Last week, a hidden-camera video was released. It claimed to show that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling tissues from aborted fetuses. The video’s release went viral, leading politicians and anti-abortion activists to seize the initiative.
Senator Rand Paul vowed to “introduce an amendment to pending Senate legislation to immediately strip every dollar of Planned Parenthood funding.” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas likewise called for defunding and for “an investigation of Planned Parenthood’s activities regarding the sale and transfer of aborted body parts.”
The New York Times editorial on Wednesday called it “the latest in a series of unrelenting attacks on Planned Parenthood, which offers health care services to millions of people every year.” The Times argues that, while the video purports to show Planned Parenthood illegally selling tissues from aborted fetuses, “it shows nothing of the sort.”
They add, “The politicians howling to defund Planned Parenthood care nothing about the truth here, being perfectly willing to undermine women’s reproductive rights any way they can.”
The video is a nine-minute video clip released by the Center for Medical Progress. It invites viewers to “Hold Planned Parenthood accountable for their illegal sale of baby parts.”
The shows Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, discussing the collection of fetal tissue in a lunch meeting with two people posing as potential tissue buyers. In fact, the full video of the lunch meeting is over two hours long. It shows a very different picture than critics claims.
The New York Times writes, “Clearly, the shorter version was edited to eliminate statements by Dr. Nucatola explaining that Planned Parenthood does not profit from tissue donation, which requires the clear consent of the patient. Planned Parenthood affiliates only accept money — between $30 and $100 per specimen, according to Dr. Nucatola — to cover costs associated with collecting and transporting the tissue.”
“This is not something with any revenue stream that affiliates are looking at,” she said.
Under federal law, facilities may be reimbursed for costs associated with fetal tissue donation, like transportation and storage.
From a local angle, a letter sent by attorneys from Planned Parenthood indicated that the head of the Center for Medical Progress is David Daleiden. Mr. Daleiden is a 2007 Davis High School Graduate. His mother is Gina Daleiden, a former Davis School Board member and current Chief Deputy to Supervisor Jim Provenza.
According to the Planned Parenthood attorney, “Over the last eight years, Mr. Daleiden has participated in at least 10 separate attacks on Planned Parenthood involving gaining access to our health centers and offices under false pretenses, taping staff (and sometimes patients) without their knowledge on at least 65 occasions (not counting this latest fraud), and misleading the public with heavily edited tapes and flat-out false charges.”
Three years ago, Mr. Daleiden allegedly “created what we now know to be a phony company called Biomax Procurement Services, which held itself out as a legitimate tissue procurement organization. Biomax then embarked on a campaign of corporate espionage with Planned Parenthood and its affiliates as its target.”
The letter continues, “The sham company used the false pretense of seeking tissue for research purposes to gain access to our facilities and staff. These fraudulent efforts appear to have been meticulously planned.” To cite one example, “Biomax set up exhibits at our National Medical Conference and our National Conference over the last couple of years.”
Mr. Daleiden engaged in secretly recording Planned Parenthood staff and patients at least 65 times over the last eight years, potentially yielding thousands of hours of recordings.
Mr. Daleiden talked the New York Times for an article on Tuesday. He told the Times he had been an anti-abortion activist for more than a decade, forming an anti-abortion group at his school.
He continued his work as a student at Claremont McKenna college, where he got a degree in government.
According to some background information, Mr. Daleiden was temporarily banned from the Pomona College campus after videotaping a presentation by Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles public affairs manager Serena Josel and asking “tough questions.” The tough questions were apparently asking a “Planned Parenthood official there for proof that the group was covering up statutory rape.”
In 2012 while serving as the Research Director for Live Action, David Daleiden participated in a hoax with a “sting” that included establishing a fake medical website, which raised concern from the California Attorney General.
Mr. Daleiden worked for Live Action in college and became director of research in 2008. In his Live Action bio, Mr. Daleiden attributed his anti-abortion militancy to seeing images of aborted fetuses as a teenager. But in the interview, he also said, “I am the child of a crisis pregnancy.”
He told the Times that “his parents, who are now divorced, were juniors in college when his mother became pregnant. He said he had grown up ‘culturally Catholic,’ that is, not particularly religious.”
The Times notes that he now calls Pope Francis “my inspiration,” although Mr. Daleiden’s activism long predates the pope’s ascension, and he points to Francis’ “emphasis on just being active, on going outside of yourself to accomplish things.”
In 2013, Mr. Daleiden formed the non-profit, the Sacramento-based Center for Medical Progress. The Internal Revenue Service granted the Center for Medical Progress tax-exempt status, allowing donors to deduct contributions, as a nonprofit under the agency’s category for “Diseases, Disorders, Medical Disciplines: Biomedicine, Bioengineering.”
According to the editorial, the Center for Medical Progress “appears to have done little beyond producing the undercover video.”
In a statement last week, Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that “our donation programs — like any other high-quality health care providers — follow all laws and ethical guidelines” and that “Planned Parenthood stands behind our work to help women and families donate tissue for medical research when they wish to.”
