Fourth Planned Parenthood Tape – A Gynecologist ‘s View

Planned-Parenthood-video

by Tia Will

As these links are posted, I think it important that each be seen not solely through the eyes of the Daleiden group, which is conducting “investigative journalism” not through any attempt to answer the question of whether or not Planned Parenthood is involved in any illegal activities but rather starting with the firm belief that they are guilty. This group has demonstrated its willingness to engage in deceitful practices to “prove” their basic assertion. As full disclosure I want all to know that I am not, and never have been in any way, affiliated with Planned Parenthood. I do not, in fact, know whether or not any of their affiliates have ever engaged in any illegal activity. What I wish to do is to examine the evidence as put forward by the Daleiden group to see if what they are presenting as proof, does indeed prove what they claim.

So far I have watched the entirety of the first three tapes and have, on only the basis of the information presented so far, come to the conclusion that none of these tapes support the premise that there is any illegal activity in the form of selling fetal tissue for profit.

I would now like to summarize the interview with Dr. Ginde who is the Medical Director of the Rocky Mountain affiliate of PP. The previous interviews with Dr. Nucatola and Dr. Gatter were conducted in California.

This time I have more carefully noted the times for confirmation, if desired, and have starred my interpretation of the potential meaning of what is heard on the tape based on my experience in this field, to easily distinguish my interpretation from what is actually documented on the tapes.

24 secs

Dr. Ginde states “I think a per-item thing works a little better just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

* This is being portrayed as though it were the beginning of the interview and there is no preceding statement to provide the context in which she is making this statement.

* The taped portion of the interview is not temporally consistent with the actual interview which started in the morning in the office of Dr. Ginde. The segment first shown is actually from later in the day taken in the lab .

* The Daleiden group is attempting to portray this as a reference to how much money can be obtained. What is not clear in this initial segment is that they are standing in the lab having just been inspecting fetal tissue, and her reference is clearly to how much tissue could be retrieved for research purposes since several they wanted as much intact tissue as possible.

2:32

Dr. Ginde points out that if the patient miscarries prior to a planned procedure the specimen will be intact but not available for research purposes due to the tight time constraints for packing and shipping.

The Daleidin interviewer then states : “So obviously we want product that we can use. I think that the biggest thing is that we want to avoid paying for material that we’re not going to be able to process.

* Dr. Ginde has said nothing at all about payment or compensation. Only the Daleiden group has made any such statement. Only the Daleiden group has referred to the donated tissue as “product.”

3:22

Female interviewer states, “So compensation could be specific to the specimen?”

*Dr. Ginde has made no comment about cost, price, compensation or any other monetary consideration.

3:32

Dr. Ginde states that they would need criteria from the Daleiden group about what makes a specimen usable by their group.

4:20

On the subject of the suitability of tissue obtained :

Dr. Ginde notes with regard to different providers:“It’s hard to know how their specimens come out right now because it’s not like we have been looking.” This is supported by her previous comment in which she states that she does not know if she would recognize a thymus, which is one of the items desired by the Daleiden group.

*With regard to this particular affiliate in Colorado, it is now clear that they have not been selling fetal tissue. They have not even been looking at the specimens to determine their degree of intactness. Their director is clearly not familiar with the requirements of transferring tissue for research purposes and has to inquire what the criteria would be. This would clearly not be the case if she had been engaged in selling tissue.

Dr. Ginde states “We would have to kind of see the baseline of how things are getting extracted now, and then see if we could do any work with them to maybe be a little more gentle.

* As a practicing gynecologist, more gentle is good as far as tissue removal is concerned, since it is also more gentle for the patient as I have explained previously with regard to choice of instrument and technique. I can assert this based not on speculation but the knowledge that an intact extraction of tissue rather than multiple passes to remove fragmented tissue will be far better for the patient. This is the same procedure that is used to remove tissue from the uterus when there has been a spontaneous intrauterine fetal death, a common procedure which I have done many times in my career, so I have direct experience with this procedure.

4:54

Dr. Ginde states that with regard to all PP groups that the Daleiden company might be partnering with, “I think that we have to be coordinated with each other.”

Mr. Daleiden interjects: “To make sure that the stories are straight,” to which Dr. Ginde responds: “Well, to make sure that we are all saying the same thing and that the CEOs are all saying the same thing.”

