Bre Payton:
Even though it swore up and down for weeks that it did nothing wrong, Planned Parenthood claimed today it will stop accepting payment in exchange for aborted baby parts harvested by its abortionists:
In order to completely debunk the disingenuous argument that our opponents have been using – and to reveal the true political purpose of these attacks – our Federation has decided, going forward, that any Planned Parenthood health center that is involved in donating tissue after an abortion for medical research will follow the model already in place at one of our two affiliates currently facilitating donations for fetal tissue research. That affiliate accepts no reimbursement for its reasonable expenses – even though reimbursement is fully permitted under the 1993 law. Going forward, all of our health centers will follow the same policy, even if it means they will not recover reimbursements permitted by the 1993 law.
Despite its previous claims of innocence, Planned Parenthood’s announcement today suggests that the organization knew its activities were almost certainly illegal.
When the shocking videos of Planned Parenthood were first released, the taxpayer-funded abortion mill said it only accepted reimbursement for the cost of harvesting and shipping aborted baby body parts. According to the group, accepting mere reimbursement, rather than profiting from the practice, is allowed by law. The undercover videos, however, showed multiple senior Planned Parenthood staff haggling over the prices they would accept in exchange for aborted baby body parts. In one video, one Planned Parenthood executive said she needed a good price for baby body parts because, “I need a Lamborghini.”
Planned Parenthood’s decision to stop taking cash for organs was spurred entirely by a series of undercover videos by The Center for Medical Progress which were decried by Planned Parenthood supporters as “deceptively edited.” In fact, the videos were released in full, and a forensic audit showed that there was no deceptive editing whatsoever.
Abortion activists masquerading as journalists tried their best to cover up the footage. For the most part, they followed Planned Parenthood’s request to not cover the videos, which resulted in a virtual blackout of coverage from certain outlets for quite some time. When they did finally decide to write about it, these activists with bylines would parrot Planned Parenthood’s false talking points or repeat falsehoods about the abortion provider’swebsite being attacked by extremists.
Despite the best efforts of Planned Parenthood’s allies to discredit these videos and prop up Planned Parenthoods organ-trafficking scheme as something charitable and good-natured, the announced change in policy seems to indicate that those “deceptively edited videos” actually highlighted a widespread practice that Planned Parenthood was desperate to keep in the dark.
Typical leftist thinking. “Because we can always pretend we’re sorry and ask for forgiveness from our opponents (clinging to their religion and and guns,) and they have to give it to us.”
Actually, no. We don’t have to forgive a sinner who does not truly repent, and who fully intends to continue sinning.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood:
Bre Payton, who is either as dumb as a box of rock herself, or who assumes that her readers must be:
That’s what you call a non sequitur. Cecile Richards’ statement doesn’t “suggest” anything. It clearly explains what is being changed and why: The policy change has been undertaken to deprive Pro-Life propagandists of an easily exploitable point, and one that they haven’t hesitated to distort. Unfortunately it will also deprive medical researchers of tissue samples that will now be put to no use whatsoever, since Planned Parenthood will become unable to recover the additional costs of supplying such material.
Does this matter?
Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
@Ditto, #1:
So who appointed the political right the nation’s Guardians of Virtue, and empowered them to judge people to be sinners, and to dispense forgiveness as they see fit?
That’s not sarcasm. It’s a serious question.
@Greg: If that is your best serious question Greg, you better find something else that you can do better like taking out the trash.
@Greg:
Clearly, it must be those non-repentant sinners who deem it necessary to feign to beg for forgiveness in order to play on the compassion of those who are faithful to their religions. By their own actions in begging forgiveness, it is they who are appointing whom shall be the arbitrator of forgiveness. Otherwise, why do they see a need to pretend to mend their ways? The weight of sin bears on the sinner, not on the faithful. While some of the faithful might decide to forgive, there really is no compulsion that requires them to forgive a habitual sinner.
The best comparison one can make as an example of the leftist duplicity of false (ie. disingenuous,) repentance, is the classic victim – abuser relationship. When you are in an abusive relationship, the abuser will often play this game of begging forgiveness, knowing full well that they are only doing so so that they can continue the abuse.
Begging forgiveness? Freedom of choice supporters might be more inclined to tell the Center for Medical “Progress” to shove their lying videos up their rear ends. No one owes them an apology and nobody is asking for one. Their ultimate goal is to use government to force their own religious views on others, depriving women of sovereign control over their own bodies in the process.
@Greg:
Yeah, because we all know that Planned Parenthood, who paid Cecile Richards a meager $523,616.00 for the fiscal year 7/01/12 – 6/30/2013, is really hurting for money. Never mind that PP was found guilty of bilking Medicaid in Texas and was required to make restitution.
Now, while you are in the mood to defend the selling of baby body parts, why don’t you tell us what miracle medical cures any of the research using baby body parts has produced? Or what miracle medical cures have been found by using baby body parts that has been funded by the NIH to the tune of $74 MILLION for both years 2014 and 2015 with another $74 MILLION being scheduled to be spent by NIH in 2016?
