women in need. Instead, the plan is for the money to be reallocated to Federally Qualified Health Centers and other similar healthcare providers. Because there are many more FQHCs than Planned Parenthood clinics across the nation, women’s access to true healthcare will actually increase. (There are approximately 9,000 health centers that serve women, but do not perform abortions.) Low-income, minority, and undeserved women will be taken care of by this bill.
Specifically, the bill states:

[A]ll funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities to provide women’s health care services.

Brian Burch of CatholicVote shares:

You don’t have to be a pro-life activist to realize that it’s wrong for American taxpayers to give over $500 million in taxpayer money to an organization accused of such heinous acts against children. Democratic Senators are expected to mount a vicious fight to prevent the Senate from getting to a final vote. That’s why if you live in Alaska, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia your call is especially important.
Planned Parenthood has received billions of taxpayer dollars over the decades, and has many friends in the media, and on Capitol Hill. But these videos have awakened the American people to what’s going on behind the closed doors of Planned Parenthood. We have to seize this moment and defund this abortion giant.

ACTION:
There are seven senators who need to hear from Americans, before today’s vote.
Especially if you live in Alaska, Illinois, Maine, Indiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia, please make a phone call now. Call on these senators to defund Planned Parenthood tonight.
Republicans:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R-AK) 202-224-6665
Sen. Mark Kirk, (R-IL) 202-224-2854
Sen. Susan Collins, (R-ME) 202-224-2523
Democrats:
Sen. Joe Donnelly, (D-IN) 202-224-4814
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, (D-ND) 202-224-2043
Sen. Bob Casey, (D-PA) 202-224-6324
Sen. Joe Manchin III, (D-WV) 202-224-3954

Source: LiveAction News

Another View

 

Former PP member: “Serious breaches of medical ethics” at Planned Parenthood

By Amanda Read
In the latest installment of an exclusive interview with Salon’s David Daley, Camille Paglia, an atheist professor and culture critic known for her no-holds-barred approach to issues of feminism and sexuality, has called out Planned Parenthood and mass media’s treatment of incriminating reports of their profiting from aborted baby body parts:

Now let me give you a recent example of the persisting insularity of liberal thought in the media. When the first secret Planned Parenthood video was released in mid-July, anyone who looks only at liberal media was kept totally in the dark about it, even after the second video was released. But the videos were being run nonstop all over conservative talk shows on radio and television. It was a huge and disturbing story, but there was total silence in the liberal media. That kind of censorship was shockingly unprofessional. The liberal major media were trying to bury the story by ignoring it.

Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights. But I was horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials. But here’s my point: it is everyone’s obligation, whatever your political views, to look at both liberal and conservative news sources every single day. You need a full range of viewpoints to understand what is going on in the world.

In the previous installment, Paglia notes that the feminist movement of the past couple of decades prioritized abortion rights over respect for women when power was on the line.

The horrible truth is that the feminist establishment in the U.S., led by Gloria Steinem, did in fact apply a double standard to Bill Clinton’s behavior because he was a Democrat. The Democratic president and administration supported abortion rights, and therefore it didn’t matter what his personal behavior was.

Paglia has a PhD from Yale University and is University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.
Editor’s note. This appeared at http://liveactionnews.org/former-planned-parenthood-member-serious-breaches-medical-ethics-planned-parenthood/#more-68552 and is reprinted with permission.

Source: NRLC News

Seared Conscience

 

10 disturbing quotes from a top Planned Parenthood abortionist

  Kristi Burton Brown 

Here’s the heart. My fingers will smoosh it if I try to pick it up. The heart is right there… A lot of times I‘ll get a full torso, spine, kidneys. You could send the whole thing or pick that apart… It’s a baby.

In the latest investigative video on Planned Parenthood, Dr. Savita Ginde, Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains — and her staff — make multiple horrifying comments. These comments shed light on the horrific reality of abortion.
The following words may be hard to stomach, but Americans need to remember that right now, abortion – the root of all these horrific videos – is legal in our nation. Abortion has allowed human beings to be treated like a commodity, a product, and a mere piece of “tissue.”
1. “It’s a baby.”

The following conversation between Ginde and the baby parts buyer speaks for itself, illustrating that Planned Parenthood is fully aware of the humanity of these tiny babies, who they rip apart, prod and poke, and then sell for more profit.

Ginde: So, also possibly a twin in there.

Ginde: This is part of the head.

Buyer: Oh wow. That – this is high quality.

Ginde: Yea. The nose?

Buyer: Yea, I see the mouth and everything

Ginde: Here’s the heart…My fingers will smoosh it if I try to pick it up. The heart is right there.

Ginde: A lot of times I‘ll get a full torso, spine, kidneys. You could send the whole thing or pick that apart.

Ginde: But sometimes with the residents, I tell them to poke around, and sometimes embryology will come full circle. Find all the parts you know…I think it’s pretty amazing.

Ginde: Do you want me to get rigid forceps or something so you can pull that out?

Buyer: Do you have like a little one?

