Topic: “God bless Planned Parenthood” – PP Uses Abortions to Sell Baby Parts - page 8. (Read 13269 times)

TNR docsplains Planned Parenthood organ harvesting: Fetus parts are nothing but “products”


I … don’t think this helps the cause, frankly:

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.


For a quick explainer about the Orwellian nature of the phrase “products of conception,” here’s former Planned Parenthood “products of conception technician” and now pro-life activist Abby Johnson in a talk I recorded in October 2011:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcJmwoRJI3c


“You can’t say ‘baby’ in an abortion clinic,” Johnson said. That’s the same kind of dodge that Dr. Jen Gunter tries to use in this piece, and it fails for the same reason that the videos horrify. Planned Parenthood and Gunter want to dehumanize the fetus while commodifying the “products” because they are human. If they were not human, they would not provide value to Planned Parenthood in the marketplace.

Gunter tries another sleight of hand by equating the aborted child to a biopsy specimen or a kidney, presumably for a transplant, although Gunter doesn’t clarify that. Removing a kidney or a biopsy specimen doesn’t necessitate the termination of the human being from which they come. If removing those human parts from a patient resulted in its death, it would be actionable malpractice, if not criminal. The sale of such tissue would definitely be criminal. It would, in fact, reduce human beings to a collection of “products” for others to manipulate — which is exactly what the Planned Parenthood videos demonstrated.

TNR presents Gunter as an OB/GYN, but one has to wonder about the expertise of such a specialist if she writes that “a ten to twelve week fetus looks nothing like a term baby.” Kirsten Powers expressed shock over that claim:

http://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-12-weeks_1101.bc


Actually, as this from Consumer Health Digest and many other resources explain, the baby is very much recognizable as a human being at 12 weeks. Its structures have all developed, and the child will increase its activity at this stage, even though it weighs about half an ounce (the graphic does not have the decimal in the “.49 ounce” label):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9tMRKd0PBM

If this looks “nothing like a term baby” to an OB/GYN, then she’s in the wrong profession — or at least may need a vision check stat. But of course Gunter and her fellow abortion apologists know that a human being at 12 weeks of gestation not only looks human, but is human. That’s dictated by science and observation. It’s absurd beyond belief, and an offense on both humane and linguistic considerations, to use the phrase “anthropomorphize the fetus.” The fetus cannot be anthropomorphized because it is already human. If it wasn’t, Planned Parenthood wouldn’t get any interest in the “products” for which it transacts.

By the way, if abortion for 12-week-old fetuses OK only because it supposedly doesn’t look like a “term baby,” then what’s the rationale for abortions at 16 weeks? 20 weeks? Beyond?

As D. C. McAlister correctly deduces, they’re flailing for rationalizations to explain away the inhumanity of abortion in general, and Planned Parenthood’s executives specifically:

Despite Gunter’s arrogant scolding, the fact of the matter is you can call something by any name you like, but it doesn’t change the fact of what it is. A human liver is a human liver. A human brain is a human brain. It doesn’t matter if it’s inside the uterus one minute (call it a fetus) or outside the next (presto, it’s a preemie baby); it’s still human.

But Gunter and the butchers at Planned Parenthood don’t want to use that term or any designation that will prick their darkened consciences. They don’t want to “anthropomorphize the fetus.” Of course, that makes perfect sense. If they were ever honest about the humanity they’re crushing, crunching, grinding, and dissecting, they’d be monsters. They’d be psychopaths. But they’re not psychopaths. They’re stable, normal human beings. To remain that way, they have to use terms like “products of conception.” They have to, in a word, dehumanize. …

The road to atrocity is paved with dehumanization. It’s necessary. It’s a normal part of all genocide, and it’s exploited and propagated by propaganda, by the use of seemingly harmless terms like products of conception. ­“All political and nationalist propaganda aims at only one thing,” Aldous Huxley wrote, “to persuade one set of people that another set of people are not really human and that it is therefore legitimate to rob, swindle, bully, and even murder them.”
It goes against our nature to kill a person like ourselves, so we have to dehumanize others to overcome the normal human aversion to murder. “Most people would hesitate to torture or kill a human being like themselves,” Huxley wrote. “But when that human being is spoken of as though he were not a human being . . . we lose our scruples.”

