Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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]
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.
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.)
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.
I say "some" because not all patients want to donate the tissue, those that do give consent.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.
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.
There is no version of these recordings that would make a discussion of crushing fetuses in strategic and unorthodox ways in order to get a "buyer" an intact fetal heart or kidney. When your mission is to kill something, there is generally a best way to accomplish that. THEN you can fill your orders. Discussing this while youre sipping wine and browsing thru a cranberry chicken salad cannot be made tasteful. No matter HOW you edit it.
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]
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.
There is no version of these recordings that would make a discussion of crushing fetuses in strategic and unorthodox ways in order to get a "buyer" an intact fetal heart or kidney. When your mission is to kill something, there is generally a best way to accomplish that. THEN you can fill your orders. Discussing this while youre sipping wine and browsing thru a cranberry chicken salad cannot be made tasteful. No matter HOW you edit it.
I agree that the discussions are callous and hard to listen to, but I think another poster put it into perspective here: Fourth PP video released, it's bad
I had a friend who used to work at NIOSH, and she would listen to some of the scientists casually talking about twisting the heads off of mice to kill them. I suspect when police or medical professionals talk amongst themselves at a bar they exhibit a similar blunt and callous means of talk. It's unpleasant and shocking because it has been removed from the realm of the private and inserted into the realm of the public where we all can judge it.
But is it illegal?
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]
Its no wonder you dont get the outrage. All that crap about the MOTHERS welfare aint the issue. Not a person whining about risk to the parient. Thats a total red herring. This issue is the technique you use to end the life of the fetus silly. The best and most humane ways that they are taught in Med school go by the wayside when you have buyers for specific fetal parts. My gosh, this argument is so disconnected, no wonder this is a painful issue for America. You are ending a life. All I am asking for is a bit of dignity and humane treatment. And all you guys want to whine about is how the recording was edited...
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.
There is no version of these recordings that would make a discussion of crushing fetuses in strategic and unorthodox ways in order to get a "buyer" an intact fetal heart or kidney. When your mission is to kill something, there is generally a best way to accomplish that. THEN you can fill your orders. Discussing this while youre sipping wine and browsing thru a cranberry chicken salad cannot be made tasteful. No matter HOW you edit it.
I agree that the discussions are callous and hard to listen to, but I think another poster put it into perspective here: Fourth PP video released, it's bad
I had a friend who used to work at NIOSH, and she would listen to some of the scientists casually talking about twisting the heads off of mice to kill them. I suspect when police or medical professionals talk amongst themselves at a bar they exhibit a similar blunt and callous means of talk. It's unpleasant and shocking because it has been removed from the realm of the private and inserted into the realm of the public where we all can judge it.
But is it illegal?
The Nazis were BIG BELIEVERS in the LEGALIZATION OF EVIL.
It did not go well for them either... so you who are presently in that camp, need to understand how this is going to go for you.
What you're defending is an organization which is selling human body parts, under the guise of Human HEALTH.
It's a LIE, from Soup to Socialist; and it is from THERE, where we can KNOW that it and YOU, are EVIL.
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.
There is no version of these recordings that would make a discussion of crushing fetuses in strategic and unorthodox ways in order to get a "buyer" an intact fetal heart or kidney. When your mission is to kill something, there is generally a best way to accomplish that. THEN you can fill your orders. Discussing this while youre sipping wine and browsing thru a cranberry chicken salad cannot be made tasteful. No matter HOW you edit it.
I agree that the discussions are callous and hard to listen to, but I think another poster put it into perspective here: Fourth PP video released, it's bad
I had a friend who used to work at NIOSH, and she would listen to some of the scientists casually talking about twisting the heads off of mice to kill them. I suspect when police or medical professionals talk amongst themselves at a bar they exhibit a similar blunt and callous means of talk. It's unpleasant and shocking because it has been removed from the realm of the private and inserted into the realm of the public where we all can judge it.
But is it illegal?