The Times notes, “Researchers use fetal tissue to study and develop treatments for diseases and conditions like H.I.V., hepatitis, congenital heart defects, retinal degeneration and Parkinson’s. Last year, the National Institutes of Health gave $76 million in grants for fetal tissue research. Planned Parenthood is certainly not the only collector of fetal tissue — clinics associated with universities also supply tissue for research.”
The Times concludes, “The Center for Medical Progress video campaign is a dishonest attempt to make legal, voluntary and potentially lifesaving tissue donations appear nefarious and illegal. Lawmakers responding by promoting their own anti-choice agenda are rewarding deception and putting women’s health and their constitutionally protected rights at risk.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I was shocked to learn that Planned Parenthood had developed a revenue stream from the bodies of the dead fetuses. Even more shocked that they managed the abortion procedure to keep the body with the organs undamaged so that they could be used for medical research. Regardless of your position on abortion (and I am not pro life) it should should be eye opening. Especially the “crunch” comment over lunch.
And you read that they have not developed a revenue stream, that it’s basically a donation to researchers and reimbursement for cost? That’s in the article.
““Hold Planned Parenthood accountable for their illegal sale of baby parts.”
“Under federal law, facilities may be reimbursed for costs associated with fetal tissue donation, like transportation and storage.”
Unfortunately David, it would seem from conversations I have heard that some people have followed up no further on this than the version presented by Mr. Daleiden. Tissue donation is widely and ethically used for sometimes life saving research with reimbursement for costs just as you have stated. This is true for all kinds of tissue. It has been my experience throughout my medical career that tissues are handled with care overall as most donors and those who handle the tissues are aware that what they are providing is a precious medical resource and source of future knowledge.
I am reiterating this point since I think it is critical that people understand that what Planned Parenthood is doing is not illegal. Whether or not it is immoral depends not upon any objective standard but upon people’s personal interpretation based on their own religious or moral belief system and has nothing at all to do with the law.
The article explains what Planned Parenthood actually does and why it is legal. I understand why Mr. Daleiden would want to use hyperbole, but for that doesn’t make it accurate.
Tia, as best as you know does the tissue donation process require the permission of the patient? If so it would seem to be similar to the Organ Donor designation that all Californians have as an optional field on their drivers license … no permission, no donation.
Unfortunately, Mr. Daleiden’s activities undermine his own goal. While it is true that Planned Parenthood does provide abortion services, it remains true that the vast majority of its activities are in the provision of other health care services to women. Ironically enough, one major such preventive service is the means based provision of highly effective reversible contraception often for women who have no other means of obtaining these reliable contraceptives. ( Condoms are not, repeat not, statistically effective as contraceptives although they are statistically effective at STD prevention). Closing Planned Parenthood, with its emphasis on prevention, will actually increase the number of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
If Mr. Daleiden were truly interested in reduction in the number of abortions, he could advocate for governmentally provided free contraception available at a site accessible to the woman needing contraception. A fundamental concept that the antiabortion extremists do not seem capable of understanding ( or are willfully ignoring) is that every unwanted pregnancy prevented is a potential abortion prevented.
zaqzaq
“Even more shocked that they managed the abortion procedure to keep the body with the organs undamaged so that they could be used for medical research.”
I also would probably be shocked if I were to take at face value the way abortions are portrayed by anti-abortion activists who sometimes innocently and sometimes knowingly misrepresent the ways in which abortions are performed. There are a number of different procedures and techniques that can be used which are highly variable depending on the weeks of pregnancy at the time of the procedure. The Vanguard is not the place for a discussion of medical techniques, however, if anyone is interested in learning about how these procedures are actually done in a medical clinic setting vs what would be occurring if we once again force closure of the safe medical providers, I will be happy to communicate directly by email or phone or in person. Because of the emotional and volatile nature of this subject I am not going to post my phone number here, but if anyone is interested, and willing to identify yourself, I would be very easy to find via the Vanguard.
I would also be very willing to work collaboratively with Mr. Daleiden or anyone willing to pursue their goal through honest, transparent, legal and non-confrontatonal means. That has been a major goal of my career. I have chosen to pursue it through different means, namely education and readily available ( same day ) contraception. To anyone interested, I can be contacted through the Vanguard.
Matt
“as best as you know does the tissue donation process require the permission of the patient? “
Yes.
Thank you Tia.
So, if Tia is correct, the patient is donating the tissue for scientific research purposes and Planned Parenthood is providing shipping and handling services, and getting reimbursed for the expenses associated with providing those shipping and handling services. Am I missing something?
What you’re missing is that the point of the “expose” is to defame PP to further the political agenda of the anti-abortion, anti-choice, anti feminist, anti-democratic crowd.
Dave, I didn’t miss that point at all. I simply chose not to respond to political rhetoric/calculation with more political rhetoric. I would like to see on all levels of public discourse less political calculation and more evidence-based decision making. That goes for national issues like this one, as well as local issues here in Davis.
Political calculations will almost always be part of the evidence on which evidence-based decision making is made, but all too often we see political calculations and/or political rhetoric overwhelm any serious consideration of the evidence. Political rhetoric and political pandering are more extreme versions of political calculations, ones that move us farther from wise decisions, not closer.
