The Planned Parenthood Tapes – A Gynecologist’s View

Planned-Parenthood-videoBy Tia Will

Let me start by explaining why I felt the need to write anything beyond my Vanguard posts about this topic. Over the past few days, it has been clear to me that many readers appeared to be getting their information solely from the abbreviated version of that tape that can be found online and the interpretations of it promoted by the group that produced the tapes. I also was basing my responses on the same limited information. So I decided to look further into the issue and to share first some facts about the tapes and then my interpretations of those facts with you when relevant. My impressions and experiences are clearly labeled as such.

First, there are two tapes that are currently getting a lot of online and media attention. Chronologically, The first tape was made apparently over a year ago with Planned Parenthood (PP) executive director, Dr. Nucatola. This tape documents a slightly longer than two hour conversation between Dr. Nucatola and two actors from Mr. Daleiden’s group, who falsely claimed to be members of a private, for-profit biomedical tissue procurement group providing tissue to researchers.

The second tape purportedly made in February, 2015, features another Planned Parenthood executive Dr. Gatter and actors from the same group using the same false premise as in the first meeting.

I will address these interviews separately starting with the interview of Dr. Nucatola purportedly conducted in 2014. Unfortunately it did not occur to me to record the approximate times for verification until about 22 minutes into the tape, so if you do not trust my accuracy, you can watch the entire first 22 minutes. After that point I recorded the approximate time on the interview so that I could be checked for accuracy if desired. The link to this tape is in the Vanguard article of this date.

Very early in the conversation, Dr. Nucatola makes the point that Planned Parenthood affiliates are non-profits. As a non-profit, “they just want to break even”.

“Every penny they save is a penny they can give to [or spend on] another patient.”

Much has been made online about the doctor’s comments about “fetal parts”. However, it is the male “representative” who brings up the subject of specific fetal parts and the gestation ages at which they can be obtained. He states that his company preference is for tissue at least in the 12-18 week range and preferably as far advanced as 24 weeks. It is not the PP executive who brings up or prolongs this portion of the conversation except to point out that the majority of procedures are done at a lower gestational age and the late term procedures are performed by a limited number of practices. Also not stressed are her comments about the need for additional patient safety precautions with procedures occurring after approximately 16 weeks of gestation.

The “representative”, again specifying the value of “fetal parts”, is met by the following points from the PP executive. She explains that the cost is based on the amount of time spent caring for the patient. Implied is that the cost is not determined by the “cost of the body part” but as she states “in all cases, the cost is going to be about staff time since that is the only cost to the affiliate.” Here she is discussing only the time commitment from the clinic staff.

In this portion of the conversation she makes no mention of the need to rent or maintain the actual clinic space if owned, nor the cost of equipment and equipment processing necessary to perform any medical procedure. She then states: “at the end of the day [the affiliates] want to offer the [tissue donation] service because that is what the patient’s are asking for.” This last statement I can personally vouch for. I have been asked by a number of patients if they are able to donate tissue from their pregnancy terminations. Since I do not know the answer to their question, I always direct them to the group that performs the procedure.

The subject of appropriate counseling then arises. The PP executive states that it is important that the patient make the decision to have the procedure prior to any discussion of tissue donation. The male “representative” then misstates her position as her having said that the tissue donor consent should be done “as early in the process as possible.” She corrects him. She further notes that: “Planned Parenthood has very strict protocols for consent for use of research materials and that Planned Parenthood does not engage directly in any tissue related research.” To the best of my knowledge, this is a true statement.

There have also been expressed concerns that patients who were planning to donate their tissue would somehow be treated differently from those who were not donors.

22 minutes: There is an inaudible comment from the female “representative” followed by a clear comment from Dr. Nucatola to the effect that this is part of the ethical concerns about donation and that the procedure would be done in the same way and that these patients would not be cared for any differently from any other patient.

24 minutes: Dr. Nucatola states that additional procedures, medical devices, and repetitive visits would not be ordered to provide intact tissue for studies. In other words, the woman would not be further inconvenienced or put at increased risk or discomfort for this procedure.

25 minutes: She states: “Ethically they do not want to treat the patient any different than they would any other.”

28 minutes: The male interviewer steers the conversation to specific techniques. Dr. Nucatola then comments that ultrasound can be used to determine where best to place instruments so as to avoid tissue damage.

What she does not mention is that this is common obstetric practice. Ultrasound is frequently used to determine fetal position to prevent unnecessary risk to the patient caused by performing the procedure blind without knowing the exact position of the fetus. In my opinion, performing ultrasound is standard practice prior to this type of procedure and thus does not represent a significant departure from standard practice as it would be performed for any other patient at the same gestational age as well.

48 minutes: Dr. Nucatola reiterates that “the affiliates are non profit and working on a razor thin budget.”

57 minutes: She states “…partnering with tissue procurement companies is not something that affiliates know how to do and that this is being driven by patients asking to be able to donate the tissue.” Although not explicitly stated she makes several comments thanking them for their persistence in setting up the meeting thus implying that this is why she has chosen to meet with these reps and why she wants to come up with ways that PP can help in providing donated material to researchers.

59 minutes: Nucatola states: “The affiliates are not looking to make money. They are looking to better serve their patients. That is their bottom line.”

63 minutes: She states “[The affiliates] don’t have a lot of money and I think that they would rather just spend it taking care of patients.” PP does 40 % of the abortion procedures in the country. “Our goal is to keep access available.” “With regard to cost per specimen.…At the end of the day, we just want to be able to keep the doors open.”

68 minutes: Dr. Nucatola makes the point that what will be seen with more restrictive policies is that more and more later pregnancy terminations will be seen since women will have less access to obtain the procedure earlier in the pregnancy. She emphasizes the importance of maintaining access to avoid these later gestational age terminations.

In my opinion, if she were out for profit, surely she would want more, not less of the late term procedures.

87 minutes: The male interviewer asks if his company were to take on essentially all the responsibility for consenting the patients, processing the specimens, and if they required minimal space, would the affiliates be willing to offer the specimens for free. Dr. Nucatola’s response is “I don’t really know. I think so. Probably. The bottom line is that this should not be seen as a revenue stream since that is not what it is.”

To me, these do not sound like the words of a woman trying to drive a deal for a for-profit venture.

Two minutes later she states: “Nobody should be selling tissue. That is not the goal here.”

96 minutes: After the male interviewer has again questioned her about how to get the most intact specific body parts she responds: “If you have something very specific in mind, the best way to approach this would not be through a clinic ( such as PP) but rather with a private provider who would be better equipped to alter their procedures.”

It is clear to me that she is being consistent in her statements that PP would have no interest in altering their basic procedures to accommodate this for-profit private company nor in maximizing any funds that might be provided by this company to cover processing costs.

99 minutes: Dr. Nucatola accurately indicates that this is an area of medicine in which there has not been extensive data to determine best practices and that there is significant individual provider variation in technique.

It would appear that this statement of fact has been misconstrued to mean that people would alter their practices to the harm of patients to obtain tissue. Four minutes later he again tries to get her to imply that practice would be changed to be able to salvage more fetal tissue. She gives a specific example (that of the use or lack of use of digoxin) and again reiterates that people are not going to deviate from their usual practice for this purpose.

120 minutes: The participants take breaks to go to the bathroom. Around this time, Dr. Nucatola at the urging of the female “representative” explains why she chose family planning as her sub-specialization and provides the story of woman who was referred to her on her last day of residency having experienced a complication of a late term abortion done by a private provider. The patient’s last words to her were “Don’t let me die”. The patient did die during an emergency hysterectomy aimed at saving her life. It was after this that Dr. Nucatola, who had done a number of late term abortions without complication, recognized that she had a skill set that could prevent these kinds of tragedies from occurring, and this episode informed her decision to continue with the provision of this service.

My feeling is that she would have had no reason to fabricate such a story for a couple of private company representatives who were already courting her. To me, this rationale for choice of career rings with complete sincerity and is not compatible with a woman solely in it for the profit.

142 minutes: After bathroom breaks, the interviewers again steer conversation back to money. The doctor states that at the end of the day: “If we could take money out of the equation….which is what most affiliates want to do….” Male interviewer states: “ We are talking about people in the non-profit sector so their motivations are a little different.”

He clearly knows this to be true or he would not feel the need to edit and lie. The doctor responds that this is a matter of who is benefitting and that benevolence is a major motivating factor for the affiliates: “Affiliates are looking to benefit in different ways from just dollars and cents. They want to break even. They want to be compensated for the time and space.”

To me, Dr. Nucatola repeatedly despite numerous attempts to get her to state otherwise maintained the following points, which based on my experience I believe to be both valid and true:

1) PP is willing to facilitate the acquisition of fetal tissue for research purposes per patient request.

2) They are attempting to facilitate these transfers at cost or less than cost.

3) There is no evidence that any profit motive is involved.

4) There is no evidence that the decision to have a pregnancy termination is in any way contingent upon knowing that the tissue will go to research, as the procedure consent always precedes a conversation about donation.

5) There is no evidence that any PP affiliate or their individual providers will alter any practice to the detriment of any patient in order to obtain intact tissue.

Interview with Dr. Gatter

In what is obviously not the beginning of the conversation, the interviewer starts by asking Dr. Gatter how much she wants to charge. Dr. Gatter responds by saying: “Why don’t we start by you telling me how much you are used to paying.” No one says what is being purchased. At this point it could be a service, it could be expertise, it could be tissue. We simply don’t know because no one has said yet. But it is important to note that we have no idea who initiated a conversation about money since we do not see the beginning of the interview.

Ominous sounding music is played and a text is inserted accurately stating that it is illegal to sell human tissue. What is not said is that Dr. Gatter is not selling tissue.

She makes this clear in a statement to another individual who has obviously just arrived. About the interviewers, she makes the following comment.

“They are a for-profit company that is connecting researchers with people who are willing to donate tissue. Please note the use of the word donate, not sell.

Volume of procedures was noted as 800 per year with 60 in the second trimester.

In explaining the procedure as done by one affiliate, Dr. Gatter states that the consent for tissue donation and all of the tissue processing was done by the private tissue procurement company’s representative. She states: “So this was compensation….We didn’t do anything for this.”

For a doctor who does procedures it is clear that she doesn’t mean that PP is not “doing anything”. They are obviously the ones to whom the patient presents; whose staff has to consent the patient for the actual procedure; who purchase all products and equipment to perform the procedure; who owns or rents the space in which the procedure is done; and who actually performs the procedure. All of this has costs to PP. And yet, the video has been edited to make it appear to the viewer as though none of these costs exist and that PP is “selling the tissue” to someone who is “doing all the work”.

2:30 minutes: Dr. Gatter then makes the statement that the patients do not get anything as part of the donation of tissue. This is factual since it is illegal for the patients to sell tissue, just as it is illegal for PP. However, the way the Daleiden group has interpreted this statement is to mean that the patients do not get anything, but PP profits from the tissue sale, which is not true. They are being compensated for services and space as both interviews revealed.

2:40 minutes: Interviewer asks how much Dr. Gatter would want. Dr. Gatter responds: “Why don’t we start with you telling me how much you usually pay?”

The interviewer says that is not the way to handle the issue. She states that she wants to find an amount that would “make Dr. Gatter” happy.

Dr. Gatter makes the comment that she doesn’t want to “low ball.” Why she wouldn’t want to low ball is a matter of conjecture. Does she mean because she might mislead the company representative if she names too low a number? Or does she mean that she doesn’t want to regret stating too low a number and then realize that the affiliates wouldn’t be covering their actual cost with this number? We don’t know what she means because it is not followed up on factually.

When she does eventually make a guess (after being badgered by the interviewers), she chooses $75.00 only to have the company representative tell her that is “way too low.” Dr. Gatter then says: “Well initially I started to say $50.00. I worked for a place where we charged $50.00…” but the “company representative” cuts her off to tell her that is too low.

Anyone who knows anything about the cost of medical equipment and or services knows that neither $50 nor $75 for a single specimen comes even close to covering for the equipment cost, let alone personnel or medications, or space or any of the other myriad costs of this procedure. This is not a negotiation. It is an estimate of the amount of compensation that they would accept to offset a small portion of the costs of the procedure, not a negotiation or “haggling” to increase profit.

So Dr. Gatter, obviously taken aback states: “We do not want to be in the position of being accused of selling tissue,” because that is obviously not what they are doing, and then asks the company representative: “So what were you thinking about?”

The representative responds: “Way higher than that – $100 per specimen.” This is not Dr. Gatter bidding up the cost, but rather the representative telling her that she is not asking for enough.

4:20 minutes: Dr. Gatter mentions the change to the “IPAS” (a hand-held suction device) to preserve tissue intact. What is not mentioned by anyone in the conversation is that at less than 12 weeks use of the IPAS is rapidly becoming the preferred technique. It is less traumatic not only to the tissue, but also for the patient. I anticipate that within 5-10 years almost all of the procedures in this gestational age range will be done with this device. However, Dr. Gatter correctly states that it would need to be presented to the patients as a departure from their current procedure.

As a practicing clinician, I obtain consent this way on a regular basis. If I plan to deviate from the standard procedure, I explain to the patient the reason why I feel that my deviation is optimal, what the difference is between procedures, what she can expect, and I obtain her consent. This is the heart of informed consent and ethical medical behavior, not a sleazy attempt to con a patient, or a potentially risky deviation from the norm.

Dr. Gatter then makes a statement with which I disagree. She opines that there is no difference in patient comfort between the two procedures. From what I have heard from colleagues, the IPAS is significantly more comfortable for patients although I would not expect Dr. Gatter to know that, since that is apparently not their standard procedure.

The representatives again bring up the subject of cost and Dr. Gatter states that she will have to check with other affiliates to see what they are charging and clearly states that the money is not the main consideration. This concern is brushed aside by the representative who again states: “What amount will make you happy,” clearly disregarding that Dr. Gatter had estimated $50 to $75, which the representative told her earlier was: “Way too low.”

7:52 minutes: Dr. Gatter states: “It has been years since I have talked about compensation.” Clearly she is not a skilled negotiator haggling for the best price.

