Shocking Video----PP Employees Sorting Baby Body Parts

[WarTim 3,456]

Ending a life is murder. Murder is illegal. At least it used to be.

Well said Weegs. Very well said.......

[homersapien 11,373]

Ending a life is murder. Murder is illegal. At least it used to be.

Not true. Murder is very conditional. Legally speaking of course.

[japantiger 4,051]

No, murder is not.conditional...it is quite clear in literature and law. Killing is where there is latitude. They are very different things. Abortion is cold blooded murder of the defenseless....abortion is not about self defense or other self preservation concept. Abortion is killing because you don't want to be inconvenienced....there is no reasonable defense for that.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

^^^^^^^^^ this.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

No, murder is not.conditional...it is quite clear in literature and law. Killing is where there is latitude. They are very different things. Abortion is cold blooded murder of the defenseless....abortion is not about self defense or other self preservation concept. Abortion is killing because you don't want to be inconvenienced....there is no reasonable defense for that.

Amazing how many things become more reasonable when you decide the other is less human than you.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Senate fails to pass bill defunding Planned Parenthood

I actually think that continued efforts to do this should be pursued however:

But members of both parties have said that federal funding of women's health care should be redirected from the nation's largest abortion provider to community health centers, which outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 13-to-one. "Supporters of Planned Parenthood have expressed concern that women will not have access to medical care. We share that concern which is why we are calling on Congress to reallocate the funding to Community Health Centers," Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America (DFLA). "There are 9,000 Community Health Center sites located in almost every single Congressional District. They vastly outnumber the 700 Planned Parenthood facilities and provide fuller services for families. We want to ensure that women still have access to the services and support they need."

A lot of folks are under some erroneous impression that PP clinics typically provide a broad range of health services. Truth is, they mostly provide a handful of things related to pregnancy: pregnancy testing, contraception, STD tests, abortions. They provide little to nothing to help women who are pregnant and intend to keep the child. Community Health Centers would be a much better use of these funds. Then, since Planned Parenthood insists there is such a strict firewall between the federal funds and their abortion business, they can truly let that aspect stand on its own two feet or get private funding from those who wholeheartedly support it.

[homersapien 11,373]

No, murder is not.conditional...it is quite clear in literature and law. Killing is where there is latitude. They are very different things. Abortion is cold blooded murder of the defenseless....abortion is not about self defense or other self preservation concept. Abortion is killing because you don't want to be inconvenienced....there is no reasonable defense for that.

A killing has to meet certain conditions to qualify as murder. Therefore, murder is conditional.

[AURaptor 1,125]

5th video is out.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Of course now, there is a 5th video out. But the points here still stand.

The 4th Video: Is This Planned Parenthood's Bill Cosby Moment? | The Stream

Jason Jones & John Zmirak

The fourth and most horrifying video has appeared exposing Planned Parenthood and its profiteering off of the bodies of unborn children it kills. In the most appalling moment in recent American history, we can now see for ourselves as abortionists pull out the corpse of a newly killed child and announce, “It’s another boy.” Then they start talking prices.

Instead of forthrightly answering the profound moral questions these videos are raising, the billion-dollar organization is using its army of lawyers to try to abort the truth. According to Fox News, a Los Angeles court has imposed a restraining order on the Center for Medical Progress, preventing it from releasing any videos exposing StemExpress, one of Planned Parenthood’s most enthusiastic customers for unborn baby parts. It’s unclear if this legal gag order will be allowed to stand and dry up the stream of reporting at its source. Indeed, it wouldn’t be surprising if the courageous reporters at the Center for Medical Progress flouted it, knowing that the whole pro-life movement and leading presidential contenders would back them up.

The Bill Cosby Playbook

It hurts to lose a hero. When a person or organization has served for most of our lives as an icon of something good and important, we resist any suggestion that things might not be quite what they’ve seemed, that something is rotten in Denmark.