Ginde: I don’t have a little one, but I have a big one. You can pull out a leg or something.

Buyer: Oh, and kinda just dangle it? Yea, why not?

Ginde: It’s a baby.

2. “If someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then they are intact…”

Dr. Ginde is admitting here that a good number of the second trimester babies at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) – about 10 percent – are born before the abortion is even performed. How many are born alive and either left to die or actively killed outside the womb?
3. “We’re doing procedures at 17 weeks, so we have fairly large identifiable parts. … And we’re planning on going to from 18 to 20 weeks by the end of the year.”

Baby at 20 weeks

These are the babies PPRM conducts abortions on.
4. “These are small jars, so technically you could put 100 in there [jars of baby body parts and organs], with our refrigerators, you could get that in there.”
What mental picture do you get, when you imagine 100 jars of baby body parts in a refrigerator, over at your local abortion clinic?
5. “Buyer: What do you extract with forceps at say, 15 or 16 weeks if you’re doing a combined – Ginde: Just the cal.”
“Cal” is short for calvarium, which is short for the head. Here, Ginde is describing to the buyer that, after most of the baby’s body has been suctioned away, the head is pulled out of the mother’s body with forceps. At this age, the baby’s head is too large to be sucked down a hose.
6. “I tend to be the provider there that goes up to 18 weeks. So…it might be easier to take some of that [baby parts] with me.”

Ginde describes how she works at another facility in Ft. Collins several times a month, as the abortionist who does abortions up to 18 weeks.
Here’s another mental picture for you: Dr. Ginde, driving on her way home (to her own nine-month-old twin boys), with jars of baby parts rattling around in her car – pieces of the babies she just killed, ready to be sold and shipped to the ready buyer.
7. “So our patients often times read in our consent forms, that says if they consent, we might take your products of conception and use it for research…”
“Products of conception”? What a nice way to avoid giving the facts to women: we are going to poke your ripped and bloody baby, point out his various organs and limbs, and sell him to a buyer. Do you consent to that? Of course, as Ginde admits later on: “They [patients] want to donate organs, they don’t need to know the process you go through…I find it all to be very fascinating. Nothing more than a fascination.”
8. “It’s not a study, it’s specimen procurement.”

Buyer: [A]s far as any oversight from PPFA national, is that necessary for you guys, or?

Ginde: Just a registration that says we’re doing it for study…It’s just a routine, and we don’t have to have IRB approval? Because, it’s not a real study. …

So basically, the national Planned Parenthood office allows its affiliates like PPRM to submit a “registration” that says they are harvesting baby parts for a study, but it’s not really a “real study” or a “study” at all.
9. “[I]t’s so big you can just put your hand in there and pick it up, the parts. … And so, I don’t think it would be as…war-torn.”
Planned Parenthood is absolutely waging a war on the most innocent, helpless human beings among us. What will we do to stop this war?
10. “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”
“How much we can get out of it,” but this isn’t about the profit?

As we see from Dr. Ginde’s comments, this “piece of tissue” has a heart, a brain, two legs, two arms, eyeballs, and a nose. This “product of conception” was a baby—a boy— a unique human being who was never given a full chance at his own life.
For the sake of #AnotherBoy, read, consider, and share these comments. This is what Planned Parenthood is truly about – deep on the inside, when they think no woman is listening.

Source: LiveAction News

Judicial Bias?

 

BREAKING: Federal judge blocks more Planned Parenthood videos from release

  Susan Michelle 

Judge William H. Orrick

Only hours after the National Abortion Federation (NAF) filed a request for a restraining order and injunction against the Center for Medical Progress releasing any videos, a federal judge in San Francisco has granted the request. The order will last until a hearing Monday.
The story reports:

In his three-page order, Orrick said the federation would likely suffer irreparable injury absent a temporary restraining order “in the form of harassment, intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation.”

Further, the story says:

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asks that the Defendants be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from publishing or otherwise disclosing any recordings or confidential information from NAF annual meetings, publishing or otherwise disclosing the names or addresses of any NAF members that they learned at NAF annual meetings, and attempting to gain access to any future NAF meetings.

NAF president Vicki Saporta

Vicki Saporta, NAF president and CEO, responded:

We are grateful that the judge recognized the serious threat against NAF members and the necessity of this restraining order. Our members can rest easier this weekend knowing that they are protected.

Later, The Federalist reported that Judge Orrick was an Obama appointee, revealing a serious conflict of interest:

Orrick was nominated to his position by hardline abortion supporter President Barack Obama. He was also a major donor to and bundler for President Obama’s presidential campaign. He raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen.

CMP and its leader David Daleiden contend they have not violated any privacy laws.  CMP issued a statement today in response to the filing of this suit:

The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work. The National Abortion Federation is a criminal organization that has spent years conspiring with Planned Parenthood on how to violate federal laws on partial-birth abortion and fetal tissue sales. The Center for Medical Progress will contest any attempts to suppress our First Amendment rights to free speech or silence the freedom of the citizen press.

