Fourth PP video released, it's bad

[flacaltenn]

It's left wing, Snopes "debunked" it and the investigations hadn't even began. Puhlease

This particular claim of PP selling body parts has been going on for the better part of a year with nothing to show for it. This is just the latest fraudulent attempt.

Tissue for money.. Call it reimbursement or "list price".. Regen'ed fetal tissue IS available. But PP is a cheaper source. Especiallly if they "harvest it" in a manner that changes the way the procedures are supposed to be done.

Guidelines issued by HHS do not allow that.

How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine - CNN.com

When fetal tissue is used in research, it is often sent from the hospital or clinic that performs the abortion to an affiliated research center, Hyun said. Another safeguard in the Health and Human Services guidelines is that a clinical team that performs the abortion cannot know that the fetus will be donated, to help ensure that they do not change how they perform the abortion, or jeopardize the safety of the woman, Hyun said.

These guidelines have been solidified and become more widespread since the 1990s, Hyun said, adding that, "I believe [all clinicians] are well aware of them now."

Well obviously DUH !!! That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. But you now have multiple PP personnel confirming that they VIOLATE these guidelines with impunity. THAT is why I'm even in this thread. Because I'm appalled at the callousness and unprofessionalism of the people punked on video. And would NEVER want my daughter or loved ones anywhere NEAR a PP clinic for more than a urinary tract infection....

Did you not WATCH the segments??? Why are you arguing what SHOULD BE????

Yes, they appear to be callous.

But not for the reasons that the zealots want you to believe.

They are working in an industry where abortions are what they do all day long. To them that is their job and everyone ultimately makes jokes about their job because that is human nature.

I had girlfriends who were nurses in psychiatric care and the ER. You should have heard some of the things they said. It wasn't because they didn't care and weren't professionals providing the best care possible. It was a form of stress release for them just as it is in every other profession.

So no, I am not going to hold them to a different standard than I do everyone else. What was on those vile videos was edited to make it appear as though they were callous and unprofessional.

Given that the basis of those vile videos is a lie no different to the blood libel that was used against the Jews as a person of integrity I have to give the benefit of the doubt to those who doing a difficult job rather than those who have a nefarious and dishonest agenda.

If you have to bear false witness in order to make your point then you don't have a position to stand on IMO.

And yes, those who created those videos are liars who have destroyed their own credibility.

sorry man.. nippin on a salad and sipping wine, whilst you describe how willing you are to break medical conventions and Govt guidelines cant be edited to be innocent. You need to get over the butthurt of what got exposed and how it happened, and make your heroes at PP A LOT less tonedeaf to the seriousness of they are doing.

Ive spent a lot of t7me in hospitals. Probably 4 or 6 complex imaging and biochem products in your hospital that my company helped to design and test. The "attitude" is a way of coping with the discipline and pressure. Its not an excuse to depart from protocols or trivialize the trust the public needs to have of them.

 

[flacaltenn]

You can tell how ugly these revelations are ,, by the massive efforts of our leftist buds here to deflect and hijack the topic. Cant discuss it, can ya?

 

[Coyote]

We've been through this with ACORN. Debunked, my ass.

Snopes is never to be taken serious

Of course not, you say that because they successfully deconstruct a lot of rightwing lies.

It's left wing, Snopes "debunked" it and the investigations hadn't even began. Puhlease

This particular claim of PP selling body parts has been going on for the better part of a year with nothing to show for it. This is just the latest fraudulent attempt.

Tissue for money.. Call it reimbursement or "list price".. Regen'ed fetal tissue IS available. But PP is a cheaper source. Especiallly if they "harvest it" in a manner that changes the way the procedures are supposed to be done.

PP is clearly not making any sort of profit and the women are consenting and informed and in some cases, ask ahead of time whether they can donate anything. Why Women Do and Don t Choose Fetal Tissue Donation After Abortion

Using the term "harvest" as opposed to "donate" is in and of itself a biased term. In this case, it is no different than organ donation except it involves abortion.

 

[Coyote]

Of course not, you say that because they successfully deconstruct a lot of rightwing lies.

It's left wing, Snopes "debunked" it and the investigations hadn't even began. Puhlease

This particular claim of PP selling body parts has been going on for the better part of a year with nothing to show for it. This is just the latest fraudulent attempt.

Tissue for money.. Call it reimbursement or "list price".. Regen'ed fetal tissue IS available. But PP is a cheaper source. Especiallly if they "harvest it" in a manner that changes the way the procedures are supposed to be done.

