Fetal parts are for sale. Yep, the terrible Planned Parenthood abortionists found and tapped into a profitable market for fetal parts, especially intact forms.
This is the basic narrative inserted into the talking points of anti-abortion politicians these days after edited videos between Planned Parenthood representatives and imposter biomedical tissue brokers surfaced. Ignored was the benefit fetal tissue provides to medical research. Disregarded was the selectivity used to decide what was fit for public consumption. Much has been made of interactions that might be suspicious to outsiders of medical and scientific research environments or appeal to the emotions of the uninformed.
Planned Parenthood can sufficiently respond to the “undercover sting videos” of its medical staff discussing fetal tissue donation. The rest of us need to respond to this attempt by anti-abortion dogmatists to impose their view of the world into public policy. The states that have initiated investigations based on the videos found Planned Parenthood in compliance with regulations. Even if one state, or several states, unsuccessfully takes action for political value or reject continued contracts with Planned Parenthood for health services, it would be a measurement of success for this false narrative. Planned Parenthood will remain open to provide important health services, but there are other issues of which we should all have concern.
Deception and Ethics
The videos were created by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), which claims to be “…citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.” Their website appears to be focused only on promoting anti-abortion viewpoints, no other medical ethics issues. End-of-life treatment, organ donation processes, and equality in accessing medical care are among the top ethical issues one would expect to see mentioned.
Why the deception when it would have been perfectly acceptable for CMP to identify itself as abortion opponents with specific, legitimate ethical questions pertaining to abortion and fetal tissue?
Honesty and integrity are critical to discussions about ethical issues. Would abortion clinic representatives talk openly with abortion opponents? I and many others certainly have on many occasions in our roles as reproductive healthcare professionals. Did the CMP even attempt to arrange a discussion? If the intent of the “undercover” effort was to learn about the involvement of some Planned Parenthood affiliates with fetal tissue procurement, it was not necessary for CMP to engage people by misrepresenting themselves as biomedical professionals. Why just Planned Parenthood and no other providers of elective, therapeutic, and emergency abortions? Hospitals and other medical facilities play a significant role in tissue procurement, which can seem quite unsavory to outsiders.
Apparently deception and fabrication are a preferred method of operation within anti-abortion activism. Deception and fabrication are the hallmarks of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, also known as fake abortion clinics because of the their strategy to appear as if they are abortion clinics and use misinformation to dissuade women from abortion once they arrive for their “abortion appointment.” Anti-abortion literature distributed to Congress, the media, and the public also contains incorrect, distorted, and often manufactured information. This is how the public at times believes that most abortions are late term. Or have murky ideas about parental consent for abortion in which it is compared to unrelated issues that are often guided by business policies, not laws.
It is no surprise that deceptive tactics were used to generate the storyline about fetal tissue procurement. It is nonetheless striking that there is not outrage about the deception, especially when ethics is the alleged target. Clearly, acquiring and providing information about fetal tissue procurement would not generate outrage if done without the theatrics of imposter biomedical professionals and video editing skills. Do we really want topics of importance to be introduced to public discourse in this manner? Of course not. The media would serve the public well to fully investigate the “investigators” and bring political balance to that part of the story. The notion that an organization like CMP, with a Postal Annex rented address no record of prior work as a nonprofit in the medical ethics arena, and leadership comprised of people connected to anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue, can have traction in promoting political ideology as if it was credible news or journalism is frightening. The media failed by not scrutinizing the source before doing the reporting, especially since another group, Life Dynamics, attempted to do the same in the late nineties.
For the record, pro-choice people resorted to deception to “out” the Crisis Pregnancy Center’s fake abortion clinic charades. Why? Because CPCs claimed that they informed women that they did not perform abortions, provided factual information, and other practices did not square with what women had shared with actual medical professionals. A hidden camera sent in by the media with a young woman proved that the experiences of other women were accurately presented.
Using the Mistruths as Truths to Further the Mistruths
Talk radio stars Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh all regularly speak of the CMP as if it is a credible nonprofit out there doing good work. Politicians, including U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner and those running for president, refer to the videos time and again as if they were part of a documentary. Absolutely nothing revealed in the videos is evidence of anything sinister. At worst, the videos illustrate the seeming insensitivities that can develop when people work in medical settings. wd
Right wing websites are having a great time exaggerating the video content and piling on more false or misleading information. Red State claims that Planned Parenthood was “…caught…appearing to haggle over the sale of aborted baby parts.” Haggling? Not hardly. The videos revealed explanations, in clinical and business tones, about how tissues and parts are procured. Bear in mind that CMP presented themselves as biomedical professionals interested in obtaining fetal tissue. Would it have somehow been acceptable for responses to exclude information about quality of parts and associated costs?
