Tag Archives: Pro-Choice

Obama administration will investigate whistleblowers who filmed Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood senior executive: organ harvesting so she can get a Lamborghini
Planned Parenthood senior executive: organ harvesting so she can get a Lamborghini

I know, I know. You thought that the Obama administration would investigate Planned Parenthood for being caught selling the body parts of unborn babies. But you were wrong.

The Federalist has the story. (H/T Ari)

Full text:

The U.S. Department of Justice announced plans to investigate the group that produced undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood employees admitting that they harvest and sell organs ripped from the bodies of aborted babies. Politico reported the news of the coming DOJ investigation earlier today:

JUSTICE TO PROBE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS — While congressional committees investigate Planned Parenthood’s practices, the Justice Department agreed to look into whether the group that released the sting videos obtained the footage legally. In response to a request by House Democrats, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday afternoon that Justice would “review all of the information and determine what the appropriate steps moving forward would be.” Planned Parenthood has staunchly defended its practices and claims that the Center for Medical Progress illegally obtained its footage, then excessively edited it to misrepresent what the organization does.

The DOJ investigation of the Center for Medical Progress, which, unlike Planned Parenthood, is not in the business of killing healthy, viable unborn babies in order to sell their organs for cash, was announced after several Democratic lawmakers called for the organization to be targeted:

Four Democrats in Congress — Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry Nadler, and Yvette Clarke — have written to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and California Attorney General Kamala Harris, asking them to open investigations into the Center for Medical Progress. The Democrats say the videos were filmed as part of an “elaborate scheme” — using “fake identification” and without the approval of the Planned Parenthood doctor who appears in them.
It’s interesting that Lynch decided so early to make a statement about the group. There are certainly more videos to come, and if Planned Parenthood’s panicked press releases are any indication, the footage may be far more damaging than anything that’s been revealed thus far. However, given the abject politicization of multiple agencies under Obama’s command — including the Internal Revenue Service, which targeted conservative non-profits, and the DOJ, which has been hesitant to investigate Obama allies — it seems unlikely that Lynch and those who report to her will ever crack down on Abortion, Inc.

This is not surprising, given the lead from the White House:

And this from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

The Obama administration has taken a firm position on new undercover videos of national Planned Parenthood leaders discussing the harvesting and sale of aborted babies’ body parts: It’s all a lie.

Rather than dispute whether the abortionists commit partial birth abortions to profit from the sale of human organs, the administration instead echoed concerns raised by a public relations firm hired by Planned Parenthood that the eight-minute-long versions of the videos were misleading.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said at a press conference today that, while he had not spoken with President Obama about “the actual videos” — and he believed President Obama had not seen either video in question — Earnest was “confident” that Obama had read reports “raising considerable concerns about the way those videos were selectively edited to distort, not just the words of the individuals speaking, but also the position of Planned Parenthood.”

Earnest’s words today were longer than his previous statement on the growing scandal. When asked if the Obama administration would consider withholding federal funds from Planned Parenthood over the scandal, Earnest replied curtly, “no.”

The investigative organization the Center for Medical Progress has released both two shorter videos that are eight minutes long, as well as two videos, each roughly two hours in duration, which it says is the full and unedited conversation.

Planned Parenthood has not disputed the legitimacy of the longer, uncut footage.

Still think it’s a good idea to sit home during the next election, evangelicals? Because, you know… stuff is actually happening in the real world outside your church. Stuff you ought to care about.

Related posts

Planned Parenthood senior executive who sells baby parts: “I want a Lamborghini”

Planned Parenthood senior executive: organ harvesting so she can get a Lamborghini
Planned Parenthood senior executive: organ harvesting for a Lamborghini

A Lamborghini is a very expensive car, so you have to do a lot of late-term abortions and organ harvesting if you want to save up enough money to afford one.

Here’s the second video from Center for Medical Progress:

Story here from Rachel Alexander, writing for The Stream.