Shortly after this, the female representative makes an unintelligible comment to which Dr. Gatter responds, obviously joking: “I want a Lamborghini.” Whether or not this comment could be interpreted as offensive we simply cannot tell because we do not know what the representative said. By no stretch of any of the preceding conversation could she be seen as linking profits from this enterprise to the ability to acquire an expensive luxury car. But that is what is being insinuated.

So my conclusions about these tapes are:

1) They were obtained under clearly false premises.

2) The doctors had no idea that they were not speaking with representatives of a for-profit tissue procurement firm specializing in fetal tissue acquisition for researchers attempting to find cures for serious medical illnesses.

3) They had no idea that they were being recorded.

4) These tapes do not substantiate any claims other than that one of these doctors likes to drink wine in the afternoon after she has completed patient care for the day (as she clearly states early in the tape), and that the other may (or may not depending on the preceding comment) engage in inappropriate or black humor.

5) There is nothing on these tapes that would suggest a profit motive, any illegal activity, or any suggestion that PP is acting in any other than what they perceive to be the patient’s best interests even if the interviewers do not agree.

6) I would think that Planned Parenthood would be completely open to a close look at these particular allegations, which if based on these interviews are clearly baseless.

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

228 Comments

  1. Barack Palin

    By no stretch of any of the preceding conversation could she be seen as linking profits from this enterprise to the ability to acquire an expensive luxury car. But that is what is being insinuated.

    Insinuated?  By whom?  She said it, they didn’t coax her to say it.  LOL, is it standard procedure to joke about wanting a Lamborghini when one is negotiating a contract where one will just cover costs?

    This story is just getting started, things are gray right now but Daleiden has more tapes which may or may not be more damning, we’ll just have to wait and see.

    1. Don Shor

      I thought you had “no dog in this fight.” Do you respect Mr. Daleiden? Do you admire his tactics? Do you want harm to come to Planned Parenthood? Do you wish Congress to stop federal funding to them? Do you, in fact, have a dog in this fight? Because you sure comment on it a lot for someone who supposedly doesn’t.

      1. Barack Palin

        I enjoy political talk.  Am I not allowed to comment?  If PP is profiting from the sale of fetal tissue that’s something we all should be concerned about whether you are for or against abortion.  I admire Mr. Daleiden for having the guts to go after a story that I’m sure he believes is true unlike our liberal mainstream media.

        1. Don Shor

          You admire Mr. Daleiden? Do you admire Operation Rescue? Do you want congressional hearings on this? Do you support the use of human tissue for medical research? Do you feel that procurement and storage and distribution of human tissue for medical research should be stopped? Do you want Planned Parenthood to have a reduced budget? Do you, in fact, have a dog in this fight?

        2. Matt Williams

          I believe there are a lot of people who feel similarly to what BP has described here. That is why, if I were Kamala Harris, I would conduct simultaneous investigations of both sides of this controversy. That way, instead of anecdotes and/or innuendo about Planned Parenthood’s operations, we would know whether they simply cover their costs or derive a profit wj=hen they transfer the tissue.

      2. TrueBlueDevil

        The government rarely seems to investigate it’s operations and those it supervises / permits / authorizes, and the largely liberal press rarely seems to do any investigative endeavors. And when they do, they often protect their perceived “side”. Information is power.

        Since government and the media don’t provide oversight, we have to rely on individuals like Mr. Daleiden.

        Do you recall ACORN? A government funded social service had employees who were advocating illegal immigration, falsification of documents, acceptance and advice to an alleged pimp for underage prostitutes, etc. It was an undercover operation like this which alerted us to their illegal and / or immoral behavior.

        1. Matt Williams

          TBD, I’m not sure I understand your point. Planned Parenthood is not part of any Government. It is not an NGO. It is the American arm of a private sector non profit international corporation, The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which is based in London, England and works in 170 countries. IPPF is made up of national member organizations, called ‘Member Associations’, each of which operates within countries, across regions and/or internationally. Each Member Association belongs to 1 of 6 IPPF Regions. Each Member Association has an elected governing body made up of volunteers.

    2. Matt Williams

      Ironically BP during the local discussions about negotiating with Comcast to have them install cable/internet in El Macero the topic of a Lamborghini/Ferrari was actively part of the discussions. Clearly the context of the Lamborghini references regarding local cable/internet installation are different than the context of the Planned Parenthood discussions with Daleiden, which begs the question, what was the context of the joke about wanting a Lamborghini?

  2. Tia Will

    BP

    If PP is profiting from the sale of fetal tissue”

    I am not sure what would convince you that this is not the case. If  more than over two hours of two PP executives repeating over and over again, not to a public audience, but to individuals that they believe to be representatives of a for profit intermediary that their goal is not profit and quoting cost covering bids that would not begin to cover their costs is not convincing.  If not the fact that there was no outreach by PP in setting up these meetings by PP as demonstrated by Dr. Nucatola thanking the representatives for their persistence in outreach to her to set up the meeting. What more could you possible need to demonstrate that this was not Planned Parenthood setting up or engaging in these meetings for profit ?

     

    1. Miwok

      Of course, “costs” are whatever number they make up, just like tuition costs and salaries of people who govern. They like other “charities” have their hand out, and I, in the past have given to them, then learned everyone working for them were making more than I , and were just padding their “costs” with limo rides, chartered jets, and giving parties with catering costs more than I have ever made in a year.

      When I have researched these, and there are plenty around here, I have found the same. I believe many well meaning people such as Tia get duped by these organizations.

      1. Barack Palin

        I agree with you Miwok.  Costs are made up, imo you’re going to hear things like storage space, handling, administrative costs, etc. which will be jacked up in order to try and make PP look like they’re on the level.

        1. Matt Williams

          So BP, should those indirect costs (which all organizations have) be only picked up by the “non-tissue” programs that Planned Parenthood offers, or should each program pick up its fair share of those indirect costs?

  3. Frankly

    First, let’s get the semantics straight.  Non-profits do not make profit, they simply earn revenue in excess of expenses.  We call that “net excess”.   Non-profits are not “owned” since their can be no owners and no stockholders… they only have stakeholders.

    So there is no personal equity benefit for executives and board members of non-profits that make a lot of net excess.

    Except…

    Pay and benefits and perks.

    One of the common executive perks is a nice car on company lease and possibly a housing allowance.   In fact, a lot of the nice luxury sports cars you see on the road are often those leased for the executives of non-profits.

    I’m not complaining so much about this, because non-profit execs often work as hard as for-profit execs, but don’t get the benefit of stock ownership.  And since income gets the crap taxed out of it more so than capital gains, paying a higher wage to a hard working non-profit exec does not cut it… (unless your goal is just to work harder so you can give more to politicians to give away).

    So, a luxury car becomes a nice recognition for hard work and business success.  The company leases the car so the payment is covered.

    Now, the 990 tax reporting requirements have been increased significantly over the last several years.  There is some question about if the value of a leased exec car has to be reported as compensation or not.  At this point I understand it is not.

    Bottom line is that the comment about a Lamborghini was probably a real indication that revenue from the fetus tissue harvesting and sales was going to benefit  Dr. Nucatola.

    1. Tia Will

      Frankly

      Bottom line is that the comment about a Lamborghini was probably a real indication that revenue from the fetus tissue harvesting and sales was going to benefit  Dr. Nucatola.”

      If we are going to get our facts, as well as our semantics strait, perhaps we should start by being aware of which doctor, during which interview, made which comment. Dr. Nocatola said nothing at all about a Lamgorghini, or any other car for that matter. But you would not know that since obviously you neither saw the interviews, nor carefully read my summary.

      It was Dr. Gatter that made the car comment, and then only at the very end of the meeting as they are getting up to leave, after she had “low balled” every cost estimate according to the interviewing actor, and only then in response to an undecipherable comment from the actor so that we cannot possibly know what the context for the comment was. We don’t even know that what was said wasn’t “Oh, I want a car like that one” to which she replied “I want a Lamborghini”. We just don’t know because all we see is what they want us to see of the tapes. It is obviously a real indication of absolutely nothing since you don’t even know which doctor said it……which was precisely why I felt the need to do some fact checking of my own.

      1. Matt Williams

        It is obviously a real indication of absolutely nothing since you don’t even know which doctor said it……which was precisely why I felt the need to do some fact checking of my own.

        This comment by Tia sums up why I believe there should be simultaneous investigations by Kamala Harris. What they will be doing for all Californians (anlots of non-Californians) is performing a formal, legal fact checking exercise that will leave no doubt in anyone’s mind what reality is … whether they have viewed the tapes or not.

          1. Matt Williams

            Understood. I have consistently argued for the dual investigations as my own personal preference.

        1. Tia Will

          Matt

          I am wondering if this were say a conversation about the cost of paper for a newspaper whose editorials a sting investigator did not like, and the procurer for the newspaper underestimated their cost, and at the end of the luncheon made a joke about wanting an expensive car, if anyone would have assumed that there was  some illegal activity was occurring because the phony investigator said so and be demanding investigations. I strongly believe that what has happened here is that people who do not want women to be able to obtain abortions have made up their mind sans benefit of any factual indication, but simply support Mr. Daleiden’s claims because they want Planned Parenthood destroyed. So should we demand investigations every time a spurious claim is made ?

          1. Matt Williams

            Tia, my personal answer to the question you pose in your last sentence is that if the investigation will transparently and objectively provide the following, then it is worth doing to eliminate subjective doubt and replace it with objective fact. Right now this battle is being waged in the highly subjective court of public opinion. It is in Planned Parthood’s best interests to change that. More evidence-based decision making and less political calclation (some would say “political pandering”).

            I believe there are a lot of people who feel similarly to what BP has described here. That is why, if I were Kamala Harris, I would conduct simultaneous investigations of both sides of this controversy. That way, instead of anecdotes and/or innuendo about Planned Parenthood’s operations, we would know whether they simply cover their costs or derive a profit when they transfer the tissue.

      2. Tia Will

        Paul

        Thank you for weighing in. I am delighted to see new posters to the Vanguard regardless of their “take” on the issue. New voices enrich the conversation.

      1. Frankly

        This is so troubling.   Clearly there was a a strategy being pushed to make money from these fetal tissues.  It is wrong on so many levels.  I think those jumping in to defend this organization are walking on very thin ice.

        1. Frankly

          Classic move of those with left-leaning political views… ignore the message and go attack the messenger.

          And exactly which side is responsible for so much partisanship?

          1. Don Shor

            Classic move of hard-right conservatives: false equivalence (Prouty compared to Daleiden? Give me a break). And apparently the end justifies the means — in this case.

            exactly which side is responsible for so much partisanship?

            It takes two to tango. Please don’t try to assert that “the left” (whatever you mean by that) is more partisan than “the right.”

          2. Matt Williams

            Again, a balanced, transparent, fair investigation of both sides of this controversy makes the most sense.

          3. Don Shor

            Frankly 9:54 a.m.:

            Prouty lied about his credentials, and his history of blogging puts him as a hard left liberal and probably Marxist.

            Frankly 10:16 a.m.:

            Classic move of those with left-leaning political views… ignore the message and go attack the messenger.

        2. Barack Palin

          Frankly, what tells me that Daleiden may be on to something is the fervor of which the left is now attacking him.  It’s refreshing to see how liberals now cry foul when they often use the same types of tactics.  Hypocrites.

        3. Frankly

          Frankly, are you saying that you are against stem cell research?

          I am not at all against stem cell research.  I am against any person or organization receiving monetary benefits from the sale of fetal tissue from abortions.

          In addition, I unfortunately see Planned Parenthood as being infested with extremists in the abortion-rights debate.  And those extremists hold on to the view that even late-term abortions should be 100% the right of the mother to terminate.

          1. Matt Williams

            Well then, you should be comfortable with what Planned Parenthood is doing. They are not selling fetal tissue from abortions. They are transferring fetal tissue from donating patients to stem cell research organizations. There is no sale of tissue from the patient to PP. There is no sale of tissue from PP to the stem cell research organizations. There is no sale of tissue from the patient to the stem cell research organizations.

            Regarding your second paragraph, are you not practicing an ad hominem argument therein? You appear to be attacking the people rather than evaluating the actions/facts associated with the tissue transfer. Do you agree?

            With that said, I believe that some of the people attacking Mr. Daleiden are making the same error … attacking him personally rather than looking at the actions/facts by themselves.

        4. Frankly

          They are transferring fetal tissue from donating patients to stem cell research organizations.

          From the video interview…

          “Every provider has patients who want to donate their tissue, and they want to accommodate them,” Nucatola told the undercover activists, unaware that was she was being recorded. “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as: This clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off this. In the Planned Parenthood world, they’re very, very sensitive to that.” She goes on to say that some Planned Parenthood affiliates prefer not to be reimbursed, and if they do, the figure has to “look like a reasonable number.”

        5. Tia Will

          Frankly

          So on the basis of a heavily edited 8 minute tape, you are willing to disregard every non supportive comments in explanation that this is cost recovery, not for profit, made by both doctors in over 2 hours worth of taping. And you accused me of “cherry picking”. At least I read the entire article before commenting. Something you clearly have not bothered to do before passing judgement.

        6. TrueBlueDevil

          It is not “heavily edited” as the full videotapes have been made available.

          Yes, they put together the “greatest hits” for the media and viewers.

  4. Tia Will

    BP

    I enjoy political talk.”

    As do I. However, I prefer that my political talk be based on some evidence, some factual basis,not the lying, conniving, completely duplicitous misrepresentations of a small group who are determined to shut down a major source of preventive health care ( including cancer prevention) in order to stop one completely legal medical procedure of which they do not approve.

    There is no question at all here that Mr. Daleiden is a liar. That he freely admits. So why should we be accepting his word or his tapes as anything but lies ? Do you typically make it a practice to put your faith in the next words of a self-admitted liar hoping that his next proclamation will represent the truth ?

    1. Barack Palin

      There is no question at all here that Mr. Daleiden is a liar. That he freely admits. So why should we be accepting his word or his tapes as anything but lies ?

      I don’t see Daleiden as a liar, I see him as someone who had to go the extra mile in setting up a fake company in order to do investigative work.  You call him a liar, others might call him a hero.  I guess it all depends on one’s biases.  As far as being accepting of of his tapes we can all make our own judgements, the tapes at least show the actual words of the PP reps.  Daleiden didn’t put those words in their mouths.