Guidelines issued by HHS do not allow that.

How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine - CNN.com

When fetal tissue is used in research, it is often sent from the hospital or clinic that performs the abortion to an affiliated research center, Hyun said. Another safeguard in the Health and Human Services guidelines is that a clinical team that performs the abortion cannot know that the fetus will be donated, to help ensure that they do not change how they perform the abortion, or jeopardize the safety of the woman, Hyun said.

These guidelines have been solidified and become more widespread since the 1990s, Hyun said, adding that, "I believe [all clinicians] are well aware of them now."

Well obviously DUH !!! That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. But you now have multiple PP personnel confirming that they VIOLATE these guidelines with impunity. THAT is why I'm even in this thread. Because I'm appalled at the callousness and unprofessionalism of the people punked on video. And would NEVER want my daughter or loved ones anywhere NEAR a PP clinic for more than a urinary tract infection....

Did you not WATCH the segments??? Why are you arguing what SHOULD BE????

What guidelines were violated specifically?

 

[Coyote]

You can tell how ugly these revelations are ,, by the massive efforts of our leftist buds here to deflect and hijack the topic. Cant discuss it, can ya?

I'm seeing a massive effort from the right to ignore the deceit involved in the videos - how they were edited and critical parts left out. You might not like Snopes, but it wasn't just Snopes - Factcheck confirmed the same thing.

 

[EverCurious]

Clearly none of you have ever had a conversation with a mortician... I'm just going to say never invite my uncle over for dinner. He'll just randomly start talking about shit like some burn victim and having to peel off all the charred skin by hand in order to get the makeup to stick and be smooth for presentation at the funeral, and he'll bitch that the folks want open casket when it's just asking for a disaster. Then casually tags on that it takes at /least/ a week longer to prep a burn victim and they start to stink... uf

It is a callous job for callous people, however, that does not make it illegal nor does it give /any/ evidence of illegality, it merely shows that the workers are callous. And so what?

You deal with it every day at pretty much any customer service job out there, like that cashier at McDonald's really gives a flying fuck how your day is going, if you're happy with your meal, or if you're going to have a good night? Please. It's all a pretty face act to cover up the callousness they have for the people they service. Hell, most bleeding hearts have the same level of give a shit, the only time they actually care is if it'll forward a selfish agenda (religious, personal benefit, etc.) or if it makes them look good.


Maybe they should discuss what happens to the tissue that /isn't/ donated to research... Any bets it's just like the vet's handle euthanized dogs? Throw it in a big oven and torch it all to dust, then throw the whole ash pile into a pit and bury it. What a waste... Personally I always offer to donate my pups bodies to research for the health of other pups (and their owners.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

All of the libel comes from those editing the videos.

PP is not doing anything illegal.

It is the perverts who put these videos together that are talking about the body parts.

Tell us, what could have possibly been edited that would on ANY LEVEL make what they're doing MORALLY SOUND, thus "LEGITIMATELY LEGAL"?

LOL! Look, I only ask you that to help you prove that there is NOTHING that could have possibly been edited out of the numerous videos detailing the morbid, immoral behavior of the Cult murdering pre-born babies and selling their body parts... .

The good news is that Planned Parenthood is dead. It's federal funding will soon be cut and its management imprisoned.

So don't sweat it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You can tell how ugly these revelations are ,, by the massive efforts of our leftist buds here to deflect and hijack the topic. Cant discuss it, can ya?

I'm seeing a massive effort from the right to ignore the deceit involved in the videos - how they were edited and critical parts left out. You might not like Snopes, but it wasn't just Snopes - Factcheck confirmed the same thing.

What deceit is that?

And please... be specific. At least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

PP is clearly not making any sort of profit ...

HEY! Neither did Jeffrey Dahmer. Didn't help him, and it's unlikely to help the PP Cult.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It is a callous job for callous people, however, that does not make it illegal

Well, that is so true.

But the foundation of Roe is that a fetus is a inviable clump of tissue, that such has no kinship with "a PERSON"... And what we're seeing now, because of these NUMEROUS Video Tapes, is that those engaging in such, are doing for the purpose of selling the organs of those innocent little persons.

It's EVIL... and what we know now, is that making it LEGAL, was a HUGE MISTAKE.

