Forcing Morality (Updated)

Originally Posted August 2010 (Conversation was from 2001 via SPACEBATTLES)
Updated in January of 2017, and again today (July 2023)

Susan said:

“No SeanG, unlike you, we are not forcing morality on anybody. We are for allowing a choice.  NOWHERE in the pro-choice agenda is there anything about making abortion mandatory.” (Emphasis in the original)

Answer: For women, Roe means more than having control over their bodies; it allows them to plan her life. If there’s a contraceptive failure, the law protects her, permits her to decide whether-or-not to become a parent.

Once contraception has failed, the women have ALL the rights. She can get an abortion. If she decides to have the child, she can make the father pay support, whether or not he wanted it. According to Roe, the man’s obligation begins and ends with his wallet. This is true, but money facilitates existence (one of the reasons an abortion is allowed… monetary standard of living). The quality of life is measured in dollars and cents.

Inarguably, the man is required to pay support for eighteen years and will have his standard of living diminished (severely so, if his circumstances are modest). Certain career, education, and family options will be foreclosed – for the man at least. >> UPDATE TO THIS PART BELOW | JUMP

(Sound familiar? These are excuses for the women to get “off the hook” – e.g., abort a life – but men don’t have that choice.)

If maximizing personal freedom is the primary goal of our legal system, why should men be held to their traditional obligations (supporting the children they’ve fathered) while women are liberated from theirs?

Question:

  • “Do you believe the government should be able to force someone to become a parent?”

Well? This is precisely what is being done by the government à as I speak! You would argue that the government should stay out of your affairs when choosing whether to become a parent (i.e., to abort or not), however, you wish the government to be involved in telling the father that he has to become a parent and supply all the necessary needs for that child. Thus, you are forcing your morality on me Susan (as a defined group) and using the power of the Federal Government to boot!!! You cannot say any differently with what I just have shown above. This belief is self-refuting and shows you to-be-the hypocrite, and not me. You see… I am for equal rights under the Constitution. A “right” has no “moderation (see below). You, on the other-hand, are for special rights inferred upon groups of people.

An aside: in the Laws of Logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction is the most important and can thus be stated like this – “A” cannot both be “A” and “non-A” at the same time. This law is valid in science, law, politics, philosophy, etc. Any theory which purports something, cannot also deny that purport’ion. As in this case, the pro-choice movement is purported to be about liberating – “civil” rights – etc., however, in doing this they deny to some what they want for others… it is self-refuting, a non-logical theory that is really about special rights rather than equal protection under the law.

An Update via Gay Patriot:

Good point: If women can’t be “forced” to become mothers, why should men be “forced” to become fathers?

Expectant fathers in Sweden should have the right to ‘legally abort’ their unborn child up until the 18th week of pregnancy, the youth wing of the country’s Liberal Party has proposed.

Swedish Liberal Youth argues that men should be given an equal say in whether or not they wish to become a parent, and be granted the option to cut any lawful responsibilities.

The suggested ‘legal abortion’ would be irreversible and would see the man renounce all parental duties and rights to see the child once it has been born.

This completely at odds with the position of the American Feminist Left which is that men should be forced to provide child support even for children that are proven to be someone else’s…

(read the rest)

Via Life Training Institute:

  • Student: You made some good points in your talk, but you shouldn’t force your morality on me or anyone else who wants an abortion.  It’s our choice, isn’t it?
  • Me: Are you saying I’m wrong?
  • Student: I’m not sure.  What do you mean?
  • Me: Well, you think I’m wrong, don’t you?  If not, why are you correcting me?  And if so, then you’re forcing your morality on me, aren’t you?
  • Student: No, I just want to know why you are telling people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
  • Me: Are you saying I shouldn’t do that?  That it’s wrong?  If so, then why are you telling me what I can and cannot do?  Why are you forcing your morality on me?
  • Student (regrouping): I’m confused.  Look, the simple fact is that pro-choicers are not forcing women to have abortions, but you want to force women to be mothers.  If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.  But you shouldn’t force your beliefs on others.  All I am saying is that pro-life people should be tolerant of other views.
  • Me: Is that your view?
  • Student: Yes.
  • Me: Why are you forcing it on me?  That’s not very tolerant, is it?
  • Student: What do you mean?  I think women should have a choice and you don’t.  It’s your view that’s intolerant, wouldn’t you say?
  • Me: Okay, so you think I’m wrong.  What is it you want pro-lifers like me to do?
  • Student: You should let women decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
  • Me: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?
  • Student: We believe everyone should decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
  • Me: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become pro-choicers?
  • Student: What? No way.
  • Me: With all due respect, here’s what I hear you saying.  Unless I agree with you, you will not tolerate my view.  Privately, you’ll let me think whatever I want, but you don’t want me to act as if my view is true.  It seems you think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with you.

(More Media)

UPDATED VIDEO ADDITION:

Pro-Life Man Hilariously Trolls Women’s March

See more on this at LIFE NEWS.

 

The Law Is Clear, Life Begins In The Womb (Scott Peterson)

I saw the video [to the right] on Seth Gruber’s Rumble, and I realized I did not have a post here concerning Scott Peterson.

So I wish to fill in the gap with this posting. What follows are some pro-life apologists using Scott Peterson as an example to argue for the life, from conception. Who is Scott Peterson? — for my younger audience.

Who Is Scott Peterson?

In a case that riveted the nation, Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his eight-month pregnant wife, Laci, in 2002. With the help of his mistress, who had not previously known he was married, the FBI was able to collect evidence for the case against him. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection in 2004 for the first-degree murder of his wife and the second-degree murder of their fetus son.

(BIOGRAPHY)

In doing some searching for “stuff” for this post, I came across this blogpost by SECUALR PRO-LIFE… an atheist pro-lifer (yes, THEY EXIST, but they DO NOT… lol). Here is a portion of that post that mentions Scott Peterson — and brought me to a video I likewise isolated, edited, and posted to my RUMBLE. Both the text and the video discuss what pro-life philosopher, Trent Horn, calls “Golden Retriever Reasoning.”

Enjoy:

Gradualism

This is the argument that pro-life philosopher Trent Horn referred to as Golden Retriever Reasoning. This position essentially states that the unborn don’t have the same value that we do, but they do have some value, just like dogs do. It would be wrong for me to kill my neighbor’s Golden Retriever, not because he’s as valuable as humans but because he belongs to my neighbor. Additionally, you shouldn’t just kill them for a trivial reason, but if circumstances get very tough, then you are justified in killing them.

