Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

In the video, Planned Parenthood Senior Director Deborah Nucatola says some pretty graphic and seemingly disturbing things about tissue donation:

A lot of people want intact hearts these days, because they’re looking for specific nodes... Some people want lower extremities too, which, that’s simple. I mean, that’s easy.

She then goes on to talk about what sounds like Planned Parenthood’s monetary reward:

Every provider has had patients who want to donate their tissue, and they absolutely want to accommodate them. They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, “This clinic is selling tissue, this clinic is making money off of this.”

Except that, as Planned Parenthood told The Hill, its affiliates “can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the ‘additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,’ but it does not go to staff members or providers.” These “additional expenses” might be the $10-30 it costs to transport the tissue being donated, which Planned Parenthood notes is “standard across the medical field.” And no, the patient donating the tissue doesn’t receive any financial reimbursement either.

In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research. No money changes hands, and the donation could help pave the way to any number of medical breakthroughs.

Of course, that doesn’t stop the people behind the video’s release from going to great lengths to try to paint Planned Parenthood as operating outside the law. According to The Center for Medical Progress’s accompanying release, “The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its ‘Human Capital’ series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts.”

While Planned Parenthood notes that the group is “a long time anti-abortion activist that has used deceptive and unethical video editing, and that has created a fake medical website as well as a fake human tissue website that purports to provide services to stem cell researchers.” (For what it’s worth, the Center for Medical Progress did finally release the full video, though its claims remain just as flawed.)

The video itself opens with a short clip of former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt that is edited to give the appearance of condemning the recorded conversation that follows. But the 20/20 segment on which Feldt appears is actually an investigation into abuses made by private sector “tissue and organ procurement companies.” And Feldt even went on to later affirm that “Planned Parenthood supports research using fetal tissue in accordance with legal and ethical guidelines and are deeply concerned about the attempt by some to profit from the humanitarian contributions of courageous women.”

In other words, this is a case of words being taken grossly out of context. Planned Parenthood is doing nothing even remotely shady here, nor are they doing something they haven’t publicly discussed before on multiple occasions. The real question now, though, is who’s behind this whole campaign in the first place.

The video, which had supposedly been held onto for a year before being released earlier this morning, was put out by The Center for Medical Progress, which describes itself as “a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.” Oddly enough, 10 of the the 11 total tweets made by the group’s Twitter account are from today, while the only two posts on its website seem to be about the Planned Parenthood video. And just like its Twitter account, the group’s Facebook page is only a few months old.

am946745 wrote: »

Did you watch the video?

hinault wrote: »

American law says otherwise

42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue

(a) Purchase of tissue

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

(b) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation

It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—

(1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
(2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
(3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
(c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes

It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—

(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.

(d) Criminal penalties for violations

(1) In general
Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined in accordance with title 18, subject to paragraph (2), or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Penalties applicable to persons receiving consideration
With respect to the imposition of a fine under paragraph (1), if the person involved violates subsection (a) or (b)(3), a fine shall be imposed in an amount not less than twice the amount of the valuable consideration received.

(e) Definitions
For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “human fetal tissue” has the meaning given such term in section 289g–1 (g) of this title.
(2) The term “interstate commerce” has the meaning given such term in section 321 (b) of title 21.
(3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.

In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research. No money changes hands, and the donation could help pave the way to any number of medical breakthroughs.

An individual named David Daleiden has been widely credited as the “leader” of the Center for Medical Progress. While Daleiden’s online footprint is minimal, a 2009 Claremont University article (penned by fellow conservative activist Chuck Johnson) reported:

James O’Keefe is a friend of David Daleiden’s. O’Keefe and Hannah Giles have been going coast to coast documenting instances of ACORN employees willingly giving advice on how to avoid paying taxes and shielding a would be pimp (running for congress) and a prostitutent from the watchful eye of the law. They’ve brought their investigation to New York City, Washington D.C., and Baltimore.

O’Keefe came to prominence in 2009 after he produced “egregiously misleading” and “severely edited” videos targeting agencies such as ACORN:

Videotapes secretly recorded and severely edited by O’Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a “pimp” (O’Keefe) and his “prostitute,” actually a Florida college student named Hannah Miles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.

lazybones32 wrote: »

From Wiki - '(Gawker) promotes itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip". It focuses on celebrities and the media industry.'
I should never have questioned the referencing of a celeb-focused website when discussing alleged organ-selling. A valid source indeed!

LifeNews.com is the #1 pro-life web site battling abortion, euthanasia, & celebrating life.

Though Planned Parenthood has described the Center for Medical Progress footage as a hit piece by "a well-funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood's mission and services," Nucatola acknowledges in the video that Planned Parenthood's national office sees the potential for controversy.

"So, we tried to do this, and at the national office we have a Litigation and Law Department that just really doesn't want us to be the middle people for this issue right now," she said. "And so we had a conversation, and we said, 'What if we go out and find everyone who is doing this and present everybody with a menu?' And at the end of the day they just decided that right now, it's just too touchy an issue for us to be an official middleman."

In another part of the video, the doctor tells the undercover actors that "behind closed doors," Planned Parenthood's affiliates are discussing how to handle the matter.

"Every provider has had patients who want to donate their tissue, and they absolutely want to accommodate them. They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as 'This clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this,' " she said.

The edited version of the video appears to be missing important context that's provided in the longer video. For instance, one of the actors asks Nucatola about prices for the organs.

"OK, so when you are, or the (Planned Parenthood) affiliate is determining what that monetary ... so that it doesn't raise any question of 'This is what it's about; this is the main,' what price range would you ..." the woman asks, her question trailing off.

Nucatola responds that the price would be between $30 and $100 per specimen, with consideration for what facility is used and "what's involved." It's not clear if a specimen constitutes the entire organ or only samples of it.

Nucatola doesn't specifically say that the price is for the purchase of the tissue, but the comment troubled bioethicist Art Caplan of New York University, who said after watching the edited version of the video it sounds like Planned Parenthood might be trying to make a profit.

But in the longer version of the video, Nucatola elaborates and appears to say the price is related to the cost of performing the procedure and shipping.

Another part of the video also raised concerns for Caplan. Nucatola talks about doctors performing abortions in which ultrasound is used to ascertain the best location to grab the fetus with forceps.

"We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that, I'm not going to crush that part," she says.

Altering procedures in order to get tissue in the best condition would be a "big no-no," the bioethicist said, because the patient's health is paramount and that should be the only concern for doctors. Caplan did not comment specifically on whether the ultrasound procedure would endanger the mother, but he made it clear that any deviation from normal procedures is unacceptable.

"In abortion the primary goal is to give the safest abortion possible," Caplan said. "Your sole concern has to be the mother and her health."

lazybones32 wrote: »

Lifenews, source their news from other agencies and credit them. I wonder why you led your references with Gawker and then added the Guardian? (whose piece is very similar to International Business Times page last night and includes Dr. Caplan's quotes)

At least now, you are admitting that there may be some things of concern raised in the video; a slight change from your stance last night that it is just misrepresentation.

No point asking me about the methodology the group chose. I questioned if the authorities were informed first but maybe in American Society, it is better to garner Public attention first. Planned Parenthood are a very large Corporation with many influential members, advocates and benefactors.
According to the IBT last night, the Dr. Nuc...? at the centre of the case has gone "off the grid": twitter and FB pages cancelled (but her linkedin page remains open) and the President of the Corporation has already publicly defended her. Their PR machine went straight to work.