*Coordination is done all the time in Kaiser by all departments to make sure that there is uniformity of performance so that processes run smoothly and so that the patient gets the same standard of care whether she presents to Sacramento, or Davis, or Roseville. This is only possible if the clinics are in communication with each other. There is nothing nefarious or underhanded about coordination of care, although that is clearly Mr. Daleiden’s interpretation.

5:22

Female interviewer says: “ We all know for example, compensation, I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you are going to be facing and I want you to be happy. I want to make sure our suppliers and happy, so compensation, ok your cost is negligent . (*I believe that she meant negligible.)

*Again, the female interviewer stresses, as she did in the Nucatola and Gatter interviews, that she “wants them to be happy.” None of these three doctors have said anything at all about an amount of money that they want or that would make them happy. All any of them have mentioned is cost reimbursement for their services, not for the tissue.

5:46

Female interviewer states with regard to provision of compensation:“We all know that yes, that is what we are doing.”

Dr. Ginde says :“So processing and time, and ….. yeah.”

No mention of compensation for fetal parts is ever mentioned by Dr. Ginde.

6:05

Dr. Ginde: “Because even though we’re doing it through research, if it comes up as someone else is just doing it as a sort of business venture, it puts a different spin on it.”

Mr. Daleiden then says: “ Publically communicating it as a as a research rather than a business venture makes it look better.”

To which Dr. Ginde replies: “I may need to talk to Deb ( Dr. Nucatola). I do want the other Planned Parenthoods….I want all of us to be making the same decision. So if we all decide that we are going to do it outside of research then we do it outside of research. But if we all decide to do it under research, that we have a different path , that we know that we’re all registering and doing the same thing.”

*Note that she is referencing what someone else might do, not what PP does.

This portion of the tape concludes with Daleiden rep inquiring about the PP use of lawyers. Dr Ginde states that no one wants to be accused of selling fetal parts across state lines and that she believes that their lawyer has it figured out.

*She does not say that no one wants to be caught selling fetal parts, she states that no one wants to be accused of it. Daleiden agrees.

The tape then picks up in the lab with a specimen dish containing fetal tissue.

Dr. Ginde is able to identify some, but not all of the fetal parts. Mr. Daleiden has to point out what some of the issues are and it is he who is able to identify the intact kidneys. It is he who states which tissues are in high demand for research such as the brain and the eyes. Dr. Ginde is able to identify the heart, lungs and stomach.

*At no point in this tape does Dr. Ginde mention price, profit, or wanting any compensation for any fetal parts. She states clearly that the consideration is for time and process.

My conclusions from watching the entirety of this tape are:

  1. The Rocky Mountain affiliate represented by Dr. Ginde has not been engaged in the sales of fetal parts.
  2. This is the first time that this affiliate has been approached with the possibility of partnering in this way for the transfer of fetal tissue for research, at least during the tenure of Dr. Ginde based on her statements.
  3. Any words about the sale of fetal tissue were stated by the Daleiden group, not by Dr. Ginde.
  4. At no point in time are there any specific comments about how much money might be appropriate, nor is any bargain struck. The only agreement is that Dr. Ginde will discuss the issues involved with Dr. Nucatola.
  5. It does not appear to me that this tape provides any proof of illegal activity in the form of tissue sales and, indeed, might be seen as confirming that these have not occurred.

I remain interested in hearing your interpretations and will be available intermittently over the weekend to discuss any comments that arise.

About The Author

Tia is a graduate of UCDMC and long time resident of Davis who raised her two now adult children here. She is a local obstetrician gynecologist with special interests in preventive medicine and public health and safety. All articles and posts written by Tia are reflective only of her own opinions and are in no way a reflection of the opinions of her partners or her employer.

Related posts

133 thoughts on “Fourth Planned Parenthood Tape – A Gynecologist ‘s View”

  1. sisterhood

    ” ” Mr. Daleiden then says: “ Publicly communicating it as a research rather than a business venture makes it look better.” ”

    So Daleiden himself was actually sitting there with the PP women when discussing this? I misunderstood that he sent some of his like minded group to do the interviews.

    Wow, a religious pro-lifer is referring to a human aborted fetus as “product.” I feel kinda sick.

    Does he have a science degree or any training whatsoever in the activities that he is describing to the PP women? It seems like he is really misrepresenting himself and the goals of his political group/”medical research” group.