She writes:

The Center for Medical Progress has released a second undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood abortionist discussing the cost of selling aborted fetuses. Perhaps even more so than in the first video, it appears that Planned Parenthood is committing federal felonies, selling body parts for profit.

[…]The exposé begins with a statement by Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards that the organization is not selling the fetuses for profit. “I want to be really clear,” she declares, “the allegation that Planned Parenthood profits in any way from tissue donation is not true.”

Then it moves to the undercover footage. The undercover buyers sit down for a business lunch with Dr. Mary Gatter, president of the Planned Parenthood Medical Directors’ Council, and another unidentified woman. When the undercover buyers ask what the cost is for intact tissue, Gatter responds, “Well why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying?” They haggle over who is going to throw out a number, and the buyers instruct her not to lowball it. Gatter finally says $75 per specimen. She admits she’s sold them for $50 in the past at a different location, and — in a clear attempt to cover her tracks about negotiating the profits — explains that Planned Parenthood is not in it for the profit and doesn’t want to be accused of selling tissue. She asserts there are costs associated with “the use of space and such.” The buyers then offer $100, and Gatter doesn’t object but seems pleasantly surprised.

Later on, she says “I want a Lamborghini” – a very expensive car.

Rachel suggests two ways that Planned Parenthood appears to be violating the law.

Here is possibility number two:

Planned Parenthood also appears to violate the law after the undercover buyers tell Gatter they are interested in second trimester 10-to-12 week old specimens. Gatter explains that to obtain them intact at that stage, they have to change the suction method used, which means a change in their protocols. She says she can ask their surgeon to change the suction method to “a less crunchy” technique, but admits that it contradicts the patient consent form, which says they are not changing any of their procedures with them. The consent form states, “I understand there will be no changes to how or when my abortion is done in order to get my blood or the tissue.”

When the buyers in the video ask Gatter if she’s comfortable with having the doctor change the procedure despite the consent form’s stipulation not to do so, she says she’s fine with that since, as she asserts, it doesn’t increase the pain and the patients surely wouldn’t care if they knew. Congress passed the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 prohibiting abortion doctors from altering procedures or timing in cases where a fetus is to be used later for medical research.

Getting Gatter to talk about this at length is useful, because it shows her thought process and rationale. It will be interesting to see what the Republicans in Congress do with this, and whether they are going to be able to overcome Democrat support for organ harvesting for profit. After all, Planned Parenthood donates tons of money to the Democrat Party, and why would the Democrats want to do anything to cut off their supply of campaign funding?

In fact, the Obama administration is taking a position on Planned Parenthood’s organ harvesting – they support it:

On Friday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the group’s explanation was good enough for the White House.

“I did read the news reports indicating that the policies that are followed by Planned Parenthood are entirely consistent with the strictest ethical guidelines that have been established in the healthcare industry,” Earnest said.

He then tried to refer questions about Planned Parenthood’s compliance with those standards to the group itself, and deflected when a reporter pressed him on whether the president believes it is ethical to sell aborted fetus remains.

Here’s Barack Obama speaking at Planned Parenthood:

Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood
Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood

Here’s Hillary Clinton speaking at Planned Parenthood:

Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

That’s what Democrats think about rich white people selling the parts of murdered black babies in order to buy Lamborghinis for themselves. They have no problem with it.

Related posts

Obama administration gives $5.6 million taxpayer dollars to abortion provider

Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

Do you like big government? Some people do. But let’s take a look at what big government does with the money it takes from taxpayers – many of whom are pro-life.

Here’s an article from Life News to make the point.

It says:

The Obama administration has made funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business a top priority during two terms and the administration has just announced another $5.6 million for the abortion corporation. The grants to various affiliates of the Planned Parenthood abortion business came via the Department of Health and Human Services.

[…]The Obama administration grants to Planned Parenthood follow on the heels of a new report showing Planned Parenthood does one-third of all abortions in the United States.

Planned Parenthood sells itself as a non-profit organization that concerns itself with women’s health, but a shocking new report indicates Planned Parenthood is little more than an abortion business. While the number of abortions it does and the percentage of its operations that are abortions is in the rise, the number of women receiving legitimate health care at Planned Parenthood is steadily declining.