At first, we simply ignore the news, assuming that idle gossip or spiteful rumors are what’s at work. We might write off the first few reports as the work of “haters,” resentful rivals or fortune hunters. The icon’s defenders will round up other celebrities and leaders whom we trust to go on the record dismissing the allegations. Next, the attempt is made to kill the messenger, to discredit any accusers as venal, sleazy or extremist. Best of all is if the icon’s lawyers can find some compliant judge to issue a “gag” order and strangle the flow of information.

Given the public’s short attention span this tactic might prove effective. If we have really strong reasons for wanting to go on trusting the icon, then we will be relieved that the stories have stopped leaking out and assume that there was really no truth behind them.

This was the playbook that Bill Cosby and his damage control team were using, and it almost worked. Had there been a little less evidence and had his accusers been less courageous, his reputation might have survived. Best of all, from his perspective, would be if he could have found a judge willing to silence the women accusing him — to tie up in costly legal proceedings their right to tell their own stories.

Planned Parenthood is using the exact playbook in its attempts to spin, distort and silence the evidence collected through three years of in-depth, undercover reporting by the Center for Medical Progress. First, Planned Parenthood issued blank denials and claimed the three videos released so far had been deceptively edited: Move along, there’s nothing to see here. But the CMP calmly replied that it had already posted the raw, unedited footage online for journalists to check themselves.

Then, Planned Parenthood called on its closest allies, President Obama and candidate Clinton, who vouched for the group’s good will and moral probity. Who were these pro-life “nobodies,” compared to the president of the United States and the presumptive Democratic nominee? But courageous Republican lawmakers such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul stepped forward in response, along with other candidates such as Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, dozens of Republican congressmen, and at least one Democratic politician, Ohio state representative Bill Patmon.

Then, Planned Parenthood tried to kill the messenger, falsely tying the Center for Medical Progress to assorted reckless cranks at the outermost fringes of the pro-life movement. (Every movement has such hangers-on; think of the brick-throwing anarchists who showed up at Occupy Wall Street.)

None of it worked. Now, Planned Parenthood is counting on sheer legal muscle — grabbing the coercive power of the state and using it to gag journalists and silence opposition. Beyond its efforts in court, Planned Parenthood’s crisis-management PR flacks have been sending ominous memos to TV producers warning them not to air further videos and implying that they might face legal action. These are not the actions of an innocent organization. They are the desperate flailing of a criminal caught in the act, yanking at every string of power still within reach.

And it all will probably backfire. However pro-choice they might be, most journalists don’t take kindly to censorship and threats. Neither do most Americans, who will start asking of Planned Parenthood, as they did of Bill Cosby: What are they trying to hide? We knew Bill Cosby was finished when his longtime defender Whoopi Goldberg abandoned him. Now pro-choice feminist icon Camille Paglia is criticizing the mainstream media for failing to cover the story about the Planned Parenthood videos. The giant abortuarium is nearing its “Bill Cosby moment.”

We Don’t Want to Believe It; We Don’t Want to Know

Remember how cool and reassuring Bill Cosby always was? Here was a man who grew up in the depths of a bigoted America. He would have been justified in taking refuge in righteous black anger — which the great comedian, Paul Mooney, has made a career out of channeling. But Bill Cosby rose above it. He modeled the character virtues required for success, and preached those virtues to young people who needed them. Remember how he used to rebuke gangster rappers for their violence and misogyny?

Bill Cosby represented for many of us the fruition of Martin Luther King’s dream that black people would attain the American vision of freedom that had been for so long denied them. That’s why we didn’t want to believe that he was drugging and exploiting women sexually, using the kind of force and fraud that our country had employed on his ancestors. When he fought to silence his accusers and quash the truth, we were silently rooting for him. We didn’t want it to be true. We had spent hundreds of hours watching Mr. Huxtable on TV being a model husband and father and that was the person we loved. He was good and admirable, and we wanted to believe in him.

Many of us also wanted to believe in Planned Parenthood. Americans have been barraged for decades with happy-clappy messages about the organization serving as a heroic apostolate on the front lines in America’s poorest neighborhoods, guaranteeing good health and sexual freedom to our nation’s neediest women. These messages hid the organization’s racist origins and airbrushed its founder, Margaret Sanger, and her ties to Nazi eugenics — remaking her as an icon of cheerful, free modern womanhood.