But as Trent points out in the video, this doesn’t account for why we treat the unborn as no different than infants in some situations (for example, in some states if you kill a wanted unborn child you are charged with murder, not animal cruelty, such as when Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife and unborn child in California several years ago; he was charged with two counts of murder). In fact, many pro-choice people do treat the unborn as babies if they’re wanted.

We don’t become “more human” by developing further, we just develop more of the traits that humans possess. Similarly, we don’t become “more of a person” by developing further, we just develop the capacity to perform the functions that persons can perform.

So the Gradualist position just doesn’t account for why abortion should be available, especially on demand as we currently have it in the United States now.

(I also add a clip from Seth Gruber)

Much more can be found at my Roe v. Wade post: SCOTUS Overturns Roe/Casey!

SEA TURTLES VS. HUMANS

Bill Maher: Kathy, why do you oppose a women’s right to choose

Kathy Ireland: Bill, when my husband was going to medical school I underwent a transformation.  Because I used to be in favor of abortion.  But I noticed when I was reading through some of his medical teaching books, that according to a law in science known as the law of biogenesis, every living thing reproduces after it own kind.  That means dog produce dogs, cats produce cats, humans produce humans.  If we want to know what something is we simply ask what are its parents. If we know what the parents are, we know what the thing in question is.  And I reasoned from that because human parents can only produce human offspring, unborn human fetuses could be nothing but human beings, because the law of biogenesis rules out every other alternative.  And I concluded therefore that because human fetuses were part of our family, we should not harm them without justification.

This is an excerpt from Randy Alcorn’s book (older edition), Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments Expanded & Updated


It is uncertain when human life begins; that’s a religious question that cannot be answered by science.

An article printed and distributed by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL [the original, and still largest pro-choice organization]) describes as anti-choice the position that human life begins at conception. It says the pro-choice position is, Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News said on July 3, 2000, “No one knows when human life begins.” He made no distinction between biological life and any other kind of life. Mr. OReilly then went on to ask a guest if “is an embryo in a [petri] dish a human life”? Sen. Hatch’s claim that “an embryo in a petri dish is not a human life”?

1a.  If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.

[One of the reasons the Supreme Court allowed the legalization of abortion is that they werent sure of when life began.] Suppose there is uncertainty about when human life begins. If a hunter is uncertain whether a movement in the brush is caused by a person, does his uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? If youre driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may be just a shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? If we find someone who may be dead or alive, but were not sure, what is the best policy? To assume he is alive and try to save him, or to assume he is dead and walk away?

Shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt to life? Otherwise we are saying, This may or may not be a child, therefore it’s all right to destroy it.

1b. Medical Textbooks and scientific reference works constantly agree that human life begins at conception.

Many people have been told that there is no medical or scientific consensus as to when human life begins. This is simply untrue. Among those scientists who have no vested (monetary) in the abortion issue, there is an overwhelming consensus that human life begins at conception. (Conception is the moment when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, bringing into existence the zygote, which is a genetically distinct individual.)

Dr. Bradley M. Pattens textbook, Human Embryology, states:

  • It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of a new individual.

Dr. Keith L. Moores text on embryology, referring to the single cell zygote, says:

  • The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being. He also states, Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote.

Doctors J. P. Greenhill and E. A. Friedman, in their work on biology and obstetrics, state:

  • The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.

Dr. Louis Fridhandler, in the medical textbook Biology of Gestation, refers to fertilization as:

  • that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual.

Doctors E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig write in Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant:

  • Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.

Popular scientific reference works reflect this same understanding of when human life begins. Time and Rand McNallys Atlas of the Human Body states:

  • In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.

In an article on pregnancy, the Encyclopedia Britannica says:

  • A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.

These sources confidently affirm, with no hint of uncertainty that life begins at conception. They state not a theory or hypothesis and certainly not a religious belief every one is a secular source. Their conclusion is squarely based on the scientific and medical facts.

1c. Some of the worlds most prominent scientist and physicians testified to a U. S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception.

In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. Al of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

  • I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of a human life.

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Downs syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee that:

  • after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. He stated that this is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, and not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence. He added, Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:

  • By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School:

  • It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School:

  • The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view as simple and straightforward matter the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological [familial, age, or medical advances], political [pro-choice], or economic goals [cannot finish school].

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who could specifically testify that life begins at any other point other than conception or implantation.

1d. Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception.

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the pro-life cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, The basic fact is simple: Life begins not at birth, but conception.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was co-founder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL [Dr. Nathanson help start the entire pro-choice movement]). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the Western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathansons study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60, 000 deaths.

In his film, The Silent Scream, Dr. Nathanson later stated, Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from us. Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader. At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.

Dr. Lundrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female- producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles staes:

  • I oppose abortion, I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest that human life commences at the same time of conception and, secondly, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.

The official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the Human Life Bill, summarized the issue this way:

  • Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a humans being a being that is and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

Does It Matter?

In a statement form the The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Director of Media and Policy Daniel McConchie said:

  • “Stem cell lines are quickly becoming marketable items. Once some integral human parts can be bought and sold, we run the risk that democratic societies will decide that other weak and defenseless members of the human race in those societies can be utilized for profits as well.”

Jews and Blacks were once said by the courts to be less than human, I wonder if we are headed down that path again?

Democrats Don’t Actually Want To Debate Abortion (Matt Walsh)

If Only Babies Had The Same Rights As Sea Turtles (Matt Walsh)

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats attempt to legalize abortion through every stage of pregnancy up until birth, nationwide. Meanwhile, people are getting sent to prison for killing bald eagles and harassing turtle eggs. Our law — and Democrat policies — literally place animals and bugs above human beings. We’ll discuss. Plus, Handmaid’s Tale cosplayers show up at Amy Coney Barrett’s house and proceed to embarrass themselves. Because what else could they possibly do? And a Republican senate candidate is caught on a tape in shocking video claiming that the gender pay gap is a myth. This is a huge scandal. He’s also completely right. For our Daily Cancellation, we will attempt to make sense of the latest gender innovation: cake gender.

Baby Parts [Still] For Sale ~ Democrats Dehumanizing Human Life

“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.” — Faye Wattleton, former president of U.S. Planned Parenthood

UPDATE!

(I am posting most of the headers to each section, but #2 I post in full to compare to the 20/20 investigation many years ago (part of the original post): via THE FEDERALIST

Top 10 Sickening Details About How Federal Employees Trafficked Baby Body Parts

New emails uncovered by Judicial Watch’s FOIA request detail how FDA employees were working with buyers to get ‘fresh’ aborted baby organs for experiments.

In what should have been a national headline, the exposure of the U.S. government’s involvement in trafficking aborted baby bodies is now even more newsworthy following Friday’s announcement from the White House. At President Biden’s direction, the Department of Health and Human Services reversed the Trump administration’s policy protecting preborn Americans from the callous dehumanization of organ harvesting and further desecration of their bodies in research disguised as “science.”

This sickening decision now gives license to our “best and brightest” government researchers and agencies, those in charge of steering the country towards medical breakthroughs and scientific progress, to use the skin, brains, and eyeballs of children in research that affects all of us and is funded by our money. For this very reason, we must know the full extent of how federal agencies traffic aborted baby body parts.

These top 10 shocking examples come from the latest emails uncovered by Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and recent investigations.

1. The FDA Paid $2,000 Per Baby

2. FDA Bought Organs of Dismembered Babies

The FDA bought organs like livers, brains, and eyeballs of dismembered babies for hundreds of dollars apiece, courtesy of ABR’s collusion with local Planned Parenthoods.

ABR fee schedules and pricing charts obtained during a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Investigation allow us to piece together how much a baby costs by body part, as if each child was a slaughtered animal sold in sections.

3. ABR Sold the Skin of a 21-Week-Old Down Syndrome Baby

4. The FDA Wanted ‘Fresh’ Babies

5. The FDA Asked for Organs from Late-Term Babies

6. The FDA Bought Skulls of Second-Trimester Babies

7. Busy Abortion Clinics Produced ‘Awful Specimens’

8. FDA Requested Boy Organs to Create Humanized Mice

9. FDA, ABR Employees Called Aborted Babies ‘Amazing’

10. Taxpayers Paid for FDA Trips to ‘Humanized Mice Workshops’ in Europe

All I can say is Big Government is an evil sombitch!

OLDER POST

(2015)

BREITBART comments:

America’s utterly useless, hopelessly corrupt mainstream media has once again been scooped by New Media, this time on a major story involving a major left-wing institution. According to undercover video released Tuesday, for anywhere from $30 to $100 a pop, Planned Parenthood is happy to adjust the way in which it murders unborn children.

You want a heart? A liver? A lower extremity? Not a problem. While butchering this child — hopefully during a late-term abortion in order to bump up the price — Planned Parenthood will be super-duper-extra-careful to murder the baby in a very specific way that keeps those organs intact.

This is happening. In America. And we’re only learning about it thanks to a group that has nothing to do with the MSM — the same MSM that has all kinds of time to fabricate racism, stir up riots in inner-cities, fabricate infrastructure problems around a train crash, and ask Donald Trump the same three goddamned immigration questions for a full month.

Why isn’t our media regularly investigating and calling for full transparency from a taxpayer-funded institution like Planned Parenthood?

Why doesn’t our media treat Planned Parenthood with even a tenth the scrutiny it does the NFL or Koch Industries?

The answer is simple: When the media targets certain institutions, there is big political and cultural upside for the Left. On the flip-side, if the media were to investigate others institutions, there is potential downside for the Left. Therefore, this is the media’s driving criteria when it comes to editorial decisions….

THE BLAZE makes this accurate assessment:

Mysteriously, these “clumps of cells” are suddenly considered identifiable bodies with limbs and organs.

And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.

In case you’re wondering, the calvarium is piece of the skull. According to Nucatola, as the abortionist is executing the child, he will sometimes “evacuate” it a certain way so the baby’s head can later be sold for money

GAY PATRIOT comments on the above information:

No one who is pro-abortion should have any problem with this. After all, so long as a woman is not inconvenienced by a pregnancy, nothing else matters. Besides, those organs probably come from “communities we don’t want too many of,” as Democrat heroine Margaret Sanger or Ruth Bader Ginsburg would put it.

ORIGINAL POST

(2007)

The following comes from my old blog dated June, 2007. It is an import perfect for the above new information.


Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Singer was the founding President of the International Association of Bioethics and, with Helga Kuhse, founding co-editor of the journal Bioethics. In his book “Practical Ethics,” he writes:

If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal.

If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.

Remember that Peter Singer teaches ethics to generations of medical students. An ABC 20/20 SPECIAL turned up some horribly unsettling info about an industry that has come into being with the slow march towards the devaluation of human life:

ABC News “20/20” Investigation Into Alleged Trafficking In Fetal Tissue Finds Companies That Appear To Be Profiting From Selling Human Tissue For Medical Research

A three-month “20/20” hidden-camera investigation has uncovered an industry in which tissue and organs from aborted fetuses, donated to help medical research, are being marketed for hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars.

“20/20” has investigated one businessman whose company issued a price list charging what many call exorbitant prices for fetal tissue. In addition, ABC News “20/20” chief correspondent Chris Wallace has an exclusive interview with a whistle-blower who says two tissue retrieval companies he worked for went so far as to, on some occasions, encourage him to take fetal tissue obtained from women who had not consented to donate their fetuses to medical research. The report will air on “20/20 Wednesday,” March 8 (10:00-11:00 p.m., ET), on the ABC Television Network.

Many say that fetal tissue is vital in scientific research that may provide dramatic medical breakthroughs, and federal law permits the donation of tissue from aborted fetuses for that purpose. But the law says companies that transport fetal tissue to medical research labs may only charge a reasonable fee to recover costs of collecting and shipping human tissue. “20/20’s” investigation found some companies are charging high fees — fees that critics say are not based on recovering costs; for example, the price list for one company, Opening Lines, includes listings of $325 for a spinal cord, $550 for a reproductive organ, $999 for a brain.

How are these prices determined? One “20/20” producer went undercover as a potential investor to meet Dr. Miles Jones, a Missouri pathologist whose company, Opening Lines, obtains fetal tissue from clinics and ships it to research labs. “It’s market force,” Dr. Jones told the producer about how he sets his prices. “It’s what you can sell it for.” He says he hopes to run his own abortion clinic in Mexico where he says he could get a greater supply of fetal tissue by offering cheaper abortions: “If you control the flow — it’s probably the equivalent of the invention of the assembly line.”

“That’s trading in body parts. There’s no doubt about it,” said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics.

Representative Thomas Bliley (R-VA), who chairs the United States House Commerce Committee, says his committee is now investigating four companies after finding evidence they may be selling tissue for a profit. He says the committee is interested in ensuring that people transporting fetal tissue only recover their legitimate costs. “It appears that it’s more than that. That it comes down to trafficking in tissue parts,” he tells Mr. Wallace. Rep. Bliley’s committee expects to hold hearings on this issue later this week. [Note: The House Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health and the Environment has scheduled a hearing on Thursday, March 9, at 2 p.m., on the subject, “Fetal Tissue: Is It Being Bought and Sold in Violation of Federal Law?”]