But this is what happens where a people license degeneracy... . And its why during 99.99999999~% of human history, it has NOT been legal and why at some point in the none too distant future, 'it' will NOT BE LEGAL!

 

[Coyote]

You can tell how ugly these revelations are ,, by the massive efforts of our leftist buds here to deflect and hijack the topic. Cant discuss it, can ya?

I'm seeing a massive effort from the right to ignore the deceit involved in the videos - how they were edited and critical parts left out. You might not like Snopes, but it wasn't just Snopes - Factcheck confirmed the same thing.

What deceit is that?

And please... be specific. At least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

Read the thread doofus. I've already posted about it, if not here then in the other PP/video thread. I'm not going to repeat myself because you decided to jump into the middle of a thread.

 

[Stephanie]

let them come out. it's just what was needed to wake the people in country up. might stop a few from killing their own child

SNIP:
Blocked Planned Parenthood Video May Show ‘Prima Facie Evidence Of Born Alive Infants’
Stem Express admits receiving "fully intact fetuses," says investigator David Daleiden
July 31, 2015 By Mollie Hemingway
Planned Parenthood is under fire for harvesting organs for sale from the babies they abort, but the journalistic project uncovering their participation in fetal organ trafficking has brought another nefarious aspect to the organ trade.

Remember what Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, said in her meeting with people she believed to be purchasers of organs? Here’s an image from the video released earlier this week:




ALL of it here:

Blocked Planned Parenthood Video May Show Prima Facie Evidence Of Born Alive Infants


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

AND GET THIS:
SNIP;
. The injunction is against the Center for Medical Progress, the group that has unveiled Planned Parenthood’s participation in the sale of organs harvested from aborted children.

Judge William H. Orrick, III, granted the injunction just hours after the order was requested by the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick was nominated to his position by hardline abortion supporter President Barack Obama. He was also a major donor to and bundler for President Obama’s presidential campaign. He raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen.

Even though the National Abortion Federation filed its claim only hours before, Orrick quickly decided in their favor that the abortionists they represent would, ironically, be “likely to suffer irreparable injury, absent an ex parte temporary restraining order, in the form of harassment, intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation, and the requested relief is in the public interest.”

ALL of it here:
Obama Appointee Blocks More Video Releases By Group Behind Planned Parenthood Sting

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What deceit is that?

And please... be specific. At least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

Read the thread doofus. I've already posted about it, if not here then in the other PP/video thread. I'm not going to repeat myself because you decided to jump into the middle of a thread.

So you can't specify what the deceit is... .

I understand. You should understand that THAT is all I wanted to establish.

Your concession that you're a lying piece of shit, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, the thing to remember hear is that the key to defeating Leftist in Debate rests upon two fundamental elements.

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.

 

[Coyote]

Deceptive Edits

Center for Medical Progress (CMP) claims to have caught a Planned Parenthood official agreeing to change abortion methods to get more intact fetus'.

Edited Video:

UYER [ACTOR]: You know, 10 to 12 week, end of the first trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens then that's something we can work with.

GATTER: So that's an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks and we switch to using IPAS or something with less suction or to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we're kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient we're not doing anything different in our care of you. Now to me, that's kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen. But I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing to something and we're signing to something that we're not changing anything with the way we're managing you just because you agreed to give tissue. You've heard that before.

BUYER [ACTOR]: Yes, it's difficult. It's touchy. How do you feel about that?

GATTER: I think they're both totally appropriate techniques, there's no difference in pain involved. I don't think the patients would care one iota. So I'm not making a fuss about that.


[TIMESTAMPS JUMP FROM 12:38:25 TO 13:09:41, REMOVING NEARLY 8 MINUTES]

GATTER: Now you have my email address right? Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a "less crunchy" technique to get more whole specimens. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15, 7/21/15]

Unedited Video

Full Video Shows Gatter Reiterating That She Cannot Modify Procedure Herself And It Won't Heighten Patient Risk. Left out of the edited video is Gatter and her colleague explaining that there are at least two different ways to perform the type of abortion in question, but the "slight variation" of IPAS (manual suction) does not put the patient at any more risk. Because some have argued that the consent forms patients sign would not allow doctors to perform a potentially longer procedure, even if the longer procedure were just as safe, before Gatter can endorse one type of procedure over the other she specifically tells the CMP actor she will have to consult with the surgeon she works with (emphasis added):


ACTOR: You're not putting the patient at any more risk, right? As you said.

GATTER: No. Just slight variation of the technique.