Comments made by elected officials can be perceived as the truth. Thus, when Senate newcomer Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) states, “Planned Parenthood is harvesting the body parts of unborn babies,” to explain her sponsorship of a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, perceptions are broadly formed and shared throughout every possible medium. The tone of Ernst’s statement can conjure so many images that only perpetuate incorrect information. When Breitbart News quotes a Ted Cruz comment that the videos show Planned Parenthood representatives “confessing to multiple felonies,” it misleads, misinforms, and further polarizes people on the basis of ideology as opposed to facts. Shame on all who have made, and are continuing to make, comments implying that the videos exposed evidence of crime. Shame on all who are giving the CMP credibility, so much credibility that there are threats to shut down the government if Planned Parenthood is not defunded.
Fetal Tissue Research is Ethical and Beneficial
There has always been a market for anatomical and biological goods, including human fetal tissue and parts. Specific companies respond to the demand for human and animal parts. College psychology departments buy brains to teach students. Medical and scientific researchers need specimens in order to learn more about genetics or real and prospective treatment options for a range of diseases, for example. Fetal tissue/parts obtained from miscarriages and abortions have been used for decades and have led to a number of medical breakthroughs, including rubella and polio vaccines. Kimberly Leonard wrote an excellent article in the August 4, 2015 online issue of US News about the contributions of fetal tissue research. Many of us are grateful for those contributions. In the August 12, 2015 New England Journal of Medicine, lawyer R. Alta Charo stated, “A closer look at the ethics of fetal tissue research…reveals a duty to use this precious resource in the hope of finding new preventive and therapeutic interventions for devastating diseases. Virtually every person in the [United States} has benefited from research using fetal tissue.” Quite simply, it would be unethical for medical researchers to suddenly discontinue use of fetal tissue due to politically extreme ideology.
Fetal parts are not allowed to be sold – they can only be donated with consent from pregnant women after they are removed. If profit for fetal parts is the actual concern of CMP, their time would be better spent honestly working with regulatory agencies to determine with certainty if any inappropriate financial transactions between abortion providers and biomedical tissue businesses exist. It is certain that people of all political views on the issue would abhor such a practice.
As the dribble of videos continues, no evidence of illegal activities will be presented. Instead, ideology will be promoted with the intent to cause some to rethink their views about abortion and try to stop an organization that serves the healthcare needs of so many low-income women. The effort will fail, but in the meantime, we will all have to witness the nonsense and speak up about reality when we can.
August 21, 2015 at 6:14 am
Another piece written to inform the deliberative rather than open the eyes of the deceived.
LikeLike
August 21, 2015 at 6:21 am
How do you think the eyes of the deceived can be opened?
LikeLike
August 21, 2015 at 1:26 pm
O my gosh, Kimmie, do you realize what you’re asking for?
LikeLike
August 22, 2015 at 8:13 am
Point out to them that the so-called “pro-life” movement is actually a bunch of people trying to convince themselves they are potent and significant movers in a world which sees them otherwise. They use the fetus as their chosen PR vehicle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 22, 2015 at 1:03 pm
Hey, not bad, Chuck (and I’ll bet I’m responsible for its being short). Yup, and it’s the same world that saw our Savior as otherwise, and crucified him.
LikeLike
August 24, 2015 at 6:55 am
If Jesus the Christ had cared for real humans as little as so-called “pro-lifers” do, we all be pagans.
LikeLike
August 21, 2015 at 7:01 am
Kimmie…I so agree with what you have said!! Here in SC the Govenor Nicki Hailey has just announced a thorough investigation on the 3 abortion clinics that are operating in SC and demands that if this practice is going on it is put to a stop immediately!! It is absolutely ab ANTI-ABORTION tactic just like the PARTIAL-BIRTH abortion had!! We have got to stop letting them get away with stuff like this and come out swinging…I am so tired of the “John-Q- PUBLIC” thinking that everything we do is seedy and slimy!! They never think anything we do might be beneficial to women and their future reproductive health or just to healthcare of human’s in general!!
LikeLike
August 21, 2015 at 7:05 am
You are so right Lorraine…really is astonishing that supposedly bright people elected to office, regardless of party, would actually respond this way to a group that has no track record.
LikeLike
August 21, 2015 at 1:25 pm
Before I read the rest, Kimmie, and before I read the four entries above, allow me to comment on the sentences in paragraph 1:
Your first sentence implies that there are real “biomedical tissue brokers.” Good, because some other antis are still denying that PP sells parts of the people it destroys. (They say brokers in Nazi Germany made lampshades out of such tissue; I heard we make cat food.)