Another piece to this puzzle was added with an article by MONA CHARIN, a nationally syndicated columnist when she wrote this in reference to another think tank article:

Body Parts For Sale

“Kelly” (a pseudonym) was a medical technician working for a firm that trafficked in baby body parts. This is not a bad joke. Nor is it the hysterical propaganda of an interest group. It was reported in the American Enterprise magazine–the intelligent, thought-provoking, and utterly trustworthy publication of the American Enterprise Institute.

The firm Kelly worked for collected fetuses from clinics that performed late-term abortions. She would dissect the aborted fetuses in order to obtain ‘high-quality” parts for sale. They were interested in blood, eyes, livers, brains, and the thymuses, among other things.

“What we did was to have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go there on certain days. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and universities were looking for. Then we would examine the patient charts. We only wanted the most perfect specimens.’ That didn’t turn out to be difficult. Of the hundreds of late-term fetuses Kelly saw on a weekly basis, only about 2 percent had abnormalities. About 30 to 40 babies per week were around 30 weeks old–well past the point of viability.

Is this legal? Federal law makes it illegal to buy and sell human body parts. But there are loopholes in the law. Here’s how one body parts company–Opening Lines Inc.–disguised the trade in a brochure for abortionists: “Turn your patient’s decision into something wonderful.”

For its buyers, Opening Lines offers “the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it.” Eyes and ears go for $75, and brains for $999. An “intact trunk” fetches $500, a whole liver $150. To evade the law’s prohibition, body-parts dealers like Opening Lines offer to lease space in the abortion clinic to “perform the harvesting,” as well as to “offset the clinic’s overhead.” Opening Lines further boasted, “Our daily average case volume exceeds 1,500 and we serve clinics across the United States.”

Kelly kept at her grisly task until something made her reconsider. One day, “a set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, ‘Got you some good specimens–twins.’ I looked at him and said: ‘There’s something wrong here. They are moving. I can’t do this. This is not in my contract.’ I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this.”

But she did go back and dissect them later. The twins were only the beginning. “It happened again and again. At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, we had live births come back to us. Then the doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead.”

American Enterprise asked Kelly if abortion procedures were ever altered to provide specific body parts. “Yes. Before the procedures they would want to see the list of what we wanted to procure. The (abortionist) would get us the most complete intact specimens that he could. They would be delivered to us completely intact. Sometimes the fetus appeared to be dead, but when we opened up the chest cavity, the heart was still beating.”

The magazine pressed Kelly again. Was the type of abortion ever altered to provide an intact specimen, even if it meant producing a live baby? “Yes, that was so we could sell better tissue. At the end of the year, they would give the clinic back more money because we got good specimens.”

Some practical souls will probably swallow hard and insist that, well, if these babies are going to be aborted anyway, isn’t it better that medical research should benefit? No. This isn’t like voluntary organ donation. This reduces human beings to the level of commodities. And it creates of doctors who swore an oath never to kill, the kind of people who can beat a breathing child to death with tongs.

Here is an actual price list from one of the now many companies that participate in the trafficking of human parts (more at Fathers for Life):

Opening Lines
A Division of Consultants & Diagnostic Pathology,
Inc. P.O. Box 508, West Frankfort,
IL 62896
Fee for Services Schedule

> greater than

< same or less than

  • Unprocessed Specimen (> 8 weeks) $ 70
  • Unprocessed Specimen (< 8 weeks) $ 50
  • Livers (< 8 weeks) 30% discount if significantly fragmented $150
  • Livers (> 8 weeks) 30% discount if significantly fragmented $125
  • Spleens (< 8 weeks) $ 75
  • Spleens (> 8 weeks) $ 50
  • Pancreas (< 8 weeks) $100
  • Pancreas (> 8 weeks) $ 75
  • Thymus (< 8 weeks) $100
  • Thymus (> 8 weeks) $ 75
  • Intestines & Mesentery $ 50
  • Mesentery (< 8 weeks) $125
  • Mesentery (> 8 weeks) $100
  • Kidney-with/without adrenal (< 8 weeks) $125
  • Kidney-with/without adrenal (> 8 weeks) $100
  • Limbs (at least 2) $150
  • Brain (< 8 weeks) 30% discount if significantly fragmented $999
  • Brain (> 8 weeks) 30% discount if significantly fragmented $150
  • Pituitary Gland (> 8 weeks) $300
  • Bone Marrow (< 8 weeks) $350
  • Bone Marrow (> 8 weeks) $250
  • Ears (< 8 weeks) $ 75
  • Ears (> 8 weeks) $ 50
  • Eyes (< 8 weeks) 40% discount for single eye $ 75
  • Eyes (> 8 weeks) 40% discount for single eye $ 50
  • Skin (> 12 weeks) $100
  • Lungs & Heart Block $150
  • Intact Embryonic Cadaver (< 8 weeks) $400
  • Intact Embryonic Cadaver (> 8 weeks) $600
  • Intact Calvarium $125
  • Intact Trunk (with/without limbs) $500
  • Gonads $550
  • Cord Blood (Snap Frozen LN2) $125
  • Spinal Column $150
  • Spinal Cord $325

Here is the last article dealing with this topic, and is a recent discovery the devaluing of human worth under a more socialized medicine in Europe:

HARVESTING ORGANS

Sarah Boseley, health editor

Thursday January 11, 2001

The true scale of the scandal of human organ retention by hospitals will be revealed today by the government’s chief medical officer, who will tell parents and professionals that 50,000 organs are being stored in hospitals in England alone. The number far exceeds expectations.

Liam Donaldson will say that what was done in the name of the NHS over many years was an affront to families who had lost their loved ones. Addressing a public seminar, whose audience will include top pathologists and other senior doctors:

“Some of the past practices around organ retention belong to an era where decisions were made by the NHS for patients, but not with patients. This has caused a period of immense distress for families, especially in places like Bristol and Liverpool, when they found out their children’s organs were taken without their knowledge. Something went seriously wrong in the way the health service dealt with the issue of organ retention.”

Prof Donaldson will pledge that the government “will do whatever it takes to put things right, changing the law if necessary to ensure that relatives are given the right kind of information so they can give consent in a fully informed way if they choose to do so.”

At Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool, where an inquiry will report shortly, more than 3,000 children’s organs have been discovered; other hospitals were not thought to have anything like that number.