ACTOR: Okay.

LAUREL: Which, the consent they're signing is for suction aspiration, it doesn't describe what kind it is.

GATTER: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we're not doing anything different, so.

ACTOR: That's what I need to understand, because what I'm seeing it as, of course, I'm looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

GATTER: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you're slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you're increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they're technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.

ACTOR: So it's technicalities, is what I'm hearing.

GATTER: It's something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

 

[Coyote]

What deceit is that?

And please... be specific. At least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

Read the thread doofus. I've already posted about it, if not here then in the other PP/video thread. I'm not going to repeat myself because you decided to jump into the middle of a thread.

So you can't specify what the deceit is... .

I understand. You should understand that THAT is all I wanted to establish.

Your concession that you're a lying piece of shit, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, the thing to remember hear is that the key to defeating Leftist in Debate rests upon two fundamental elements.

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.

I'm saying read the thread, don't expect me to repeat myself because you're too lazy to follow the thread.

 

[Stephanie]

Deceptive Edits

Center for Medical Progress (CMP) claims to have caught a Planned Parenthood official agreeing to change abortion methods to get more intact fetus'.

Edited Video:

UYER [ACTOR]: You know, 10 to 12 week, end of the first trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens then that's something we can work with.

GATTER: So that's an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks and we switch to using IPAS or something with less suction or to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we're kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient we're not doing anything different in our care of you. Now to me, that's kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen. But I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing to something and we're signing to something that we're not changing anything with the way we're managing you just because you agreed to give tissue. You've heard that before.

BUYER [ACTOR]: Yes, it's difficult. It's touchy. How do you feel about that?

GATTER: I think they're both totally appropriate techniques, there's no difference in pain involved. I don't think the patients would care one iota. So I'm not making a fuss about that.


[TIMESTAMPS JUMP FROM 12:38:25 TO 13:09:41, REMOVING NEARLY 8 MINUTES]

GATTER: Now you have my email address right? Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a "less crunchy" technique to get more whole specimens. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15, 7/21/15]

Unedited Video

Full Video Shows Gatter Reiterating That She Cannot Modify Procedure Herself And It Won't Heighten Patient Risk. Left out of the edited video is Gatter and her colleague explaining that there are at least two different ways to perform the type of abortion in question, but the "slight variation" of IPAS (manual suction) does not put the patient at any more risk. Because some have argued that the consent forms patients sign would not allow doctors to perform a potentially longer procedure, even if the longer procedure were just as safe, before Gatter can endorse one type of procedure over the other she specifically tells the CMP actor she will have to consult with the surgeon she works with (emphasis added):


ACTOR: You're not putting the patient at any more risk, right? As you said.

GATTER: No. Just slight variation of the technique.

ACTOR: Okay.

LAUREL: Which, the consent they're signing is for suction aspiration, it doesn't describe what kind it is.

GATTER: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we're not doing anything different, so.

ACTOR: That's what I need to understand, because what I'm seeing it as, of course, I'm looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

GATTER: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you're slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you're increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they're technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.

ACTOR: So it's technicalities, is what I'm hearing.

GATTER: It's something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

oh yeah, every time a Democrat gets caught in the act. and this act is them in the sewer. the TAPES are always EDITED. and you people still FALL for that. the reason you do is: Because you want to and not have to admit what you're seeing IS REAL life and SICK

 

[Coyote]

Deceptive Edits

Center for Medical Progress (CMP) claims to have caught a Planned Parenthood official agreeing to change abortion methods to get more intact fetus'.

Edited Video:

UYER [ACTOR]: You know, 10 to 12 week, end of the first trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens then that's something we can work with.

GATTER: So that's an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks and we switch to using IPAS or something with less suction or to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we're kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient we're not doing anything different in our care of you. Now to me, that's kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen. But I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing to something and we're signing to something that we're not changing anything with the way we're managing you just because you agreed to give tissue. You've heard that before.

BUYER [ACTOR]: Yes, it's difficult. It's touchy. How do you feel about that?

GATTER: I think they're both totally appropriate techniques, there's no difference in pain involved. I don't think the patients would care one iota. So I'm not making a fuss about that.