[…]In December, the abortion giant Planned Parenthood released its 2013 annual report and the new numbers indicate it did more abortions than the year before — killing 327,653 babies in abortions while taking in millions in taxpayer funds. The report indicates Planned Parenthood did 327,653 abortions in 2013, an increase over the 327,166 abortions it did in 2012.

While it remains America’s biggest abortion corporation, the “nonprofit” continued to make money — bringing in $305.4 million last year and $305.3 million this year. Planned Parenthood continued to receive over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money, as it took in $540 million in 2012 and $528 million in 2013.

Let’s assume you’re a Christian reading that post. Is that how you would spend your money? If not, then why would you want the government to take your money and give it to abortion providers so they can take the lives of innocent unborn children?

Does it make you feel good to think that your vote helps the poor, but without you having to do anything as an individual? I want to suggest that you vote for smaller government, and then use the money you save in taxes to do good things on your own. That way, you can be sure that your money will be used to do things that don’t violate your conscience.

Woman fakes cancer for late-term abortion money, baby died after being born alive

Chalice Renee Zeitner
Chalice Renee Zeitner

Here’s the story from ABC Local News.

It says:

A convicted con artist duped the state into paying for her late-term abortion, a procedure which otherwise would not have been funded with public money, according to court records.

Chalice Renee Zeitner made up a story about having cancer in order to qualify for an abortion while on Arizona’s Medicaid insurance, and forged a doctor’s note to support her claim, according to charging documents.

A doctor performed the abortion when Zeitner was 22-weeks pregnant.

Arizona’s Medicaid, known as AHCCCS, will only pay for an abortion in cases of rape or incest or “medical necessity,” which include cases where the pregnancy causes or worsens a serious health risk to the mother.

Zeitner, 29, received “what was thought to be a medically necessary late-term abortion,” court documents state.

“Zeitner claimed she had stage IV sarcoma in her abdomen and lower spine, had received chemotherapy and radiation treatments and was scheduled to receive a life-saving surgery in Boston,” documents state.

That was later determined to be a fraud, according to documents.

Zeitner had produced a one-page letter, purportedly from a Massachusetts doctor, that supported her claims, documents state.

The abortion was performed in 2010.

But one year later, it was another pregnancy that led to the discovery of Zeitner’s alleged scam.

She returned to the same doctor who performed the abortion to deliver a full-term child by cesarean section.  During that birth, the doctor found no signs of cancer, documents state.

That led to a check with the Boston doctor, which revealed that “he did not know Zeitner and had never treated her,” so the cancer letter from him was a fraud, documents state.

Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s office on Tuesday charged Zeitner with felonies including fraud, theft, and forgery. She has a history of skipping town when she gets into trouble with the law, according to court documents. While a warrant was issued Wednesday, records do not yet indicate that she has been arrested.

Zeitner’s aborted child was born alive, weighing just more than one pound, documents state.

“The baby lived for approximately 20 minutes and received no life-saving measure by hospital staff,” according to documents.

[…]Zeitner has a previous forgery-related conviction in Maricopa County, documents state.

She could not be reached for comment.

Now, if you ask a typical Democrat, they will say that this woman did nothing wrong from start to finish, and that the real solution is for pro-life taxpayers to pony up the money for her late-term abortion. The Democrat position on abortion is that it should be allowed through all nine months of pregnancy, that it should be taxpayer-funded, that doctors and nurses should have to assist without objection, and that babies who are born-alive should be left to die. Our current President, Barack Obama, voted for that last one multiple times when he was a state senator in Illinois.

I sent this story to a Christian woman friend who is strongly feminist and very anti-male. She told me that although she personally opposes abortion, that the law should allow this woman to choose to kill her baby. I was not surprised by this, because whenever I tell her stories about women making horrible decisions, she always either blames men, or gives a counter-example of where someone else made the same stupid decision and it worked out for them. I think that’s what scares me the most about the abortion issue. How many apparently nice people are so convinced that whatever a woman wants to do must be OK.