Gunter cannot confront the humanity of the fetus, so she and her allies at Planned Parenthood call it a “product,” and set up markets to trade the product for compensation. It’s ghastly enough to do this, but it’s even more so to read Gunter’s scolding over attempts to recognize the humanity extinguished by abortion while defending Planned Parenthood’s machinations to profit off of that humanity.

This might be even more disgusting than the video’s casual discussion of prices from their organ harvesting. And oddly, more revealing.



http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/24/tnr-docsplains-planned-parenthood-organ-harvesting-fetus-parts-are-nothing-but-products/

Pelosi urges DOJ probe into group targeting Planned Parenthood







House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday joined calls for a federal investigation into the California-based anti-abortion group that sparked the Planned Parenthood hidden camera controversy.

“Let’s have an investigation of those people who were trying to ensnare Planned Parenthood in a controversy that doesn’t exist,” Pelosi said Thursday in her first public remarks about Planned Parenthood since the first undercover video surfaced last week.

A long-time abortion rights champion, Pelosi dismissed accusations that Planned Parenthood has raked in profits from its fetal tissue donation program.

“Planned Parenthood has said that they have done nothing illegal,” she said. “They do not ever charge, which would be illegal, for fetal tissue. They have only defrayed the cost of mailing that to someone, which is not breaking the law.”

She also criticized the selectively edited videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, pointing to the “disparities” between actual film and edited versions.

Her remarks come one day after White House press secretary Josh Earnest also defended the women’s health provider.


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/248946-pelosi-joins-call-for-doj-probe-into-group-targeting-planned-parenthood

HHS Rejects Planned Parenthood FOIA Request Because It’s ‘Not Newsworthy’




Earlier this week, Mary Hasson broke the news here at the Federalist that federal funds went to Planned Parenthood’s salad-munching, wine-sipping, organ-harvesting Dr. Deborah Nucatola for advice on “healthy baby” births.

Hasson requested all communications and documents relevant to any payments to or compensation of fees, consultant fees, reimbursements, etc. to Deborah Nucatola, MD, a Planned Parenthood employee. And she requested that the documents be sent as soon as possible.

The Freedom of Information Act requires the federal government to be transparent, but successfully receiving information from the Obama Administration has gone so poorly — even more poorly than previous administrations — that many media outlets have resorted to suing the federal government to get them to respond to FOIA requests.

In March it was announced that the Obama administration had set new records for censoring information, outright denying access to information, and length of time to fulfill requests. They also, “refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy,” according to the Associated Press.

Since FOIA requests can routinely take years to fulfill, if they’re ever filled, Hasson requested that the Health and Human Services FOIA office expedite her request. She wrote:

“The public has a right to know of any federal monies going to Dr. Nucatola in light of the video, released by the Center for Medical Progress, that includes remarks by Dr. Nucatola that raise questions about whether federal laws may have been violated regarding patients’ informed consent for fetal tissue, and conflict of interest. Expedited processing required because of planned or pending Congressional hearings and the public’s demand for transparency on this issue.”
You’ll never guess what happened next.

HHS denied her request for expedited information on the compensation and payments given to Nucatola. They claimed it didn’t fit the public’s “urgent” right to know:

“Further, in order to meet second prong of the compelling need standard, the requested information must be the type of information that has a particular value that will be lost if not disseminated quickly, and ordinarily refers to a breaking news story of general public interest.”
HHS is arguing that the Planned Parenthood scandal, the very same one that has Planned Parenthood honcho Cecile Richards panicking and running every public relations response in the book, is not a “breaking news story of general public interest!”

To be sure, while HHS denied Hasson’s expedited FOIA request, they could at some point in the years to come respond to Hasson’s simple information request. Or, then again, maybe not.


http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/23/hhs-rejects-planned-parenthood-foia-request-because-its-not-newsworthy/

Both are on the right path: First, access to contraception (except for sandra fluke, obviously) is easy, second, the number of abortion is going down on average

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/06/08/number-of-abortions-nationwide-declining


Does that mean baby body parts will be a rarer commodity and cost more to buy?