[TIMESTAMPS JUMP FROM 12:38:25 TO 13:09:41, REMOVING NEARLY 8 MINUTES]

GATTER: Now you have my email address right? Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a "less crunchy" technique to get more whole specimens. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15, 7/21/15]

Unedited Video

Full Video Shows Gatter Reiterating That She Cannot Modify Procedure Herself And It Won't Heighten Patient Risk. Left out of the edited video is Gatter and her colleague explaining that there are at least two different ways to perform the type of abortion in question, but the "slight variation" of IPAS (manual suction) does not put the patient at any more risk. Because some have argued that the consent forms patients sign would not allow doctors to perform a potentially longer procedure, even if the longer procedure were just as safe, before Gatter can endorse one type of procedure over the other she specifically tells the CMP actor she will have to consult with the surgeon she works with (emphasis added):


ACTOR: You're not putting the patient at any more risk, right? As you said.

GATTER: No. Just slight variation of the technique.

ACTOR: Okay.

LAUREL: Which, the consent they're signing is for suction aspiration, it doesn't describe what kind it is.

GATTER: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we're not doing anything different, so.

ACTOR: That's what I need to understand, because what I'm seeing it as, of course, I'm looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

GATTER: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you're slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you're increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they're technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.

ACTOR: So it's technicalities, is what I'm hearing.

GATTER: It's something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

oh yeah, every time a Democrat gets caught in the act. and this act is them in the sewer. the TAPES are always EDITED. and you people still FALL for that. the reason you do is: Because you want to and not have to admit what you're seeing IS REAL life and SICK

Not sure what you are going on about.

However, I am sure about this: the 8 minute tapes put out were heavily edited, CMP provided the entire transcript and what was cut matters as you can see.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's left wing, Snopes "debunked" it and the investigations hadn't even began. Puhlease

This particular claim of PP selling body parts has been going on for the better part of a year with nothing to show for it. This is just the latest fraudulent attempt.

Tissue for money.. Call it reimbursement or "list price".. Regen'ed fetal tissue IS available. But PP is a cheaper source. Especiallly if they "harvest it" in a manner that changes the way the procedures are supposed to be done.

Guidelines issued by HHS do not allow that.

How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine - CNN.com

When fetal tissue is used in research, it is often sent from the hospital or clinic that performs the abortion to an affiliated research center, Hyun said. Another safeguard in the Health and Human Services guidelines is that a clinical team that performs the abortion cannot know that the fetus will be donated, to help ensure that they do not change how they perform the abortion, or jeopardize the safety of the woman, Hyun said.

These guidelines have been solidified and become more widespread since the 1990s, Hyun said, adding that, "I believe [all clinicians] are well aware of them now."

Well obviously DUH !!! That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. But you now have multiple PP personnel confirming that they VIOLATE these guidelines with impunity. THAT is why I'm even in this thread. Because I'm appalled at the callousness and unprofessionalism of the people punked on video. And would NEVER want my daughter or loved ones anywhere NEAR a PP clinic for more than a urinary tract infection....

Did you not WATCH the segments??? Why are you arguing what SHOULD BE????

What guidelines were violated specifically?

Well for starters, there are the HHS Fed guidelines that Derideo posted at post 305.
Fourth PP video released it s bad Page 31 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Clearly, these doctors KNOW that tissue is OK for harvest and disregard those guidelines and their preferred training to target organs for which they have demand or "buyers". Even PP has admitted that this is wrong. So I cant understand why so many pro aborts are in denial about the wrong doing.

And if you say that ""some"" patients have given consent ,,,, why isnt that ALL patients have to give consent for donations? I am no fervant anti abortion case, but this is pretty disgusting. Especially because of all the weak excuses and spinning of the facts to excuse this beach of professionalism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Deceptive Edits

Center for Medical Progress (CMP) claims to have caught a Planned Parenthood official agreeing to change abortion methods to get more intact fetus'.

Edited Video:

UYER [ACTOR]: You know, 10 to 12 week, end of the first trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens then that's something we can work with.

GATTER: So that's an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks and we switch to using IPAS or something with less suction or to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we're kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient we're not doing anything different in our care of you. Now to me, that's kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen. But I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing to something and we're signing to something that we're not changing anything with the way we're managing you just because you agreed to give tissue. You've heard that before.

BUYER [ACTOR]: Yes, it's difficult. It's touchy. How do you feel about that?

GATTER: I think they're both totally appropriate techniques, there's no difference in pain involved. I don't think the patients would care one iota. So I'm not making a fuss about that.