After all, being the logical thinker you are, Greggie Goebbels, I’m sure you are more than happy to explain how the taxpayer is getting their money’s worth, right?
And then, you can define “slavery” to all of us.
@Greg:
Are you claiming that all abortions are due to rape and that it is only after conception that woman has control over her own body but not before?
@retire05, #7:
She’s the head of an organization that consists of around 700 separate women’s healthcare centers that provide services to around 2.7 million persons per year. Such a salary only seems to become a problem for you when it’s paid to the head of organizations you disapprove of. Jim DeMint’s compensation as CEO of the Heritage Foundation, for example, was $614,000 for 2013, and they provide no useful services to anyone. I doubt if have any sort of problem with that.
@retire05, #8:
No, I’m claiming that nobody appointed the political right or any church organization as the nation’s official Sexual Behavior Monitors.
Women who decide to engage in sexual activity are not required to first sign a binding legal agreement that they surrender subsequent control over their bodies and reproductive function to the church or the state. Rights and freedoms in this country are not contingent upon a person’s sexual conduct, so long as their sexual behaviors are not themselves unlawful. Human sexuality itself is not illegal.
@Greg: In California, if a man kills a woman carrying his child and the child also dies, he is charged with two murders. If the mother kills that same child, then everything is ok. It appears that California recognizes that a fetus is a life form for the father, but not for the mother. The issue here is that killing a fetus because it is not convenient to a life style is murder.
@Greg:
Murdering an unborn baby, and then giving its body parts up for medical “research” is NOT a sexual behavior.
Consuming alcoholic beverages to the point where you are drunk is also not illegal. But you can’t show up a day later and demand that your hangover be relieved by someone else through a medical procedure paid for by the federal goverment. You, and you alone, are responsible for that hangover because it was YOUR actions that caused it.
Personal responsibility is not something you progressives advocate. But then, when you remove personal responsibility from everyone, no one is responsible for anything. You become a permanent victim (the left loves victims, doesn’t it?) and someone else is then in control of your life.
But that’s what you want. No expectation of personal responsibility; no moral norms, no accountability. And then, only the state is in control and all freedom that you think you had gained is now gone with the wind.
And I’m still waiting on that list of miracle medical cures that have been derived from research of aborted baby body parts. Or is that another thing you are running from, Mr. Coward?
@Greg:
Greg, I think you realize full well that Ditto was speaking of ”we” as individuals who feel the same way based on what is taught in the Scriptures.
Jesus told a sinner to go and sin no more. (John 8:11)
The apostle Paul told Christians to never plan ahead for the works of the flesh: Romans 13: 13,14.
Individually, all Christians can (and should) follow these admonitions so the pronoun can rightly be ”we.”
@Randy, #11:
Which is exactly as it should be. This would be the most egregious case possible of some third party depriving a woman of her right to choose. She has been deprived both of her freedom to choose to go on living, and of her freedom to choose whether or not to become a mother. Since she has also been deprived of the ability to clarify her intention, the default assumption should be that she intended to become a mother.
@retire05, #12:
It most certainly is. Freedom to choose carries with it full moral responsibility for the choices we make. Neither church nor state can be held responsible for what a free individual decides. It’s all on the individual.
@Greg:
Then the killing of the unborn should not be legal.
Murder is murder, but the Feminazis of the 60’s who falsely told women they had the right to “free love” (i.e. sex without responsibility) damn sure didn’t vote Republican, promote pro-life legislation or felt that there should be consequences of one’s actions.
No surprise that you, who I assume is a man, supports abortion. It was a “get out of jail free” card for men. How was that pro women’s equality?
Still waiting on your list of miracle medical cures due to research on murdered baby body parts. Not that you will provide them. You’re a weasel. That has not changed.
Deciding to terminate a pregnancy before a person comes into being to begin with is not murder.
Whether or not to become a mother is a decision that only one person has any right to make. Sovereign control over one’s own body is as fundamental as any right gets. Take that away, for whatever reason, and you are no longer a free human being.
That’s total bullshit. I support every woman’s freedom to choose.
Having a choice taken away is not freedom. It’s the exact opposite. For the State to take away that choice is tyranny.
@Greg:
So killing a human being against it’s will is not murder?
So consequently, whether or not to become a father should be a decision that only one person has any right to make?
Sovereign control begins before conception, not after.
Well then, let her choose to use birth control, or not have sex. She has no right to demand someone kill the results of her previously made decisions.
What about the child’s choice?
@retire05, #18:
A fetus has no consciousness, let alone will.
The issue is having sovereign control over one’s own body. Fathers don’t become pregnant.
Whether sovereign control should end become one has become pregnant is the question. My opinion is that it does not. A woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy.
You’re free to make those decisions with regard to yourself. You may not dictate them to someone else.
There is no child. There is a fetus lacking both consciousness and will. (If pregnancy continues, there could be a child at some point in the future, at which point it would have consciousness, a will, and individual rights, but that point has not been reached.) There is a woman, who should have sovereign control over her own body. And there are people who wish to take that control away from her, and give it to the State.
