WARNING: The video linked below contains images of unborn baby body parts.
Here’s the third video released by The Center for Medical Progress:
And here’s the story from Anika Smith, writing at The Stream.
The latest video exposing Planned Parenthood isn’t just an undercover lunch conversation; it’s a first-person interview with a clinic worker who knows exactly what she’s doing as she explains Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts.
[…]It opens with Holly O’Donnell, a licensed phlebotomist who took a job as a “procurement technician” with the now-infamous fetal tissue company and biotech start-up StemExpress in late 2012. (As their website says, start with the source.)
O’Donnell explains what her job was:
“We’re asked to procure certain tissues like brain, liver, thymus, pancreas, heart, lungs, skin, pretty much anything on the fetus. It’s basically the trafficking of fetal tissues.”
And why was this happening? Well, for the money, of course:
For six months, O’Donnell’s job was to identify pregnant women at Planned Parenthood who met criteria for fetal tissue orders and to harvest the fetal body parts after their abortions. What O’Donnell has to say about Planned Parenthood’s profit motives decisively contradicts every defense Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards has come up with in denying these charges for the past two weeks. O’Donnell explains:
For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated.
And a bit later, this statement from Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde:
Standing in the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic pathology laboratory, where the bodies of aborted fetuses are brought, Ginde coolly calculates how payment per organ removed from a fetus will be the most beneficial to Planned Parenthood:
I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.
The Daily Signal is reporting that the Senate Republicans intend to introduce a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. The problem is that a stand-alone bill is less likely to pass than than if the defunding of Planned Parenthood was attached to a “mandatory” bill.
Republican Sens. Rand Paul, Ky.; James Lankford, Okla.; and Joni Ernst, Iowa, are working on legislation that would block federal funds from Planned Parenthood. The group receives more than $500 million annually in government grants. The money cannot be used for abortions except in specific cases involving rape and incest.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats would defeat the effort.
“Good luck with that,” Reid said. “We’re dealing with the health of American women, and they’re dealing with some right-wing crazy.”
The GOP will need 60 votes to defund the group, and there are 54 Republicans in the Senate.
[…]President Obama said he would veto any attempts to defund the group.
The House has a different bill which bans the government from entering into contracts with companies that donate directly to Planned Parenthood. That one is more likely to pass the House than the Senate bill is likely to pass the Senate.
This story from The Federalist explains how the Obama administration responded to Freedom of Information Act requests for all communication, payments, etc. to Dr. Deborah Nucotola of Planned Parenthood.
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.
And in fact the White House has gone a step further and actually lied about the video in order to provide cover for Planned Parenthood, which is not surprising when you think about how much money Planned Parenthood gives to the Democrat Party at election time.
What’s the answer to this? Where do we go from here?
I think the answer lies in efforts to shed more light on what Planned Parenthood is actually doing. If we can’t do it through FOIA requests, then we can always try other ways to try to shine light on what Planned Parentood is really doing.
One way I have seen that done is with mandatory ultrasound laws, such as the one signed into law by Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. The Stream has an article about how that is relevant to these Planned Parenthood videos.
Scott Walker has done the women of Wisconsin a signal service, and advanced the respect for human life, by pushing and signing a bill that mandates ultrasounds before abortions. As in his battle with corrupt, cash-grabbing public employee unions, Walker faced down a wave of vilification that spilled over into hatred, and he never flinched. This is the kind of political courage we need in a president, on a wide range of issues from religious freedom to foreign policy, from budget battles to Supreme Court appointments.
[…]But abortion profiteers like Planned Parenthood fought like wildcats to stop the ultrasound bill. If the procedure doesn’t change any minds, why would you think they would do that? Ultrasounds are safe, non-invasive procedures that most expectant mothers request at least once during each pregnancy. Their only outcome is usually a photo that goes on the fridge, and is Tweeted to friends. Why would doctors who specialize in aborting children, not delivering them, object to providing this service? Might they fear that women could change their minds once they saw their babies?
Pro-lifers such as Gov. Walker hoped that this is precisely what would happen. Dropping the sick pretense that abortion is a morally neutral decision which the state has no business attempting even to influence, Walker boldly said as much. He wants to encourage Wisconsin women not to destroy their unborn Wisconsin children, and to do that he wants to offer them more information, an extra medical procedure that is routine, standard and safe. The groups that profit from selling human organs want to give women less information, to urge them to make a lethal decision in the dark. Could the contrast be any clearer? One side wants to tell the truth in the service of life, the other to keep it hidden in service of death.