The Nazis were BIG BELIEVERS in the LEGALIZATION OF EVIL.
It did not go well for them either... so you who are presently in that camp, need to understand how this is going to go for you.
What you're defending is an organization which is selling human body parts, under the guise of Human HEALTH.
It's a LIE, from Soup to Socialist; and it is from THERE, where we can KNOW that it and YOU, are EVIL.
Hyperbole much? Time for the shoddy Nazi comparisons.
.
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.
If you read the unedited transcript of the tape - they have not altered the procedure in an illegal way: Fourth PP video released, it's bad
Why do you call them "pro-aborts"?
I say "some" because not all patients want to donate the tissue, those that do give consent.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.
.
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.
If you read the unedited transcript of the tape - they have not altered the procedure in an illegal way: Fourth PP video released, it's bad
Why do you call them "pro-aborts"?
I say "some" because not all patients want to donate the tissue, those that do give consent.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.
... it is wrong to deliberately alter videos in an attempt to show crimes that didn't occur.
.
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.
If you read the unedited transcript of the tape - they have not altered the procedure in an illegal way: Fourth PP video released, it's bad
Why do you call them "pro-aborts"?
I say "some" because not all patients want to donate the tissue, those that do give consent.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..
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.
If you read the unedited transcript of the tape - they have not altered the procedure in an illegal way: Fourth PP video released, it's bad
Why do you call them "pro-aborts"?
I say "some" because not all patients want to donate the tissue, those that do give consent.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.
Clearly you didnt read the link in post 305 to the HHS guidelines for harvesting fetal tissue. The doctors are NOT supposed to be aware of the consent for tissue donation. This is what keeps them performing the procedures in the humane ways that were taught in school. Yet we have the salad munching wine drinking PP doc gleefully describing how she plans her day day around which cases are consented for donation. And how she veers off the orthodox procedures to preserve whatever tissue has been requested. What part of unethical here dont youunderstand? ? Even PP HAS APOLOGIZED for this revelation. Its not defensable. With any amount of editing or SNOPing...
The tapes contain admissions of violations for tissue donation guidelines and ethical questions about deviating from the humane training these doctors received to end beating hearts with fingers and toes. Even for ME, a guy who would never want to end the choice of an abortion, this is just disgusting. And I imagine it would be to many pro aborts as well. If there first reaction wasnt to attack their political opposition.You can tell how ugly these revelations are ,, by the massive efforts of our leftist budsis just disgustinghere 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.
There is no version of these recordings that would make a discussion of crushing fetuses in strategic and unorthodox ways in order to get a "buyer" an intact fetal heart or kidney. When your mission is to kill something, there is generally a best way to accomplish that. THEN you can fill your orders. Discussing this while youre sipping wine and browsing thru a cranberry chicken salad cannot be made tasteful. No matter HOW you edit it.
I agree that the discussions are callous and hard to listen to, but I think another poster put it into perspective here: Fourth PP video released, it's bad
I had a friend who used to work at NIOSH, and she would listen to some of the scientists casually talking about twisting the heads off of mice to kill them. I suspect when police or medical professionals talk amongst themselves at a bar they exhibit a similar blunt and callous means of talk. It's unpleasant and shocking because it has been removed from the realm of the private and inserted into the realm of the public where we all can judge it.
But is it illegal?
... it is wrong to deliberately alter videos in an attempt to show crimes that didn't occur.
It is wrong to use a hammer to comb hair... sadly, that TOO is wholly irrelevant to what is being discussed here.
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.
There is no version of these recordings that would make a discussion of crushing fetuses in strategic and unorthodox ways in order to get a "buyer" an intact fetal heart or kidney. When your mission is to kill something, there is generally a best way to accomplish that. THEN you can fill your orders. Discussing this while youre sipping wine and browsing thru a cranberry chicken salad cannot be made tasteful. No matter HOW you edit it.