@Greg:
Really?
At 20 weeks gestation, a fetus is aware of pain and will try to move away from medical instruments.
At 14 weeks gestation, a fetus can hear, and will react to music.
The conscience part of the brain is developed at just 3 1/2 months to react to stimuli just as we do once born.
Women don’t become pregnant without the contribution of a man. An unborn child carries the DNA of both parents, not just one. Why don’t you believe in the rights of fathers?
Actually, I am. Under our system of government, I am free to elect those that will carry out my will. And if they don’t, I am free to elect their replacement.
What is a child, Greggie Goebbels? It is an undeveloped adult human being. A human being that has not realized full growth. It is not a butterfly, a daisy or a chipmunk.
Wrong. See above re: development and ability to hear or feel pain. As to will, ask any neonatal surgeon how strong the will is in an unborn child to live.
Just admit it; you support legalized murder.
@retire05, #20:
You seem to be incapable of understanding that differing opinions can be every bit as carefully considered and valid as your own, and that other people have a right to make deeply personal decisions in accordance with their own opinions and their own beliefs and conscience. It is not your place, or mine, or the place of any state or church, to dictate whether a woman will continue a pregnancy or terminate it. It’s her body. Only she has authority over it, and that authority is total. A fertilized egg or fetus gets no vote.
Sovereign control over one’s own body is about as fundamental as any right gets. Without it, freedom is a lie, straight out of the gate. Personally, I disapprove of abortion, but I’m an advocate of freedom of choice. I understand that freedom has its costs. One is acceptance of the fact that people will sometimes make choices that I disagree with.
@Greg:
So if I believe the earth is round and you believe it is flat, your opinion is just as carefully considered and valid as mine? You’re nuts.
And a society has a right to determine social norms, like abortion is nothing more than the legalized murder of an unborn human being, just as a society we determine that child abuse is not acceptable, selling drugs is not acceptable, stealing from the 7-11, for any reason, is not acceptable. We set those social norms via our legislature, who pass those norms into law.
Sure it is. As a member of the society I live in, with a representative form of government, I most certainly have a voice in that decision.
OK, so as a society, we have no right to interfere in a person’s decision to mutilate themselves? We have no obligation to try to get that person the mental health treatment they need? If someone is destroying their body with drugs because it is their “sovereign control over” their own body, we have no right to try to interfere?
How far do you want to take that absurd idea?
If you truly disapproved of abortion, you would work to end it, not promote it as a “right.” So you are basically a liar who simply has bought into the left wing baby killer rhetoric.
Then work to change the minds of people who have no problem carrying out the true goals of Margaret Sanger and quit making excuses for why you don’t.
Moral and/or religious beliefs are not the same as empirical facts. They are, in fact, more a matter of opinion. It can be experimentally demonstrated that the earth is round, not flat. Lying is always wrong cannot be experimentally demonstrated. The average elementary school student could probably come up with an example of a situation where telling the truth would be morally wrong in about 30 seconds.
Society has in fact made a determination regarding every woman’s right to choose in accordance with her own beliefs and conscience. It’s commonly referred to as Roe v. Wade. Others may attempt to persuade her, but they have lost the right to dictate to her.
No. Preserving the individual liberty that allows freedom to choose is of far greater importance to me than what is chosen in any particular instance. I direct my life and I have sovereign authority over my own body, not the State. In my view, this is a fundamental principle. I don’t believe any of the founding fathers would argue against that point.
While recognizing the real dangers of numerous drugs, I consider much that has resulted from the “War on Drugs” to be fundamentally unconstitutional. Prohibition generally takes the matter of regulation too far. I feel the same way about guns: Regulation can be entirely rational; prohibition would be unconstitutional and totally unacceptable.
Margaret Sanger had both good ideas and bad ideas, much like anyone else. Some of her bad ideas are a reflection of the racism and outmoded thinking of her era. It’s up to those who come later to try to sort them out. The founding fathers evidently saw no way to speedily eliminate the institution of slavery. We don’t discredit and throw out everything they accomplished because of that. Life is always a work in progress. Dead people are frozen in their times.
@Greg:
But they can be.
Sure it can. Lying is simply a form of deceit. Deceit can, and has, led to tragedy and broken lives, i.e. harm to others. So while lying is not only against moral/religious beliefs, it is also empirically wrong.
Actually, no, society did not, in fact, make that determination. Five unelected justices in black robes made that determination. It was never a referendum, never placed on a ballot, never given to the public to vote their voice on.
Thank you for dispelling your own argument although I don’t think that was your intention.
Life is always a work in progress; a fetus progresses into an infant, and infant progresses into a toddler, a toddler progresses into a teen, a teen progresses into an adult and an adult progresses into a geriatric stage that results in natural death. Abortion is nothing more than the medical ending of that progression. And abortion is no more right than ending the life of a geriatric person against that geriatrics will.
You have finally come around.