      1. Davis Progressive

        in setting up a fake company he represented things about the company that were not true – i.e. he lied.

        you may believe that the ends justify the means here, but you can’t deny he lied.

        second point is that while mr. daleiden didn’t put words in people’s mouths, he did take them out of context.  perhaps you believe that in watching the full video that it was accurate, we may differ.

        1. Barack Palin

          When local news or cops do stings on let’s say corrupt car repair shops or drug dealers they often have to set up a fake facade in order to get down to the truth.  Does that make them all liars?  Should anything that comes out of their investigations not be believed?

        2. Frankly

          So much two-faced bias.  The actor that lies about his credentials and sneaks into a Romney event to harvest his “47% won’t vote for me” political war goody that the liberal media then runs with is a hero in the left circles.

          1. Don Shor

            One of the most influential figures in the 2012 election, the bartender who secretly filmed Romney at a private fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla., last May had been anonymous until now.

            “I was behind this whole thing,” Prouty said.
            The bartender said he brought a camera to the fundraiser in case Romney came back to take pictures with the staff, as former president Bill Clinton had done at another event Prouty worked. “I didn’t go there with a grudge against Romney,” he said. “I really had no idea he would say what he said.”

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/13/scott-prouty-reveals-himself-as-man-who-shot-47-percent-video/
            Seems a bit different than what Mr. Daleiden was doing.

            The two-faced bias really comes from people who say they are pro-choice, but exult in what Mr. Daleiden was doing.

        3. Frankly

          Prouty lied about his credentials, and his history of blogging puts him as a hard left liberal and probably Marxist.  Where did he go to come out of the closet?

          Prouty came forward in interviews with the Huffington Post and “The Ed Show” on MSNBC.

          You see, this is exactly the kind of stuff that leads me and other well-read people to come to the conclusion that the main media is a cancer on this country’s democratic political process.  Prouty came out months after because DNC operatives and their media puppets needed to wrap up the story line to give him cover… that he is just a “regular working man” that just “happened” to film this stuff.

          What is more interesting here is how you nuance the responsibility finger away from your favored political party and toward the other.   The double media standard is very troubling.

        4. Tia Will

          DP

          While it is true that Mr. Daleiden “didn’t put words in people’s mouths”, he certainly tried to.

          During the tape of Dr. Nuctola, he stated, so you want the consent ( for tissue donation) to be done as early in the process as possible after she had clearly stated the opposite. She then had to go back and correct his obviously false statement which she does.

          His colleague in the interview of Dr. Gatter repeats over and over that she wants Dr. Gatter to have an amount that “will make her happy” while Dr. Gatter states again and again that she doesn’t know what an appropriate amount would be and that she will have to consult with the affiliates where she would probably find out based on the interview with Dr. Nucatola that the range is anywhere from $ 30.00 – $100 per specimens depending upon the circumstances of the affiliate based on their costs and circumstances.

      2. Matt Williams

        BP, he has admitted that he has used lies as a core component of his efforts. When you say “You call him a liar, others might call him a hero” isn’t it more accurate to say “You call him a liar, others might call him a liar and a hero”?

    2. TrueBlueDevil

      When ACORN was uncovered by similar journalistic tactics, some on the Left screamed that the journalists were taking advantage of low-level, minimally educated, often black employees. The journalist posed as a pimp in several tapes who wanted access government funds to help finance his underage, illegal immigrant prostitutes. (I believe that was the jest of it.) So given the tapes, it was seen as unfair.

      Here we have two executive directors, two doctors, haggling over the price of baby parts in a public place while sipping on wine or hinting at a new sports car.

      It’s on video tape, there is audio, they are grown professional highly educated women. In the least they are guilty of being unprofessional and not showing tact.

      1. Tia Will

        TBD

        In the least they are guilty of being unprofessional and not showing tact.”

        Please state what you believe here to be unprofessional.

        Do you think it is unprofessional to have a glass of wine during lunch in a professional meeting ? I believe that this is fairly standard business practice, and remember that Mr. Daleiden who had initiated the meeting and was the host.

        Do you think that after the conclusion of a business meeting, in response to a comment that we cannot hear and therefore cannot judge, one should not make a comment about ones preference in cars ?

        Please remember that from the point of view of each of these doctors, they were not there to discuss selling fetal tissue, a point each of them makes repeatedly, they are there to see if they can facilitate a process of donation.

        So seen through this lens, rather than the lens Mr. Daleiden wants you to see through, do these comments now look unprofessional or lacking in tact ? Would you feel the same way if the subject had been corneal donations ?

    3. gentlereader

      It’s unfortunate that there are no medical organizations like planned parenthood who offer the same services, minus abortion, for those clients who would prefer to avoid the abortion aspect of it.

      My personal experience with planned parenthood, once, many years ago was disappointing. There was a lot of information about abortion, but none about the other two options.

      1. hpierce

        My understanding is there are.  Many are ‘faith-based’, and many of those tend to discourage ‘contraception’, but they do provide basic women’s health, and health education (irrespective of decisions made on contraception, but they don’t provide those services).  Because they are “faith-based”, many do not avail themselves of that option.

        Like it or not, few PP ‘outlets’ offer the possibility of bringing a child to term, for adoption, when advising their clients.  Some do.  And connect their clients to services to support the woman thru the pregnancy, and provide for placement of the child.  Sorry, cannot provide cites, but have read of them.  As this issue was never part of my ‘reality’, didn’t bother to ‘keep notes’.

        1. gentlereader

          Although I would avoid PP, I avoid “faith-based” organizations even more. There are precious few options for tree-hugging, dirt-worshipping, liberal atheist prolifers like me ;).

      2. TrueBlueDevil

        Very interesting post, thank you.

        The few times that I’ve known friends who have called there, there is a warning message on their tape that if the caller is experiencing any bad after effects from an abortion, I believe the recording suggested that they immediately go to an emergency room.

        How much money does our nation provide to adoption services at birth?

        1. gentlereader

          Virtually none. You’d probably have access to a social worker at the birth, but not sure you even have that. Many adoption services are “faith-based” (which scares the bejeesus out of me) and for profit (which scares even more bejeesus out of me). You might be able to go through social services if you want to relinquish a child, but I”m not sure. For the most part, you need an adoption agency and/or an attorney. Planned Parenthood should have that information. But most PP offices do not.

           

  5. ryankelly

    David Daleiden is a liar.  He created fictitious company and went the additional step to make it a legal entity, which then makes it a real company – that the company never produced anything or sold anything doesn’t matter.  He exhibited at industry conferences and events promoting his services to convince others that his company was real.   As an executive of this real “fake” company, he sought out providers that could sell him fetal body parts at a profit, which is illegal.  He then – illegally – records conversations of his attempts to pull others into his illegal activities and then edits them to appear that these people are willing to participate in his illegal activities.  Then distributes the recordings in an effort to discredit and slander the people he recorded and also the organization they work for.   This is all an elaborate plan to cut off funding for healthcare services for women.  (Remember, the Federal government does not give funding for abortions, just the other healthcare services that Planned Parenthood provides.)   And people think he’s a hero?  I’ll find my heroes elsewhere.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      How are these recording illegal? My understanding is that there is “no expectation of privacy in public”. Google the term.

      Is George Soros a liar when he sets up or funds phony front groups to help ferment anarchy and riots?

       

      1. ryankelly

        OK, I googled it. It is illegal to record someone without their permission if the person reasonably expects the conversation would be private, including the expectation that a recording, even in a crowded restaurant, not shown or broadcasted in a way that would cause considerable embarrassment.  The expectation of privacy issue – we’ll have to see if the Attorney General deems the recording and/or the distributed edited version to be illegal.  Do you wonder why he released the full two hours of recording shortly after his edited version produced a response from State representatives asking the Attorney General to investigate?

        I’m not familiar with George Soros, but you seem to think that his behavior is similar to Daleiden’s – enough to condemn it.

        1. hpierce

          Interesting thought, ryan… if an organization recieves a bulk of their funding from public sources, are they subject to the equivalent of the Public Records Act?  I have no clue, but if the tape was an interview of a City employee re: a development proposal, suspect that the tapes would be public records, which anyone could edit for their own purposes.  I have no idea what percentage of PP funding comes from Federal, State, and/or local government funding.  Will have to check charity Navigator.

          I believe PP has, in the past, and currently, performed a valuable resource for women’s health, particularly for those with no health insurance.  We’re moving beyond that need, however slowly.  Will they now re-brand themselves as … ?  Abortion “advocates”?  “better dead than bred”?

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          I’m told if you are in public, there is no expectation of privacy. Even if you have your drapes open, a high-powered lense can capture your behavior and that can be considered to have no expectation of privacy. Inside your home, drapes closed, inside an office, that is privacy. Hence why lawyers in public prefer not to talk about an active case with their client, they wait to get into a building, in an enclosed office.

  6. Frankly

    One of the liberal main media sources, The Today Show, interviewing Reince Priebus, the RNC Chairman, grilling him about the “GOP problems” related to Donald Trump:

    http://www.today.com/news/donald-trump-gop-chief-reince-priebus-says-he-doesnt-fear-t34691

    And previous potshots at Rand Paul:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rand-paul-accuses-today-host-editorializing-views-article-1.2177837

    But they are balanced of course… here is the coverage of Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re72di5phM0

     

  7. sisterhood

    Tia, Thank you very much for spending your time to review the entire tapes,  and providing this information from a gynecologist view. Your article provides additional info I haven’t read elsewhere. I appreciate your comments.

  8. TrueBlueDevil

    Tia provided a partial summary. She left out a few items.

    1. Eight to ten states have already launched investigations into these tapes and practices.

    2. This group says there are more tapes to come. I’m sure they’ve saved some nuggets.

    3. These executives sure are poor at vetting their colleagues where they sell fetal tissue / baby parts to. You’d think there would be more care taken.

    4. When ACORN was investigated, the liberal media attacked the investigation as targeting low-level, lesser educated employees; in these tapes, they get the quotes from the top of the food chain, from the highly educated Horses Mouth.

    5. Haggling over the prices or procedures of organs parts procured from abortions – in public – may be legal, but it sure comes off as crass and distasteful.

     

    1. ryankelly

      3. These executives sure are poor at vetting their colleagues where they sell fetal tissue / baby parts to. You’d think there would be more care taken.

      I think that they probably take time to carefully vet the companies that they deal with, which explains why Daleiden went to the trouble of filing legal papers to register his company and making it a non-profit, created promotional material and internet presence for the company,  exhibitied at industry conferences, and extensively prepared for his role as an executive for BioMax.   I’m sure that PP will be even more careful in the future who they talk to and deal with in the future as a result of this subterfuge.

      To clarify – they are not selling fetal tissue or baby parts.  Tissue is donated at the request of the donor  with a small charge to cover the costs of storage and transfer.  Please do not continue the misinformation.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        I’m no expert in this area, but they could be selling to a middle man who then profits from the sales. On some level many probably consider this semantics, especially with the one doctor have a “side business” where she made over $200,000 one year as a consultant for Planned Parenthood, putting her yearly compensation near $450,000-500,000 per year from known sources (PP).

    2. Tia Will

      TBD

      Haggling over the prices or procedures of organs parts procured from abortions – in public – may be legal, but it sure comes off as crass and distasteful.”

      And what you have left out here is that the only side in either of these conversations that was doing any “haggling” was the Daleiden group. Dr. Nuctola mere states the fact that the range of costs used by the existing affiliates with there donation transfer partners ranges from $30-$100. She is not bargaining or stating whether she believes these numbers are good, bad, or indifferent. She just presents the information.

      As for Dr. Gatter, she makes it clear at the beginning that she does not know and does not care to speculate about what an appropriate cost might be. She is then badgered by Mr. Daleiden’s associate until she comes up with a number $ 75, which she states is a guess, and then is informed by Dr. Daleidens associate that this is way too low. Would any of you hire Dr. Gatter to do your negotiation for a higher price for you if your motive was profit ?  She would have just “given away the store” so to speak, so I would suggest that she is not “haggling” at all. The only “haggling” involved is coming straight from the mouths of the Daleiden group.

      1. Barack Palin

        Miss Will,  I see it a little differently than you.  To me Dr. Nucatola was playing it coy and not trying to show her hand that in my opinion she indeed was open to PP making a profit.  That’s why she states:

        They want to come to a number that doesn’t look like they’re making money.  They want to come to a number that looks like it is a reasonable number for the effort that is allotted on their part.

        They want to break even.  And—if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way—in a way that, you know, seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that.

        I don’t know how else anyone can see that any differently than they are open to profit.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Exactly. And given that Dr. Nucatola has a “side business” where Planned Parenthood payed her another $200,000+, I say that opens up a whole new line of questioning.

  9. Biddlin

    Not so many years ago, I was leaving a dance school with my then 15 y.o. daughter.  On the other side of the midtown street, about half a block down, a “heroic ” Operation Rescue a$$hole saw a young girl he hadn’t terrorized yet, charged across the street and up the sidewalk toward my daughter, with a huge photo of an alleged aborted fetus. What a public service, huh, B.P., Frankly?

    I have heard all of the justification, but in the end all I see are mean spirited misogynists who need to look in the mirror.David Daleiden and the thugs like him, depend upon the “wink wink, nudge nudge” support of disingenuous agents such as those posting their admiration here, to try to elevate and legitimize their hateful and nefarious enterprise. I have occasionally engaged them more directly, as an escort for patients. I have yet to see any of them, predominately old men, who will try to block my ingress or egress, though they had no qualms about intimidating, verbally and physically, predominately very young, very frightened women, on what was very likely the worst day of their lives. I believe that speaks volumes about their true nature.

    ;>)/

    1. hpierce

      So, you use the broad brush to equate all those who have serious concerns about “abortion on demand” with those “a$$holes”?  The accosting of your daughter is reprehensbile.  Yeah, that was a “jerk” and much more.  Do you view the world in “black and white”?  Do you believe that those who oppose ‘partial birth’ abortions as misogynists?  About half of the fetuses aborted (in this country) are female.  Guess that’s “equality”.

      I believe that abortions can be the ‘right’ and a ‘just’ answer… but not for convenience… and not just the woman’s choice, unless she faces serious complications, victim of rape, etc., and/or the father is a stupid jerk.