Second sentence — I suppose parts of the murdered could offer benefits; certainly they have relieved the hunger of cannibals.
Please rewrite, or explain, the third and fourth sentences.
LikeLike
August 21, 2015 at 2:14 pm
John – they self-identified as “brokers” at one point. Surely you knew that. While my writing might not meet your standard or preferences, I believe you are a skilled reader. Please do not expect any rewrites.
Oh, and tissue and parts are donated with consent that women provides after the abortion. That is required by law as a result of your friends claiming that scads of women would get pregnant with the intention to provide fetal cells for research. Crazy thinking, but I expect no less.
LikeLike
August 23, 2015 at 8:37 am
Now that sounds as if you don’t care if the woman consents or not. Sounds as if you believe that when someone is dead, her body is up for grabs.
LikeLike
August 21, 2015 at 3:14 pm
The first para is certainly an eye-catcher and I was like whaaaaat when I was reading it. I took away much helpful information on this issue. You know what they say. Information is power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 23, 2015 at 4:38 pm
I prefer not to get involved in the “they deceived us” arguments. Who the heck cares? It happens on both sides. The fact is that they caught a doc on tape – TALKING LIKE A DOCTOR. While some people are outraged at the casual nature of her discussion, that’s how docs talk. And the bottom line is she is talking about using fetal parts that are donated BY THE MOTHER for good purposes, i.e., to help the already born children of the world. But if you folks want the doc/clinics to throw the parts into the biohazard waste bins, they’ll do it. And screw the research that is being conducted. Oh, by the way, no one is profiting.
LikeLike
August 23, 2015 at 5:00 pm
Pat-
The deception here is important primarily because of the incredibly absurd and fast reaction it generated based on nothing. Docs, like any other field of professionals, talk in a vernacular that can seem crass. So what? I agree on that point. Thanks for the comment!
LikeLike
August 24, 2015 at 4:18 am
Parents should not be allowed to kill their children (and vice-versa). The horrors imposed on the bodies after the murders — sewers, research, cat food, flushings, cosmetics, ovens — follow logically from the original sin.
LikeLike
August 24, 2015 at 6:57 am
“If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” — Abraham Lincoln.
A fetus becomes a child only when the pregnant woman says so, not when a so-called “pro-lifer” says so.
LikeLike
August 24, 2015 at 9:17 am
Now that’s not true, Chuckles! As far as you’re concerned, a fetus becomes a child when you say so.
LikeLike
August 25, 2015 at 10:45 am
Sure it was deceiving and there was a fast reaction to the tape. But the bottom line is that PPFA never denied the activity, so that’s when the mainstream media jumped on board and started reporting. The reaction nationwide was not based on “nothing.” Fetal tissue research goes on and PPFA and the rest of the movement should just say how GOOD the research is, i.e., how “pro-life” it is. We’re always on the friggin defensive.
LikeLike
August 25, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Ha ha Pat – we are on the same page, but for clarity…”nothing” in terms of evidence of illegal activity, “nothing” new given that fetal tissue/cell research began I think as early as 1961-62. The reaction to an organization like CMP, with the same connected players as those behind Life Dynamics, which tried to “expose” the same issue a couple decades ago did warrant a look from the media before going with all the information. To my knowledge, not one medical or ethics professional in the group, which speaks to credibility. It is modern day press, I know. It is still appropriate to scrutinize the source.
I do NOT think anyone should feel defensive…period. As one thankful for the vaccines that allowed me to travel to other countries, as only one example, I am grateful for fetal cell research.For those who are on either side of the abortion or research issue, but who consider abortion a tragic choice no matter their position..well, the research, and the outcomes of the research, could well be the silver lining. I appreciated your comment about the alternative being to dump into medical waste.
LikeLike
August 24, 2015 at 11:42 am
Mr. Dunkle wrote: (August 24, 2015 at 9:17 am)
“Now that’s not true, Chuckles! As far as you’re concerned, a fetus becomes a child when you say so.”
Sorry, but that’s quite simply wrong. It’s like my saying that a six-year-old is capable of driving a Hummer; I can say what I want, but the reality proves me wrong.
When Dunkle is pregnant (and he can be; the technology is already proven), he can correctly call HIS fetus a child; nobody can take that away from him. However, he cannot call somebody else’s fetus a child unless they already do so.