[TIMESTAMPS JUMP FROM 12:38:25 TO 13:09:41, REMOVING NEARLY 8 MINUTES]

GATTER: Now you have my email address right? Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a "less crunchy" technique to get more whole specimens. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15, 7/21/15]

Unedited Video

Full Video Shows Gatter Reiterating That She Cannot Modify Procedure Herself And It Won't Heighten Patient Risk. Left out of the edited video is Gatter and her colleague explaining that there are at least two different ways to perform the type of abortion in question, but the "slight variation" of IPAS (manual suction) does not put the patient at any more risk. Because some have argued that the consent forms patients sign would not allow doctors to perform a potentially longer procedure, even if the longer procedure were just as safe, before Gatter can endorse one type of procedure over the other she specifically tells the CMP actor she will have to consult with the surgeon she works with (emphasis added):


ACTOR: You're not putting the patient at any more risk, right? As you said.

GATTER: No. Just slight variation of the technique.

ACTOR: Okay.

LAUREL: Which, the consent they're signing is for suction aspiration, it doesn't describe what kind it is.

GATTER: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we're not doing anything different, so.

ACTOR: That's what I need to understand, because what I'm seeing it as, of course, I'm looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

GATTER: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you're slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you're increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they're technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.

ACTOR: So it's technicalities, is what I'm hearing.

GATTER: It's something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

oh yeah, every time a Democrat gets caught in the act. and this act is them in the sewer. the TAPES are always EDITED. and you people still FALL for that. the reason you do is: Because you want to and not have to admit what you're seeing IS REAL life and SICK

Not sure what you are going on about.

However, I am sure about this: the 8 minute tapes put out were heavily edited, CMP provided the entire transcript and what was cut matters as you can see.

MOD EDIT: Repeating the same thing over and over is considered spam.

 

[Stephanie]

Deceptive Edits

Center for Medical Progress (CMP) claims to have caught a Planned Parenthood official agreeing to change abortion methods to get more intact fetus'.

Edited Video:

UYER [ACTOR]: You know, 10 to 12 week, end of the first trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens then that's something we can work with.

GATTER: So that's an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks and we switch to using IPAS or something with less suction or to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we're kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient we're not doing anything different in our care of you. Now to me, that's kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen. But I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing to something and we're signing to something that we're not changing anything with the way we're managing you just because you agreed to give tissue. You've heard that before.

BUYER [ACTOR]: Yes, it's difficult. It's touchy. How do you feel about that?

GATTER: I think they're both totally appropriate techniques, there's no difference in pain involved. I don't think the patients would care one iota. So I'm not making a fuss about that.


[TIMESTAMPS JUMP FROM 12:38:25 TO 13:09:41, REMOVING NEARLY 8 MINUTES]

GATTER: Now you have my email address right? Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a "less crunchy" technique to get more whole specimens. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15, 7/21/15]

Unedited Video

Full Video Shows Gatter Reiterating That She Cannot Modify Procedure Herself And It Won't Heighten Patient Risk. Left out of the edited video is Gatter and her colleague explaining that there are at least two different ways to perform the type of abortion in question, but the "slight variation" of IPAS (manual suction) does not put the patient at any more risk. Because some have argued that the consent forms patients sign would not allow doctors to perform a potentially longer procedure, even if the longer procedure were just as safe, before Gatter can endorse one type of procedure over the other she specifically tells the CMP actor she will have to consult with the surgeon she works with (emphasis added):


ACTOR: You're not putting the patient at any more risk, right? As you said.

GATTER: No. Just slight variation of the technique.

ACTOR: Okay.

LAUREL: Which, the consent they're signing is for suction aspiration, it doesn't describe what kind it is.

GATTER: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we're not doing anything different, so.

ACTOR: That's what I need to understand, because what I'm seeing it as, of course, I'm looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

GATTER: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you're slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you're increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they're technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.

ACTOR: So it's technicalities, is what I'm hearing.

GATTER: It's something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

oh yeah, every time a Democrat gets caught in the act. and this act is them in the sewer. the TAPES are always EDITED. and you people still FALL for that. the reason you do is: Because you want to and not have to admit what you're seeing IS REAL life and SICK

Not sure what you are going on about.

However, I am sure about this: the 8 minute tapes put out were heavily edited, CMP provided the entire transcript and what was cut matters as you can see.

MOD EDIT: Repeating the same thing over and over is considered spam.

It's that thing they have down in that Democrat party: the one if you tell a lie enough some people will buy it