Tag Archives: Abortion

News

New Hampshire defunds Planned Parenthood, Democrat governor opposed

1 Comment
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

The New Hampshire Executive Council voted 3-2 to deny a  $639,000 contract with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

This is from the Washington Times. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

The New Hampshire vote, coming over the objections of Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, comes as the latest example of the backlash against Planned Parenthood following the release of five undercover videos raising alarm over the organization’s involvement in the trade of fetal organs from abortions.

[…]The Republican-controlled New Hampshire Executive Council denied state funding by turning down a $639,000 contract with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

[…]At least 10 other states have reacted by launching investigations, but New Hampshire is not one of them. The executive council’s decision to deny state funding to Planned Parenthood came after Ms. Hassan refused calls to look into the group’s practices regarding fetal tissue.

The governor has said there is no evidence of illegality at the state clinics, which reportedly do not handle fetal tissue donations, adding, “We do not launch investigations in the state of New Hampshire on rumor.”

The Democratic governor also rejected a request from Republicans, including Mr. Sununu, to look into using other health care providers for nonabortion services offered by the Planned Parenthood clinics.

[…]Ms. Hassan blasted the executive council’s vote in a Wednesday statement, saying, “I am incredibly disappointed in the outcome of today’s vote.”

“The council’s vote to defund Planned Parenthood will hurt the health and economic well-being of thousands of Granite Staters,” Ms. Hassansaid. “Moving forward, I will continue to fight to ensure that women and families have access to the important health services that are essential to the economic security and vitality of our families.”

So, there is some good news. New Hampshire joins other states like Wisconsin and Louisiana who have already de-funded the organ harvestors / human traffickers.

Related posts

Podcasts

Scott Klusendorf defends the pro-life view on the Unbelievable radio show

3 Comments
I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve of incrementalism
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve of this debate

Here are the details:

The abortion debate reared its head again this summer after controversial tweets by Richard Dawkins made the news.

Justin hosts a discussion between Mara Clarke of the Abortion Support Network and Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Instititute. Mara believes women need to be decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, but Scott says that all depends on whether we are dealing with a human life in the womb.

MP3 of this show: http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/p/618072/sp/61807200/playManifest/entryId/1_ggc953xi/flavorId/1_vto2eisb/protocol/http/format/url/a.mp3?clientTag=feed:1_jlj47tkv

My snarky paraphrase of the debate (not exact):

  • Speaker introductions
  • Klusendorf: no justification for abortion is necessary if the unborn are not human
  • Klusendorf: we need to address the issue “what is the unborn?” Are the unborn human?
  • Klusendorf: SLED: size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency
  • Klusendorf: None of these things affect the value of a human being
  • Klusendorf: Even if we don’t KNOW whether the unborn is human
  • Mara: I’m not going to debate when life begins
  • Mara: Women know when life begins by feelings
  • Mara: The moral decision is “whether I can take care of this child?”
  • Brierley: When is an unborn being human?
  • Mara: I refuse to debate that – the real question is whether women want their babies or not
  • Mara: Forced pregnancy is not OK
  • Brierley: Could your justification for abortion (not wanting to care for a child) work through all 9 months?
  • Mara: Late term abortions are rare, so I don’t have to answer that question
  • Mara: Abortion should be OK through all 9 months of pregnancy because women cannot be restricted
  • Mara: Some women are poor, they need to be able to kill expensive babies at any time
  • Klusendorf: although she says she won’t debate the unborn, she does take a position
  • Klusendorf: she assumes the unborn is not human, because she says that insufficient funds is justification for abortion
  • Klusendorf: no one argues that you can kill a two year old because they cost money, because she thinks they are human
  • Klusendorf: she is begging the question by assuming the unborn are not human, but that is the issue we must resolve
  • Klusendorf: I am pro-choice on many other things, e.g. women choosing their own husbands, religion, etc.
  • Klusendorf: Some choices are wrong – Mara might be right, but she needs to make the case for the unborn not being human
  • Brierley: What is your reason for thinking that an unborn child is different from a 2-year old?
  • Mara: An unborn child is not the same as a 2-year old, in my personal opinion
  • Mara: I am not a debater, so I don’t have to provide reasoning for my assertion, I just feel it
  • Mara: Not everybody agrees with Scott, they don’t have to have a rational argument, they just need to feel differently
  • Mara: From my experience, when a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, then she should be able to not be pregnant
  • Mara: Women shouldn’t be punished with a baby that she doesn’t want, even if she chooses to have recreational sex
  • Brierley: What do you think of women who think the unborn is human and do it anyway?
  • Klusendorf: It’s interesting that they never kill their toddlers for those reasons
  • Klusendorf: I layed out scientific and philosophical reasons for the humanity of the unborn
  • Klusendorf: Her response was “but some people disagree with you”
  • Klusendorf: People disagreed about whether slavery was wrong, or whether women should be able to vote
  • Klusendorf: that doesn’t mean there is no right answer – the right answer depends on the arguments
  • Klusendorf: if absence of agreement makes a view false, then it makes HER pro-choice view false as well
  • Klusendorf: she did make an argument for the unborn child having no rights because of the location
  • Klusendorf: she needs to explain to us why location matters – what about location confers value
  • Mara: I’m not going to let Scott frame my debate for me!!!
  • Mara: women get pregnant and they don’t want their babies! should we put them in jail!!!!
  • Klusendorf: I didn’t just give my opinion, I had science and philosophy, the issue is “what is the unborn?”
  • Mara: philosophical and scientific debates are unimportant, I am an expert in real women’s lives
  • Klusendorf: Which women? Women in the womb or only those outside the womb?
  • Mara: Only those outside the womb
  • Klusendorf: Only those outside the womb?
  • Mara: Women living outside the womb have a right to kill women inside the womb – women have bodily autonomy
  • Klusendorf: then does a pregnant woman with nausea have a right to take a drug for it that will harm her unborn child?
  • Mara: Unborn children are only valuable if they are wanted, unborn children only deserve protection if they are wanted
  • Mara: There are restrictions on abortion – you can’t get an abortion through all nine months in the US
  • Mara: There is a 24-week limit in the UK as well
  • Klusendorf: There are no restrictions on abortion that conflict with “a woman’s health” because Supreme Court said
  • Mara: where are these late term abortion clinics?
  • Klusendorf: (he names two)
  • Mara: that’s not enough!!! we need more! where is there one in Pennsylvania?
  • Klusendorf: well, there used to be Gosnell’s clinic in Pennsylvania, and you could even get an infanticide there….
  • Brierley: What about Dawkins’ view that it is moral to abort Down’s Syndrome babies?
  • Klusendorf: he is ignoring the scientific case and philosophical case for the pro-life
  • Klusendorf: the pro-life view is a true basis for human equality