I can imagine Zeitner posting news of her late-term, born alive abortion and having all her friends click like on it. Yay, Chalice! You didn’t do anything wrong. After all, the baby is dead and gone now, and the mother still alive, and we want her to like us. Why rock the boat by telling her that she did anything wrong? A dental hygienist our family knows has had 3 children out of wedlock, and each time she changes boyfriends, she posts a picture of herself with the new boyfriend on Facebook, and all her friends click like on the picture. What could be wrong with changing boyfriends every year when you have 3 young children to take care of? I think the same cheering on of bad decisions must have happened many times with Zeitner – people around her refusing to set boundaries on her long before she started killing her own babies. It’s easy for a woman to surround herself with people who just approve of everything she is doing – especially when she is young and attractive. Anyone who cautions her can just be blocked out. And the guaranteed failures that result from following her heart can just be declared “unexpected” by her carefully picked entourage of supporters. Life is so unpredictable, so she is not responsible.

Before Zeitner’s abortion decisions ever materialized, there were a million bad decisions that Zeitner made in order to find herself facing the choice to abort. She was acting on selfish motives – she wanted to have fun. So she broke moral rules more and more, and pushed away anyone who would judge her. All her friends and family standing around said nothing or even approved of her, because they were afraid to tell her “this will not work” or “this is wrong”. She had to have an exciting life, and hang out with exciting men. It’s the failure to draw the line with women beforehand that causes them to get to a place where a baby has to die. But we want so much to be her friend. And to be liked. Maybe to get attention from her, or affection from her, or even sex with her. Judging her seems so… intolerant and mean. We don’t want to be mean, do we? The Christian version of this is even more insidious, where the woman’s feelings are “God’s mysterious will for her life” and cannot be questioned or assessed rationally. It all ends the same, though.

Neil Shenvi responds to popular arguments for abortion rights

I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this decision
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this message

A very good read to make sure that you can handle the obvious ones, from Neil Shenvi, Ph.D.

Here are the objections:

  • “Women have a right to do what they want with their own bodies.”
  • “The government has no right to make laws telling a woman she can’t have an abortion”
  • “The unborn is not a human being, it is just a mass of cells.”
  • “Until the fetus has a heart and brain, it is not a human being.”
  • “It is moral to kill a fetus as long as it feels no pain.”
  • “No one should be forced to carry and raise the child of their rapist.”
  • “Making abortion illegal will not decrease abortion; it will only make drive it underground and make it less safe.”
  • “Laws should not be based on religion”
  • “If you are opposed to abortion, don’t have one.”
  • “We should combat abortion by reducing poverty, not by making it illegal.”
  • “Most people (i.e., men) who are against abortion will never even become pregnant.”

And here’s the detail on one of them:

“Women have a right to do what they want with their own bodies.”

The fundamental problem with this objection is that it assumes that laws against abortion are primarily concerned with what a woman can and cannot do to her own body. But they are not. Why? Ask yourself a simple question: how many brains does a woman have? One. But how many brains does a pregnant woman have? Still one. The woman’s body is not the issue in abortion: the baby’s body is. The developing fetus has a complete set of human DNA different than the mother’s. It has its own circulatory system, its own brain, its own fingers and toes and arms and legs. If it is a male, it even has a different gender than the mother. Therefore, the fetus is clearly not just ‘part of the woman’s body’. Laws against abortion aren’t telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body; they are telling a woman what she can and cannot do with someone else’s body.

Read them all, and pass them along.

You can find more answers to pro-choice questions here, from Dr. Francis Beckwith. These are the early versions to some of the arguments that later ended up in his academic book on pro-life apologetics entitled “Defending Life“, published by Cambridge University Press. The best introductory book on pro-life arguments is Scott Klusendorf’s “The Case for Life“.  I really recommend that one, because he is the top pro-life debater in the world, and he speaks from that experience of dealing with pro-choice arguments in public debates.

Further study

Learn about the pro-life case: