Fourth PP video released, it's bad

[Carla_Danger]

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 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.

Why do call them "pro aborts"? Does that mean "pro-lifers" should be renamed "pro-some-lifers"?

Since I am not in this game, im just sloppy I suppose. But from where I sit, the zealots on one side would have abortions AFTER delivery, and the zealots on the other side include those who believe that just masturbating is interfering with reproduction. Or condoms. So I take digs at both. Your pro choice side has been mooved off their original insane positions on choice to actually THINK about partial birth or parental consent or late term abortions. That train DID start out from the station as a pro abort train. ?.. this slow motion train wreck called the abortion debate has changed the shape of both sides in a slow and painful way.

I don't think you sound "fair and balanced" at all. You say there are zealots on one side that would have an abortion after delivery. I assume you're talking about carrying to full term? This hype about late term abortion is a myth. Late term abortion is available when the mother is at risk or the fetus will not be born alive. Lets not pretend that women are trying to get abortions the day before or after their due date.

There are some religious fanatics against masturbation, I believe Mormon's are against it, but I'm not sure what that has to do with abortion. Maybe we can find a fanatic around here to explain it.


Partial-Birth Abortion Separating Fact from Spin NPR

 

[Bonzi]

I just think if they are making money and they don't really qualify for non-profit, they should not get the benefits of it. I believe the same should be true of Churches.

Then go to Congress and ask for comprehensive tax reform.

That's not what the issue here is.

Not reform. Just hold people accountable that abuse the system.
Follow laws. They are there for a reason.

 

[Carla_Danger]

"It's a boy!"

Then they giggle about it? That's disturbing. Evil and without souls

Or not. Obviously, the woman who had the procedure didn't care one way or the other.

GFY....and stop following me around like a puppy. See how that works, old man? I doubt it you will grasp it

Well, some day, Fat Irish Sow, you will be able to compete in the big leagues.

Some day.

today isn't that day.

LOL,Old man you are strictly minor league. That and call people childish middle school names. Hell, our ten year old twins have better insults than you.

Now.....GFY

LOL, Sasssssy dingbat never calls anyone childish names!!!

Now GFY.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I just think if they are making money and they don't really qualify for non-profit,

You are not thinking, you are emoting.

PP is a non-profit organization, period.

 

[Bonzi]

I just think if they are making money and they don't really qualify for non-profit,

You are not thinking, you are emoting.

PP is a non-profit organization, period.

But if they are audited and it turns out they are not truly operating under non-profit guidelines, they need to answer for that.......

 

[Derideo_Te]

I just think if they are making money and they don't really qualify for non-profit,

You are not thinking, you are emoting.

PP is a non-profit organization, period.

But if they are audited and it turns out they are not truly operating under non-profit guidelines, they need to answer for that.......

The books of non-profits are regularly audited. It is done every single year for both of the non-profits where I am a trustee. It would be an exception for it not to be happening at PP.

 

[Meathead]

I just think if they are making money and they don't really qualify for non-profit,

You are not thinking, you are emoting.

PP is a non-profit organization, period.

But if they are audited and it turns out they are not truly operating under non-profit guidelines, they need to answer for that.......

The books of non-profits are regularly audited. It is done every single year for both of the non-profits where I am a trustee. It would be an exception for it not to be happening at PP.

IRS probably got TP and PP mixed up. After all, it's very unlikely PP is on Obama's enemies list.

 

[Bonzi]

I just think if they are making money and they don't really qualify for non-profit,

You are not thinking, you are emoting.

PP is a non-profit organization, period.

But if they are audited and it turns out they are not truly operating under non-profit guidelines, they need to answer for that.......

The books of non-profits are regularly audited. It is done every single year for both of the non-profits where I am a trustee. It would be an exception for it not to be happening at PP.

I wonder why officials are calling for audits then? I forgot what news station I was watching, but they were calling for it as well. Maybe they were calling for more of a "deep dive" audit and/or something more along the lines of an investigation.....

 

[Derideo_Te]

I just think if they are making money and they don't really qualify for non-profit,

You are not thinking, you are emoting.

PP is a non-profit organization, period.

But if they are audited and it turns out they are not truly operating under non-profit guidelines, they need to answer for that.......

The books of non-profits are regularly audited. It is done every single year for both of the non-profits where I am a trustee. It would be an exception for it not to be happening at PP.

I wonder why officials are calling for audits then? I forgot what news station I was watching, but they were calling for it as well. Maybe they were calling for more of a "deep dive" audit and/or something more along the lines of an investigation.....

They wanted an investigation, not an audit.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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 should have charged Where_r_my_brains for doing his homework. Actually, you should have charged him double since he's such an irrational boob.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

A lazy ass Neo-Clown....who knew?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Interesting. So you're saying that the only reason women get abortions is to sell the baby to medical research?
...

No.

I didn't say anything about why woman get abortions. I said the rationalization for allowing such under law, is that the pre-born baby is a clump of inviable tissue. And that the discussions presented in the numerous videos, proves that such is not the case at all. That what is being destroyed is a perfectly viable human baby developing in utero; and that the degenerate process has now devolved into the selling of developing organs, such that would not be present in inviable fetal mass.

But since you brought it up. Women get abortions to avoid the responsibility of bearing the child they conceived through their own willful and wanton behavior; which is the fundamental degenerate notion that undermined the cultural road forming the slippery slope, upon which we have fallen to the pitiful point where the process has developed into murdering the most innocent of human life so that their tiny little corpses can be sold to the highest bidder.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

PP needs to be audited, and, then have tax-exempt status taken away.... if they are innocent should not be a problem. At a MINIMUM, this should be done.

Why?

ROFLMNAO!

Ladies and Gents of the USMB BOARD. I PRESENT YOU WITH:

THE PROBLEM!​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... You say there are zealots on one side that would have an abortion after delivery. I assume you're talking about carrying to full term? This hype about late term abortion is a myth.

That's a dam' lie and you know it.

From the 4th Video: Planned Parenthood: “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.” (That is Planned Parenthood stating that IF they do not get to the mother in time and she comes in during the latter stages of gestation, they get fully intact, wholly viable baby corpses to offer.)

Planned Parenthood’s twisted desire for late-term abortion, stems not from a concern for the pain and suffering of mothers, but from the cold-blooded drive for more MONEY.

This has been going on for over 15 years, dating back to when Planned Parenthood’s human harvesters were first discovered in Kansas.

Now the same ultrasound imaging technology which Planned Parenthood claims is TORTURE when it is used to help Mothers see that highly developed baby in their wombs, proving that it is NOT a INVIABLE FETAL CLUMP... Planned PARENTHOOD's BUTCHERS use it to strategically place their forceps to protect the FULLY DEVELOPED organs of that same mother's baby... which these ghouls treat as simple commodities; claiming that the TORTURE DEVICE PROVIDES THEM: invaluable “guidance.”

 

[Carla_Danger]

... You say there are zealots on one side that would have an abortion after delivery. I assume you're talking about carrying to full term? This hype about late term abortion is a myth.

That's a dam' lie and you know it.

From the 4th Video: Planned Parenthood: “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.” (That is Planned Parenthood stating that IF they do not get to the mother in time and she comes in during the latter stages of gestation, they get fully intact, wholly viable baby corpses to offer.)

Planned Parenthood’s twisted desire for late-term abortion, stems not from a concern for the pain and suffering of mothers, but from the cold-blooded drive for more MONEY.

This has been going on for over 15 years, dating back to when Planned Parenthood’s human harvesters were first discovered in Kansas.

Now the same ultrasound imaging technology which Planned Parenthood claims is TORTURE when it is used to help Mothers see that highly developed baby in their wombs, proving that it is NOT a INVIABLE FETAL CLUMP... Planned PARENTHOOD's BUTCHERS use it to strategically place their forceps to protect the FULLY DEVELOPED organs of that same mother's baby... which these ghouls treat as simple commodities; claiming that the TORTURE DEVICE PROVIDES THEM: invaluable “guidance.”

Bullshit.

"There's ample reason to think that this is merely the tried and true tactic that we have seen from some extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release an edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. "And Planned Parenthood has indicated that's what has occurred here."

Following a similar format to the previous three clips, the heavily-edited video shows actors posing as researchers speaking with organization officials. The group has also posted longer clips claiming to be unedited to its website.

Planned Parenthood has repeatedly denied that it has done anything illegal.

WH Planned Parenthood attackers are extremists - CNNPolitics.com


How often is the D&X procedure performed?