However, the NAF seems to have something to hide or it wouldn’t be so fearful about what might be in the videos. The same thing happened Wednesday when StemExpress obtained a temporary restraining order to prevent CMP from releasing any videos that show members of their leadership. Later, CMP President, Daleiden, said on CNN:

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.

Notably absent thus far from the lawsuit frenzy to censor CMP is Planned Parenthood itself, the target of the exposé. It’s likely that if the abortion giant filed a suit, it would then have to answer questions in court.

ACLJ’s Jay Sekulow

Daleiden and CMP, however, are not easily quieted and have retained Jay Sekulow’s legal team, the American Center for Law and Justice. Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, said today:

This is a critical case involving the First Amendment and the constitutionally-protected rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We are representing all of the defendants in this federal case and will aggressively defend against this unwarranted attack on the First Amendment.

While there are now two restraining orders against CMP and some video releases, the orders do not apply to videos not showing StemExpress or the NAF. Further, the lawsuits themselves show fear and imply guilt. They also open up the possibility of these agencies having to testify under oath about the accusations.
You can read the text of Judge Orrick’s order here.

Source: LiveAction News

Planned Parenthood

 

Still crazy after all these years: “There is no reason a conversation about products of conception requires more or less reverence than one about a kidney or a biopsy specimen”

By Dave Andrusko
  We have four posts today that investigate various components of a scandal that has Planned Parenthood calling in the heavyweight PR-types to spin the story out of the danger zone. But first something I’ve been meaning to write about since the Center for Medical Progress’s first undercover video showed Planned Parenthood for exactly what it is.

Why should PPFA and its gazillions apologists rely on misleading and overheated rhetoric about “highly” this and “highly” that (such as “highly edited,” “highly selectively edited,” and “highly doctored,” Cecile Richards’ tedious redundancies when she appeared on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”)?

Think about the last couple of years. What’s the message from the Abortion Establishment and its minions in the entertainment industry?

It’s quite simple. Seen properly, abortion is not even a nothing. Offing your unborn kid, no matter how developed she or he may be, is the moral equivalent of… Actually, there is no moral component, except that any attempt to curb a woman’s absolute right to abort is immoral.
Abortion, in fact, is nothing more than a punch line (see the moronic “Obvious Child”). Better yet (so to speak), demolishing those products of conception affords an opportunity for female bonding and for establishing a kind of career –see Emily Letts–by uploading a video of you joyfully annihilating your kid to YouTube. As she told the Philadelphia Inquirer

“Yes, I don’t have any guilt. I feel like the reason people are going crazy over my story is because they want it. Women and men have been thirsting for something like this. You don’t have to feel guilty. I feel super great about having an abortion, because it was the right decision for my life.”

  When I first heard about Letts, I thought it was put-on. Wrong. Then I read “The Many Manipulations of the Planned Parenthood Attack Videos: An OB/GYN explains how medically incorrect language is used to distort the facts,” by Jen Gunter. If I hadn’t read it with own eyes in the New Republic, I would have thought for sure that this was a pro-life spoof of Abortion Speak.
You can read her astonishing piece at www.newrepublic.com/article/122355/many-manipulations-planned-parenthood-attack-videos, but if you don’t have time, here’s the operative two paragraphs.
Referring to what you saw with your own eyes in the first two CMP videos, we’re told (and remember, I am not making this up)

These are not “baby parts.” Whether a woman has a miscarriage or an abortion, the tissue specimen is called “products of conception.” In utero, i.e. during pregnancy, we use the term “embryo” from fertilization to ten weeks gestation and “fetus” from ten weeks to birth. The term baby is medically incorrect as it doesn’t apply until birth. Calling the tissue “baby parts” is a calculated attempt to anthropomorphize an embryo or fetus. It is a false image—a ten to twelve week fetus looks nothing like a term baby—and is medically incorrect. 

Hearing medical professionals talk casually about products of conception may seem distasteful to some, but not to doctors. Medical procedures are gory by nature. Surgeons routinely cut skin, saw bones, and lift the uterus out of the abdominal cavity and then put it back in. We stick our hands inside people and it is messy. We handle broken limbs, rotting flesh, and cancers that smell. We talk about this calmly because this is what we are trained to do. It doesn’t mean that we are heartless; it means we are professionals and this is our norm for a clinical conversation. There is no reason a conversation about products of conception requires more or less reverence than one about a kidney or a biopsy specimen. 

  I won’t bother to go on at length, because anything I could say, you could say better. I would only note that if we believe Dr. Gunter (an “OB/GYN”), that 32 week old unborn baby who is keeping her mom from getting a good night’s sleep is a “fetus.” And to call this creature a “baby” is to “anthropomorphize” which, by the way, is “to attribute human form or personality to things not human,” to quote from the Merriam Webster dictionary.
In Part Two, where I talk about the latest CMP video released today, I will interpret what technicians are doing to the scattered body organs of aborted babies through the blinkered vision we see displayed in Dr. Gunter’s second paragraph.
Clearly they share her view that fetal lungs and hearts and thymuses and brains are worth a conversation–except to barter over how much they can be sold for.

Source: NRLC News