    Tia, again, thank you for taking the time to review the complete tapes and write this article, which provides so much more info than I’ve read anywhere else.

     

     

    1. Tia Will Post author

      sisterhood

      In the interests of complete honesty, I do not know that the voice of the male interviewer belongs to Mr. Daleiden. This is an assumption on my part and I am glad that you pointed this out to me.

      For an accurate summary, please mentally insert “male interviewer” every time I refer to Mr. Daleiden in this and my previous article.

      And please note, as with my previous correction, how easy it is to make assumptions when all of the information is not provided in a clear, unedited, transparent format.

  2. tj

    Planned Parenthood recently stated that Daleiden spliced together 6 minutes out of a 2 hour meeting to make one of his crazy tapes.

    I wonder why his mother Gina doesn’t disavow his activities.  Could it be that she’s afraid of him?

    [moderator] Please avoid these personal comments.]

    1. hpierce

      Well, Don… Davis pretty muc opened te door with the first piece, where he wrote that he had contacted the Deputy Co Supervisor for comment.  He was out of line then, as tj is now.

  3. Tia Will Post author

    tj

    “I wonder why his mother Gina doesn’t disavow his activities.  Could it be that she’s afraid of him?”

    I try very hard not to stifle conversation on the Vanguard. However, I am sincerely hoping that this kind of speculation will not take off.  I consider my daughter, the same age as Mr. Daleiden, to be an adult who is fully responsible for her own choices and actions. I no longer feel that her adult choices are a reflection on me whether for good or for ill, she is her own person.

    1. Barack Palin

      Who is to say anyone should disavow his activities anyway?  I’m sure a huge part of the populace see Mr. Daleidan’s actions and investigative reporting as heroic.  This story is still playing out and let’s see where it leads.  So far there are some pretty horrific revelations that have come out.

      1. Matt Williams

        revelations? accusations would be a much more accurate description. Until validated, they do not rise to the level of certainty of “revelations.”

  4. Tia Will Post author

    BP

    So far there are some pretty horrific revelations that have come out.”

    Since the story, as elucidated in the tapes to data ,has not provided any evidence of a PP member making any suggestion that what they are doing is “selling body parts” and that the tapes show, so far, only the practice of collection and provision of tissue for research purposes which is legal if donated, as has been made clear again and again that the tissue is being donated, I am not sure what you are citing as the “pretty horrific revelations”.

    Now if you find the collection of fetal tissue as “horrific” I would agree that to anyone not in medicine, this taped material is doubtless “horrific”. But then corneal collection, or the harvesting of a kidney from a donor might also appear “horrific” to someone who has never seen a dissection or a major surgery. If no laws have been broken, which to date their is no evidence provided on these tapes that any have been, at least by the PP doctors or affiliates taped to date, then “horrific” lies in the eyes of the beholder. Barring any such proof, all Mr. Daleiden and company have “revealed” is that some people do not approve of abortion, and others will be “horrified” by grisly sights just as I have been horrified by the sight of children with missing limbs, or blinded by our overseas military operations.

    1. DurantFan

      “….all Mr. Daleiden and company have “revealed” is that some people do not approve of abortion, and others will be “horrified” by grisly sights…”

      Because the revalation is visual, that “all” is sufficient!

  5. Napoleon Pig IV

    I see nothing wrong with deception to get the truth out of scumbags that are trying to hide it. However, the deception that is so disgusting here is not that the Daleiden group lied to Planned Parenthood. The disgusting and essentially fraudulent thing is that they selectively edited the tape to create a false and misleading version of “reality,” one consistent with their political or religious agenda. The Daleiden group, not Planned Parenthood, is the scumbag in this story. Oink!

  6. Tia Will Post author

    Napoleon Pig Iv

    I see nothing wrong with deception to get the truth”.

    I struggle with this idea. I suppose that if there were an objective “greater good” or a “universal truth” to be arrived at, I would agree with this concept. In this case, “the truth ” seems to be that because they find abortion abhorrent, all other rules can be suspended.

    I see a huge irony in a “Christian based” group being willing to break one of the Ten Commandments themselves “Though shall not bear false witness….” in order to implicate others in what by now they surely must realize is not the case even if they felt it was at at the beginning of their investigation. However, to continue to lie even when your initial belief has been demonstrated to be in error is unconscionable

     

    1. Napoleon Pig IV

      Tia, I basically agree with you, and I very strongly agree with this statement: “However, to continue to lie even when your initial belief has been demonstrated to be in error is unconscionable.”