If you want to stop abortion, the answer is to provide people with more information of what abortion is, and the motives of the people who provide abortions, and the motives of the people who want taxpayers to subsidize it. We have to be able to talk about it to your neighbors in detail, and explain what really happens to the unborn baby during an abortion.
What does big government really look like? What does it mean for individuals, families, businesses and churches to give their money to the government so that the government can distribute it as they see fit?
Well, Seattle is one of the most liberal cities in America and they embody the idea of big government. Let’s see how they spend the massive amounts of money they extract from individuals, families, businesses and churches.
Earlier this month, LifeNews.com reported on a high school in Seattle, Washington that is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control and doing so without parental knowledge or permission.
The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as an abortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.
The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit, Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance. And while it’s lauded that the contraception is confidential, how can it be beneficial for a parent-child relationship when the parents don’t even know the devices or medication their daughter is using?
As it turns out, Chief Sealth isn’t the only school in Seattle doing this. As CNS News reports, more schools are fitting young girls — as young as 6th grade — with the devices and doing so without their parents knowing.
Now how did this happen? Where did the public schools get the authority to have control of these children? And where did the money come from to pay for these schools?
The answer is that the money was taken from individuals, families, businesses and churches and given to the government. And how does a secular government spend this money? Do they spend it the same way that individuals, families, businesses and churches spend this money? No. They spend the money advancing their secular agenda, which, in this case, is to advance feminism and the sexual revolution. They want young girls to be available for sex, because they helps them to be less capable of life-long married love. A woman who has had a large number of break-ups, abortions, etc. at a young age is more likely to look to government, not to a husband, for support. Undermining her father’s authority in the area of sexuality is exactly what they are trying to achieve. And the father is paying to be undermined with his tax dollars.
Twenty years ago, new president Bill Clinton stepped on a political landmine when he tried to fulfill a campaign promise to permit gay soldiers to serve openly. Same-sex marriage barely registered as a political cause; the country was then three years away from the Defense of Marriage Act and four years from comedian Ellen DeGeneres’s prime-time coming out.
Then came what historians will one day recall as a cultural revolution. Now we’re entering the endgame of the struggle over gay rights and the meaning of homosexuality. Conservatives have been routed, both in court and increasingly in the court of public opinion. It is commonly believed that the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage is rank bigotry or for religious reasons, neither of which—the argument goes—has any place in determining laws or public standards.
The magnitude of the defeat suffered by moral traditionalists will become ever clearer as older Americans pass from the scene. Poll after poll shows that for the young, homosexuality is normal and gay marriage is no big deal—except, of course, if one opposes it, in which case one has the approximate moral status of a segregationist in the late 1960s.
[…]When they were writing the widely acclaimed 2010 book American Grace, a comprehensive study of contemporary religious belief and practice, political scientists Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell noticed two inverse trend lines in social-science measures, both starting around 1990.
They found that young Americans coming into adulthood at that time began to accept homosexuality as morally licit in larger numbers. They also observed that younger Americans began more and more to fall away from organized religion. The evangelical boom of the 1970s and 1980s stopped, and if not for a tsunami of Hispanic immigration the U.S. Catholic church would be losing adherents at the same rate as the long-dwindling Protestant mainline.
Over time, the data showed, attitudes on moral issues proved to be strong predictors of religious engagement. In particular, the more liberal one was on homosexuality, the less likely one was to claim religious affiliation. It’s not that younger Americans were becoming atheists. Rather, most of them identify as “spiritual, but not religious.” Combined with atheists and agnostics, these “Nones”—the term is Putnam’s and Campbell’s—comprise the nation’s fastest-growing faith demographic.
Indeed, according to a 2012 Pew Research Center study, the Nones comprise one out of three Americans under 30. This is not simply a matter of young people doing what young people tend to do: keep church at arm’s length until they settle down. Pew’s Greg Smith told NPR that this generation is more religiously unaffiliated than any on record. Putnam—the Harvard scholar best known for his best-selling civic culture study Bowling Alone—has said that there’s no reason to think they will return to church in significant numbers as they age.