What I wanted Scott to ask was whether sex-selection abortions were OK with her. Since her reasoning is “if it’s unwanted, it has no rights”, then that would mean sex-selection abortions are just fine. That’s what a UK abortion expert recently argued. And I also posted recently about how sex-selection abortions are not prosecuted in the UK. If you’re looking for a war on women, there it is.

News

Fifth video: Planned Parenthood selling intact 20-week baby cadavers for profit

2 Comments
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

Here’s the latest video:

WARNING: The video above contains graphic images of violence against unborn children, especially in the second half. Viewer discretion is advised.

Rachel Alexander writes about the fifth video from the Center for Medical Progress at The Stream.

She writes:

Posing as a research company interested in purchasing fetuses, the undercover buyers discuss the costs with Melissa Farrell, Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. Farrell, with her background in finance, makes it clear the transaction will be profitable — a felony since federal law prohibits profiting from the sale of fetal body parts — and that they can change the abortion procedures to ensure the fetuses come out intact (thus rendering them more marketable in the fetal body parts aftermarket), also a violation of law.

A particularly incriminating part of the video comes when Farrell turns to a technician and asks, “Any idea why the other affiliates in Texas think it’s illegal?”

The big new development in this video is that the abortion procedures are being modified in order to deliver intact unborn baby corpses.

More:

Farrell discusses how they’ll need to change their abortion procedures to make sure the fetuses come out intact: “We deviate from our standard, get creative … exploring how to make a higher chance of intact, talk directly to the doctor — they can make it happen.” This is further evidence that the abortionists, contrary to federal law, do often deviate from standard procedure to improve the marketability of the baby body parts. The standard procedures are standard, incidentally, because they are judged to be the best procedures for the life and health of the mothers, but apparently never mind about that when other considerations are on the table.

Amelia Hamilton comments in her article at The Stream:

When Melissa Farrell referred to fetuses as “a matter of line items,” she is talking about money, discussing how to charge to get the most out of each baby. Here are some other examples from this fifth video.

“My department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here.” (7:08 into the video)

“If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this — it’s all just a matter of line items.”  (7:58 into the video)

So they can add a line item (charge) to each order for specific parts because each specific part request requires dissection and shipping costs. They can add those line items to each order so that they can maximize revenue. So the abortion business is really not about recouping costs at all – it really is about making a profit. They are using unwanted human beings to make money. Much like slave owners did, except slave owners never treated their slaves this gruesomely.

Related posts