      I suppose in saying that deception is sometimes justified, I’m thinking of cases in which law enforcement personnel infiltrate criminal organizations, or set up sting operations. I don’t, of course, believe that only agents of the government are justified in such actions, but that’s a different and longer philosophical discussion.

      In this particular case, I have no doubt at all that Planned Parenthood is an honest organization serving an important need (which is not the same thing as personally being in favor of abortion). The only motivation I can see for the Daleiden group is either a narcissistic desire for publicity or the irrationality of religious belief. Neither justify their lies and misleading propaganda.

       

  7. Barack Palin

    “We have to know who else is doing this,” Ginde says, “because if you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably gonna get caught.”

    No mention of this quote from the video in the above article.  If everything PP is doing is legal then why any worry about getting caught?

  8. Tia Will Post author

    BP

    We have to know who else is doing this,” Ginde says, “because if you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably gonna get caught.

     

    No mention of this quote from the video in the above article.  If everything PP is doing is legal then why any worry about getting caught?”

    Fair question. I addressed it but only obliquely. Dr. Ginde made a point about people who were processing and transporting tissue for profit which is a different issue than “selling the tissue”. PP does neither since they do not process and transport the tissue. It was groups that are engaged in these transfers that she was referring to and she also noted “no one wants to be accused of selling fetal tissue” not “no one wants to be caught selling fetal tissue”.

    Again BP, I understand that you are opposed to abortion. I understand that you find these images and conversations horrific. However, the accusation here is not of being horrific, or disgusting, or religiously unacceptable, the issue is illegality, and so far, there is no evidence of this in the words of the PP representatives even with the very leading comments of the interviewers.

    1. Don Shor

      Again BP, I understand that you are opposed to abortion.

      Actually, BP informed us a few days ago that he was pro-choice and had “no dog in this fight.” It’s just that liberals like Planned Parenthood, therefore BP likes to see them harmed. And the end justifies the means.

      1. hpierce

        Beneath you, Don.  Remember that ‘let’s not get personal’ admonition you gave the other day?  Please don’t start talking like Trump (yeah, might be ‘personal’, but he has chosen to be a pubic  public figure, so not sure that should count).  Listen to your “better angels” (sorry, didn’t mean to bring religion into this).

        With some contributors (and, justifiably, they could lay this charge on me) “consider the source”.

      2. Barack Palin

        Actually, BP informed us a few days ago that he was pro-choice and had “no dog in this fight.” It’s just that liberals like Planned Parenthood, therefore BP likes to see them harmed. And the end justifies the means.

        Don Shor, how many times have you cried about Frankly and others putting words in your mouth?   But here you are  doing just that to me?  I said I wasn’t against abortion as long as it’s not late term.  But if Daleidan has proof that PP is breaking the law why can’t we all just let this play out?  I’m not in the camp where liberals are automatically attacking him and his colleagues and trying to discredit him before all the facts come forward.  You have to admit some very compromising statements and facts have arisen that most people had no idea was occurring.

        Before Daleidan how many posters on here can honestly admit that they knew that PP was selling fetal parts to stem cell research firms either for profit or just breaking even, however that might play out?

        1. Don Shor

          I’m not against abortion as long as it’s not late term. I really don’t have a dog in this fight.

          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’re pro-choice. The end justifies the means.

          You have to admit some very compromising statements and facts have arisen that most people had no idea was occurring.

          Um, no, that’s not the case.

          how many posters on here can honestly admit that they knew that PP was selling fetal parts to stem cell research firms either for profit or just breaking even…

          Ah. Moving the goal posts. Most people have no idea that tissue is used for anything, anywhere, that it is procured from bodies or fetuses by anyone for anything. Most people have no awareness whatsoever of the entire biomedical research field or how specimens are procured for it. So it’s pretty pointless to talk about what people “knew” about this. Does Sacramento Medical Center procure tissue and convey it to researchers? Do you know? Do you care? Did you ever even think about this before?
          Planned Parenthood doesn’t sell fetal parts. To repeat the words “selling fetal parts” is to participate in the lie that Mr. Daleiden wishes to perpetuate. You and your fellow conservatives are being manipulated by gross distortions using “evidence” procured by falsehoods and deceit. Yet you think that’s fine? Then, ipso facto, you believe that the end justifies the means.