So-called “pro-lifers” want to call a fetus a child so that they can appear to be “rescuers” of sweet, helpless (and in Dunkle’s case, always female) victims. They are doing this for themselves, not for anybody else. Why Dunkle does not refer to his would-be “rescuees” as male might have a lot to do with the fact that his wife raised four boys. Having experienced the reality of male children, he can only fantasize that raising girls has to be far more pleasant.
LikeLike
August 24, 2015 at 2:31 pm
I just read that fetal tissue is being used in rats to grow kidneys. Anyone who knows the real world of life saving transplants knows that kidneys are in short supply (I have a friend is in his starting his 5th year waiting and is on four hours of dialysis three times a week). Let us assume this research works. Lets further suppose that one of Dunkles grandchildren needs a kidney and finally lets suppose Dunkle still still alive. My bet is Dunkle does not ask where the kidney came from; he just thanks his god that his grandchild is healed.
LikeLike
August 24, 2015 at 2:50 pm
Great comment David – fetal tissue is paramount to medical research that ultimately saves lives.
LikeLike
August 24, 2015 at 2:40 pm
For those of you who might have missed it, late last year a 10 year old girl in Paraguay was raped and impregnated by her stepfather. She was denied an abortion and, now 11, she was subjected to a cesarian section. The girl’s mother, who has already demonstrated she cannot protect a child, was awarded custody of the infant. Pro-birthers, including US Presidential candidate Huckabee, are rejoicing. I am sure Dunkle had multiple celebratory cocktails when he heard the news.
LikeLike
August 24, 2015 at 2:53 pm
Amazing isn’t it that Huckabee and friends could so easily disregard that childbirth was itself extremely high risk for such a young girl? And now we can only hope that the infant is not similarly victimized in the future. Real “pro-life” thinking…
LikeLike
August 25, 2015 at 3:45 am
Whenever I talk to younger folks, as here, I am amazed at how unknowing, or maybe just forgetful, they are. Their arguments so echo those of the killers’ helpers of the previous holocaust: they’re our Jews and we can do with them what we want; we will decide if we want to keep them or kill them; unless you are willing to come here, pay us, and cart them away, keep your mouth shut; we’re not talking about people here, we’re talking about things other than and less than people — untermenschlics; wait till you hear this terrible story about what a Jew did to my cousin and then you’ll understand; do you realize what a healthy Jew working for free can do for the fatherland? and on and on.
No guys. Some things are wrong no matter how you attempt to explain them away, and killing innocent people is the worst of them.
LikeLike
August 25, 2015 at 3:51 am
And I left out a big one — don’t you realize how much scientific knowledge our dokdoors are gaining from this immense and free supply of cadavers to work on as they please? The super race will become just that much more superior.
LikeLike
August 25, 2015 at 10:48 am
So we shouldn’t do medical research at all?
LikeLike
August 25, 2015 at 11:01 am
No, but there are limits. Your neighbor may not kill you even though your rare bone disease would be invaluable for scientific study.
LikeLike
August 25, 2015 at 1:04 pm
It is common practice for the pro-birth clowns to try to equate abortion with the Holocaust. As one of those “younger folks” (albeit by less than 2 decades), “I am amazed at how unknowing or maybe just forgetful” old John Dunkle is. John, let me attempt to enlighten you, even though I don’t have a way to rap on your knuckles with a ruler like the nuns did when you did not pay attention at your Catholic schools. The Holocaust was an attempt by a government to exterminate the breathing, sentient Jews in Europe. Abortion is almost always a decision by a woman to terminate the existence of a fetus inside her body before it is breathing, sentient or viable. That you and others of your ilk cannot see the difference is clear evidence of your inability to understand reality. Like ISIS, your religion blinds you.
So John, did you miss #7 above? Would you ask where the kidney comes from and try to talk your grandchild out of having the transplant if it were from fetal tissue implanted in a rat?
LikeLike
August 25, 2015 at 5:26 pm
Why can’t you simply present your case, David, without initiating it by calling me a pro-birth clown. Are you blind to what it says about yourself? But that’s what masturbation does, doesn’t it — causes blindness.
But as far as breathing, sentient human beings are concerned, it doesn’t matter who kills them: their mothers’ boyfriends, the state, grandparents, mothers themselves, capitalists getting richer, workers needing a good-paying job, anti-Catholics like yourself, whoever. No one has the right to kill other innocent human beings.
No. 7. If my grandchild’s life could be saved by a kidney that would have to cut out of a murdered child, I would let my grandchild die.
LikeLike
August 25, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Off topic of this post, but since John mentioned masturbation…I recently learned that many young people now refer to themselves as “solo sexual” — thankfully masturbation is no longer considered sinful and is a normal part of human sexuality. You might find the article (link below) enlightening or interesting John, I have no response at all to your comment that you would let your grandchild die. You certainly have strong convictions that I admittedly do not relate to.