For the record, when I was personally faced with a right-to-life/right-to-chose decision back in 1970, I strongly supported my partner’s right to choose, and both of us personally chose life for our child. The clarity of both those decisions made 44+ years ago, is one of the foundation values of my son’s and my relationship. For me, those foundation values overwhelm any anti-abortion, anti-choice, anti feminist, anti-democratic sentiments that I am occasionally forced to deal with.
I am sure that the feelings of the groups you have characterized as “the anti-abortion, anti-choice, anti feminist, anti-democratic crowd” are deeply held, and probably unshakable. Therefore a simple discussion of the facts of the medical transactions becomes (for me) a more constructive way to wrestle with the realities of people who want to contribute in a small way to scientific research and discovery. Further, since I have over 30 years of experience working in the healthcare industry, I have a pretty good understanding of how those transactions work.
Do these doctors get bonuses based on how many organs they sell? That would explain the sports car quote.
TBD, to the best of my knowledge they are not selling anything. They are the transfer agents between the patient donor and the research facility.
With that said, I have not personally viewed the tapes. Can you please give me a link to the Lamborghini reference you included in your earlier post. I would like to view that.
I hadn’t seen the full clip, the sports car reference seems to be another tasteless joke in this sick story.
More interesting seem to be two items:
1) The tape leads off with a Planned Parenthood commercial – did they buy this after the controversy to pitch their defense?
2) The tape includes the doctor talking about changing the abortion procedure used – which is against their rules / contract – in order to procure the needed “tissue”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwcMDLac2kk
Unfortunately, the Vanguard and readers have mischaracterized the Planned Parenthood tapes.
1. There are two tapes, released one week apart. I believe it is another medical doctor (woman) cavalierly discussing the selling of baby parts.
2. In the first tape, the PP executive / doctor discusses the ghastly medical “procedures” while sipping wine and knoshing on appetizers at an upscale establishment.
3. The second doctor is haggling for the top price, saying that she wants to buy a Lamborghini (sports car).
4. Seven or nine states have opened investigations into the practices of PP selling fetal organs.
5. The mainstream (liberal) TV outlets have downplayed the ghastly tapes / story, ABC News evening and morning shows having a combined 46 seconds on the story.
6. The first time I recall late-term abortions being discussed, the abortion providers strenuously fought the release of data on how many procedures were being conducted. Abortion advocates claimed it was exceedingly rare, and only used in order to protect the life of the mother. I believe estimates were that less than 5,000 nationwide were performed. It turns out a dramatically higher number of late term abortions are performed, leading many to believe that it is being used as a last-minute “procedure” in which the fetus is fully developed and can survive on its own outside the womb.
7. Late-term abortion is a particularly ghastly procedure.
8. In at least one of the videos, the doctor is talking about how they can crush everything above the organs, or below the organs, in order to maintain the organ samples in the best condition. She may have been referring to the late-term abortion procedure.
“the point of the “expose” is to defame PP to further the political agenda of the anti-abortion, anti-choice, anti feminist, anti-democratic crowd.”
This is a clear statement of the issue.
I want to make my position clear. Like Mr. Daleiden, I find abortion abhorrent. I wish it never had to happen. I would like to prevent as many as possible. However, unlike Mr. Daleiden, I do not want to forward my goal of abortion reduction by actions which will harm others or by vilifying ( falsely by the way) the actions of others who feel differently from me on this issue.
There are two critical points that I believe those who would destroy Planned Parenthood are missing.
1) The best way to prevent an abortion is to prevent the pregnancy. This is one of the core missions of Planned Parenthood. Destroy Planned Parenthood and you destroy the ability of many women to acquire effective contraception.
2) Another core mission of Planned Parenthood is to provide preventive and primary health care to women who do not otherwise have affordable or accessible care to these services including breast and cervical cancer screening. Destroy Planned Parenthood and you will cost some women much more in terms of need for more extensive health care in the future due to loss of early detection and in some cases their lives.
I am not sure if Mr. Daleiden and activist who take the same approach are aware of the potential loss of health and life driven by their attempted actions, or if they simply do not care. I sincerely hope that it is ignorance rather than apathy that is driving this needlessly divisive approach since ignorance can be corrected. Lack of caring cannot.
I would be more than happy to help educate and or work with anyone who has an interest in abortion rate reduction in a non adversarial fashion. Reach me through the Vanguard.
No one gave these doctors scripts to read, did they?
TBD
Late term abortion is indeed a ghastly procedure. And it is rare. And it is performed when the mothers life is at stake. I know because I was the participant in one such procedure early in my training. That is the only one in a thirty year career. I have posted on this before, but see it as worth repeating.