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.

Yet the procedure is also performed in cases where the woman's health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don't become apparent until late in pregnancy.

Partial-Birth Abortion Separating Fact from Spin NPR

 

[flacaltenn]

.

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"?

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.

I say "some" because not all patients want to donate the tissue, those that do give consent.

.

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"?

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.

I say "some" because not all patients want to donate the tissue, those that do give consent.

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...

My apologies, flacaltenn. I didn't realize that she was an actual PP doctor. Yes, you are correct that she is wrong and needs to be exposed for violating the HHS protocols.

I missed that part. Mea culpa.

Because of the convo with you Coyote and others, ive learned more about this news item on USMB, than an hour of news coverage on cable TV.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Bullshit. ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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 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.

Why do call them "pro aborts"? Does that mean "pro-lifers" should be renamed "pro-some-lifers"?

Since I am not in this game, im just sloppy I suppose. But from where I sit, the zealots on one side would have abortions AFTER delivery, and the zealots on the other side include those who believe that just masturbating is interfering with reproduction. Or condoms. So I take digs at both. Your pro choice side has been mooved off their original insane positions on choice to actually THINK about partial birth or parental consent or late term abortions. That train DID start out from the station as a pro abort train. ?.. this slow motion train wreck called the abortion debate has changed the shape of both sides in a slow and painful way.

I agree, and if there is some good to have come out of this debacle it is that we are now having this discussion.

There are established HHS protocols and if a PP doctor violated them, for whatever reason, they need to be held accountable. No exceptions.

When it comes to 3rd trimester abortions those are few and far between and usually because the fetus won't survive because of a medical condition or the woman's life is in jeopardy. There are protocols for those too and need to be followed properly.

Yes, abortion is a gruesome business but the alternative is worse. Back street abortions used to kill women and that is why we now have legal abortion that must follow the approved protocols.

If the anti-rights zealots have their way and ban all abortions we will end up with back street abortionists killing women again. That is not an acceptable alternative and no amount of anti-rights zealous laws can stop that from happening.

Let's clean up PP and thank the anti-rights zealots for shedding some light on protocol violations and move on.

All well and good...

But the problem is that Planned Parenthood is operated by unprincipled people. Thus it's natural progression is toward the inevitable consequences of unprincipled actions, which is of course, Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe, OKA: Destruction.

That's where they are now.

When Relativism comes to light, it's natural consequence is the loss of trust, the separation of a soundly reasoned morality and INEVITABLY, the failure to serve justice.

That's where we are now.

You say that third trimester abortions are rare and usually the consequence of sound medical necessity. The problem you have now, is that we know that Planned Parenthood is motivated by the selling baby body parts and the more developed the baby body part, the more money they get in exchanging those baby body parts.

So, in THAT alone, the MEDICAL NEED is superseded by the financial motivation.

Again... where the individuals were known for their principled behavior, such would not be at issue. But where those in play are known for their REJECTION OF SOUND PRINCIPLE... it is foolish to judge them within the scope of a paradigm which is foreign to them.

This is the SAME THING that killed: ACORN...

And that "THING" is DECEIT and FRAUD, which was applied as a means to exploit THE IGNORANT.

These videos have now informed the ignorant and at it is at this point that THE FORMERLY IGNORANT go to work destroying the EVIL that they now know, no longer is worthy of their trust.

Natural law... you simply cannot beat Nature, scamp.

 

[JoeB131]

Not reform. Just hold people accountable that abuse the system.
Follow laws. They are there for a reason.

Okay. Here's the problem with that.

The IRS got some funny idea that an organization calling itself "Tea Baggers for Patriotic Freedom on 9/12" might not be a Social Welfare Agency like they were claiming. But instead, we have the IRS getting into trouble for calling them on it.

So much for policing abuses.

 

[JoeB131]

You say that third trimester abortions are rare and usually the consequence of sound medical necessity. The problem you have now, is that we know that Planned Parenthood is motivated by the selling baby body parts and the more developed the baby body part, the more money they get in exchanging those baby body parts.

Your logic is that they are actually making money when they probably aren't.

In order to get a good sample, you need a fetus that is in a certain range, but I don't see a woman knowingly waiting to that range for any reason. Then she has to consent to a tissue donation and most women don't do that, either.