        2. Barack Palin

          Most people have no idea that tissue is used for anything

          I knew, I just had no idea that an agency that gets about half of it’s funding from our government was supplying fetal tissue to them just as I think most people have heard of stem cell research but at the same time had no idea that PP was supplying these companies with organ parts.

          1. Don Shor

            Then where did you or “most people” think they were getting their tissue from? And why does it matter to you or “most people”?

          2. Matt Williams

            BP, it is useful to look at one of the two graphics that I posted earlier in the week. I’ve reposted it below. From FactCheck.org we get the following that puts the graphic into perspective

            Planned Parenthood’s 2008-2009 annual report states that it received $363.2 million in “Government Grants and Contracts.” (See page 29.) That’s about one-third of its total revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.

            However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.

            But Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, “by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for “medically necessary” abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The federal budget deal now bans Washington, D.C., from using its funds to pay for abortions.

            Armed with that objective information it is crystal clear that the 70% of Planned Parenthood’s 2008-2009 Revenues (33% plus 37%) that could arguably be attributed to Governmental programs/reimbursement is the result of the 97% of Planned Parenthood’s activities that are not related to abortions, and that further, the 3% of Planned Parenthood’s activities that are abortion services are paid for from the 28% of Planned Parenthood’s revenues that comes from Private Contributions.

        3. Tia Will Post author

          BP

          But if Daleidan has proof that PP is breaking the law why can’t we all just let this play out?”

          And if he has no proof, which he certainly has not demonstrated to date, then he just gets a free pass to make false representations to stir up those who are his ideologic partners so as to attempt to close PP thus preventing women from obtaining, not just abortions, but any of the other offered services. That is certainly why I can’t “just let this play out”. There is far too much at stake as far as women’s health and well being are concerned.

          Before Daleidan how many posters on here can honestly admit that they knew that PP was selling fetal parts to stem cell research firms either for profit or just breaking even”

          If posters are being honest, they cannot say that they know that PP was selling fetal parts for any purpose. The doctors have stated repeatedly that they do not engage in selling fetal parts but that some affiliates accept compensation for staff time and space, not for fetal tissue which is being donated. That you choose to accept the interpretation of the Dalieden group over the repeated statements of the doctors, who remember, do not know that they are being recorded, but believe that they are speaking to a transport company is a reflection of your desired interpretation, not of any proof of guilt.

        4. Barack Palin

          The doctors have stated repeatedly that they do not engage in selling fetal parts but that some affiliates accept compensation for staff time and space, not for fetal tissue which is being donated. 

          All just a play on words.  PP is selling the tissue either to cover their costs or to make a profit, we don’t know, the verdict is still out.

           

        5. sisterhood

          “…proof that PP is breaking the law…”

          Haven’t seen any proof of that.

          “liberals are automatically attacking him…”

          Here is Webster’s definition of liberal:

          I
          1. Possessing a free or generous heart: bountiful.
          2. Appropriate and/or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind.
          3. Free from narrowness, bigotry or bondage to authority or creed.

          II
          1. Any person who advises liberty of thought, speech or action.

        6. Barack Palin

          Here’s another definition that I find more fitting:

          liberal
          Liberal is a person with liberal views. However, an EXTREME liberal is the WORST type of person. To start with they brainwash people. Then they convince you that their pre made views they hand to you are open minded. They tell you to hate Republicans and everyone who thinks differently than you. They are the first to throw around the word racist. Most extreme liberal abuse minorities. They look for a group typically blacks or hispanics, convince them they are nothing and need the liberals to survive, then exploit them for political power. Extreme liberals are usually igorant but claim everyone else is. They pretend to be looking out for the people but are only looking out for themselves. Some day people will realize this is the truth.

          Yeah, that sounds about right.

          1. Don Shor

            Ironic source you chose, since it pointed me to this quote:

            “Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.” — Barry Goldwater

        7. Barack Palin

          The 3% myth….