The chief medical officer will offer an unmitigated apology and assurances for the future to the parents of the Alder Hey children and those whose children died and had organs removed at the Bristol royal infirmary who have been invited to today’s seminar. None of the parents knew that hearts, brains and other whole organs would be removed and kept after the autopsy on their son or daughter.

Ian Kennedy, chairman of the inquiry into children’s deaths following heart surgery at Bristol, published an interim report into organ retention at the hospital last May. He found that the law was complex and obscure. Different laws covered hospital autopsies – which help doctors find out about the progress of disease – and those ordered by the coroner to find out the cause of death. Prof Kennedy recommended at least a new code of practice and preferably a new law.

Prof Donaldson has issued interim guidance to hospitals, requiring them to tell parents and relatives exactly what an autopsy involves and get their explicit permission if there is any need to remove organs. Today’s seminar is part of his information-gathering process on the way to producing his final report to the health secretary, Alan Milburn. That is expected, along with the Alder Hey inquiry report, before the end of the month.

Ed Bradley, chairman of the Alder Hey parents’ support group, said more than 140 parents and relatives had travelled to London for the seminar and were glad of the opportunity to give evidence, “however, we do question how much benefit can be gained from a one-day conference where we have only been given five minutes to represent our views.” They also felt it would be more appropriate to discuss the way forward after the Alder Hey inquiry had reported.

Alder Hey hospital is generally considered a special case, because whole organ systems were found to have been collected by a consultant pathologist, Dick Van Velzen, who is facing disciplinary hearings at the General Medical Council.

Bristol parents at the seminar will be asking for Prof Kennedy’s recommendations to be implemented and questioning why there has been no action since his report was published. “It was quite clear the law was in a mess,” said Steve Parker, chairman of the Bristol Heart Children’s Action Group.

Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin Saves Lives (The Left Kills)

Most important in this post is this, WHERE CAN I GET Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin? AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS has a consultation sign up HERE! See also FLCCC ALLIANCE (Click Pic)

UPDATED BULLET POINTS via RED STATE

[….]

  • Ivermectin (an anti-parasitic given to horses and dogs) is an effective prevention and treatment therapy
  • Although an anti-parasitic, Ivermectin also is a phenomenal anti-viral prophylaxis and can be used for early treatment, immune modifier treatment during hospitalization, and post-COVID “long hauler” treatment
  • Ivermectin is safe, effective, and INEXPENSIVE, having been taken by 4 billion people since the 1980s (it is on the world’s most essential drugs list!)
  • In Petri dish studies conducted, in August 2020, Ivermectin was found to have killed 99% of the virus, but the NIH recommended against its use
  • Ivermectin has been given in the past to humans at 30-40 times the recommended dosage with no adverse effect (only two humans have ever been determined to have died after using the drug, and they had a rare immunodeficiency disease)
  • A few Ivermectin studies are finally being conducted independently in the US in Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin hospitals (results: they have decreased their COVID death rates by 70-90%!)
  • In Houston, one hospital was using it; now, all hospitals in Houston administer the drug
  • It is an approved medicine, but it is off-label (approved for other uses) because the FDA has not approved its use to treat the virus because studies haven’t been completed on Americans – the FDA doesn’t use foreign studies to approve drugs)
  • However, Pfizer received FDA approval for its experimental vaccine based on tests on foreign subjects, not Americans (!)
  • In meta-analysis of 15,000 patients, Ivermectin – if added to the treatment plan, no matter what that plan is – reduces the death rate by at least 75% (up to 86% if given early)
  • Translation: of the half-million deaths attributed to COVID in the US, fully 375,000 almost certainly could have been prevented if Ivermectin had been administered as part of the treatment plan
  • A full course of Ivermectin treat costs under $30
  • Fully 100% of the world’s Ivermectin trials have shown benefits (details provided in the video presentation):
    • Decreases disease acquisition by 88-100%
    • Decreases viral replication and shedding time by half
    • Decreases disease course and severity by 80-90%
    • Decreases disease death rate by 75% and up to 86% if administered early in treatment
  • Ivermectin is the only medicine that has shown benefit in 100% of world trials conducted
  • The Ivermectin molecule can treat ALL of the virus variants
  • Anecdotally, in the 42 patients to whom I (Dr. Cole) have prescribed Ivermectin over the past two months, all have shown improvements within 12-48 hours
  • As of February 2020, the official NIH position on Ivermectin is neutral: “Neither for nor against” its use (that means that US doctors can prescribe Ivermectin in their treatment of COVID-infected cases)

Ivermectin provides proven anti-viral prophylaxis and treatment of the COVID virus – for prevention, early treatment, immune modifier treatment during hospitalization, and after-treatment to avoid reinfection. In world clinical trials, it has been shown to decrease death rates of virus-infected people by a minimum of 75% (up to 86% if treated early). It is also inexpensive. These facts have been known and suppressed by US public health authorities in government….

(RED STATE – PART 2)

VIDEO

(RED STATE – PART 1)

Almost 1.4 millions deaths related to countries that do not use Hydroxychloroquine as an early remedy vs telling people to go home and quarantine and come back if it is worse. HCQ and Ivermectin work well as prophylactic’s. In fact, “in Argentina, in which 800 health care workers were given Ivermectin as a preventative medication and none of them were infected by the coronavirus during the experiment. Kory continued by saying among the 400 health care workers that were not prophylaxed with Ivermectin, 237 individuals or 58% of the group contracted the virus” (HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL).

Why is this an important stat? This is why…

Ninety-five people in the study developed Covid-19 with symptoms; of those, 90 had received a placebo and only five Moderna’s vaccine. The findings, from a 30,000-subject trial that is still under way, move the vaccine closer to wide use, because they indicate it is effective at preventing disease that causes symptoms, including severe cases…. (WALL STREET JOURNAL)

The only way you could reeaally say 95% effective rate is to have [for example] 200 people, 100 of them got the real vaccine, the other 100 the placebo. All 200 were exposed equally to “The Vid” and then a result is tabulated from that. 

(RPT)

THE NEW YORK POST also discusses the issue:

“The chances of it being 98 percent effective is not great,” Fauci, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said at a Q&A with the Brown University School of Public Health in Rhode Island, according to CNBC.

Instead, Fauci said, scientists are hoping for a vaccine that is 75 percent effective — but even a 50 or 60 percent success rate would be considered a win.

“Which means you must never abandon the public health approach,” explained Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Meanwhile, a Gallup poll released on Friday found that more than a third of Americans wouldn’t take a vaccine if it were available today….