Putnam and Campbell were careful to say in American Grace that correlation is not causation, but they did point out that as gay activism moved toward center stage in American political life… the vivid public role many Christian leaders took in opposing gay rights alienated young Americans from organized religion.
In a dinner conversation not long after the publication of American Grace, Putnam told me that Christian churches would have to liberalize on sexual teaching if they hoped to retain the loyalty of younger generations. This seems at first like a reasonable conclusion, but the experience of America’s liberal denominations belies that prescription. Mainline Protestant churches, which have been far more accepting of homosexuality and sexual liberation in general, have continued their stark membership decline.
It seems that when people decide that historically normative Christianity is wrong about sex, they typically don’t find a church that endorses their liberal views. They quit going to church altogether.
That’s why I am somewhat underwhelmed with the pure apologetics approach of most apologists.The real reason that drives atheist “apologetics” is, to be frank, the desire to dispense with rules around sexuality. The sexual freedom comes first, and then the speculative smokescreens follow. Close behind the sexual freedom is leftist economic policies (which are seen as more “fair”) and anti-business environmentalist policies. So there’s more turf to defend here than just the existence of God, the resurrection and the reliability of the Bible. That’s not what’s behind the drift of young people away from Christianity.
That’s why on this blog, you get a ton of politics and tons of studies and arguments against premarital sex, no-fault divorce, single motherhood by choice, same-sex marriage, and everything else that comes before traditional apologetics. (And you also get lots of apologetics, too!) We need to get better at defending Christian sexual ethics using purely secular arguments and evidence, e.g. – showing people how premarital sex undermines marital stability or how gay parenting harms the well-being of children. There are reasons for these rules we have, and we have to go beyond “The Bible Says…” if we expect to be convincing to young people.
And when we go against the Sexual Revolution, we have to bring secular arguments and secular evidence and bring it to bear squarely against radical feminism, and the Sexual Revolution. In particular, we have to put the burden of responsibility for poor sexual decisions back on the shoulders of young people. Young men must reject a cultural standard of what a “good” woman is. Young women must reject a cultural standard of what a “good” man is. Men and women who reject traditional Christianity, traditional morality, and traditional notions of male leadership and male roles are bad people to have relationships with. We have to persuade both men and women about the harm that poor choices cause – abortion, divorce, fatherlessness, expensive welfare programs. There is no point in blaming bad men and women – they are already bad. We have to teach young people to choose good men and good women. We have to teach them that choosing mates poorly, and making poor sexual choices, is their responsibility. They are not victims! And we shouldn’t be blaming one sex for the others poor choices, i.e. – we should not be blaming bad men when women chose them and make bad choices with the bad men. Those men were bad before the women chose them, and those women are only victims of their own poor choices.
When it comes to same-sex marriage, we have to defend traditional marriage using secular arguments and secular evidence. We have to show how same-sex marriage undermines religious liberty. We have to show how same-sex marriage undermines marital norms like exclusivity and permanence. We have to show how same-sex marriage harms children by depriving them of a mother or a father or both. And so on. We have to defend the goodness of traditional marriage.
A long, long time ago when I was in my “read one or two books about everything important” phase, I remember coming to marriage and picking out two books to read on that. The first was the Judith Wallerstein study on “The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce”, which talked about children’s experience of divorce over the 25-year period following their parent’s decision to divorce. The second was F. Carolyn Graglia’s book “Domestic Tranquility”.
I found an essay about the latter book that seems to be either the introduction or chapter one. I just thought I would share it here to clear up why people are not getting married as much as they used to.
Let’s see how it happened:
Since the late 1960s, feminists have very successfully waged war against the traditional family, in which husbands are the principal breadwinners and wives are primarily homemakers. This war’s immediate purpose has been to undermine the homemaker’s position within both her family and society in order to drive her into the work force. Its long-term goal is to create a society in which women behave as much like men as possible, devoting as much time and energy to the pursuit of a career as men do, so that women will eventually hold equal political and economic power with men. This book examines feminism’s successful onslaught against the traditional family, considers the possible ramifications of that success, and defends a woman’s choice to be a homemaker. Feminists have used a variety of methods to achieve their goal. They have promoted a sexual revolution that encouraged women to mimic male sexual promiscuity. They have supported the enactment of no-fault divorce laws that have undermined housewives’ social and economic security. And they obtained the application of affirmative action requirements to women as a class, gaining educational and job preferences for women and undermining the ability of men who are victimized by this discrimination to function as family breadwinners.