If we are really serious about reducing the number of abortions in this country then we should support increased access to contraception

Yep. Murder + dismemberment for $ is what those videos are showing, imho. It is fair for the democrats to counter attack people shinning a light on their lucrative delicatessen business, as long as it is not used as a tool from keeping the facts in the shadow...

It is not about me. It is not about you. If this is how you express yourself. Do it. Lazy. Not lazy. Does not matter. I use images a lot to make a point. But 10 years from now who knows if any image hostings will still be alive, making a lot of my replies gone. The rust is already happening in the denier thread for example...

So my promise to you, not to edit your replies, does not imply contractual reciprocity...

 

EDIT: a courtesy to add the word "EDIT" when you make an EDIT later, or people could believe I was EDITING, shortening your reply...

Of course you don't have to.

 

Republicans are engaging a political a witch hunt, turnaround is fair play.



I don't put any stock into the criticism of how the footage was obtained. It serves a public interest as furthering the debate on a fiercely controversial issue, and for that reason and discussion of wiretapping laws is misplaced in my opinion. The same would be for an illegally obtained video of a murder, not to remark on the legitimacy of the analogy. People may be pissed about how the video was obtained, but ultimately the public service the video provides towards the administration of justice should override the "legality" of how the video was obtained. And note there is marked difference for illegally obtained video by the government as opposed to individuals.

You're the one who defined it as waste. I don't know what you're asking me for.

Would it be easier for you if I just recopy the text in a new message and strike it out to show which part I was objecting to? It would effectively be the same, but I was being lazy. In either event, no one would confuse the fact that you did not say the words, so any fear of that is misplaced, and I cannot think of another reason to object except you don't like the contents of my post.

13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger


Planned Parenthood, engulfed in a scandal following the release of two undercover videos, is the largest abortion provider in the United States.

On its website, the organization compliments Margaret Sanger as one of the pro-choice movement’s “great heroes.” Sanger started the American Birth Control League in 1921; it became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

Planned Parenthood praises Sanger for “providing contraception and other health services” and “advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”

In addition to Planned Parenthood, Sanger also founded the Birth Control Review, a journal about contraception and population control.


Here are 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.

1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”

“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

6) She was an advocate of a proposal called the “American Baby Code.”

“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.

According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.

She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

She believed that large families were detrimental to society.

“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” she continued. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families

9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”

“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18: The Goal

10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”

“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3: The Materials of the New Race

11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.

“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.

Mothers, “at whatever cost, she must emerge from her ignorance and assume her responsibility.” —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 1: Woman’s Error and Her Debt

12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939

13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”

“Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.


http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/22/13-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/




Not the first I talk about sanger and the abortion rate in NYC:
Mission Accomplished for Margaret Sanger

This woman got some strong stomach to eat her salad and talks about liver (yikes!) I wonder what they'll do with those parts? Fetus parts... I heard stories about chinese people eating fetus but I hope this has nothing to do with the buyers.

Yes, it's not surprising, but it's sad nonetheless.

Was there a problem when Romney was taped illegally for that "47%" during the campaign?

Do you believe this is how you catch the mafia, by asking them politely how they do business?

How would you force anyone to tell the truth to millions of people?

It does not matter if you are but just one around millions of sheep.

You own your speech, until your last breath. They own the guns and jail to keep you quiet...

This is the game you need to play if you are ready to go all the way, the non violent way, with your speech.

I say good for them, even if the whole DOJ and the White House will prosecute them. And they will, to keep them quiet.

They will try to make them stop releasing the next videos

They will try force youtube to stop doing business with them
 
The more they will push, the more the no-sheep of the world will witness what total corruption looks like...


This will never go away. People will know they are helping a delicatessen called planned parenthood... It is more honest like that.


Have a taste...

I don't like the way these people went about it, because it leads to things people can pick at.

However, an example, if you illegally obtain a video of someone committing murder, should people really be this focused and pissed at the one who illegally obtained the video and just ignore the murderer going free?

Democrats Seek Federal Investigations of Group Behind Planned Parenthood Videos



Let the harvest continue.


Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) released a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and California Attorney General Kamala Harris demanding they investigate the Center for Medical Progress for the videotaped sting operation that revealed Planned Parenthood traffics in body parts of aborted babies.

The letter was signed by three other Democrats, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA) and Rep. Yvette Clarke (CA).

Schakowsky, Lofgren, Nadler and Clarke send letter to Attorneys General asking for investigation into Center for Medical Progress
July 22, 2015
WASHINGTON, DC – Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry Nadler, and Yvette Clarke sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and California Attorney General Kamala Harris on Tuesday requesting an investigation into the Center for Medical Progress and the selectively-edited video of a Planned Parenthood physician that it recently released.

According to press reports, the Center for Medical Progress created a fake limited liability corporation in advance of the meeting it recorded with a Planned Parenthood doctor. The video was captured by actors using fake identification to pose as buyers from that fake human biologics company. This elaborate scheme raises serious questions about whether any federal or state laws were violated in securing the LLC or the personal identification that were part of its execution.

The video was also filmed without the consent of the Planned Parenthood doctor, which may violate California law.

There are other questions about possible coordination between the Center for Medical Progress and Members of Congress who knew about the video weeks in advance of its release.

“This is a new low, even for anti-abortion activists who will stop at nothing in their effort to undermine a woman’s right to choose,” said Schakowsky. “I believe the Center for Medical Progress may have broken the law in developing and executing this unbelievably elaborate and troubling scheme, and all Americans should have concerns about that. I hope that Attoneys General Lynch and Harris will investigate this case.”


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/surprise-democrats-seek-federal-state-investigations-of-group-behind-planned-parenthood-videos/


--------------------------------------------------
As expected...

I know I talked to someone who also said that the organization that taped these seems "shady". I think that's the main problem. But the problem I have with that is:

1) Mainstream media (MSM) keeps calling the footage heavily edited, but you can see that is not an issue, especially since the full length video is out. It's also not an issue because the short one is not edited in a "shady" way, and yet it's STILL being reported as heavily edited in the MSM.

2) You can watch the footage yourself. But people don't! They heard it being called "heavily edited" and think it's a crock, so they won't bother watching, or think it was a set up and don't take it seriously.

3) People who want the benefits don't want anything to happen to PP. Benefits such as birth control pills, STD checks, etc. And of course those who want the research done, don't want it to stop. They don't care how it gets done. The ends justify the means. They are figuratively holding their hands over their ears and singing "la la la, I don't hear you".

4) As soon as I saw this, my first thought was, the powers that be knows, wants it to happen, and will not care. TPTB own the media, this will get slandered and/or not aired. They will discredit it until it disappears.

I'm also mad at the ones releasing it, because it makes them look bad releasing every few weeks instead of all at once.

Why Liberals Don’t Care If Planned Parenthood Sells Baby Parts

Planned Parenthood may do some uncomfortable things, but ultimately aborting babies and selling their parts is worth it.



In case you haven’t seen the disturbing news trending on Facebook, on Twitter, or here at The Federalist, Planned Parenthood stands accused of harvesting parts of babies killed in abortion and selling those parts to companies for research. It’s not surprising if this is news to you, since there’s essentially a media blackout on the subject. The Center for Medical Progress has released a second video now with yet another Planned Parenthood doctor discussing both abortion procedures for harvesting body parts of babies and the financial incentives for doing so.

I’m unabashedly pro-life. It’s horrifying for me to think of this being true. My feelings about abortion and the sanctity of life plays heavily into my reading and watching of the videos about this subject, and it should be no surprise that people as passionate about abortion rights have an equally passionate opposite reaction.

My friend Anne was willing to talk to me about her feelings on this story. Listening and hearing the perspective of a supporter of Planned Parenthood and its mission may surprise you. It’s hearing, actually hearing, the viewpoints of others that lets us understand what makes us different and why.


The Undercover Organization Isn’t Credible

Here’s how the other side is hearing this news.

“I am very firmly of the belief this particular story is BS,” Anne said. “Nothing with the organization that released it adds up. Why have they had the video a year? Why did they use the old ‘20/20’ clip? Why are their social media accounts so thin? Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc., are all only about this.”

Other videos have come out and sparked huge discussions across the Internet in recent times, such as the infamous New York City catcall video—a story also rife with controversy. When viral videos come out, usually the first response of the media (and those who share them rapidly across social media) is not to question and attempt to discredit the source but rather to engage the ideas and discuss the societal implications of what sparked the popularity of the story.

The mainstream media (or MSM) isn’t leaping on this. I asked if that made it more difficult to believe, since I’d assumed so, but she disagreed. “No, but I do think it’s damning none of them have considered it credible enough to cover. From the old ‘20/20’ footage, when Planned Parenthood faced the same allegations that were also proven false, other MSM outlets did cover it. So it doesn’t shake out that this is a vast liberal cover up.”

She also said human trafficking is not a reason to defund Planned Parenthood: “Shady black-market medical parts happens in every area of medicine. Do we stop doing organ transplants because some hinky stuff goes down there? Research using fetal tissue is valuable. This video is click bait of the worst kind because of the horrifying nature of dilation and extraction—the banning of which has done nothing to reduce later abortions and only limited the choices of women facing impossible decisions about the end of their pregnancies where their baby probably will not survive. Nobody waits until 20-plus weeks for kicks. I think they should be subject to the same laws and regulations covering any medical donation or waste.”


Planned Parenthood Does Good Things

To her, Planned Parenthood is more than just abortion. “They offer a valuable service to the community in terms of STD testing and prevention, pregnancy counseling, including prenatal care, mammograms, well-woman care. I have never known anyone at a Planned Parenthood to try and talk a woman into an abortion. I had two miscarriages. I tried for two years to get pregnant. My beliefs about what those pregnancies were and were not in terms of human life are irrelevant. If we want to reduce abortion, we need to look at programs like Colorado had. I don’t believe that limits on abortion are effective or lead to safer, better outcomes.”


I asked what would happen if abortion were made illegal (besides saving lives of babies).

“It would be economically devastating for women who either must carry a pregnancy to term, or travel many miles for possibly days to have an abortion,” she said. “If someone at Planned Parenthood were doing something so blatantly illegal, unethical, and immoral, and placing an organization that provides a service so critical for millions of women at risk, I would be the first to call for their heads. How dare someone put women and their children at risk in such a fashion.”

On the contrary, I think Planned Parenthood, at its very core, puts women at risk. By fostering abortion, the existence of Planned Parenthood means babies who are killed before they were even born are more than at risk. I don’t think of them as a legitimate source of health care. The very idea of those babies not only dying but then being sold piecemeal for research is enough to nauseate me.

Like many other Americans, my friend views life differently than I do. It’s tempting to shout them down, but we can’t change hearts if we don’t know where they’re at. At the core, even if this video is clickbait and totally orchestrated nonsense, Planned Parenthood aborts babies. If you see these children as children, there’s no excuse for abortion. If you see them as nothing more than medical waste, no excuse needs to be made.


http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/22/why-liberals-dont-care-if-planned-parenthood-sells-baby-parts/

When does this garbage stops being garbage and have value for a buyer? 10 weeks? 15 weeks? 20 weeks? Or is it after the garbage took its first breath on its own?

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/end-of-life-debate-turns-to-newborns-postnatal-abortion-morally-acceptable-in-some-cases-ethicist-says

Congress’ planned crackdown on Planned Parenthood is looking increasingly real.



Republican leaders are weighing a series of votes to defund Planned Parenthood — possibly beginning before the August recess — after the release of a second undercover sting video allegedly showing one of the abortion rights group’s officials discussing the sale of fetal organs.

The anti-Planned Parenthood drive extends to the House and Senate: The No. 2 Republican in each chamber said he expects votes to cut off federal funding for the group soon.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday he’s anticipating amendments to strip the money over the course of the fall government funding debate. That’s in addition to a spate of Hill hearings he said are aimed at learning “the facts … and what’s truly is going on.”


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/congress-planned-parenthood-funding-undercover-video-120434.html