The Center for Medical Progress has shattered this fantasy, and shown us the cost of Margaret Sanger’s dream: It is quantified in prices for pieces of broken children. No judge, no PR flack, no government hack can now contain this story. The truth is running free.

https://stream.org/planned-parenthoods-bill-cosby-moment/

[AURaptor 1,125]

The Cosby comparison is a pretty good one.

[japantiger 4,051]

The Cosby comparison is a pretty good one.

Well, as far as it goes...last time I checked Cosby didn't murder 350k women and sell their parts...

[TitanTiger 20,482]

The NY Times' Russ Douthat crunches the numbers and dismantles the case that defunding Planned Parenthood would deprive people of contraception and lead to more abortions:

I’m hoping to do something broader about the abortion issue in this space soon, given

that the debate over Planned Parenthood funding has suddenly assumed. But for this week a word (well, a few words) on the argument in this Dana Milbank column, which was also basically the argument in this earlier Milbank column, which is also roughly the argument in this Ruth Marcus column, which is also the argument in this Damon Linker column, which is also a case that Slate’s Will Saletan has made repeatedly in the past, which … well, you get the idea. The claim they’re all making, in different ways, is that even though Planned Parenthood performs hundreds of thousands of abortions every year (while lobbying constantly against any restriction on the practice), to oppose channeling public dollars to its family planning operations is to be objectively pro-abortion, because those operations objectively prevent many more abortions still.

This claim has understandable appeal to the pro-choice-but-uneasy- about-it side of the abortion debate, which is why it’s repeated so often and accepted so uncritically. But as I’ve had reason to argue before (going back years and years), it also runs into some empirical difficulties. Here are a few of them.

First, whether you go state by state in the U.S. or make comparisons across developed countries (within Europe as well as North America), there is very little evidence for the kind of correlation between liberal social policies and lower abortion rates that the alleged “pro-life” case for Planned Parenthood assumes. In the U.S. especially, as I’ve noted before, the correlation often runs the other way: Abortion rates are generally lower in (conservative) states that have more abortion restrictions and fewer publicly funded family planning programs, and higher in (liberal) states where public policy is friendlier to Planned Parenthood, comprehensive sex education, public provision of contraception, etc. Indeed, to the (highly debatable) extent that there exists a “red”/”blue” divide in rates of out-of-wedlock births, it seems to be primarily driven by higher blue-state abortion rates rather than lower blue-state rates of unplanned pregnancy — which is the opposite of what the alleged “pro-life” case for Planned Parenthood would lead one to expect.

Now, this red/blue abortion correlation is not an iron law. In one of the columns cited above, Milbank notes that the ongoing decline in the nation’s abortion rate has been steeper in some liberal states than in conservatives ones over the last few years. I would note that declines are often steeper when there’s more room to fall, but leave that aside for the moment, since all by itself that data actually creates a bigger problem for his argument: The steep decline coincides with the very sort of reduction in federal funding that he claims will lead to more abortions overall. Compare Milbank here …

The Ernst legislation says that “all funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities.” But … congressional Republicans’ assurances are suspect, Coleman notes, because they’ve already cut Title X funds by 13 percent,

or $40 million

, since 2010 — resulting in a loss of

667,000 family-planning patients annually

.

… to Milbank here:

… in an

Associated Press survey

this week of state-by-state changes in abortions since 2010 … states that have passed the most stringent antiabortion laws in recent years, including Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and Oklahoma, have seen

their abortions drop

by more than 15 percent. But states with virtually unrestricted abortions such as New York, Oregon and Washington have had similar declines. Indeed, five of the six states with the biggest declines — Hawaii (30 percent), New Mexico (24 percent), Nevada and Rhode Island (22 percent) and Connecticut (21 percent) have had no recent laws restricting abortions.

So to be clear: In 2010 Congressional Republicans enacted a more modest version of the policy that Milbank believes will lead to many more abortions, and since 2010 the abortion rate has … fallen in almost every state in the union.