      My mother had two ‘just’ abortions… one occurred before she knew she was pregnant.  The other was also ‘spontaneous”… apparently her body knew the fetus was not ‘viable’.  Some would say there should have been a third ‘abortion’.  But I’m here to write this.  Get over it.  Look up the word “abortion”.  My parents did not “choose” abortion.  It was handed to them.

      But, the topic at hand is (arguably) selling fetal tissue.  With or without ‘profit’.  I see nothing wrong with “recycling/reusing” tissues in the placenta for stem cells.  I see no problem with taking “the products of conception” cells (aka fetal cells) from natural ‘abortions’.  I do see a potential conflict of interest in meeting the demand for fetal cells by folk who promote abortion as a primary choice.  I DO NOT say PP does this, as an organizational policy, but it would not surprise me if individuals within PP do that.  To sell the tissue at profit is reprehensible (IMO) [IF true], and makes me wonder about all the ‘organ donor’ programs, where there is the possibility that doctors will ‘let their patients die’ to harvest the organs.

      ‘Nuff said”…

      1. Biddlin

        “So, you use the broad brush to equate all those who have serious concerns about “abortion on demand” with those “a$$holes”?”

        A couple of DV posters provide strong anecdotal evidence for my characterisation, no?

        ”  I DO NOT say PP does this,”

        No, as per usual, you just imply.

        ;>)/

    2. sisterhood

      Biddlin, hear, hear.

      In the early seventies I had a similar experience with my parents outside our Catholic church in Arlington, MA. We had just left Mass.  Someone had set up tables of jars with aborted fetuses in formaldehyde, I assume. We usually went to lunch after Mass, or went home to a big Sunday dinner. To this day I remember my dad trying to shield me from the jars, while my Mom tried to shield my younger sister. My older brother saw them clearly. On the way home, we didn’t talk much. No one felt like lunch, either. My ultra-Catholic parents just kept repeating how disgusting and abhorrent the display was. I wondered how the folks with the jars could say they were anti abortion, if they had not given those fetuses a proper Catholic burial. That may have been the day I lost my Catholic faith. It was definitely an eye opener. A while later, my Mom told me she was against abortion, and against premarital sex, but if I ever had an accidental pregnancy, she prayed I would tell her and my dad and they would support me in whatever I chose to do, but she prayed I would choose adoption. Just when I thought I had my folks pegged, they surprised me with their compassion and tolerance.

      The next year, in Boston, there were numerous bomb threats at the free medical clinics around the city. My older sister protested the bomb threats and stood guard at the medical clinics, in support of women who were being seriously harrassed and threatened upon entering the clinics.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        I’ve been to numerous Catholic churches up and down the state and never seen such a display. Never.

        But I have seen countless works of charity, personal charity, where no one is looking for a pat on the back or even a tax write off. These charitable works including trips to help families in Mexico, food drives, anonymous drop-offs of food during the holidays, charity / donations to help adoptive services, charitable donations to continue the work of the church, charitable donations to assist poor children so that they could attend a safe Catholic school, Catholic Charities assisting those with AIDS in San Francisco and LA, job referrals / assistance for those out of work, and many, many more too numerous to list.

        1. sisterhood

          TBD, if you mean CA when you refer to “up and down the state”, agree, I have never once saw displays like the one I described at any church or parish property in CA. The incident I described was witnessed in a conservative Irish and Italian neighborhood parish, approximately 1970. It did occur.

          I agree that Catholic Charities do much good in this world. Whenever I feel like bashing my Catholic roots, I think about the movie Dead Man Walking and I think about Sister Prejean, and other wonderful nuns.

          However, I believe Catholics who espouse to the rhythm method and who are against the use of condoms and other contraceptives are doing a grave disservice to society, especially women and children.

           

        2. gentlereader

          “Charitable donations to continue the work of the church” and “charitable donations to assist poor children attend catholic schools” is not charitable, in many peoples’ eyes. And catholic charities should never be involved in adoption. Charity isn’t charity when it’s in exchange for a soul.

        3. sisterhood

          Gentlereader,

          I see your point. The movie Philomena comes to mind.  Adoption can be a slippery slope for sure, when attached to any religion, or especially any group that could potentially profit. I mean no disrespect for any of the hundreds of noble adoption services.

  10. TrueBlueDevil

    STORY UPDATE

    1. I googled “Dr. Nucatola” and salary.

    Apparently, the good doctors makes roughly $200,000 – $250,000 per year managing three Planned Parenthood clinics in Southern California,; and then makes another $200,000 “on the side” via her LLC as an independent contractor providing “consulting services” to Planned Parenthood.

    Some articles claim that she coordinates fetal organ donations across the United States for Planned Parenthood. I have not confirmed this. she coordinates organ harvesting for all of

    Her Sherman Oakls CA LLC is called Imagyn, Inc.

    2. Here is an interesting interview with the head of Planned Parenthood, where she tries to smear the journalist who conducted these interviews, and seemed to mischaracterize the the drama.

    http://liveactionnews.org/fact-check-how-cecile-richards-is-lying-to-the-american-people/#more-68099

    1. Tia Will

      TBD

      Yes, I do not doubt your information about Dr. Nucatola. What you are neglecting to mention is that this salary range is not at all unusual for a practicing gynecologist, even one in general practice. When you add to this that Dr. Nucatola has done a fellowship and is highly technically skilled and an acknowledged leader, teacher and speaker and mentor in her field this level of compensation is very much in line with what one would expect for a leading academic and practicing physician in a highly specialized field.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        I understand the figures, but the split payments do beg questions. Frankly may have some insight here.

        1. Why pay her $250,000 and then $200,000 via the back door? Is this just “PR” where they can tell the world their leaders only make $250,000 because they are so committed to the cause, and then they collect the “side money”? If they want to pay her $450,000 per, pay her.

        2. Does she have additional sources of income from Planned Parenthood or their affiliates or partners?

        3. Are there any incentives or bonuses based on number of abortions or fetal organ donations?

        4. How many other executive directors / doctors have these “side agreements”?

        5. Are these accounting games designed to assist these One Percenters?

        1. Frankly

          My guess is that she makes the $250k as an executive director of the non-profit, and the $200k as a consultant independent contractor billing for advisory services as a medical professional specialist.  This is a way around that sticky problem where a non-profit overpays the executive.  Note that the $250k is that magical Obama “fairness” number he likes to use in his class war game.

          It is certainly ripe for challenges of conflict of interest.

          But since she sits firmly in the PC-correctness-victim and victim-advocate pool, what she makes is irrelevant to the complicit main media.

          This is similar to why Hillary Clinton could make tens of millions off her previous political gigs but can bypass the standard class war attacks from her ilk.

        2. Tia Will

          Frankly “And TIA, I do not disapprove of emotion… especially when it is related to children (and animals).  My problem is when emotion clouds the objectivity and decision accuracy of adults.” As it has clearly done in this case where people are making decisions based on their preconceived notion of what organization is “infested” as you stated about PP. Based on exactly what information ?  How many PP executives or doctors do you personally know or have met with to determine their ideology ? How many objective articles on PP have you read to inform your decision making. There are many comments here, including some of yours with the obvious confusion of doctors included which are obviously not being made on objective information but are based on the desire to believe that a disliked organization must be doing something wrong. This is not objectivity, it is the height of bias. The assumption that PP is doing something illegal or immoral based on this tape ( the complete Dr. Nucatola interview) and the tape fragment ( does anyone believe that these 8 minutes represent the entire interview with Dr. Gatter ? If the entire tape with Dr. Gatter has been released, I would appreciate if someone were able to post the link, as this was all I could find although the comment has been made several times that the entire tape has been released.

        3. TrueBlueDevil

          Her Linkedin page shows a post with the national Planned Parenthood, and the local Planned Parenthood chapter. Not sure if that explains it, or not. I think the questions are still relevant.

          There have been some FOIA requests that have gone out with the request for quick response (which is covered under the FOIA if it is in the public interest), but they are dragging their feet. (The Obama Administration is infamous for dragging its feet, and also redacting quite a bit of information… even though they are the most “transparent” administration in history.)

          Congress has also asked Dr. Nucatola to come talk with them, but Planned Parenthood is dragging that out … probably feeding her developing replies right now… I mean coaching her.

          Some renegade group may have also hacked PP computer system, so we’ll see if that results in any new information.

    1. Tia Will

      BP

      nd—if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way—in a way that, you know, seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that.”

      And you left out the part where she points out that  a penny saved is a penny that can be spent on the next patient. So the $30- $ 100 dollar processing fee that partially covers the cost of tissue acquisition and processing procedure, may be the money that pays for the next woman’s Pap and mammogram.

      1. Barack Palin

        So the $30- $ 100 dollar processing fee that partially covers the cost of tissue acquisition and processing procedure, may be the money that pays for the next woman’s Pap and mammogram.

        Partially covers?  You don’t know that.

        Any money taken in over their actual costs is a profit.  It doesn’t matter what it’s used for after that, it’s still a profit and that’s against the law.

        1. Tia Will

          BP

          Partially covers?  You don’t know that.

          Actually, I do know that but it will take me a little time to demonstrate it so that you can see the facts behind that statement.

          1. Matt Williams

            BP, just out of curiosity what do you think the cost of shipping is for a 12″ by 12″ by 12″ box using one day air (FedEx, UPS or equivalent) in temperature controlled packaging?

          2. Matt Williams

            My curiosity got the better of me, so I called FedEx at 800-463-3339 and they gave me the following shipping prices for a 12″ by 12″ by 12″ box containing human tissue. The following shipping costs assume specialized multi layer packaging (Primary watertight inner receptacle, then Absorbent material, then Secondary watertight inner receptacle, then Sturdy outer packaging) provided by the shipper. I bracketed the highs and lows of the possible costs by choosing an East Coast location and a West Coast location.

            From 95616 to 21210 (Baltimore, MD, home of Johns Hopkins)
            $145.24 1-day morning
            $128.23 1-day afternoon

            From 95616 to 94608 (Emeryville. CA)
            $35.41 1-day morning
            $31.56 1-day afternoon

            $5.00 surcharge for dry ice

        2. Matt Williams

          BP, it is becoming increasingly clear that you have an axe to grind on this issue. I accept that, and respect your right to have both that axe and that grinder.

  11. SODA

    My thanks too Tia for you taking the time to listen to these tapes and report out the complete story.

    I am pretty amazed at some of the comments and would ask that the folks who so vehemently disagree with the assessments, listen also and refute the detailed assertions Tia makes. I will keep an open mind if you do that. Otherwise you are not credible in my eyes and either are taken in by the abbreviated out of context sound bytes or agree that the ends justify the means…..

  12. TrueBlueDevil

    A short video with Dr. Ben Carson and his comments about this controvery. I found two points interesting. One, he claims that the benefits of research on fetal tissue has been over-hyped, and the research can be performed in other ways, and second, there is a short clip of a “fetus” at 17 weeks which sure doesn’t look like a clump of cells. Looks like, well, a baby.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgwHqBQKlQY

    1. Matt Williams

      True Blue Devil: “and second, there is a short clip of a “fetus” at 17 weeks which sure doesn’t look like a clump of cells. Looks like, well, a baby.”

      The above comment is changing the “playing field” to a dialogue about abortion itself rather than the transfer of tissue.

      Such an attempt to change the playing field is not at all a surprise. In fact, one could argue that that is what Daleiden’s goal has been from the very start.

      1. hpierce

        Mattt… others have already equated the purpose of the tape as being anti-abortion rather than anti-tissue-selling… that train left the station early this morning.  The first attempts to raise the abortion vs. tissue issue (alliteration unintended, but it fits) were those supporting unfettered abortions.  At least on this thread.  As you say, “no surprise”.

  13. Tia Will

    TBD

    Dr. Carson speaks from a very distinctive point of view with regard to the utility of fetal tissue. Just as I do. I would not be too quick to dismiss the utility of fetal tissue based on comments from an individual who has stated their opposition to abortion for any reason.

    No one is disputing that a 17 week fetus looks like a baby rather than a clump of cells. I fail to see the relevance other than to introduce an element of emotion ( of which Frankly would surely disapprove) into what should be a fact based discussion. It is also true that no one is disputing that a 17 week fetus regardless of its appearance, cannot survive independently outside the uterus.

  14. gentlereader

    A 40 week old fetus cannot survive independently outside the uterus. Some medically impaired 20 year olds cannot survive independently outside the uterus. I know this isn’t an abortion debate (well, it is, but not the typical kind). But I just want to point that out.

    1. Frankly

      Good point.

      I suppose the differentiation could be assessed quality of life, but that gets difficult for a fetus and new-born.

      But I think this does a good job of illuminating the struggle some people have with late-term abortion for health reasons on a moral basis.  Who gets to make that quality of live assessment?  Would the new-born live a few minutes, a few hours or a few days?  Or maybe it would surprise everyone and live longer.  Does that time not have any value?  What is the cutoff?

      And TIA, I do not disapprove of emotion… especially when it is related to children (and animals).  My problem is when emotion clouds the objectivity and decision accuracy of adults.

      Will modern medical science ever create an artificial womb?   Seems that it is probable.  And when it occurs, it is going to spin the abortion debate out of control.

  15. hpierce

    At the risk of infuriating everybody…

    Is it just me, or does the caption for this piece lead one to think of the title of a homemade porn movie?

  16. TrueBlueDevil

    Planned Parenthood has a sordid past, and this may just add to it. It has a legacy of racism and eugenics, with ties to Margaret Sanger as just one example.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        7 shocking quotes by Planned Parenthood’s founder

        “…As a eugenicist, Sanger encouraged the sterilization of persons with less desirable qualities, and strongly encouraged the reproduction of groups with more desirable qualities. Sanger’s disdain for blacks, minority groups, and the diseased and disabled spawned the birth of an abortion corporation that profits off the killing of the weakest and most vulnerable. From its conception, Planned Parenthood was built upon the roots of exterminating individuals deemed “unfit” for the human family.

        “Today, the spirit of Sanger lives on. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the former pro-abortion research division of Planned Parenthood, African-American women are five times more likely to choose abortion over white women. Planned Parenthood clinics are strategically planted in minority communities, targeting blacks and impoverished minority groups, and abortion remains the leading cause of death for the black community….”