Sexual promiscuity, no-fault divorce laws and affirmative action laws that discriminate against male providers, were the goals of radicalfeminists. There may have been some men who went along with these things, but the main force behind it was radical feminism.
Certainly, feminism is not alone responsible for our families’ sufferings. As Charles Murray details in Losing Ground, President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, for example, have often hurt families, particularly black families, and these programs were supported by a large constituency beyond the women’s movement. What distinguishes the women’s movement, however, is the fact that, despite the pro-family motives it sometimes ascribes to itself, it has actively sought the traditional family’s destruction. In its avowed aims and the programs it promotes, the movement has adopted Kate Millett’s goal, set forth in her Sexual Politics, in which she endorses Friedrich Engels’s conclusion that “the family, as that term is presently understood, must go”; “a kind fate,” she remarks, in “view of the institution’s history. This goal has never changed: feminists view traditional nuclear families as inconsistent with feminism’s commitment to women’s independence and sexual freedom.
To counter radical feminism, women should be reading books that offer a serious, scholarly defense to feminism (e.g. – Christina Hoff Sommers, Carrie Lukas, F. Carolyn Graglia, etc.). You can tell whether a woman is a feminist based on how brittle she is with the idea that women have certain roles like wife and mother. Another good indicator is whether she is comfortable with the idea that relationships require each person to have certain responsibilities and obligations to the other that override their desire for happiness. Everyone in a relationship has responsibilities and obligations to the other person. For example, with few exceptions, a man ought to get up and go to work to support his family, just as the woman, with few exceptions, should try to keep fit and be available for her husband sexually. Feelings and desires should not override responsibilities and obligations in a relationship.
Emerging as a revitalized movement in the 1960s, feminism reflected women’s social discontent, which had arisen in response to the decline of the male breadwinner ethic and to the perception — heralded in Philip Wylie’s 1940s castigation of the evil “mom” — that Western society does not value highly the roles of wife and mother. Women’s dissatisfactions, nevertheless, have often been aggravated rather than alleviated by the feminist reaction. To mitigate their discontent, feminists argued, women should pattern their lives after men’s, engaging in casual sexual intercourse on the same terms as sexually predatory males and making the same career commitments as men. In pursuit of these objectives, feminists have fought unceasingly for the ready availability of legal abortion and consistently derogated both motherhood and the worth of fulltime homemakers.
[…]Contemporary feminism has been remarkably successful in bringing about the institutionalization in our society of the two beliefs underlying its offensive: denial of the social worth of traditional homemakers and rejection of traditional sexual morality. The consequences have been pernicious and enduring. General societal assent to these beliefs has profoundly distorted men’s perceptions of their relationships with and obligations to women, women’s perceptions of their own needs, and the way in which women make decisions about their lives.
Read the rest, it’s a good introduction to the book.
So how have men responded to the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce? Well, most non-Christian men are going to take the free sex that’s being offered to them, and back away from a life-long commitment to protect and provide. Even a number of “Christian” men are now finding it easy to work premarital sex into their relationships, something that would have been unthinkable to Bible-believers of earlier generations. Also, a woman who has a lot of premarital sexual experience is a red flag to most men – they worry that she will not be able to be faithful to them since she is already accustomed to recreational sex rather than married sex within a covenant. Premarital sex generally makes women less trusting, less vulnerable and less capable at being feminine in order to love a man. Research shows that the more premarital sex partners a woman has, the more unstable her marriage becomes. This is also true for men, but the effect is slightly less for men. It’s definitely something that has to be worked through, because it’s a risk factor for relationship instability.
If you ask any man today about what is holding him up from getting married, the first thing he will tell you is no-fault divorce laws. Whereas women may shy away from marriage because they are worried about being unhappy or losing their freedom, men have a much, much more pressing danger in mind – the danger of having your entire life savings wiped out in an instant. And that’s not to mention the prospect of only being able to see your kids for a few hours every month if you don’t get joint custody – which is the vast majority of cases (about 90%).