I agree that the discussions are callous and hard to listen to, but I think another poster put it into perspective here: Fourth PP video released, it's bad
I had a friend who used to work at NIOSH, and she would listen to some of the scientists casually talking about twisting the heads off of mice to kill them. I suspect when police or medical professionals talk amongst themselves at a bar they exhibit a similar blunt and callous means of talk. It's unpleasant and shocking because it has been removed from the realm of the private and inserted into the realm of the public where we all can judge it.
But is it illegal?
The Nazis were BIG BELIEVERS in the LEGALIZATION OF EVIL.
It did not go well for them either... so you who are presently in that camp, need to understand how this is going to go for you.
What you're defending is an organization which is selling human body parts, under the guise of Human HEALTH.
It's a LIE, from Soup to Socialist; and it is from THERE, where we can KNOW that it and YOU, are EVIL.
Hyperbole much? Time for the shoddy Nazi comparisons.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
Reader, The Nazis in FACT separated THE LAW from a soundly reasoned morality... which lead to MASS-ATROCITIES... wherein MILLIONS of innocent people were MURDERED... meaning that MILLIONS of people were stripped of their lives, absent sound moral justification.
Abortion is the taking of human life, absent sound moral justification.
Such is not even a debatable point.
The tapes contain admissions of violations for tissue donation guidelines and ethical questions about deviating from the humane training these doctors received to end beating hearts with fingers and toes. Even for ME, a guy who would never want to end the choice of an abortion, this is just disgusting. And I imagine it would be to many pro aborts as well. If there first reaction wasnt to attack their political opposition.You can tell how ugly these revelations are ,, by the massive efforts of our leftist budsis just disgustinghere 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.
There is no version of these recordings that would make a discussion of crushing fetuses in strategic and unorthodox ways in order to get a "buyer" an intact fetal heart or kidney. When your mission is to kill something, there is generally a best way to accomplish that. THEN you can fill your orders. Discussing this while youre sipping wine and browsing thru a cranberry chicken salad cannot be made tasteful. No matter HOW you edit it.
I agree that the discussions are callous and hard to listen to, but I think another poster put it into perspective here: Fourth PP video released, it's bad
I had a friend who used to work at NIOSH, and she would listen to some of the scientists casually talking about twisting the heads off of mice to kill them. I suspect when police or medical professionals talk amongst themselves at a bar they exhibit a similar blunt and callous means of talk. It's unpleasant and shocking because it has been removed from the realm of the private and inserted into the realm of the public where we all can judge it.
But is it illegal?
There is a huge difference between the Nazi's and abortion.
Why do call them "pro aborts"? Does that mean "pro-lifers" should be renamed "pro-some-lifers"?
What the clown is trying NOT to say, is that it feels that those who stand against murdering the most innocent of human life, are hypocrites because they are usually FOR taking the lives of those convicted or murdering innocent people.
But in fairness to it, it only wants to avoid that point, because it is so profoundly foolish.
Why do call them "pro aborts"? Does that mean "pro-lifers" should be renamed "pro-some-lifers"?
"sound moral justification" - nice caveat dude - gives you a moral license for capital punishment ... Hypocrisy duly noted
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]
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]
Its no wonder you dont get the outrage. All that crap about the MOTHERS welfare aint the issue. Not a person whining about risk to the parient. Thats a total red herring. This issue is the technique you use to end the life of the fetus silly. The best and most humane ways that they are taught in Med school go by the wayside when you have buyers for specific fetal parts. My gosh, this argument is so disconnected, no wonder this is a painful issue for America. You are ending a life. All I am asking for is a bit of dignity and humane treatment. And all you guys want to whine about is how the recording was edited...
Ok, I understand your point.
But it is wrong to deliberately alter videos in an attempt to show crimes that didn't occur. The real issue is the callous disregard for the life being ended with the same dispassion of a slaughterhouse worker. But it was also private - a private conversation. What people do in private - should be private as long as it's not illegal.