        1) “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

        “In a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble in December, 19, 1939, Sanger exposited her vision for the “Negro Project,” a freshly launched collaboration between the American Birth Control League and Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau. The letter echoes the eugenic ideologies still visible within the corporate vein of Planned Parenthood today.”

        2) “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan.”

        3) “They are…human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

        4) “Birth control is nothing more or less than…weeding out the unfit.”

        “Sanger famously coined the term “birth control” with the intention of eliminating the reproduction of human beings who were considered “less fit.” In her writings from “Morality and Birth Control” and “Birth Control and the New Race,” the Planned Parenthood founder noted that the chief aim of the practice of birth control is to produce a “cleaner race.” Sanger’s vision for birth control was to prevent the birth of individuals whom she believed were unfit for mankind:”

        6) “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world.”

        “In an 1957 … Sanger, who advocated for a system requiring every American family to submit a request to the government to have a child, told America Weekly in 1934 that it has “become necessary to establish a system of birth permits.”

        http://liveactionnews.org/7-shocking-quotes-by-planned-parenthoods-founder/

  17. KSmith

    TBD:

    After reading the entire letter from Sanger to Dr. Clarence Gamble, it appears the quotation you provide is taken out of context.

    She follows that up with a clear statement that that is -not- her intent nor the intent of the group. There is no goal to “exterminate the Negro population,” and the sentences immediately following imply that she will correct this mistaken assumption through her contacts with ministers she and her group are reaching out to.

    The context is clearly provided in the letter that you linked to, but it’s clear from “liveactionews” that most of the readers won’t do the legwork to actually see what’s going on in the original sources.

    And where’s the “that was so long ago…let’s not re-tread the past” love that you and other posters want to give the South and other people/ideas. Eugenics was a mainstream ideology during the early 1900s. Sanger wasn’t alone in promulgating such ideas…and there is some research to suggest she didn’t advocate eugenics based on race but rather on socio-economic status (which, don’t get me wrong, is still bad).

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_eugenics.html

    1. hpierce

      “And where’s the “that was so long ago…let’s not re-tread the past” love that you and other posters want to give the South and other people/ideas.”

      Ironic… your “logic” escapes me…

      “here is some research to suggest she didn’t advocate eugenics based on race but rather on socio-economic status”.

      The same can be said of the confederacy (industrial north, agrarian south).  Substitute “slavery” for “eugenics”… note that Great Britain favored the South, in its quest, as they [GB] had already abolished ‘slavery’, per se, [although factory workers were often treated worse than slaves, except for the fact they could not be bought or sold], but hey wanted the cheap cotton, tobacco, etc., that was grown/harvested by slaves.  Read history and learn.

      How many of us have bought products from overseas where people [including children] are ‘chattel’, except for the fact they can’t be bought/sold, per se?

       

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html

        Black Genocide: The NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sanger’s EUGENIC Plan for Black America

        “…The Harlem Clinic
        In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL’s perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this “experimental clinic,” which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business. In addition to being thought of as “inferior” and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic’s own files used to justify its “work,” blacks in Harlem:…”

        “The eugenic undertone is hard to miss. As Grant rightly comments, “The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood was self-consciously organized, in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy. … It has been from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist.””

        Sanger’s Legacy
        “Its is impossible to sever Planned Parenthood’s past from its present. Its legacy of lies and propaganda continues to infiltrate the black community. This poison is even more venomous because, in addition to birth control, Planned Parenthood touts abortion as a solution to the economic and social problems that plague the community. In its wake is the loss of more than 12 million lives within the black community alone. Planned Parenthood’s own record reflect this. For example, a 1992 report revealed that 23.2 percent of women who obtained abortions at its affiliates were black—although blacks represent no more than 13 percent of the total population. In 1996, Planned Parenthood’s research arm reported: “Blacks, who make up 14 percent of all childbearing women, have 31 percent of all abortions and whites, who account for 81 percent of women of childbearing age, have 61 percent….”

        “Grant observed the same game plan 20 years ago. “During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods,” he writes. “Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools,” he adds. “None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.”

        1. wdf1

          TBD: ‘For example, a 1992 report revealed that 23.2 percent of women who obtained abortions at its affiliates were black—although blacks represent no more than 13 percent of the total population. In 1996, Planned Parenthood’s research arm reported: “Blacks, who make up 14 percent of all childbearing women, have 31 percent of all abortions and whites, who account for 81 percent of women of childbearing age, have 61 percent….”’

          Rather than focus on race, I wonder how it would look if you had family income information on the clients.

      2. KSmith

        hpierce:

        Sorry I was unclear. That comment was just in reaction to the multiple comments others have made to the effect that slavery was long ago, let’s just move on…or Jim Crow laws/segregation was so long ago…let’s move on (since the original poster seemed to be dwelling on the past and overlooking that eugenics was a wide, mainstream movement–abhorrent as it was–and there is evidence to counter that PP is linked to any such ideology currently).

  18. Tia Will

    BP

    My son is an OB/GYN working in a major CA hospital.  I’ll try to run this by him”

    That is great. I would be particularly interested in his cost estimate.  Maybe we could do a cost comparison. I suspect our estimates may vary by location as well as groups for which we work just as Dr. Nucatola pointed out about the range estimates. Where is your son ?

    1. Frankly

      I think it is unethical for them to charge anything for fetal tissue.  At the very least it demonstrates a complete lack of sensitivity.  That is my problem with Planned Parenthood and the rabid abortion-rights activist crowd… they lack sensitivity in their platform and narrative.  They consistently fail to give even the slightest indication that an unborn baby is a life that matters.  At the very least they need a new PR firm.

      1. Matt Williams

        I agree with you Frankly, I think it is unethical for anyone to charge anything for fetal tissue, which is why they don’t. Do you agree that recouping (passing through) the costs of shipping and handling, is not “charging”?

        1. Frankly

          There are ways to cover that cost without having to bill/recoup the costs.  For example, the receiving entity can have a Fed-ex account that the sending entity uses.

          At this point I don’t think either you or I can absolutely say that we know that the charges only covered shipping and did not include some revenue exceeding expenses.

          My point is that assuming charges=true costs, it is still wrong.

          A non-profit does not make profit, but increased revenue can make it easier to operate as it can fund staff that can handle multiple roles/tasks.   For example, if they are billing for the shipping costs plus some extra for the administrative costs of preparation and shipping, there is a great conflict of interest as the revenue generated by the selling of the parts of dead unborn babies is helping to fund the operation in general.

          It is just plan stupid of them to have started this practice given the obvious criticism that would ensure.  From my perspective it is indicative of their arrogance and lack of sensitivity.

          1. Matt Williams

            Actually I think you and I are very much on the same page. I agree that neither you nor I can absolutely say that we know that the charges only covered shipping and did not include some revenue exceeding expenses. Further neither you nor I can absolutely say that we know that shipping costs were the oly costs incurred, either directly or indirectly.

            For those reasons and many others I continue to strongly believe that simultaneous, parallel, transparent investigations of both sides of this issue is the way to go. An organization defending itself will always be questioned by a substantial portion of the population in situations like these. Self-defense can rarely escape the impact of bias and subjectivity.

  19. TrueBlueDevil

    NEW VIDEO – 12 minutes

    ** WARNING: GRAPHIC AT ABOUT THE 8:00 MINUTE MARK **

    Title: Human Capital – Episode 1: Planned Parenthood’s Black Market in Baby Parts

    A Technician discusses the work she did for Stem Express and Planned Parenthood. “Procurement Services”.

    The Technician says she blacked out the first time she was separating the body parts / baby tissue. When they woke her up with smelling salts, they said this effect was not uncommon, and also still happened to regular employees.

    A price list for different body parts lists $550 for a “full term umbilical cord”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2xi9mhmuo

    1. Barack Palin

      A price list for different body parts lists $550 for a “full term umbilical cord”.

      Yes TBD, from the looks of it a baby fetus can worth worth hundreds to possibly a few thousand dollars.

      Good find, more videos to come.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        I don’t think shipping “tissue” costs $550.

        I didn’t know that 2/3 of Planned Parenthood clinics were located in African-American communities… that is not where 2/3 of poverty is located.

      2. Tia Will

        TBD “he Technician says she blacked out the first time she was separating the body parts / baby tissue. When they woke her up with smelling salts, they said this effect was not uncommon, and also still happened to regular employees.” I do not understand the significance of this vignette. Many people who go on to become doctors pass out the first time that they encounter something dramatically outside their norm. A couple of examples. One of my dissection partners in human anatomy needed an entire week of gradually moving a stool from the hallway into the dissection room before she could come in without fainting. It was explained to us that this was quite common, nearly one student of 100 every year.  Nearly every class had someone either come close or faint when we first started practicing blood draws. I became very light headed but didm’t quite pass out during my first amputation. What you are describing is an occupational hazard.

      3. Tia Will

        BP

        Well, then, let’s think about this for a minute. If you are asserting that a fetus could be worth a few thousand dollars, then that should be proof that Planned Paenthood at their cost recovery estimate of $30 – $ 100 dollars is certainly not going to turn a profit at that amount, now is it ?

        Or are you and TBD just going to ignore over two hours worth of filmed conversation in order to spin this the direction you want it to go ?

        1. Barack Palin

          then that should be proof that Planned Paenthood at their cost recovery estimate of $30 – $ 100 dollars is certainly not going to turn a profit at that amount, now is it ?

          According to these quotes:

          The activists, aligned with The Center for Medical Progress, asked Nucatola how much money each body part would cost.  “I would say it’s anywhere from $30 to $100 [per specimen], depending on the facility and what’s involved,” said Nucatola. 

          So how many body parts are we talking about in each fetus?  Each fetus might be fetching several hundreds of dollars from a buyer.  So it looks like we’re not just talking about $30 to $100 per fetus, are we?

          http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/planned-parenthood-selling-aborted-fetus/2015/07/14/id/656939/#ixzz3hEyL0bG6

  20. TrueBlueDevil

    I posted the third installment of the Planned Parenthood investigation about 3 – 4 hours ago, and it is still awaiting moderation.

    Why? I did give a ‘warning’ about the content, which I thought was responsible.

    1. Don Shor

      [moderator]Sorry, I did click ‘Approve’ but evidently it didn’t work. Thanks for the reminder. Just so everyone understands: any post with video links or any significant number of links goes into the moderation queue until it gets manually approved. It definitely doesn’t hurt to mention it if something doesn’t show up.
      Don

    1. Frankly

      Hmm… not sure I can completely agree with all of this.  Not sure we could prove it in any case…. since all three of those things have always existed and will likely always exist as long as humans exist.

  21. Tia Will

    asked Nucatola how much money each body part would cost.  “I would say it’s anywhere from $30 to $100 [per specimen], depending on the facility and what’s involved,” said Nucatola. “

    This is not accurate. The representative asked her how much would be anticipated for each specimen, not how much each body part would cost. There is a huge difference here because if the procuring company as being represented by Mr. Daleiden processes the specimen themselves en bloc which is their preference, this would count as one specimen.

    Also you are choosing to ignore her response that she believed that the amount would be zero if his company did all the counseling, processing and packaging of the tissue themselves. Very hard to make a profit if you are requesting no money.

  22. Tia Will

    TBD

    I watched the third installment which you posted and as might be anticipated my take is significantly different from what was intended by the producers.

    1) First they are clearly directing their manipulations of the conversations and their editing to confound the issues of the morality of abortion with the legality of the sale of body parts for profit.

    2) They deliberately conflate the motives of the for profit company StemExpress with those of Planned Parenthood by cutting back and forth between snipets of conversation between PP executives and companies from this for profit company. The price list presented is not from Planned Parenthood, and yet that is not pointed out. If you don’t read the header before looking at the price list, you would not know this.

    3) The phlebotomist Holly O’Donnell while doubtless sincere in her beliefs makes a number of statements that indicate that she is speaking from her anti abortion belief system rather than fact.

    First she states that 50% of the girls don’t even want an abortion. I would say that she is grossly underestimating this number. In my experience at least 90% of the women have an abortion do not “want it”. They are sad, they are ambivalent, they are scared, they feel trapped…..but they do not “want” the abortion. What I have heard again and again from Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, agnostic and atheist woman is ” I have to do this. I do not have any choice. I don’t believe in abortion. I used to judge other women, and yet here I am. So how does Ms. O’Donnell know how they feel ? Has she had time to interview them?  Does she see the situation through their eyes, or only through her own ?

    She most certainly has every right to have her own feelings about this process, and definitely seems to have made the right choice for herself. Where she has no credibility is when she starts making declarative statements about what is in the minds and hearts of others.

    She states that the nurse is the one who is serious about “getting the fetal tissue” and she states that this is because PP will make more money that way. Are there no other reasons she might be concerned about getting tissue. Since patient’s have requested tissue donation, and researchers need tissue for their work is it not more likely that she want to obtain the tissue in the best condition possible for the research possibilities ? Can there be no other explanation here than profit ? Certainly not if you are wiling to accept the word of an avowed liar such as Mr. Daleiden and his colleagues. But certainly there are other possibilities if you do not start from the premise that these PP providers are evil.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      She has her belief system, as do you. So you confirm that her 50% figure is fair, not an exaggeration … but I might guess that your 90% figure is also a best guess.

      It looks like there may have been some laws broken her by both Planned Parenthood and the doctors, but odds are Kamala Harris won’t pursue them. I hope someone does.

      1. Tia Will

        TBD

        No more than you’re trying to spin it into ‘ look elsewhere, nothing to see here ‘.”

        As for where we are looking, it seems to me that I took a much “closer look” at these tapes than any one else posting here before making my opinion.

        I might guess that your 90% figure is also a best guess.”

        I think that my “best guess” being based on 30 + years of experience speaking directly with this women prior to deciding how best to refer them to get the care they need, sometimes to a pregnancy termination group, sometimes into prenatal care just might carry a little more weight than her presumably somewhat shorter time on But if you have already decided your facts based on your ideology, I am sure that will not matter to you.

        It looks like there may have been some laws broken her by both Planned Parenthood and the doctors”

        To me, given the repeated statement even to representatives of an intended business partner that there is no profit motive, these tapes proved no evidence of any broken laws since they state again and again that they are providing a service, not selling body parts, even stating that the cost would likely be zero if the Daleiden company did all the processing, I can’t see what laws you think have been broken by PP.