Continuing with the HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL,

“If you take it, you will not get sick,” Kory said. “It has immense and potent anti-viral activity.”

Kory said four large, randomized controlled trials with over 1,500 patients are in progress and information is being gathered on Ivermectin as a prophylaxis and the evidence collected so far has overwhelmingly shown it is immensely affective. He went on to say there are three randomized control outpatient trials underway that have shown while taking Ivermectin, the need for hospitalization or death decreases. To further bolster its claims, the FLCCC Alliance indicated a meta-analysis of the data compiled from their studies was recently completed by an independent research group and it determined the chances Ivermectin is ineffective in treating COVID-19 are 1 in 67 million.

“The most profound evidence we have is in the hospitalized patients,” Kory said. “We have four randomized control trials there, all showing the same thing: you will not die or you will die at much, much lower rates. These are statistically significant, large magnitude results if you take Ivermectin. It is proving to be a wonder drug and it is critical for its use in this disease.”

In addition, Marik said studies of pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, show a dramatic effect in reducing the risk of infection when exposed.

“If one person in your household contracts the virus you have about a 50% chance of getting COVID-19,” Marik explained. “Based on the randomized trails, if you take Ivermectin, you can reduce the risk from about 50% to about 6%.”

Marik and Kory both emphasized the need for prevention of COVID-19, rather than treatment….

Why does corporate media and health not want covid treated?

$$ Money $$

BIG-PHARMA cannot make money on anything but “vaccines.” [That have a much lower % of helping a person than cheap long tested drugs that are over the counter in most countries]

But here is the “BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS” moment, which is why I ask, WHERE IS CODE PINK?

Over 1.3-million estimated lives have been lost by not instituting early treatment protocols using Hydroxychloroquine (continuing counter found here). Not only that, but Ivermectin seems to be more effective used early. Where is Code Pink standing up in Congress showing bloody hands to Democrat Congressmen?

Here is an article by Senator Ron Johnson found in the WALL STREET JOURNAL… also found at REPLY TO NEWS in full:

Google’s YouTube has ratcheted up censorship to a new level by removing two videos from a U.S. Senate committee. They were from a Dec. 8 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on early treatment of Covid-19. One was a 30-minute summary; the other was the opening statement of critical-care specialist Pierre Kory.

Dr. Kory is part of a world-renowned group of physicians who developed a groundbreaking use of corticosteroids to treat hospitalized Covid patients. His testimony at a May Senate hearing helped doctors rethink treatment protocols and saved lives.

At the December hearing, he presented evidence regarding the use of ivermectin, a cheap and widely available drug that treats tropical diseases caused by parasites, for prevention and early treatment of Covid-19. He described a just-published study from Argentina in which about 800 health-care workers received ivermectin and 400 didn’t. Not one of the 800 contracted Covid-19; 58% of the 400 did.

Dr. Kory asked the National Institutes of Health to review his group’s manuscript outlining dozens of successful trials and to consider updating its Aug. 27 guidance in which it recommended “against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19, except in a clinical trial.” On Dec. 10, Sen. Rand Paul and I sent a letter to the NIH requesting that it review Dr. Kory’s evidence.

On Jan. 14, NIH changed its guidance to neutral by acknowledging the successful trials but determined “that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19.” On Jan. 22 I sent an oversight letter asking what actions the NIH had taken to explore the use of repurposed drugs for treating Covid-19.

Before being removed from YouTube and other websites, Dr. Kory’s opening statement had been viewed by more than eight million people. Unfortunately, government health agencies don’t share that interest in early treatment. A year into the pandemic, NIH treatment guidelines for Covid patients are to go home, isolate yourself and do nothing other than monitor your illness.

Fortunately, some doctors have the courage to ignore these compassionless guidelines and are using their expertise to develop protocols utilizing a variety of cheap, available and safe FDA-approved drugs to treat patients early and avoid hospitalization. Instead of being rewarded, they are being censored, ostracized, vilified in the press, even fired. This closed-minded approach represents a dark chapter in the history of medicine and journalism.

The censors at YouTube have decided for all of us that the American public shouldn’t be able to hear what senators heard. Apparently they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives. They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed, and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies. Government-sanctioned censorship of ideas and speech should frighten us all.

(See more at EPOCH TIMES)

Ivermectin

Hydroxychloroquine

THE AMA’s REVERSAL, BTW:

CHICAGO, IL – The American Medical Association (AMA), in a surprising move, has officially rescinded a previous statement against the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, giving physicians the okay to return to utilizing the medication at their discretion.

Previously, the AMA had issued a statement in March that was highly critical of HCQ in regards to its use as a proposed treatment by some physicians in the early stages of COVID-19. In addition to discouraging doctors from ordering the medication in bulk for “off-label” use – HCQ is typically used to treat diseases such as malaria – they also claimed that there was no proof that it was effective in treating COVID, and that its use could be harmful in some instances.

However, on page 18 of a recent AMA memo, issued on October 30, (resolution 509, page 3) the organization officially reversed their stance on HCQ, stating that its potential for good currently may supersede the threat of any potential harmful side effects.

So, there we have it. HCQ could not be approved before the election, because President Trump had recommended it. Meanwhile, with an 8o +% reduced risk of having to be admitted to the hospital if administered with Azithromycin and Zinc as soon as testing positive or symptoms occurred, many (70000+) lives could have been saved.

It has come to my attention that the resolution, while adopted got stopped before a new and valid recommendation was issued. There are powerful interests in the AMA that want to keep things as they are rather than advance real medical science based on real results, and never admit a mistake. Meanwhile, people are dying because of lack of solid, but inexpensive medical solutions.

The recommendation is still up on their website, but should it disappear, here it is , the important part part.

[….]

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to Take Action); and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA rescind its joint statement with the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health System Pharmacists, and update it with a joint statement notifying patients that further studies are ongoing to clarify any potential benefit of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA reassure the patients whose physicians are prescribing 18 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for their early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis by issuing an updated statement clarifying our support for a physician’s ability to prescribe an FDA-approved medication for off label use, if it is in her/his best clinical judgement, with specific reference to the use of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of the earliest stage of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further….

(NOQ REPORT and LEN BILEN’S BLOG)

Pausing To Mention The Sad Irony In These Riots (Updated)

THE DAILY CALLER has some of the names listed But they point out that out of the 16 they have tracked down, most are young, and most are minorities:

Barry Perkins, 29, died after getting stuck on the converter dolly between a FedEx truck’s trailers while the driver of the truck pulled away. The driver, who was rerouted because of the protests, said he didn’t know the man was there. People began “removing items” from the truck and two men standing on the passenger side showed the driver they had guns, so the driver feared for his life, honked the horn and started driving until he was stopped by police. By the time police stopped the truck, Perkins had gotten caught by the trailer tire and was run over, according to KSDK.

Dorian Murrell, 18, was shot and killed by Tyler Newby, 29, in Indianapolis. Newby and his friend told police that they were walking around Downtown after the protests, found a gas canister on the ground and picked it up. They said after doing so, they were approached by a group of about 10 males who asked them what they found. Newby said he was pushed to the ground, pulled out his gun and shot the person standing over him. Murrell’s family member at the scene said there was no physical altercation, according to Indy Star.

These two videos made me both immensely sad, and mad at the same time (CAUTION).

Babies Born Alive (and Abortionist Displays a Murdered Human)

(A year ago) Susan B. Anthony List’s Jill Stanek shares her horrifying experience when she, as a nurse, witnessed babies being aborted alive and left to die. She shares why the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Abortion Protection Act is so important.

(For more on Kermit Gosnell, see TOO MANY ABORTED)

And LIFE-NEWS has this recent post…

CAUTION, GRAPHIC

WARNING: The following story and video show graphic footage of an aborted baby.

A heartbreaking new video shows an abortionist holding up the head of an aborted baby. The video has gone viral on Facebook as people are sharing it to help expose the brutal reality of how abortion kills babies.

From LiveAction:

In a disturbing and heartbreaking video shared to Facebook by In His Image Ministries, an abortionist can be seen siphoning through the body parts of a preborn child he has just moments before killed through abortion. He even holds the head of the preborn baby up for camera and measures a tiny foot.

“Basically, piecing the fetal tissue back together,” the abortionist said, describing his actions. “Make sure that we have all of the fragments.” The abortionist claims that too much focus is placed on the preborn baby and the “gory” parts of abortion, but the child’s brutal death isn’t what matters to him.

[fbvideo link=”https://www.facebook.com/InHisImageMin/videos/326768087956972/” width=”630″ height=”400″ onlyvideo=”1″]

Abortion to Just Before [and after] Birth (Updated)

UPDATED:

BTW, if you didn’t know about this historic moment… that is because — as NEWSBUSTERS notes — the MSM gave it little attention:

  • The big three networks gave just 15 seconds Friday to the largest pro-life annual march in the nation’s capital, this year. While it’s not out of the ordinary for the media to ignore this mammoth event that flies in the face of their liberal narrative on abortion, it is notable that they would hold a near blackout of the event even when President Trump became the first sitting President to attend in the 47 year history of the march….

MEDIAITE said Trump lied at the March For Life in D.C. when he said this [note, I include my response as well in the following pic] (via INFORMATION LIBERATION):

The DAILY CALLER simply responds with the video:

Just remember what Faye Wattleton said, former president of U.S. Planned Parenthood:

“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.”

Here is the previous post (originally posted January of 2019)

I posted this on my RPT Facebook Page:

Shortly thereafter, a reader posted this short response an a link:

By the by. That article is probably the most many read about the abortion debate. I doubt they would have read “Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood,” or, “Killer Angel: A Short Biography of Planned Parenthood’s Founder, Margaret Sanger.” Or “Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments,” or, “The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.” Neither do they watch or listen to women who survived abortions, like, Gianna Jessen, or Rebecca Keissling. Or listen to presentations LIKE THESE:

Why complicate things with history and facts and debate. But I digress. Here is my response:

Thank you KR. You will note all points of views are welcome here. It keeps me sharp by memorizing stuff because I read it again and write it again. I lead off my “CULTURAL ISSUES” Page (https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/cultural-issues/) with some of my posts on the matter.

Here is my response to Snopes:

The new law still imposes some restrictions on when late-term abortions can be performed, even as it loosens others:

“A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

It redefines a “person” as “a human being who has been born and is alive.” And many do not know that the same day Roe v Wade was passed, Doe v Bolton was as well. This allows the “health of the mother” a wide variance of meanings. So if a mother see’s here baby has a cleft palate, this causes her undue stress/mental anguish, she is allowed to get a late-term abortion. The mother says that the extra burden of financial strain in having a child causes her undue stress/mental anguish, she can have a late-term abortion. in many states, New York just went all in however.

In the third trimester the law could forbid women to have an abortion, unless the abortion is necessary to preserve her “life or health.” In Doe v. Bolton, Roe’s companion case, the Supreme Court defined the word “health” in such broad terms that it is virtually impossible for a state to protect the unborn. The majority opinion of Doe v. Bolton stated, “The medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

(Side-note: both women involved in those cases became pro-life advocates and apologized often for their legalizing the killing of babies. “Roe,” Norma McCorvey wrote a wonderful book called “Won by Love.”)

The previous homicide law in New York said “conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than 24 weeks” as a felony offense, has been taken off the penal code by the newly passed legislation. Partial-birth abortions were already at a rate in the late 90’s of 3,000 to 5,000 times annually – nationwide. New York merely removed all restrictions on it.

  • “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.” ~ Faye Wattleton, former president of U.S. Planned Parenthood

Another friend posted at the same time:

The Snopes article doesn’t mention Doe v Bolton, probably because if you add that to the information they give, it is damning to their case.

Snopes might be neutral on urban legends, but the liberal politics of the owners of the site come through with incredible bias on every political article.

So now Virginia is doing the same as New York… Virginia could soon be joining New York in repealing restrictions on abortion, including terminations up until the moment of birth, under the provisions of a bill backed by Governor Ralph Northam and a substantial number of Democratic lawmakers. The Repeal Act, introduced as HB2491 by Delegate Kathy Tran (D-Springfield), would repeal restrictions on third trimester abortions, allow abortion doctors to self-certify the necessity of late term procedures, eliminate informed consent requirements, repeal abortion clinic health and safety standards, permit late term abortions to be performed in outpatient clinics, remove ultrasound requirements, and eliminate Virginia’s 24 hour waiting period.

NATIONAL REVIEW has the transcript for those wishing to read the exchange:

Gilbert: So how late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?

Tran: Or physical health.

Gilbert: Okay. I’m talking about mental health.

Tran: I mean, through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.

Gilbert: So to the end of the third trimester?

Tran: Yes. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.

Gilbert: So where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about give birth, would that still be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she was so certified? [pause] She’s dilating?

Tran: Mr. Chairman, you know, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make.

Gilbert: I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.

Tran: My bill would allow that, yes.

Planned Parenthood Myths (Mammograms and Pre-Natal Care)

(Updated – original was posted Oct 2012)

And from CNS News, via Conservative Women Rock!