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/21/the_rise_of_the_solosexual_how_a_new_generation_is_rewriting_the_rules_of_sexuality_partner/
LikeLike
August 25, 2015 at 7:50 pm
Well, I read it, Kimmie. Nothing’s new. Creeps like Anne Landers were extolling the virtues of solo sex before you were born, and in the same muddled language.
Now here’s something written beautifully, by a master:
“For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival.” C. S. Lewis
LikeLike
August 27, 2015 at 8:35 am
C.S. Lewis was not exactly a master of the intricacies of human life.
It’s telling that of all the writers in the English-speaking world Mr. Dunkle so esteems both Lewis and poet Phillip Larkin, one a creator of intellectual sand castles and the other a depressive but gifted scrivener, neither of whom allow for the diversity of the human spirit. Quite the pair of role models.
LikeLike
August 27, 2015 at 9:00 am
I also esteem Philip Roth, John Updike, Pat Buchanan, Shakespeare, Emerson, Saint Paul and many others.
LikeLike
August 26, 2015 at 10:21 am
If masterbation actually did cause (mental) blindness as John apparently still believes, then John must have masterbated multi times a day from the first time he discovered it is pleasurable until he became too old to get even a partial erection.
If I were to believe that John would prefer his grandchild die rather than get a new kidney as he claims, then I suspect he has several bridges that he is willing to sell me. But at least he keeps his lies consistent.
LikeLike
August 26, 2015 at 2:39 pm
Apparently little Johnny was offended that I referred to him and others of his ilk as pro-birth clowns. Of course his complaint is justified since he always refers to the abortion provider as a “doctor” and always refers to the people guiding the patients get into the clinics as “escorts.”
LikeLike
August 26, 2015 at 3:24 pm
I wasn’t offended, David, but the stronger my opponent the better I like him. Pat, for example. Those are the people you can really learn something from. Calling your opponent a pro-birth clown ruins what follows, unless they’re like yourself, and who wants to talk to himself?.
LikeLike
August 27, 2015 at 9:05 am
Calling your opponent a pro-birth clown ruins what follows, except for people like yourself, and who wants to talk to himself? It’s like another form of masturbation, right?
LikeLike
August 27, 2015 at 9:32 am
I’m confused about this masturbation discussion. Am I allowed to masturbate? Just wanna make sure 🙂
LikeLike
August 27, 2015 at 12:23 pm
Nope, nor are you allowed to smoke.
LikeLike
August 28, 2015 at 3:47 pm
John Dunkle objects to being called a pro-birth clown.
He writes “you can really learn something” from a strong opponent. He implies that when I call him a pro-birth clown, he can no longer learn from me. Yet all he has learned from anyone posting pro-choice on this blog is that they disagree with him.
Next, “who wants to talk to himself? It’s like another form of masturbation.” This proves I was right – he masturbates as often as possible!
Also, “calling your opponent a pro-birth clown ruins what follows.” This from some who has called aborted fetuses “preborn children murdered,” has called abortion providers “baby killers,” calls escorts “deathscorts,” and refers to Chuck/Charles as “Chucky.”
John, have you adopted an unwanted child, taken in unwanted children for foster care for at least 9 years, or donated more than $100k to charities aiding women who keep unwanted children (the last two represent less than half the effort/cost to raise a child, but I’ll give you that break)? If not then pro-birth fits. As for clown, see the preceding paragraph, alone with other various clownish wordsmithing you’ve tried. Also, you often take what others have written and simply change a few nouns making the wording support you view. That’s at best clownish. The shoe fits.
LikeLike
August 28, 2015 at 4:13 pm
I do not. I call him Chuckles.
LikeLike
August 28, 2015 at 4:47 pm
David, as almost all so-called “pro-lifers,” Mr. Dunkle is unable to care for human life. He has never been capable of subordinating his own aspirations, wants and needs to those of somebody else’s unwanted child. And since his one encounter with the court system he reduced his commitment to his cause even further.
So-called “pro-lifers” don’t care FOR human life; they care ABOUT it. They want to have the comfort of thinking that all children have wonderful lives, but they do nothing to make that happen. Instead, they moan and whine every time they hear that a woman wants to limit the number of children she bears to the number she can nurture.
It’s not at all about human life; it’s all about their feelings.
LikeLike
August 28, 2015 at 8:03 pm
See? He makes me chuckle.
LikeLike
September 2, 2015 at 6:46 pm
I’m all by myself on this blog and I seem to be able to shut you guys up at will.
LikeLike