        1. Barack Palin

          But if you have already decided your facts based on your ideology, I am sure that will not matter to you.

          Nope, no ideology coming from you, you’re just a neutral bystander when coming to your conclusions.

          Nope, no cherry picking of statements in your analysis, just a fair and balanced assessment.

          Nope, no trying to explain away or twist damaging statements made by PP reps.

          Is that about right?

           

          1. Matt Williams

            BP, of course Tia isn’t a neutral bystander. She has been very upfront with everyone that she has devoted more than 30 years to the provision of womens reproductive health services. What makes you think she is a neutral bystander with that track record? In addition, do you think that her commitment to the provision of womens reproductive health services creates any bias in her perspective?

            What statements do you believe have been cherry picked? Is, in your opinion, any presentation of specific evidence the same as cherry picking?

            Regarding the PP statements, I don’t see Tia saying your interpretation is wrong and that you don’t have the right to have your interpretation. She has simply presented her interpretation, supported by additional facts and experiences that cause her to have her interpretations. Each of us is free to interpret the statements any way we like.

      2. Matt Williams

        TBD, given Tia’s many years of work as a practicing OB/GYN doctor, I suspect she has has had more exposure to women dealing with their reproductive systems than all the posters on this blog combined. As a result your dismissive comment to Tia that her “90% figure is also a best guess” comes across as petulance on your part, as opposed to an acknowledgement that she has attempted to not only engage your original point, but reinforce it. I don’t have even a fraction of Tia’s experience with women and their reproductive systems, but her 90% number rings true to me. In the early 70’s one of my then-wife’s best friends was involved in reproductive counseling in Ithaca, New York, and my recollection of the conversations the three of us had was that her observation was that virtually all of the women who chose to have an abortion regretted the decision … and were very thankful for the fact that Planned Parenthood was there to give them the reproductive health advice and services that they needed in order to avoid finding themselves in the same unfortunate and unpleasant situation again.

        1. Tia Will

          Matt

          I would like to make what I believe is one factual correction to your comment. From her use of the present tense, I believe that Dr. Nucatola still does perform abortions. I do not know this, but I do not see it as relevant to the discussion since I do not believe that Planned Parenthood pays by the procedure. If they did, then this would certainly be an issue. I believe that their pay structure is more like that of Kaiser in which there is a set amount of compensation to the doctor and they get that whether they are doing the actual procedure, or teaching, or engaging in some other form of clinical work.  If someone knows differently, please post your information since mine is very dated.

  23. sisterhood

    “…the amount would be zero if his company did all the counseling, processing and packaging of the tissue themselves.”

    Wonder what professional experience Mr. Daleiden’s “non-profit” staff have that qualifies any of them to counsel anyone about anything?

    1. Tia Will

      Wonder what professional experience Mr. Daleiden’s “non-profit” staff have that qualifies any of them to counsel anyone about anything?”

      Now, now sisterhood, Mr. Daileden and his associates have proven themselves fully capable of counseling about how to set up a phony company, misrepresent themselves in private and public professional meetings, edit tapes so as to represent exactly the opposite of the words being spoken, lie, deceive, slander, and libel…. quite a resume I would say.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        I think tone-deaf comments like this is why Planned Parenthood and their supporters will continue to lose ground on these serious issues.

        Planned Parenthood and the doctors may have broken at least three laws in just these three videos we have seen, and apparently there are possibly another 9 in the queque for the world’s largest abortion provider. I believe one law states that if there is going to be a monetary payment made for an aborted fetus, the doctor should not be a part of that discussion or transaction … but clearly this most recent tape shows a doctor / doctors discussing the prices of body parts. Ghastly.

        They also reveal on tape that they change the way they abort the fetus so that they can harvest more organs for sale, another violation of the law, and probably one of the reasons why the first two doctors are ducking congressional committees as there may be the possibility of criminal charges, though I bet the modern-day Democrats are so in love with PP and abortion they will fight this. (But a dessert shop gets a $150,000 fine because they won’t cater a gay wedding?) Liberalism.

        But I guess if I were to put on Tia’s snarky hat here, we have some snotty, arrogant One-Percenter doctors and their $450,000 salary’s cavalierly haggling over baby parts while sipping in chardonnay… I wonder how many of these female doctor’s are mothers? Their comments are crass, and I have no doubt the firs two doctors are already being coached (i.e.,  taught to lie) along with the Lois Lerner / Hillary Clinton school of leadership.

        Edited tapes? I believe the first two tapes also had the full unedited versions posted. I know there were tons of exaggerations and lies spewed by the head of Planned Parenthood when she went on a Sunday political show.

        Slander, libel? The tapes merely transmit what these doctors said! Won’t they even own their own words?

        1. Tia Will

          TBD

          Yes, I was snarky, and that I regret since it gains nothing in a discussion. For that, I apologize.

          Now back to the actual issues.

          monetary payment made for an aborted fetus,”

          Planned Paraenthood is not, repeat not selling or accepting money for the aborted fetus. As the PP doctor made clear, the requested amount is for the service rendered in counseling, performing the procedure, and / or providing the space in which the Daleiden company would do all of the above. Most people would agree that the time of the medical assistant for counseling, the time of the doctor for doing the procedure, the time of the nurse for patient care and supervision of other staff, the lab space necessary for acquisition and packing of the donation are all costs to PP that can be defrayed by the company.

          I fail to see how some can , just ignore the comment that this would most likely be provided for free if the  Daleiden company were to do the counseling, lab portion, and packaging themselves amounts to “sales of body parts” for profit as has been claimed by the Daleiden group both in writing and spoken word ( thus both slander and libel).

          If PP were into selling body parts as is claimed, would they not set there prices in the hundreds as is being claimed as the “going rata” by the very information provided by this group ?  How would you “make a profit” by selling a $500 dollar item for $30.-$100 dollars. This last tape makes it even clearer that it is not body parts that is being compensated for, but rather the provision of the opportunity for a non affiliated group to transfer that research material to a researcher.

          I regret that some people do not seem to be able to separate their dislike of the procedure from their appreciation of the service that is being provided. Would we be seeing all of this deception and defense thereof if this were a cornea being donated, or a kidney offered by a volunteer donor ?

          I think it is very critical to realize that to the many in the research community, and to the women who choose to donate their tissue, and to the staff of Planned Parenthood these are exactly the same types of donation. I realize that to BP, and TBD, and Frankly and many others, these are not the same. However, we live in a country in which we have chosen to respect differences in religion and ideologic beliefs. Our country is based on the belief that we are not allowed to impose our religious, moral or ethical beliefs on others within the confines of the law.

          If one thinks that abortion is wrong, then one should work proactively to prevent abortion. I fully respect this position. I did not perform the procedure myself except in life threatening circumstances because of my personal beliefs. But I do not believe that my personal beliefs, nor those of anyone else, should limit the right of any woman to obtain legal medical care that she determines necessary, and to donate her tissue for research any more than I would try to stop a kidney donor from donating their kidney.

          I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to lie to individuals and or the government  in order to present a false representation with the goal of destroying a major source of  preventive health care for women because they do not like this procedure.

        2. sisterhood

          Yes, I am in love with Planned Parenthood and all the good work they do for women’s health care. I worked for a federal/state nutrition program with close ties to PP and met dozens of dedicated PP staff over the course of this almost 15 year association. (And  I can state unequivocably that not one woman I worked with gave a rat’s *&ss about Lamborghini’s or profit or material wealth.)

          No, I am not in love with abortion. You may actually be quite surprised at my personal views regarding it. But I’ll forever support a woman’s right to choose.

        3. Matt Williams

          TBD, you are jumping to conclusions. Your first proposed law violation assumes that the doctors you reference actually perform abortions. I suspect, but do not know, that none of the doctors seen on the videos actively perform abortions. Just like the Chairpersons of academic departments, and or sales managers in millions of companies around the world, those doctors have transitioned into the administrative ranks of their chosen profession. If that is the case, then the first law you cite has not been broken.

          Your second proposed law violation also rests on assumptions on your part. Your first assumption appears to be that Planned Parenthood is harvesting fetal tissue without first having a request to do so by the patient. Pull out your California Driver’s license and look just below the Date of Birth field. That is where your preference about whether or not your organs/tissue will be donated in the event of your death due to accident. If you don’t have such a Donor request on the record, then no one can harvest anything. The same is true for the Planned Parenthood patients. If the patient doesn’t explicitly request harvesting, than no harvesting can be done. In addition it is clear that you have not read any of Tia’s past dialogue with Anon about the relative comfort of the various abortion procedure alternatives. She clearly stated that the procedure “change” that you refer to is more “comfortable” for the patient. Beyond those two points, I’m not even sure what law it is that you believe has been violated. Can you please elaborate on what that law is?

          Finally, there is a reason that Daleiden’s initial release was of edited tapes … and that the edited tapes were released with fanfare, while the full tapes were released quietly, almost in the background. That is the stuff of Public Relations 101. Do you not agree that the number of people who have watched the edited tapes dwarfs the number of people who have watched the unedited tapes?

        4. TrueBlueDevil

          When the head of Planned Parenthood goes on nationwide TV and lies, exaggerates, and distorts what the Daleiden group actually did, it draws everything else she says and does into question.

          Attack the messenger, not the message.

          If she is a smart ideologue, I expect her to come out with a new tone and stance once the highly paid PR firm instructs and coaches her how to reply.

          There have to be possible charges the way those first two doctors are dragging their feet at answering questions before congress.

  24. Tia Will

    BP

    Nope, no ideology coming from you, you’re just a neutral bystander when coming to your conclusions.

    Nope, no cherry picking of statements in your analysis, just a fair and balanced assessment.

    Nope, no trying to explain away or twist damaging statements made by PP reps.”

    No snarky comments at all coming from your side, right BP ?

    I do not claim to objectivity. I clearly stated that this was one gynecologists view.

    I am not trying to “explain away” anything. I am trying to present an alternative interpretation of what those words mean from the point of view of a doctor who also has strong feelings in this matter.

    I certainly did “cherry pick” statements in my analysis. You all had already heard and seen the points “cherry picked” by the Daleiden group. I was providing “the other side of the story”.

    You seem to place your faith in the absolute truth of the interpretation of the Daleiden group even though you know that they lied repetitively in order to get the tapes in the first place. Have you even considered that your willingness to accept this version might be colored by your distaste for abortion.

    I await your comment about whether or not you oppose all organ donation and the packaging or transfer of said organs to the intended recipient or researcher ?

     

    1. Tia Will

      BP

      I asked you a specific question about your position on organ donation.

      The “crickets” have now been silent for over 24 hours. I would not have mentioned this at all had you not brought up the issue of unanswered posts in your post from yesterday. So please, spare me any comments about “snark”. You have allowed a legitimate question in this conversation to go unanswered.

  25. Barack Palin

    The third video shows a Planned Parenthood official, Dr. Savita Ginde, voicing support for separating fetal organs from the body, saying, “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

    How can this not be construed as anything other than for profit?   When discussing fetal parts and whether to sell a fetus for a flat fee the PP doctor states that the per-item thing works better because they can see how much they can get out of it.

    It will be interesting to see the spin that gets put on this.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/28/third-undercover-video-shows-planned-parenthood-do/?page=1

    1. Tia Will

      Hi BP

      I was unable to open your link, have to go to work soon but do not want to be called a cricket ( although I really like them). So I will just address the quote you pulled.

      The third video shows a Planned Parenthood official, Dr. Savita Ginde, voicing support for separating fetal organs from the body, saying, “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

      That depends entirely on one’s point of view, and to what the words “how much we can get out of it “refer which I cannot speak to without the complete tape. So let’s just go on this.

      What if the referent is not to how much money we can get out of it, but rather how much usable material for research we can get out of it ?

      Now let’s look at it from differing perspectives:

      1) From the point of view of the donor patient, would she not want as much valuable material recovered and donated as possible ?

      2) From the point of view of the physician, would they not want to obtain as much valuable material as possible ?  I know that when I was planning to send a placenta from a delivery in which all had not gone well, I wanted to provide the placenta intact with as little disruption as possible in order to get the best analysis.

      3) From the researchers point of view, would they not want the most amount of material in the best possible condition in order to conduct their research ?

      There are lots of different ways of seeing this comment depending on whose point of view you choose.

      1. Barack Palin

        Then why not just send the whole fetus at a set price as the rep interjects?  It stays intact, gives the clinic more tissue,   demands less time that PP has to deal with dissecting and separating the parts and creates less shipping costs.  If PP was just breaking even why would they care if they sent the whole fetus instead of dissecting it?  As the PP doctor says, ““I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

        Sorry, but not buying the spin.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Lower “shipping costs”, too.

          We’re only 25% of the way through these tapes. The mainstream media (largely liberal) will avoid or downplay it. Everyday Americans will find them tough to watch, are busy with their lives, and I’m not sure if 12 videos will lead some to lose attention… but these tapes do seem to be having a huge impact.

          It was doctor Kermit Goznell and his House of Horrors that focused us on the travesties and injustices being performed by some doctors in the abortion industry. Performing abortions young girls didn’t want, performing abortions on minors without parental consent, killing infants who survived the abortion procedures, and other ghastly procedures and crimes. Lack of government oversight seems to be the common thread along with dehumanization.

        2. Matt Williams

          Come on BP, use your common sense and your knowledge about how supply and demand match up to create value transfers between human beings. How many stem cell research programs do you think will use a whole fetus in their research programs? If the research of the people who have a demand for tissue is specialized enough that they do not use the whole fetus in that research, then what would you expect them to do with the unused portions of that whole fetus?

          Hanlees Toyota provides the products it supplies to the public both as whole units as well as in parts. That is because there is an identified public demand for both whole automobiles and individual (or grouped) parts of an automobile. At the same time businesses like NAPA and O’Reily and Big O and Les Schwab and Midas only provide supply to meet the specialized demand of the individual (or grouped) parts of an automobile market … and you can not walk into their businesses and buy a “whole unit.”