And you don’t have to just look at the 2010-2013 period. Depending on how you calculate things, the nationwide abortion rate has been in steady decline since either the 1980s or the early 1990s. Over that same period, inflation-adjusted Title X funding — again, the funding that is allegedly essential to keeping the abortion rate low — has dropped by 60 percent, according to the Guttmacher Institute’s estimate. So again, Congressional Republicans have been following precisely the policy course that Milbank insists will drive up the abortion rate, not for a few years, but for more than a generation … and the results have been, again, the opposite of what he predicts.

You can also see a related problem with this argument if you look, not just at abortion, but at rates of unplanned pregnancy, which the alleged “pro-life” case for Planned Parenthood stresses as the key to abortion reduction overall. Between 2010 and 2013, as Milbank notes, the rate of unplanned pregnancy and abortion fell in tandem — with the former being an indicator, probably, of recession-driven sexual caution. But if you look at those rates across a longer time horizon, as Michael New noted in an earlier response to Milbank, the unintended pregnancy rate actually rose somewhat from the 1990s until the Great Recession … which is, once again, the same period in which the overall abortion rate precipitously declined.

That decline, in other words, didn’t happen primarily because fewer women were getting pregnant; it happened because fewer pregnant women decided to have abortions. And if the question is whether, a resource for already- pregnant women, Planned Parenthood effectively encourages abortions, I’m not sure that you need to watch that many videos or read that widely to have that question answered; a glance at the PP ratio of abortions to adoption referrals (for 2014 it was — officially — 149:1) tells you most of what you need to know.

Now: Does all of the foregoing mean that no contraceptive-oriented public policy can possibly reduce the abortion rate? No, probably some can, and do: You can find evidence, when other variables are screened out, that certain discrete measures — including the oversold but still noteworthy recent Colorado experiment with long-acting contraception, which I promise to give longer treatment at some point — can in some cases have an impact on abortion rates on the margins. The overall evidence here isn’t quite as straightforward as liberals insist, but it’s stronger than some social conservatives want to believe, and it deserves a role in the debate about what sort of interventions the government should support.

But given how much larger so many other variables (legal, cultural, economic, mysterious) seem to loom, and how little evidence there is overall for some sort of successful “blue model” of abortion reduction in the post-Roe, post-Casey U.S.A., the case for a strictly contraceptive approach to reducing the abortion rate is not strong enough, not nearly strong enough, not anywhere close to strong enough to justify the kind of moral blackmail that moderate liberals keep trying to deploy against pro-lifers to keep money flowing to the nation’s largest purveyor of abortion.

Instead, by any reasonable assessment the moral pressure ought to run the other way. If, like many of the moderate-liberal columnists writing on this issue, you are 1) made at least somewhat uncomfortable by the dismemberment of living human beings in utero but 2) are convinced that Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion-related services are essential to the common good, why not write a column urging Planned Parenthood to, I dunno, get out of the dismemberment business? If all these other services are such a great, crucial, and (allegedly) abortion-reducing good, why do you, center-left journalist, want them perpetually held hostage to the possibility of public outrage over the crushing of tiny bodies in the womb? If a publicly-funded institution does one set of things you really like, and another thing that makes you morally uncomfortable, why are you constantly attacking that organization’s critics and telling them that they just have to live with the combination, instead of urging the organization itself to refocus on the non-lethal, non-dismembering portions of its business?

Because here’s the thing: The cultural consensus in favor of contraception and contraceptive access in this country – in favor, that is, of Milbank’s view of family planning policy, and Marcus’s, and Linker’s, and Saletan’s — is really very, very strong. Separated from the abortion question, as a pro-contraception argument alone, their argument would mostly be a political winner. Yes, many conservatives oppose certain forms of public funding for birth control on limited-government grounds; yes, many religious conservatives fear that contraception and abortion are bound together in a kind of socio-cultural unity, in which no matter what happens on the margins with this program or that one, in the aggregate acceptance of one necessarily feeds the prevalence of the other. But whether or not those fears are justified (here’s my provisional case for why some of them might not be), those combined conservative sentiments matter politically, and increasingly so, primarily because the pro-contraceptive case is wedded, and intimately, to pro-abortion politics. And they would have much, much less influence over our health care debates if the contraception-providing institution constantly defended by liberals as the embodiment of All That Is Worthy of Support were not also … an industrial-scale purveyor of abortion!