President Barack Obama went on NBC’s “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” on Wednesday and incorrectly claimed that the abortion-provider Planned Parenthood does mammograms, a false assertion he has made before, notably during the second presidential debate on Oct. 16.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as CNSNews.com has reported, has confirmed that no Planned Parenthood facility in the United States is licensed to do mammograms.

…read more…

Though Planned Parenthood claims that women depend on them for prenatal care, Live Action investigators had an incredibly hard time finding facilities that offered it—though they found plenty offering abortions. Live Action contacted all 41 Planned Parenthood affiliates where undercover recording is permitted by state law, and only 5 facilities out of 97 said they provided prenatal care.

HOTAIR has more:

This is a long-awaited follow-up to a similar investigation about claims from Planned Parenthood about breast-cancer screening and diagnostics. In an earlier round of debate over barring federal funds from flowing to Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama argued that cutting off funds would endanger their ability to provide mammograms, but that claim turned out to be false. PP’s executives also claim that “one in five women depend on Planned Parenthood for health care,” which FactCheck.org demonstrated was way, way off; it’s closer to one in 30, and they offer no unique services that women can’t find at other clinics — except abortions.

Still, the sourcing on the start of the video looks a little thin, so it behooves people to check the Planned Parenthood website. Sure enough, they have a portal for pre-natal care, and a big button to click labeled “Find A Health Center & Book An Appointment.” However, the next page is their standard clinic search page, and it might be tough to spot that the term “pre-natal care” does not appear on the list of services provided by their clinics. It does list “Pregnancy Testing & Services,” but what exactly does that comprise? It’s not pre-natal care at most of these clinics:

  • pregnancy testing
  • abortion services
  • abortion referrals
  • adoption referrals
  • fertility awareness education
  • pregnancy planning services
  • trained staff to discuss your options with you if you are pregnant
  • trained staff to talk with you about early pregnancy loss (miscarriage)

The only mention of pre-natal care on the Tempe, AZ website (where the first call is placed) is this: “If you choose to continue a pregnancy, we will provide you with a list of resources to help you obtain prenatal care.”…

CHICKS ON THE RIGHT join the chorus as well:

The next time you hear some feminist in a pink hat screaming about how Planned Parenthood is the ONLY place for women to get care, just remember that Care=Abortion. And pretty much nothing else.

We already know that Planned Parenthood doesn’t actually do mammograms (that tidbit came from Cecile Richards’s own mouth, no less). And for all their talk of providing “women’s healthcare” – the more evidence that actually comes out, the more we see that they don’t do much of that either. Providing abortions is where their bread is buttered and that’s what they focus on. Even to the point where they push pregnant women who simply come in for counseling to get the abortion, whether they want to or not (that was shown quite plainly in several of the Center for Medical Progress videos from a couple years ago).

But if Planned Parenthood is so obsessed with providing medical care for women, how do they feel about providing care for pregnant women. And I mean pregnant women who want to keep their babies, rather than let Planned Parenthood chop them up and sell them to the highest bidder?

Well… about that –

A new video has just been released from Live Action. Women with the group went to 97 Planned Parenthood clinics seeking prenatal care. And of those 97 clinics, only five provided prenatal care –

dfgtgdfsgdffdsgnh

The previous investigative presentations were on MAMMOGRAMS AND PRE-NATAL CARE... this new one is dealing with pre-natal care in the for of ultrasounds of the baby. HOT AIR h-t:

Priorities, priorities at Planned Parenthood: women’s care, or core business? The nation’s largest abortion chain has demanded that Republicans in Congress stop attacking “women’s health care” with their proposals to bar federal funds from flowing into their coffers. When it comes to actual caring, however, Planned Parenthood focuses its resources on abortions. Live Action has two new videos out today demonstrating that PP’s clinics use their ultrasounds — a key diagnostic tool for expecting mothers — only to prepare to terminate the life within the womb in all but a handful of their clinics:


From Another Post of Mine


(Above Description) At Planned Parenthood, Live Action investigators discovered ultrasound machines generally only have one purpose: abortion. Planned Parenthood uses ultrasound to determine a baby’s age and position in the womb before it kills her. Investigators asked 68 Planned Parenthood facilities for ultrasounds to check the health of their babies, but only 3 were able to provide them. The remainder either did not do ultrasounds or used ultrasounds for abortions only.

Lila Rose sat down with former Planned Parenthood workers Sue Thayer and Ramona Treviño, who explained Planned Parenthood’s sole purpose for using ultrasound machines at their facilities: abortion.

Democrat Rep. Says Eugenics Just Fine

GAY PATRIOT puts it this way, “Democrats say that more abortions among undesirables will improve the quality of the race.”

  • “You know what?” Chu replied. “I actually believe that in the end by repealing the Hyde Amendment we will actually save this country money, because rather than having all kinds of unwanted pregnancies, there will be able to be the ability for women to have greater choice over their bodies no matter what their income level is. That’s the importance of repealing the Hyde Amendment.” (CNSNews — Tax-Funded Abortions “Will Actually Save This Country Money”)

Some MARGARET SANGER quotes… she is the founder of Planned Parenthood:

  • Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, coined the slogan “More children from the fit, less from the unfit.” In language that many of her contemporary admirers would probably like to forget, she described blacks and Eastern European immigrants as “a menace to civi­lization” and “human weeds.” Concerned that American blacks might protest Planned Parenthood’s special “Negro Project” aimed at promot­ing sterilization, Sanger wrote to an associate, “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
  • The most serious charge that can be brought against modern benev­olence is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delin­quents, and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression. Philanthropy is a gesture characteristic of modern business lavishing upon the unfit the profits extorted from the community at large. Looked at impartially, this compensatory generosity is in its final effect probably more dangerous, more dys­genic, more blighting than the initial practice of profiteering.
  • “More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control,” she frankly wrote in her 1922 book The Pivot of Civilization. (The book featured an introduction by Wells, in which he proclaimed, “We want fewer and better children … and we cannot make the social life and the world-peace we are deter¬mined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict on us.” Two civilizations were at war: that of progress and that which sought a world “swamped by an indiscriminate torrent of progeny.”)
  • “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” – Sanger’s letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, Dec. 19, 1939

Forced sterilization was a Democrat legislation… maybe the government should pick this practice back up?

Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?

Are abortion laws more conservative in America or in Western Europe? Would a pregnant woman seeking an abortion have an easier time getting one in Texas or in…Germany? The answers, as talk show host Elisha Krauss explains, may just change how you think about America’s abortion laws.