Liberal Media

 

NY Times editorial rants and raves against undercover PPFA videos

By Dave Andrusko
  Here’s the concluding paragraph of “The Campaign of Deception Against Planned Parenthood,” an editorial that was published in today’s New York Times trashing the undercover videos of two Planned Parenthood officials nonchalantly talking about the going price for intact baby body parts:

The Center for Medical Progress video campaign is a dishonest attempt to make legal, voluntary and potentially lifesaving tissue donations appear nefarious and illegal. Lawmakers responding by promoting their own anti-choice agenda are rewarding deception and putting women’s health and their constitutionally protected rights at risk.

  Whew! For a moment, let’s ignore that this entire 761-word-long editorial could have been cut and pasted from Planned Parenthood’s media talking point manual. (Maybe it was.) Let’s talk about this humdinger of a diatribe masquerading as an editorial.
We’ll leave for another day the issue of legality. Whatever might appear to be the case, that’s to be determined.

Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director for medical services for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, was the PPFA official munching on her salad and drinking her red wine in the first CMP video. She’s been asked to give a briefing to staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and already PPFA’s Senior Counsel Roger Evans is hedging his bets:
“But in light of these allegations, we are understandably in the process of retaining counsel to advise us on the best way to proceed. Until we have completed this engagement and provided counsel an opportunity to become familiar with the relevant facts, we cannot provide a definitive response,” Evans responded.

How about the “Voluntary” declaration? Presumably that means that women volunteered to donate intact livers and hearts and lungs and skulls/brains, right? (Never mind, for now, that if they said no the first time, some unspecified number were asked a second time.)
No, not exactly. A “Client Information for Informed Consent” form from a California PP affiliate is titled “DONATION OF BLOOD AND/OR ABORTED PREGNANCY TISSUE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH, EDUCATION, OR TREATMENT.”
“Aborted pregnancy tissue”? Do you think it comes to the mind of any woman (already in the throes of a late-term abortion) that what PPFA is actually talking about is her baby’s head , delivered oh-so-carefully in one piece by the abortionist?

Or that a lot of money is going to be involved long before her baby’s heart/lungs/liver is experimented on in such lab. (By the way “research” is a soothing, disarming way of describing laboratory experiments on her baby’s remains.)

You might ask, how “voluntary” is it when in the first sentence the woman is told         

Research using the blood from pregnant women and tissue that has been aborted has been used to treat and find a cure for such diseases as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and AIDS

  Of course, no “cure” for any of these diseases has been found using “blood” or “tissue” from pregnant women. But, hey, who has time to dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s?
Finally, it would never occur to The Times that Planned Parenthood might not only be cutting ethical corners but sanding them off. But even if the editorial board assumed for a nanosecond that PPFA is not necessarily an unvarnished force for good, they would still trash pro-life public officials.
Why? If pro-lifers say “A,” to the Times the truth necessarily must be “non-A.” Or, less politely, pro-lifers must be lying.

The temptation to an already demagogically-prone editorial page to demagogue is too overwhelming. And when PPFA is potentially in some considerable trouble, all the more need to rant and rave.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, either go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha

Source: NRLC News