We did not routinely do early US at the time and thus the baby’s condition was not detected until near term and even then was only detected because an astute clinician realized that the woman had suddenly, not gradually developed a uterine size that was much, much ( not a little) larger than expected for estimated gestational age. The US was done at about 36 weeks for this reason. This is clearly beyond the age of fetal viability outside the uterus. However, the condition discovered was severe fetal hydrocephalus. The baby’s brain had been effectively crushed and replaced by a collection of fluid. The baby’s head was far too large to pass through the birth canal. It was too large to be delivered safely by Cesarean section. Further growth had it been allowed to continue would have led to the life threatening rupture of the woman’s uterus from which she would have bled to death. This was a highly religious woman with a deeply desired pregnancy. This was a tragedy in her life and that of her family. The options weree to await the inevitable, allow further growth with her in the hospital so that emergency surgery could be attempted at the time of the inevitable rupture in an attempt to save her life ( not the life of the baby which could not survive this degree of brain damage outside the uterus) , or to decompress the fluid with a needle placed through the fetal skull thus allowing for the safe delivery of the baby. Many prayers were said and very serious consideration made of the options both by the family and the religious members of our team. The decision was made to act in the manner safest for the pregnant woman. No one was happy with the decision. No one wanted to profit from it. My supervisor and I cried through the entire, yes, ghastly procedure. And I have no doubt that this procedure saved the woman’s life, and would choose to do so again.
Not only abortion, but many medical procedures are “ghastly”. Amputations are ghastly and yet few would argue that they can be life saving and the practitioners who perform them and patient’s who choose them should not be vilified, even by those who do not believe in medicine and would prefer to die “in God’s hands” rather than to have the procedure done.
One question that must be asked is: Do we want our medical care determined by the sensibilities of the most restrictive amongst us, or do we want medical care to be determined, by the real needs of patients and the willingness of their doctors to care for them ? Do we want our medical care dictated by an individual’s sense of what is “ghastly” or “gruesome” which all most all major operations will be to those not in the medical field, or do we want individuals to have control of their own bodies within the boundaries of the law ?
Finally I would like to stress that this is not an issue of the right vs the left. There are many of my colleagues politically far, far to the “right” of me that fully believe in a woman’s right to abortion. The woman who had primary responsibility for the procedure I described was one such person philosophically. She happened to believe in this woman’s right to life and right to choose.
How does this story fit in with a woman’s right to choose…?
https://youtu.be/koEynMsIJS4
And how does it fit in with victim mentality?
Frankly
“How does this story fit in with a woman’s right to choose…?”
Really ? You do not see that this woman had a choice ? She could certainly have chosen to wait facing a very real chance of death herself or she could choose as she did to choose the course of greater safety for herself knowing that the baby had zero chance of survival either way. You do not see how this is a choice ? I see it as the very essence of personal medical choice.
“And how does it fit in with victim mentality?”
It doesn’t. And you are potentially the only poster than I can imagine making any connection at all. Since I can’t even fathom the commotion that you see, perhaps you could clarify ?
As for the posted clip, it is truly inspirational. And I would like to point out that there is a vast difference between lacking both legs and lacking a brain.
Frankly
Oops. I may have misinterpreted your question about how does this story fit in with a woman’s right to choose. I thought you were responding to my comment. If you were responding to the article and how that fits in with a woman’s right to choose, my answer would be entirely different. This is my answer to that question.
Mr. Daleiden is making a direct, concerted and ongoing attack on Planned Parenthood and seemingly one of its services which centers around “a woman’s right to choose”. Thus the relevance.
Sorry if I have totally muddled the intended question.
I think NOW and most of the activist left would support a fetus with no legs being terminated.
And for all those people claiming oppression from access to happiness and success, take a look at this video and explain to me why you have it worse than this young lady did growing up.
Happiness and success in life is 90% attitude.
But first you have to be allowed to be born.
“But first you have to be allowed to be born.”
The problem that I have with the above statement is that none of us have any idea what happens to our life-force when it moves on to the next stage. If one subscribes, as I do, to the concept that our existence on this plane is one chapter in a long running book, with many chapters before and many chapters to come, then that life-force that you have described as not being “allowed to be born” will simply be moving on to the next chapter of its never-ending existence.
Matt
Wow ! Thank you for sharing that. I think this is a wonderful example of precisely why we should not be allowing one outlook on life to dictate what others can and cannot choose as their own medical options.
So Jim Jones was righteous in his actions?
Of course that is a rhetorical question.
Certainly none of us has any idea. We can only guess. Or we can have faith in what we don’t have factual evidence about. Or we can claim factual evidence that is really just our biased viewpoint or convictions based on strong feelings.
But in the end we don’t know.
We might very well just return to earth as carbon atoms that eventually get recycled in the ecosystem. Our time on this planet and this existence might very well be the ONLY miracle of life or life-force that we get to experience. We might be the only similar life-force that exists in the universe. We might just be a giant great mistake of evolution from the primordial ooze.
Even if you hold on to a faithful believe of a secondary spiritual existence that makes this 4-twenties-and-a-five average span seem a pittance in profoundness; shouldn’t you till try to make the most out of it?
I was young and then I woke up and realized I was old. Where did all that time go? Did I take advantage of it given that it might be that a trillion, trillion to one lottery win? Or even if not that, a God-given blessing?
Life expectancy is around 85, and when that span is placed next to the span of our known universe, we are less than a flash. We are really around for a short time. Either it is all we get, or it is just a thing we get to experience in a step toward something else.
We should be allowed to have our own life epiphanies about the meaning of our life and what we want to do in this life.
That was my point. We cannot do this is we are not allowed to be born.
“That was my point. We cannot do this is we are not allowed to be born.”
Understood. And my point was that we don’t know if that is true. That unborn life essence may well be living life to the fullest in the chapter that follows. Life expectancy may be 85 … or it may not be 85. We simply don’t know.
“shouldn’t you till try to make the most out of it?”
You and Tia regularly argue back and forth on variations on this topic. The definitions of “try to make the most out of it” are many and varied.
“So Jim Jones was righteous in his actions?”
It was far more than rhetorical. It was gratuitous and beneath your dignity.
Devoid of sensitivity, it was a deep-thinking question in response to your fine points.
And I apologize for my lack of sensitivity. I am Frankly you know.
Comes down to the assessed value of life in this existence. Because the beliefs of the Jones Town congregation was that their next existence was the ONE and this existence was only a temporary inconvenience.
You can in fact oppose that mindset with an argument that, however temporary, this life is important too.
Again, understood. However, I believe the word “oppose” is problematic in such a discussion. Since we can never know the answer, going down an “either/or” path seems unnecessarily prescriptive. On the other hand a “both/and” path leaves both of us with the comfort that our metaphysical beliefs are not under attack. Reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably. I respect your right to believe what you believe.
Frrankly
“I think NOW and most of the activist left would support a fetus with no legs being terminated.”
You may certainly “think” whatever you like. What I “know” from thirty years of experience in this precise field is that people of all political, ideologic and religious stripes are all across the board with what “defects” they consider eligible for abortion. Their opinions also seem to vary when it is a person unknown to them facing a pregnancy based medical crisis vs whether it is themselves or a loved one facing the identical situation. This isf why it is so critical that we not make decision making contingent not on anyone’s personal religious or ideologic belief system other than that of the patient.
I don’t have any particular problem with abortion prior to the baby being viable (first 5 months). Nor do I have any particular problem using fetal tissue for research. I would agree prevention through contraception is certainly preferable to abortion. However, after reading was was specifically said by Planned Parenthood representatives in the video, I should think anyone, no matter which side of the abortion issue that s/he may be on, would want a further investigation into PP practices, to determine if PP is violating federal law by:
1. Making illegal profit off of selling fetal tissue;
2. Changing the way abortions are done, possibly cause greater discomfort to the patient, to ensure more intact fetuses.
If PP has nothing to hide, it should welcome such an investigation. JMO
Anon
I also have no problem with an investigation to determine whether this particular accusation has any merit. I have a great deal of difficulty if the investigation is used as a means to shut down Planned Parenthood while the “investigation” drags on forever based on the kind of “innuendo and reporting” that was done here. If you like, you can read my interpretation of what was said on the portions of the tape that I was able to Google.
An investigation by whom? Congress? The Justice Department?
THE VIDEO TAPES WERE CUT AND SPLICED! Dalieden and his group are very dishonest. I would guess that he has an obsessive compulsive disorder. Psych meds would be good for him. His poor mother must be very embarrassed.
Please, let’s not drag external parties into this.
Anon
“Changing the way abortions are done, possibly cause greater discomfort to the patient, to ensure more intact fetuses.”
Actually Anon, the procedure in which the tissue remains intact is the gentler and more comfortable for the patient. It is just that it takes time and money to make the conversion from the older technique to the newer one. Even in our system the transition is being made gradually and not all locations have made the transition yet. So it is quite the opposite from what you have suggested. Ironically, one positive outcome from Planned Parenthood receiving more money per procedure as was verbally forced on the PP executive by the interviewer attempting to make her appear “greedy” might be their ability to make this conversion to the newer, gentler ( for both patient and tissue) procedure more rapidly with more funding to do so. This would be a win for both the patients and the researchers.
Matt
Up until now, I also had not watched the tape in question. I took a few minutes to do so and would like to mention a few points not brought up in previous posters comments.
1. The Planned Parenthood executive makes it very clear that they are not “selling tissue for profit”. It is the interviewer for the non – existent company who keeps repeating “how much would make you happy”. The initial statement of costs needs by the executive was $ 75.00″ ( clearly an amount reasonable to cover costs, not to make a profit). The interviewer then says in effect, “oh no. that’s way too low” thus essentially conning the executive into agreeing to a higher price. This is the essence of entrapment.
2. The comment that the patient “gets nothing” has been falsely represented in some on line comments as meaning that all of the “profit” goes to Planned Parenthood. What it means in reality is that neither the patient nor Planned Parenthood is profiting.
3. A technical word about the disgust over the word “crunchy”. This choice of wording has been completely misrepresented. I will be happy to explain what is actually being conveyed here for those who are unfamiliar with these procedures, but want to make a warning in advance that some of you may not want to keep reading because the details have to be laid out explicitly in order to understand this comment. So stop here if you will be offended.
There are three basic ways to terminate a first trimester ( or early pregnancy) up to about 10-12 weeks. There is the medical approach. Then there is a classic D&C which means that the cervix is mechanically dilated and the contents of the uterus are extracted with a mechanical suction device. This is the “standard manner” to which she is referring. The pressure from this procedure is sufficient to cause disruption of the developing fetus from the remainder of the surrounding tissues. It also often creates enough suction to be fairly uncomfortable for the patient. This has led to many providers switching to a third option which is a manually operated hand held suction device which is largely felt to be more comfortable for the patient and also less disruptive of the tissues because less suction is created with the hand held device. This is the technique that she was referring to as “less crunchy”. It could also have been referred to as less disruptive, less painful, or more humane. Since it is a departure from the standard practice at Planned Parenthood, this would have to gain approval and would have to be explained thoroughly to the patients just like any proposed change from the previous standard. It is this process to which the Planned Parenthood executive was referring.