          With the above said, here is a question for both you and TBD. “To the best of your knowledge, can you think of even one organization that has any kind of demand for a whole fetus?” If you can think of one, please share it with us. As a jumbstart I can think of two that might possibly have such a demand. The first would be medical schools as cadavers for their Anatomy dissection programs. The second would be painters and sculptors who might be looking for a model for one of their artistic endeavors. Regarding the medical schools, my suspicion (but not knowledge) is that having full grown human bodies would serve their purposes much better than an aborted fetus. My further suspicion is that the use of live bodies is being replaced by computerized simulation alternatives. So that demand is quite possibly so small it is nothing at all. Regarding the models for artists, I also suspect that computerization of photography has made the demand for whole bodies so small it is nothing at all.

          So bottom-line, if (1) there is no real demand for whole bodies, and (2) forcing the researchers who have specialized demand for specialized tissue to take whole bodies will be (at best) wasteful, why would PP offer whole bodies?

          With the above said, the meaning of the words of Dr. Savita Ginde in the third released video, voicing support for separating fetal organs from the body, saying, “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it,” becomes much less absolute in its meaning. Her words could just as easily be saying “What our customers are asking for is not whole bodies. They want specialized parts, and as a result we work hard to offer the many and different parts that they are asking for. Our challenge is to listen closely to their demand so that there is as little tissue wasted as possible.”

          If the meaning of Dr. Ginde’s words was as you argue, then I share your concerns. The fact that we don’t know is one of the many reasons why I have repeatedly called for simultaneous, transparent investigations of both sides of this controversy, Mr. Daleiden’s organization and Planned Parenthood.

        3. hpierce

          As I understand it, most of the ‘value’ to the medical community is (are?) the T-cells.  As I understand it, those are best obtained from the placenta & umbilical cord.  As I understand it, the value is the cells are ‘un-differentiated’.

          If every normal birth resulted in providing the placenta and umbilical cord, with permission of the mother, I just can’t imagine why the medical community would need a complete fetus. [or “product of conception” for those who consider the fetus to be ‘not human being’]. Must be missing something.

          Ghouls, perhaps?

        4. Tia Will

          Then why not just send the whole fetus at a set price as the rep interjects?  It stays intact, gives the clinic more tissue,   demands less time that PP has to deal with dissecting and separating the parts and creates less shipping costs”

          This is a legitimate question and deserves a straightforward answer which fortunately I can supple. The researchers who are in need of fetal tissue are most often not located at the same facility. Researches at one university may be looking at lung models while those in need of neuro tissue or placental tissue may be at other institutions. Thus the sorting has to be done at the acquisition facility, not at the recipient facilities.

        1. Tia Will

          There are only two ways. One can tell by chromosomal analysis by chorionic villus sampling by probably about six weeks, or by amniocentesis at about 16 -20 weeks, but I doubt that is what you meant.  The only other way is by ultrasound and that is variable as to the stage at which you can tell. I became aware that my son was male at a 12 week study accidentally because he was positioned just “wrong” when I looked at the screen because I did not want to know his gender. Most often if the parents want to know gender, the ultrasonographer will tell them at the 18-20 week anatomy scan.

  26. Tia Will

    sisterhood

    You may actually be quite surprised at my personal views regarding it. But I’ll forever support a woman’s right to choose.”

    Due to the amount of time I have spent counseling women on this issue, I would never be surprised by anyone’s personal views on the issue of abortion. We all draw our “line in the sand” at different places, and those places frequently change based on our proximity to the person trying to make this life altering decision.

    You and I stand completely united in our support for a woman’s right to choose following consultation with the father of the baby when appropriate.

  27. sisterhood

    Hi Ta

    I was replying to another poster’s remark about”liberals ” who are “in love” with PP and abortion.

    Have a feeling that it would be pretty difficult to surprise you about anything!

    United we  stand for a woman’s right to choose. A dad’s right? That’s a little more dicey. If the woman was assaulted by the biological dad, then  I believe no such right exists. If parents are on decent terms, of course the dad should have the right to raise the baby if he truly understands what that entails, and he is not just dumping it off on his mom or another caregiver or ne girlfriend. Then the woman should be allowed to interview all of those folks to determine if her unborn was truly getting propr love & nurturing. IMHO.

    IMHO, since the woman (with exception of the trans woman in Hawaii a few years back) is usually the one who has to endanger her body while going through the pregnancy,I’ve mixed feelings re: whether or not a dad should have any say in the matter.

    Now I’ll go off VG for a few days, because I’ve already heard probably 90% of the fathers’ rights advocates’ opinions, especially since my relative used to specialize in family law, fathers’ rights.

    Enjoy your day. Thank you for what you do.

    1. gentlereader

      Does it work both ways? If a bio dad relinquishes his rights to a bio mom, does he get to “interview all of those folks to determine if his unborn was truly getting proper love & nurturing” and to make sure she’s not dumping it off on her dad or her next boyfriend? 

      1. sisterhood

        Somewhat easy way for any dad to assure that would be for him to go to court, get joint custody, or perhaps even marry the mom, and stay active and loving in his child’s life. Make an 18 year sacrifice for the good of society. Easy solution imho.

      2. Tia Will

        gentlereader

        Does it work both ways? If a bio dad relinquishes his rights to a bio mom, does he get to “interview all of those folks to determine if his unborn was truly getting proper love & nurturing” and to make sure she’s not dumping it off on her dad or her next boyfriend? “

        Now this is an interesting point and worth considering. My position is that every pregnancy should be thoroughly thought out in advance by both the potential mother and father who should prior to engaging in the activity that leads to conception, have discussed all the potential ramifications of their preparedness to be parents including their physical, social , financial and mental preparedness to take on this most important of personal and social functions for the rest of their lives. Now through the years, I have met very few people who have gone through this extensive pre-planning before engaging in sexual activity.

        So what would be the next best option. To me, if your goal is to prevent pregnancy, the next best thing would be rigorous education in how one becomes pregnant and how to prevent this event, and availability of free ,highly effective  reversible contraception with minimal side effects when compared with the state that we are attempting to prevent, namely pregnancy. Luckily we happen to have such safe means of contraception that in no way could be considered abortifacients, even by  the those with the most stringent religious beliefs. These are the DepoProvera ( the shot) and Nexplanon ( a rod placed in the upper arm).

        So if the real goal were to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy, surely the best way would be to provide these to every woman not attempting pregnancy. And the best way to do that would be to ensure that Planned Parenthood and all health facilities were busily providing as many of these contraceptives as possible, not trying to run them out of business as is clearly the goal here.

        1. Topcat

          So if the real goal were to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy, surely the best way would be to provide these to every woman not attempting pregnancy. And the best way to do that would be to ensure that Planned Parenthood and all health facilities were busily providing as many of these contraceptives as possible, not trying to run them out of business as is clearly the goal here.

          And if the goal is to eliminate abortions, then providing these services is equally critical.  Logically, the anti-abortion folks should be the loudest voices in favor of birth control services.

  28. TrueBlueDevil

    Tia and a few others have claimed there were no laws violated, and seem to source arguments similar to what the New York Times wrote. The Times glossed over some key admissions made on tape.

    1. Tape number 2, there is a discussion about how Heather from Novogenix comes and collects the tissue, “we don’t have to do anything”, says the Planned Parenthood doctor. By law, they can only collect money for transportation and storage, neither of which PP provided.

    The doctor herself talks about how they handle this, and she discusses the legal implications and how to get around the law (my term).

    2. The doctor(s) specifically talk about how they can alter the procedures they use to protect / conserve organs / tissue, not an alteration for the comfort of the patient. This is against the law.

    3. In Tape number 1, Dr. Nucatola said “They want to break even… and if they can do a little better than break even…”

    “A little better than break even” = profit.

    These are highly educated women, and it sure looks like ducking and weaving. I didn’t hear “XYZ door-to-door delivery of cooled tissue is $50 per shipment, $30 for the second box.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/22/whitewash-ny-times-omits-smoking-gun-evidence-planned-parenthood-violated-federal-law/

    1. Matt Williams

      TrueBlueDevil “2. The doctor(s) specifically talk about how they can alter the procedures they use to protect / conserve organs / tissue, not an alteration for the comfort of the patient. This is against the law.”

      You have said this multiple times in different ways. What law are they in violation of? Can you provide us a source for your belief that we can access?

        1. Matt Williams

          The opinion piece that TBD provided the link to is written by pro-life attorney Kristi Burton Brown, who volunteers for Life Legal Defense Foundation. The article asserts that “there are four federal laws and regulations that Planned Parenthood has almost certainly violated.” Those laws and regulations are:

          1) Illegal Profiting from the Sale of Baby Parts — “42 U.S. Code § 289g Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue (a) Purchase of tissue. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.”

          2) Committing Illegal Partial-Birth Abortions — “One has to look no further than the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld it, Gonzales v. Carhart, to know that partial birth abortions done for the purpose of collecting baby parts are illegal.”

          3) Illegally Manipulating Abortion Procedures — “The timing and method of abortion should not be influenced by the potential uses of fetal tissue for transplantation or medical research.”

          4) Illegally Committing Abortions with the Knowledge that the Baby Will be “Donated” — “The decision to terminate a pregnancy and procedures of abortion should be kept independent from the retrieval and use of fetal tissue.”

          I believe an open, transparent investigation by Attorney General Kamala Harris of these four law/regulation violations would go a long way toward providing objective information to the citizens of California. Conducting that investigation of Planned Parenthood at the same time as an investigation of the actions of David Daleiden’s organization would be the balanced, fair approach.

    2. Matt Williams

      TrueBlueDevil 3. In Tape number 1, Dr. Nucatola said “They want to break even… and if they can do a little better than break even…”

      “A little better than break even” = profit.

      You appear to have very little understanding of accounting TBD. For all businesses/organizations/associations costs are broken into two major components, direct costs and indect costs. The difference between revenue and direct costs is margin not profit. You only get to profit after all costs, both direct and indirect, are accounted for. For a business that breaks even on its direct costs and covers none of its indirect costs “A little better than break even” = loss.

      When you throw spitballs up against the wall, you need to understand that unless you do your homework, none of them will stick to the wall. It is clear that you are speaking from your heart, but it would be useful if both your head and your heart spoke in unison every now and then.

    3. Tia Will

      TBD

      Tia and a few others have claimed there were no laws violated,”

      First, I have not said this, ever. What I have said is that the allegations based on these particular tapes provide no evidence whatsoever that PP has violated any laws and I have provided my somewhat informed opinion on why I believe that.

      I also believe in a principle of our judicial system which is “innocent until proven guilty”. As I have previously stated there is nothing in any of these tapes that would lead me to believe that any law has been broken.

      Have people’s individual moral codes been abridged ?  Certainly, just as mine are every time we have gone to war in my lifetime, just as mine are when a convict is executed, just as mine are every time what I consider an unjustified killing of a civilian by a police officer occurs.

      However, my preferred solution is not to set up phony corporations and entrap individuals with false statements. I would hope that none of you would ever trust me again if I used that tactic.  If I want something changed, I will try to change the law, I will vote, write letters, make public comments and peacefully protest. What I will not do is to lie and then wrap myself in some cloak of “heroic” behavior for threatening the legitimate care of others.

        1. Barack Palin

          Yes TBD, it was great investigative journalism.  The left has their panties in a bunch over this because it’s one of their pet institutions that got exposed.  Too bad there’s not more of this type of journalism in order to expose Hillary Clinton and the IRS for hiding and destroying evidence.

          1. Matt Williams

            BP: “The left has their panties in a bunch over this”

            How is it that you see this as a left issue, BP? Is the divide on this political, or is it principally gender? After all, what you are trying to do, if I understand you correctly, is take away the right to choose from all women. Wouldn’t it be far more accurate to say “Women have their panties in a bunch over this.”

        2. Frankly

          BP has it correct.  The left foments and harvests political power from groupism wars… racial, gender, class, sexual orientation.  The left that owns the Democrat Party (nothing like the JFK Democrat Party) relies on group anger about social friction to hide from its ideological cause of of social decay and motivate voters to maintain its power base.

          Abortion rights have been re-framed by the left as “women’s rights” and any opposition against abortion has been repackaged as a “war against women”.   Which is rich in irony as women and the left demand that men share the greater responsibility for preventing sex that the woman regrets the next day, and equally in conception.

          But because the left with help from their main media puppets have successfully made abortion a political wedge issue, it is a political story when one of their bastions of political fervor get caught red handed doing the very things that the right has claimed as justification for opposition.

          1. Don Shor

            because the left with help from their main media puppets have successfully made abortion a political wedge issue

            You say really, really funny things sometimes. Through The Looking Glass funny. It is clearly the hard right that is using abortion as a wedge issue, introducing legislation in states to restrict abortion clinics, to put obstacles in the way of women seeking abortion, to block funding for abortions. It is the Republican Party that has the Human Life Amendment in its party platform. It is the GOP that is seeking to defund Planned Parenthood. It is GOP candidates seeking to take the hardest line on abortion to win the Iowa primary. Ever since Roe v Wade it has been a relentless drive by the pro-life conservative groups that has kept abortion central in every election (to the detriment of the GOP in national races).
            Your analysis does not bear scrutiny.

          2. Matt Williams

            Well said Don. Frankly does say some funny things at times, and this one definitely qualifies.

        3. TrueBlueDevil

          jrberg, the “fake names” article is quite ironic. The Left is now using the term “illegal”?

          This writer noted “… lend further weight to the claims of event organizers that Daleiden and his group did indeed present forged ID cards.”

          So investigative journalists are going to be crucified for “forged ID cards”, and possibly “impersonation”, yet we allow millions of people to do this here from south of the border?

          Item 2, regarding the old graphs from down below, I’ve heard that PP gets $500M a year from the government.

        4. sisterhood

          Good morning TBD.

          I’d venture a guess, upon raising two teens in your fair village, that teens and college students are the ones procuring fake ID’s in Davis (for approx. $200, unless they “borrow” an older sibling’s, who then goes to DMV & gets a new one after reporting theirs as “stolen”,) then scrambling across the causeway to any number of big box liquor stores. Not Davis immigrants. What do you propose the remedy for this illegal action should be?

        5. Tia Will

          TBD

          So you don’t support investigative journalism?”

          I absolutely support investigative journalism.  I support efforts to arrive at the truth.

          What I do not support is yellow journalism. I also do not support parading lies, innuendo, clips edited so as to change the meaning of the words, attempted erroneous rephrasing so as to make it appear as though something had been said that was not said at all as the truth.