So let’s be clear about what’s really going on here. It is not the pro-life movement that’s forced Planned Parenthood to unite actual family planning and mass feticide under one institutional umbrella. It is not the Catholic Church or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the Southern Baptist Convention or the Republican Party that have bundled pap smears and pregnancy tests and HPV vaccines with the kind of grisly business being conducted on those videos. This is Planned Parenthood’s choice; it is liberalism’s choice; it is the respectable center-left of Dana Milbank and Ruth Marcus and Will Saletan that’s telling pro-life and pro-choice Americans alike that contraceptive access and fetal dismemberment are just a package deal, that if you want to fund an institution that makes contraception widely available then you just have to live with those “it’s another boy!” fetal corpses in said institution’s freezer, that’s just the price of women’s health care and contraceptive access, and who are you to complain about paying it, since after all the abortion arm of Planned Parenthood is actually pretty profitable and doesn’t need your tax dollars?

This is a frankly terrible argument, rooted in a form of self-deception that would be recognized as such in any other context. Tell me anything but this, liberals: Tell me that you aren’t just pro-choice but pro-abortion, tell me that abortion is morally necessary and praiseworthy, tell me that it’s as morally neutral as snuffing out a rabbit, tell me that a fetus is just a clump of cells and that pro-lifers are all unhinged zealots. Those arguments, as much as I disagree with them, have a real consistency, a moral logic that actually makes sense and actually justifies the continued funding of Planned Parenthood.

But to concede that pro-lifers might be somewhat right to be troubled by abortion, to shudder along with us just a little bit at the crushing of the unborn human body, and then turn around and still demand the funding of an institution that actually does the quease-inducing killing on the grounds that what’s being funded will help stop that organization from having to crush quite so often, kill quiteso prolifically – no, spare me. Spare me. Tell the allegedly “pro-life” institution you support to set down the forceps, put away the vacuum, and then we’ll talk about what kind of family planning programs deserve funding. But don’t bring your worldview’s bloody hands to me and demand my dollars to pay for soap enough to maybe wash a few flecks off.

http://douthat.blogs...arenthood/?_r=1

[WarTim 3,456]

Thanks for sharing this Titan.

[japantiger 4,051]

Surprised the article didn't mention there are 9,000 family planning clinics available if Congress defunds PP. PP is a criminal entity and their 700 locations are hardly necessary.

[DKW 86 7,424]

I have watched the extremists on the Left try and say that these are "highly edited videos" put out by "extremists."

For the record, the full length, unedited videos were always released at the same time the high points were. Those trying to only concentrate on the edited ones are quite obviously lying because they cant answer with anything else.

The "Extremists" are not putting words in their mouths nor editing for sensationalism. They are simply running an investigative piece to find out the truth. The PP workers are the ones making the egregious statements. Lamborghinis? Anyone still think this isnt about profit? How does selling to recover costs get you to buying a Lamborghini?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

If they can distract with a bunch of hooey about "cleverly edited", or shift focus to the organization that put them out then they hope you won't notice what it is they are doing.

[DKW 86 7,424]

If they can distract with a bunch of hooey about "cleverly edited", or shift focus to the organization that put them out then they hope you won't notice what it is they are doing.

Titan, i actually gritted my teeth when Warren went there. I really hoped she was something other than a partisan hack.

[WarTim 3,456]

It is about abortion on DEMAND. KILL BABIES AT WILL. If you are pro life, you are part of the war on women (one of the more pathetic of the long list of dem/lib/progressive l I e s...)

[homersapien 11,373]

It is about abortion on DEMAND. KILL BABIES AT WILL. If you are pro life, you are part of the war on women (one of the more pathetic of the long list of dem/lib/progressive l I e s...)