However, the interviewers have no interest in telling the whole story. They are only extracting and focusing on words and phrases that they can exploit for their purpose which is to inflame people’s emotions, not engage in any reasonable problem solving approach to minimizing the number of abortions.
I am sorry if I seem to be monopolizing the thread, but I feel that I am probably the poster with the most factual and in depth knowledge on this subject and I think that the full story needs to be heard and considered.
Tia Will: “I think that the full story needs to be heard and considered.”
I think the full story needs to be investigated, including hearings, consideration, and inquiry, to be sure no federal laws are being violated. The cavalier statements made by PP representatives are enough to give me pause… and I am not a pro-lifer, I have no problem with fetal tissue research, I’m a firm believer in contraception, and I am not in favor of closing down PP without just cause.
Liberal Dictionary: Attack – playing the recorded words of an Executive in public
i think the concern is that the video was clipped to distort the actual content.
Anon
“I think the full story needs to be investigated, including hearings, consideration, and inquiry, to be sure no federal laws are being violated. The cavalier statements made by PP representatives are enough to give me pause”
Again, I have no problem with an unbiased investigation. However, in the past we have seen too many of these” investigations ” be conducted in ways which excluded a fair representation of the issues, in which women in particular were made fun of both in the media and by governmental officials who were not only clearly biased but also poorly informed.
I also interpreted the words of the representative from PP very differently from how you interpreted them which is to be expected being that we have very different life and professional experiences. I explained my interpretation in a separate post.
I read today that the California attorney general will be investigating the information on the tapes and Planned Parenthood to see if they are engaged in any illegal activities. She will also investigate David’s actions and those of his group to see if the impersonation and secret taping violated any laws.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article28666714.html
It’s late, but the AP article I read had very little about Kamala Harris investigating Planned Parenthood, instead it focused on investigating the Irvine-based Center for Medical Progress.
My understanding is that there is no “expectation of privacy” in a public place like the restaurants here. These were not conversations taped in a home or hotel room.
If so, I guess the only direction her political witch hunt can go is to see if there was something illegal in his setting up dummy companies.
FWIW, it sounds like he has more tapes on the way. Will Kamala Harris do a true investigation of the practices of Planned Parenthood?
TBD
“I read had very little about Kamala Harris investigating Planned Parenthood, instead it focused on investigating the Irvine-based Center for Medical Progress.”
“I guess the only direction her political witch hunt can go is to see if there was something illegal in his setting up dummy companies.”
I find it interesting that you see an investigation of Mr. Daleiden’s activities as a “witch hunt” but do not seem to feel the same way about his activities in opposition to Planned Parenthood. As best I can see the past six years of Mr. Daleiden’s life have been a witch hunt aimed at Planned Parenthood. All it seems that we have to go on in demanding an investigation of Planned Parenthood are a few casual comments in a conversation deliberately steered towards financial gain after a “low ball” estimate was made by the PP executive which obviously could not be used to support the claim of profiteering and a clearly facetious comment about wanting a Lamborghini. And this is what is being used as the basis for the demand for an investigation ! Well, why not ! We investigate and litigate absolutely everything in our country. I have been sued for “wrongful life” for heaven’s sake ! Talk about irony !
So why not look at Planned Parenthoods process for reimbursement for procurement of legally available material for scientific research ? I do think that one thing should be considered with regard to an investigation. If Planned Parenthood is found to be innocent of any profiteering as I believe would likely be the case, then I believe Mr. Daleiden and his group should be held financially responsible for all of the costs to Planned Parenthood for the investigation. This might just put a damper on these kind of attempted “sting”” operations.
The “for profit” aspect was not the only troubling issue. The other one was that PP might foster a change in the way abortions are performed to ensure more intact fetal tissue, resulting in more discomfort to the mother. I find that disconcerting…
Anon, yesterday afternoon Tia Will responded to your same concern when you brought it up. Her response is below. Please note the first sentence, which addresses your discomfort of the mother concerns, specifically “the procedure in which the tissue remains intact is the gentler and more comfortable for the [mother].”
The PP representative didn’t seem to think so. Think about that.
David Daleiden will certainly not end up in th DHS Hall of Fame. As I read more about his activities, i am more than appalled. The deception of setting up fake companies, exhibiting at conferences under false pretences, his connection to anti-vaxxers, his way of interviewing people to get them to say things he wants them to say. He should be prosecuted for trying to buy fetal body parts for profit – clearly illegal. Or prosecuted for lying to the federal government about his fake company.
ryankelly
I also decided to check out the previous activities of Mr. Daleiden. As you did, I found that he is willing to engage in lies, false presences, shall we say “creative editing” to make it appear that his targets are making statements that are in fact the opposite of his allegations. Just one example of this is the portrayal of the PP executive as “haggling over price ” when she in fact initially after being relentlessly prodded named a price that probably would not come close to covering the actual expensive of even the equipment for the procedure ( $75.00). Mr. Daleiden does not bother to point out that it is his associate in this exchange that essentially verbally badgers the executive into “upping” the amount to $100 which again is unlikely to even meet expenses let alone result in profit.