          I do not consider what the Daleiden group has done to be “investigative journalism” at all. For me, investigative journalism starts with a question for which the researcher is genuinely attempting to find the truth. It does not start with a conclusion and then move forward to attempt to prove that predetermined conclusion in any way possible regardless of the amount of duplicity involved.

          An example of “investigative journalism” would be “There was a break in at the Democratic head quarters at the Watergate. Who could have been behind it ?” Let’s investigate.  Or on the other end of the political spectrum “Hillary Clinton was using her private account while acting in an official capacity” was this legal ? If not, what laws were broken ? ” Let’s investigate.

          An example of what “investigative journalism is not ” Planned Parenthood is evil. They sell fetal body parts for profit.” Let’s go film under deceptive circumstances and then edit those clips to prove the above premise so that we can shut them down”.  This is the “investigative” premise of the Daleiden group.

           

        6. TrueBlueDevil

          Tia, the full tapes were posted by the undocumented journalists, with words spoken from the mouths of the executive director’s own mouths.

          I believe your advocacy of long-term contraception is spot-on. I’ve also previously thought attempting to limit abortions to the first trimester would be optimum, and outlawing 3rd trimester “late term” abortions which appear by all accounts to be utterly ghastly and inhumane. See Dr. Kermit Gosnell and “he was so big he could have walked me to the bus stop” horrors.

  29. Tia Will

    Matt

    The first would be medical schools as cadavers for their Anatomy dissection programs.”

    I will admit that it has been a while since I have been in medical school and even longer since I stopped teaching anatomy. However, I have never seen a fetus used for instruction in dissection or a whole fetus used for any academic purpose.

    1. hpierce

      Thank you for the graphic.  An “eye-opener”.  Will assume it is a ‘true story’ at this point.

      Does indicate ~330,000 abortions thru PP alone, not counting referrals, etc. Also shows ~ 3% of services are abortions.

      1. Tia Will

        Matt and hpierce

        The following should be considered an educated guess on my part as I do not have the information from PP and am extrapolating from what I have seen in my own practice in the past 4 years.

        First the facts on which I rest this speculation are the above graph provided by Matt ( thanks) and the national gradual reduction in teen pregnancy ( although, not unintended pregnancy rates in older age groups).

        Now here comes the speculative part. In my practice and that of my colleagues ( since I was “eyeballing” but not counting our procedures as a group in my previous role as assistant chief of our department, what I have seen is a dramatic increase in the use of the IUDs and Neplanon by our patients. The relevance of this is the difference in statistical efficacy. With these forms of birth control a woman’s chance of conceiving goes from 80% with no means of contraception, 20% with condoms alone, 5% with BCP to less than 1% with an IUD or the Nexplanon.  So my further speculation based on this trend and the relative statistical efficacy (assuming PP is seeing trending in the same way ) would be that the current proportion of abortions to other procedures provided would be even lower.

        Where I am going with this is of course not in defense of abortion regardless of how one feels about it, but in support of effective contraception as a means of abortion prevention.

         

  30. TrueBlueDevil

    I believe somewhere in this discussion someone claimed that the tapes made in Colorado were illegal. I learned today that Colorado is a one-party consent state, so the tapes from the Planned Parenthood clinic were likely legal.

  31. Paul Thober

    Thank you Dr. Will for your initial research and for tirelessly responding here.  Much appreciated

    What is obvious is that Mr. Daleidon and his fellow travellers found nothing at all.  PP was “haggling” over the “price” of “baby parts”? PP states $30 – $75 and the actors say too low? Now that’s some serious “haggling” – oh wait, they were being coy. YCMTSU

  32. sisterhood

    I need to come out of my closet and admit I used PP services while a sophmore, junior and senior in college. I had perfectly good health care ( all male OB?Gyn’s) through my college student health services and my parent’s health insurance. (couldn’t use my private dr. because they would cc my parents the bils, even though I requested to pay them directly) I was shy and did not want to go to a male gynecologist for pap smears & exams. On one occasion, my period was late & I made an appt w/ PP for abortion counseling. Thankfully, I was not pregnant. But in my Catholic brain I felt like I had committed the sin of abortion by deciding if I was indeed pregnant, I would terminate the pregnancy. Looking back on this experience, I was not really afraid to be pregnant, because I had a very sweet fiancee. Te main reason I wanted an abortion was that I was terrified of tlling my parents and his parents.  It took me a few years of soul searching and therapy to realize I did not commit any sin. (“Mortal or venial”.) I guess some readers will tell me, “that’s for God to decide”. Okay, whatever.

    PP is a wonderful organization of caring, mostly women, professionals. If PP ceased to exist, read the stats. Hundreds of thousands of families would not get quality health care, 1-3% of which is abortion services, depending on your demographic.  PP counsels and does referrals for battered women. PP provides nutritional counseling and referrals to WIC.  Some PPs provide referrals for parenting classes or emergency childcare for stressed out moms who are at risk of abusing their little ones. Please think about the value of these services when you think about Planned Parenthood. Their title says it all. Planned. I donate money to PP whenever my budget allows, and I always will. I am thinking about adding them to my will, after reading discussions on this website and after a meeting I attended approximately one month ago.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      If the government withdrew it’s $500M in support, it would still exist. They have multiple support streams, taxpayers would simply no longer fund abortions.

      1. sisterhood

        Taxpayers would fund ER visits for pregnant women, ER visits for botched abortions, and well baby care after the unwanted baby was born. WIC & food stamps for the unwanted baby, too.

  33. Tia Will

    I would like to make a correction to one of my previous posts.

    It was Dr. Gatter that made the car comment, and then only at the very end of the meeting as they are getting up to leave,”

    This comment was made by Dr. Gatter at the end of the edited portion of the video, not at the end of the meeting as I had asserted.

    I think that this observation has broader implications for this discussion. I see it as an illustration of how very misleading these fragments of conversations can be. I made the assumption that because this was the end of the tape, that it was the end of the meeting. Obviously this was not a well founded assumption. In fact, I have no idea when in the meeting these comments were made nor in what context. It could have been near the beginning, in the middle, or near the end of the meeting. I have no way of knowing since the edited clip does not allow me to judge. However, that didn’t stop me from making that judgement.

    The tape of Dr. Nucatola has been released in its entirety and was the basis for this article. To the best of my knowledge, the entire tape of Dr. Gatter is still not available. In the Nucatola interview, the words spoken are what they are and it is only the interpretation that is open to disputed interpretation. In the Gatter interview tape ( 8 minutes total of who knows how long an interview) what words were actually spoken as well as their interpretation is a mystery.

    So my question to anyone  attempting to assess this situation fairly, is, “if one can be so misled  with regard to timing by a small clip of an entire interaction, might they not also be mislead by cleverly edited clips as to the content and meaning of that meeting ?

     

    1. Tia Will

      BP

      Agreed that it will be interesting. It will be especially interesting if he releases the full video of any “interviews” of PP executives or employees.

      I find the obviously orchestrated interview of the phlebotomist to provide no objective information at all on which to arrive at conclusions since she obviously is being asked leading questions to which she responds in an emotional fashion based on her dislike of the procedure and tissue handling and is willing to make assumptions about what is going on in other people’s minds and hearts in her answers.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        That is your view, which seems heavily slanted in defense of PP.

        1. It seems objective that Planned Parenthood has to hide what the job details actually are to recruit organ sifters.

        2. The training was non-existent to prepare the new hire for her ghastly job.

        3. The doctor volunteers that it is common for even current employees to faint or have strong reactions to the organ sifting they conduct.

  34. Tia Will

    TopCat

    Logically, the anti-abortion folks should be the loudest voices in favor of birth control services.”

    Thank you for your very succinct statement of reason. I would be happy, upon my planned retirement to partner with any like minded anti-abortion individual or group, either within, or outside the faith community who is serious about abortion reduction.

    From a localist point of view, I am starting from where  I am, so if any reader is connected with any such individual or group whose goal is truly abortion reduction, please feel free to pass on my name and contact information through the Vanguard ( for obvious reasons I am not willing to provide my personal information to any such individual until well known to me).

    The prevention of this tragic event which ends the life of the fetus and forever changes the lives of all involved whether they are aware of that or not, has been one of the main passions of my career. I am actively seeking ways to expand this effort once I am retired from my “day job”.  Please consider this as sincere initial ( albeit very limited outreach) to further that goal.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      I support your advocacy for long-term contraception choices, especially for young, and / or those ill-equipped to handle a new baby.

      I don’t think the new “hook up” culture helps us, either. We went from pre-marital sex, to sex after 3 dates, to now anonymous Internet hookups that have to have profound implications. There are young women in their 20s who have never had a boyfriend, never been on a date, yet they have had plenty of sex yet little love or true companionship.

      1. wdf1

        TBD:  There are young women in their 20s who have never had a boyfriend, never been on a date, yet they have had plenty of sex yet little love or true companionship.

        There are also young men in their 20s who fit your description with respect to having heterosexual relationships.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          I agree, but believe the implications are far different.

          I think many men can have anonymous sexual encounter, and they’re OK with it. It may have implications long term (i.e., no relationship, poor relationship skills, STDs). I don’t think most young women are wired this way – they also want companionship, attention, love, mutual respect, etc. I’ve seen studies that support this. It also seems like some of the new and dangerous binge drinking young women now engage in may be used to give them the “liquid courage” to be ‘sexually adventurous’, but many still find out the hard way it is not what they really want.

          Women also face different implications from pregnancy.

        2. wdf1

          TBD:  I don’t think most young women are wired this way – they also want companionship, attention, love, mutual respect, etc.

          I am not a woman, so I’m not going to try to generalize how women are or should be wired.  But I will say that there are also men who also want companionship, attention, love, mutual respect, etc.

          TBD:  Women also face different implications from pregnancy.

          Meaning?

          That women are responsible for a pregnancy and its consequences and the fathers are not?

  35. sisterhood

    “There are young women in their 20s who have never had a boyfriend, never been on a date, yet they have had plenty of sex yet little love or true companionship.” 

    Absolutely agree & there are just as many young men who shockingly have to be coaxed to put on a condom, even in this day and age.

      1. sisterhood

        “…need to be told to say no unless they use one.”

        You & I are in total agreement re: this statement.

        I would add young gay men to the statement.

        IMHO it is a shame schools are allowed to  teach students to say no to drugs & alcohol but not to undignified hookups & unprotected sex.

  36. gentlereader

    I don’t think the new “hook up” culture helps us, either. We went from pre-marital sex, to sex after 3 dates, to now anonymous Internet hookups that have to have profound implications. There are young women in their 20s who have never had a boyfriend, never been on a date, yet they have had plenty of sex yet little love or true companionship.”

    Do you have any evidence for that statement? Do you think only women do this or do men do it as well? Do you think society is only impacted when women have sex without marriage? What about when men do? How do you know women who hookup are: 1. suffering profound implications 2. never had a boyfriend 3. never been on a date 4. have had plenty of sex 5. have little love or companionship 6. are unhappy  7. are making other people unhappy?

     

     

     

      1. gentlereader

        That didn’t really answer my question.

        But nevertheless, I think that statement is assumes quite a bit. It’s entirely possible to have hookups and be happy. It’s also entirely possible to be married and miserable. And it could be argued that a bad marriage is more detrimental to society that a sexually active single woman.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      A quick google revealed this.

      College Student ‘Hook-Ups’ Linked to Psychological Distress

      “The study, led by Dr. Melina M. Bersamin of California State University in Sacramento, found that those who had engaged in casual sex had higher levels of depression, social anxiety and general anxiety when compared to those who had not had casual sex. The report is called, “Risky Business: Is There an Association between Casual Sex and Mental Health among Emerging Adults?””

      http://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/adolescent-issues/college-student-hook-ups-linked-to-psychological-distress/

      1. gentlereader

        And the study notes no difference between men and women.

        Could also easily mean that those students who are dealing with the stress of college are trying to handle by engaging in casual sex. It doesn’t mean casual sex causes depression.

        1. sisterhood

          I agree w/gentlereader. Not sure casual hookups cause depression or is it the other way around, or a myriad of factors.  And btw is a casual hookup any more dangerous than binge drinking/drug use/perfectionism/ and a million other stressors young folks encounter.

  37. TrueBlueDevil

    4th Planned Parenthood Undercover Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8

    Planned Parenthood VP Says Fetuses May Come Out Intact, Agrees Payments Specific to the Specimen
    ** Graphic at about 8:30 **

    New items, there is a bit of repetition with the Colorado tape.

    -Dr. Ginde seems to prefer selling organ tissue under the “research” banner instead of merely “collecting” for legal protections / PR.

    -There is a legal concern about selling organs / fetal parts across state lines.

    – Dr. Ginde, when sorting fetal parts, says “It’s a baby!” and “Another boy!”

  38. Biddlin

    sisterhood
    July 30, 2015 at 4:20 pm
    I agree w/gentlereader. Not sure casual hookups cause depression or is it the other way around, or a myriad of factors.  And btw is a casual hookup any more dangerous than binge drinking/drug use/perfectionism/ and a million other stressors young folks encounter.

    Way too deep for this crowd. They needed snorkels after the headline.
    ;>)/

  39. sisterhood

    Re: TBD’s remark about implications of pregnancy for women: I agree, the implications are different. For one, a man with an unplanned pregnancy does not have to visually display that to the world. There are still plenty of conservative folks out there who treat pregnant women without a wedding ring differently. They are quick to judge. Even easy pregnancies will probably result in a few sick days or having to come to work late due to morning sickness, which can actually occur any hour of the day. Dr’s visits, also. After the baby is born, nursing breaks to pump breastmilk and well baby visits. Tired days because you are nursing your baby in the evening for the first few months, etc. Dads can help with some of these examples, but not all.

    Also, a woman endangers her health when she is pregnant. Not so much tody as 100 years ago, but it is a health risk. My own son was born with an emergency last minute general anesthesia C-Section after our umbilical cord was stuck next to his neck area and restricted him. My doctor told me I would have died if that had happened in the old days, or they would have had to choose between saving me or saving him.

    Btw, an interesting article in CNN today proves the need for crucial Planned Parenthood services, imho:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/health/teens-health-technology/?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iref=obnetwork

     

     

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for