I hope the Republican nominee makes abortion a centerpiece of their campaign. Especially if it's Carly Fiorina.

[WarTim 3,456]

It is about abortion on DEMAND. KILL BABIES AT WILL. If you are pro life, you are part of the war on women (one of the more pathetic of the long list of dem/lib/progressive l I e s...)

I hope the Republican nominee makes abortion a centerpiece of their campaign. Especially if it's Carly Fiorina.

Haha. Hit a nerve there huh homey clause? You have already proven your idiocy. You may be silent now...

[homersapien 11,373]

It is about abortion on DEMAND. KILL BABIES AT WILL. If you are pro life, you are part of the war on women (one of the more pathetic of the long list of dem/lib/progressive l I e s...)

I hope the Republican nominee makes abortion a centerpiece of their campaign. Especially if it's Carly Fiorina.

Haha. Hit a nerve there huh homey clause? You have already proven your idiocy. You may be silent now...

Man, you really are butt hurt!

[WarTim 3,456]

It is about abortion on DEMAND. KILL BABIES AT WILL. If you are pro life, you are part of the war on women (one of the more pathetic of the long list of dem/lib/progressive l I e s...)

I hope the Republican nominee makes abortion a centerpiece of their campaign. Especially if it's Carly Fiorina.

Haha. Hit a nerve there huh homey clause? You have already proven your idiocy. You may be silent now...

Man, you really are butt hurt! :laugh:/>

That's it? You get your little feelings hurt and THAT is all you can say to deflect from the topic of pp murdering and selling dead babies? You truly are a pathetic lost soul...and obviously ignorant...

[DKW 86 7,424]

It is about abortion on DEMAND. KILL BABIES AT WILL. If you are pro life, you are part of the war on women (one of the more pathetic of the long list of dem/lib/progressive l I e s...)

I hope the Republican nominee makes abortion a centerpiece of their campaign. Especially if it's Carly Fiorina.

Haha. Hit a nerve there huh homey clause? You have already proven your idiocy. You may be silent now...

Man, you really are butt hurt! :laugh:/>

That's it? You get your little feelings hurt and THAT is all you can say to deflect from the topic of pp murdering and selling dead babies? You truly are a pathetic lost soul...and obviously ignorant...

Deflection...It is normal once you know you lost the debate. ;-)

[WarTim 3,456]

It is about abortion on DEMAND. KILL BABIES AT WILL. If you are pro life, you are part of the war on women (one of the more pathetic of the long list of dem/lib/progressive l I e s...)

I hope the Republican nominee makes abortion a centerpiece of their campaign. Especially if it's Carly Fiorina.

Haha. Hit a nerve there huh homey clause? You have already proven your idiocy. You may be silent now...

Man, you really are butt hurt! :laugh:/>

That's it? You get your little feelings hurt and THAT is all you can say to deflect from the topic of pp murdering and selling dead babies? You truly are a pathetic lost soul...and obviously ignorant...

Deflection...It is normal once you know you lost the debate. ;-)

You are correct. BTW, has he ever won a debate?...

[homersapien 11,373]

It is about abortion on DEMAND. KILL BABIES AT WILL. If you are pro life, you are part of the war on women (one of the more pathetic of the long list of dem/lib/progressive l I e s...)

I hope the Republican nominee makes abortion a centerpiece of their campaign. Especially if it's Carly Fiorina.

Haha. Hit a nerve there huh homey clause? You have already proven your idiocy. You may be silent now...

Man, you really are butt hurt! :laugh:/>

That's it? You get your little feelings hurt and THAT is all you can say to deflect from the topic of pp murdering and selling dead babies? You truly are a pathetic lost soul...and obviously ignorant...

Why do you think my feelings are hurt? Why? You really think you hurt me by insults?

And all I said was that I hope the GOP candidate makes this a centerpiece of their campaign. Especially if it's Fiorina (since that would take nullify the positive effects of her being a woman.)

I am making a political statement about the issue of abortion. The simple take you have on it will not fly in a general election. If a GOP candidate takes that position is will hurt them.

This is a political forum, not a religious one.