However, there is more at stake here from my point of view. I also encountered this.
Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, Serves On Board of Directors. “Operation Rescue President Troy Newman serves on the Board of Daleiden’s Center for Medical Progress. During this investigation, Newman advised Daleiden, providing consultation services and material support.” [Christian Newswire, 7/14/15]
Newman Called Murder Of Abortion Clinic Doctor A “Justifiable Defensive Action.” In a 2003 press release, Newman defended Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection for murdering abortion doctor John Britton in Pensacola, FL. Newman argued that Hill should have been able to defend himself by classifying the murder as justifiable.
I find it deeply disturbing that Mr. Daleiden has as an advisor an individual who feels that it is justifiable to kill abortion providers. I am not sure that I would agree with wasting time and money on an investigation prompted by the “findings” of a group willing to use these techniques and rationales for their supposed “findings”. Maybe some corroboration from a less biased source might be good before we launch on this particular “witch hunt”.
I would assume, then, that the words of the PP representative don’t trouble you. That’s fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But apparently the words of the PP representative were disturbing enough to make CA Attorney General Harris start an investigation of PP, so apparently others are more concerned about the PP representative’s words than you are. Hopefully the investigation will turn up nothing – I would like to think a nonprofit like PP is doing only what is proper. But I do think an investigation needs to be done. Since the AG Harris is under CA Governor Brown, who is left of center, I see no reason to believe such an investigation would be a political witch hunt.
I agree with you Anon that an investigation needs to be done.
Whether the words of the PP representatives were troubling or not is effectively moot in terms of any going-forward investigations. The AG, the leading candidate for the impending Governor’s election, will not volunteer to be castigated for investigating one side of this controversy and not the other. Further, the option of investigating neither side of the controversy is also a political minefield for her. Therefore, a balanced set of investigations of both sides are moving forward.
The above reality is a perfect example of a situation where political calculations are a trump card. Ideally, when the investigations are completed the decisions will be evidence-based rather than further political calculations. At the Federal, State and local levels we need more evidence-based decision making and less political calculations.
Thank you, fair investigations should be the rule. Unfortunately our current DOJ does the bidding for Obama and is neither fair nor impartial.
BP, let’s be honest, when was there a DOJ in the last 100 years (probably more) that was fair and impartial?
Anon
What I find most distressing is the willingness of the accusers here to put words into the mouth of the executive, almost literally, and then distort the meaning of other statements she made which I have explained, and which you have not acknowledged which leads me to believe that you are inclined to believe the highly edited and inaccurate assumptions made by Mr. Daleiden’s group than you are to see the statements of the executive in any but the worst possible light.
What I believe is that there is enough lack of understanding of what was heard, and enough political pressure to make it necessary to mount an investigation. As I have stated, I have no problem as long as this is an impartial, factual investigation. The fact that we see political candidates and pundits capitalizing on these very questionably edited tapes makes me suspicious that this is not the intent and will not be the outcome.
Did anyone even know that PP was selling fetus tissue to these types of research facilities if even it was just for packing and handling so to speak? Mr. Daleiden served a good deed in exposing this. You won’t see this type of investigating or reporting from the mainstream press when it comes to liberal issues like this. Mr. Daleiden should be commended for his work.
Were you aware that tissue procurement and transfer exists at all? Were you even aware of the term ‘biorepository’? Note the different organizations contacted by factcheck for this analysis:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/
Also note the complete lie by Rand Paul’s spokesman.
There is zero reason for any inquiry or investigation or hearings. Human tissues are used for research and they are obtained and held and transferred by any number of organizations. The article I link mentions the National Cancer Institute, Harvard, and a couple of legitimate private companies. It would be a shame if this controversy caused by a fraudulent video were to cause people to decide not to donate human tissue for research.
That’s not what I said. I asked if anyone knew that fetus tissue from PP was being sold? How many can really honestly say they knew this before Daleiden’s investigation? Maybe 5%, 10% of the population? Daleiden brought this fact to us all.
I assume that any medical facility that performs surgery potentially provides human tissue for research. I doubt most people even think about the use of human tissue for research. I doubt that it matters, except as a political issue to those who want to discredit Planned Parenthood. I doubt that it mattered to you or matters to you in any other context or for any other reason. So I consider your entire line of reasoning in this discussion to be disingenuous.
Do you oppose the use of human tissue for research? Do you oppose reimbursing facilities that provide human tissue for research for their costs in storing and shipping it? Do you believe other facilities than Planned Parenthood should be prevented from doing so? Is your concern about all of this unique to Planned Parenthood?
BP, I think you are stating an untruth when you say “that fetus tissue from PP was being sold.” To the best of my knowledge tissue and organs are not sold. They are transferred at cost.
Well with the abortion issue as divided as it is for a government agency to be supplying fetus tissue to research facilities would tend to concern a large part of our citizen who had no idea this was happening..
A government agency?
Planned Parenthood is not a government agency. It isn’t even an NGO.
“Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, is the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and one of its larger members. PPFA is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services.”
PP doesn’t exist without government funding.
So yes, PP is a de facto Gov’t agency.
Not by any definition of the term. Not at all.
Where nonprofits get their funding: http://grantspace.org/tools/knowledge-base/Funding-Resources/General/How-are-nonprofits-funded
Note >30% from government sources.
BP, using your logic, EDS (Electronic Data Systems), Ross Perot’s little venture, is a de facto Government agency. There is a good chance that Lockheed Martin Marieta is a de facto Government agency too. Boeing as well. The list could get very long. It would also include virtually every hospital and healthcare system in the country, because their primary sources of revenue are the Government programs, Medicare and Medicaid and local government subsidies to treat the uninsured, as well as National Institute of Health (NIH) grants.
You know Don Shor, aka as moderator, I’m not against abortion as long as it’s not late term. I really don’t have a dog in this fight. But let’s not kid ourselves, the only reason liberals are in an uproar about Daleiden is because he exposed some of the PP dealings that the public had no idea existed. Now liberals are afraid that gov’t funding could be in trouble because of these new revelations so they have to go on the attack. I say Daleiden performed a great service for the public because we can’t count on the liberal mainstream media to look into things like this. This is akin to the busting of Acorn by O’Keefe for offering prostitution and tax evasion advice to a teenage prostitute. That was great investigative reporting.
Don, for every Ying there is a Yang. The following report in the World Journal of Transplantation is evidence to that.
If anyone wants to read the full article, go to http://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3230/full/v2/i5/69.htm
BP, I did not personally know; however, given the advances of stem cell research, the fact that research labs have an increased level of demand for such tissue for their scientific research comes as no surprise. In a medical world where organs are routinely taken from one body and placed into another body, the scientific use of all kinds of bodily tissue (after all, organs are simply specialized body tissue) comes as no surprise.
Further, I would not say that tissue use for medical/scientific purposes is a “liberal issue.” After all, just look at this guy …
Matt, thanks for being honest that you didn’t know. You helped prove my point.
BP, when I try and think about all the things that I don’t know it defies my imagination. I’m probably more curious than most people, and my curiosity leads me to a whole litany of topics, but at age 67 any day-in, day-out reason to know how Planned Parenthood operates simply does not exist. I’m too busy trying to deal with and understand the things that I have good reason to know and understand in order to survive and thrive.
With that said, virtually anyone who actively works in the healthcare industry would either know or have a second-hand understanding of the fact that there is a mainstream scientific/research market for this kind of tissue. The advances in stem cell research are front page news.
Let’s consider David’s motivation – to stop all abortions. Planned Parent provides abortion services, amongs other services, to women. Shut down Planned Parenthood, shut off services to women including voluntary abortions.
The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 allowed research using human tissue, including fetal tissue from voluntary abortions. McConnell and other Republicans who are jumping on the bandwagon to try to defund Planned Parenthood voted for this act. As a likely source of fetal tissue, David uses this to attack Planned Parenthood. He creates a fake company that does research using fetal tissue, poses as an executive for the company and then videos conversations of his effort to procure tissue through illegal means. At one point, Planned Parent was offered $1600 by David or one of his associates for a specific organ, but the Planned Parenthood representative declined.
What if David’s charade ends up shutting down all NIH research using human tissue from voluntary abortions? This could happen. If an investigation shows that PP was following the law, attention could shift to the law that made it legal. Planned Parenthood continues its services to women and NIH is left to defend its research practices.
I think that David formed a legal entity and as the founder of that entity sought out and offered a source $1600 for a specific organ from an aborted fetus. This was illegal. It doesn’t matter that he did it to stop abortions.
Tia Will: “…which leads me to believe that you are inclined to believe the highly edited and inaccurate assumptions made by Mr. Daleiden’s group than you are to see the statements of the executive in any but the worst possible light.
You are free to believe anything you want about what I think. But your statement above is not an accurate depiction of my beliefs.
Tia Will: What I believe is that there is enough lack of understanding of what was heard, …. to make it necessary to mount an investigation.”
Exactly. We are in complete agreement here.
Tia Will: “As I have stated, I have no problem as long as this is an impartial, factual investigation. The fact that we see political candidates and pundits capitalizing on these very questionably edited tapes makes me suspicious that this is not the intent and will not be the outcome.”
Political candidates and pundits will always capitalize on controversial issues. But does that mean we should not investigate? (For example the incidents of alleged police brutality were capitalized on by political candidates and pundits. But does that mean these incidents should not have been investigated?) Why would the outcome of the investigation not be fair or impartial in this case, considering who is doing the investigation? Do you know something unsavory about AG Harris or Gov Gerry Brown to make you believe the investigation will not be handled properly? If anything, I should think the investigation would come down on the side of PP. And I would suspect there is a distinct possibility Dalieden may be in some trouble.
As far as I can tell, Harris is only going to be investigating Daleiden.
An early article in the Chronicle said that she was investigating the allegations on the tapes to see if Planned Parenthood was following the law.