          The 3 percent factoid is crafted to obscure the reality of Planned Parenthood’s business.
          The group performs about 330,000 abortions a year, or roughly 30 percent of all the abortions in the country. By its own accounting in its 2013-2014 annual report, it provides about as many abortions as Pap tests (380,000). The group does more breast exams and provides more breast-care services (490,000), but not by that much.
          The 3 percent figure is derived by counting abortion as just another service like much less consequential services.
          So abortion is considered a service no different than a pregnancy test (1.1 million), even though a box with two pregnancy tests can be procured from the local drugstore for less than $10.
          By Planned Parenthood’s math, a woman who gets an abortion but also a pregnancy test, an STD test and some contraceptives has received four services, and only 25 percent of them are abortion. This is a little like performing an abortion and giving a woman an aspirin, and saying only half of what you do is abortion.

          http://nypost.com/2015/08/03/planned-parenthoods-pathetic-3-percent-lie/

          1. Matt Williams

            BP, with all due respect, first you ask us to follow the money, which was done, and when Factcheck.org illuminated the fact that PP does not get any of its Governmental revenues from/for abortion services, the focus is changed to numbers of procedures. Perhaps, before you change the dialogue it would be “honest” to first acknowledge that the original misuse of (immoral use of?) Governmental funds is erroneous.

            Regarding the NY Post article, ALL of healthcare counts procedures/services the way that Planned Parenthood does. Are you really arguing that Planned Parenthood should follow a different procedure/service counting methodology fron the rest of the whole American healthcare system? You and Rich Lowry of the NY Post are tilting at windmills. Note, Richard A. “Rich” Lowry is the editor of National Review, the American conservative magazine of news and opinion, as well as a syndicated columnist, author, and conservative political commentator. The fact that he is making a pro-life argument is not a surprise. Lowry has attacked Planned Parenthood multiple times in the past.

            Lowry is willing to push the envelope on other conservative issues as well. At a 2014 forum in Washington, D.C. Lowry said, “The next time I hear a Republican strategist or Republican politician say that there are jobs that Americans won’t do, that person should be shot, he should be hanged, he should be wrapped in a carpet and thrown in the Potomac River.”

        8. Barack Palin

          Matt, with all due respect, but you have to resort to attacking the messenger when he makes a valid point that PP counts taking a pregnancy test the same as an abortion as far as the way they tally their numbers in order to try and mask the fact that indeed abortions count for much more than PP’s supposed 3% number.

          1. Matt Williams

            BP, with all due respect Planned Parenthood is not counting the way they are to mask anything. They are counting the way they are because that is the way every healthcare provider and every insurance company in America counts. Lowry’s point is the farthest thing from valid.

            An assessment of the possible validity of Lowry’s point would start with the following question, “Why is that what is expected from Aetna and Blue Cross and Sutter and UCDMC and Dignity Health and Kaiser Permanente and thousands and thousands of other healthcare providers is expected/acceptable for Planned Parenthood?” Mr. Lowry’s point is made even more invalid because the healthcare industry’s standard method of counting procedures/services has been in place for many decades. I’m not sure where you think that my fundamental observation about coding standards is in any way attacking the messenger. Quite to the contrary, it is making a very straightforward objective factual observation about the message you have chosen to share.

            With that very clear, unequivocal observation about the total fallaciousness of the message you chose to quote, I will again observe that your failure to vet your information, and Rich Lowry’s failure to vet his information is an example of tilting at windmills. If you want to make a moral argument against abortion, then make a moral argument. Don’t take numbers that you don’t understand the meaning of and try and draw conclusions from those numbers. If you or Mr. Lowry had even a rudimentary understanding of the standards that are in place for reporting of activity in the healthcare industry, then you wouldn’t make that mistake in your argumentation. The authority you should be citing counts sermons, not healthcare procedures/services.

      3. Barack Palin

        Matt, that would be akin to a construction company that built two buildings in a year, one an outhouse and the other a 20 story office high-rise, counting them both the same and saying that the 20 story building was only half their business.  People are smarter than that and if they have half a brain can see through these numbers and realize that abortions are far more than only 3% of PP’s business.

        1. sisterhood

          “Don’t take numbers that you don’t understand the meaning of and try and draw conclusions from those numbers. ”

          “The authority you should be citing counts sermons, not healthcare procedures/services.”

          I couldn’t have said it any better, or even half as good. I worked at a nutrition program, dealt firsthand w/ Planned Parenthood for a number of years.  

          “People are smarter than that and if they have half a brain can see through these numbers and realize that abortions are far more than only 3% of PP’s business.”

          Palin, if you have true statistics to prove that the number of abortions is far greater than 3%, you need to either put up or shut up because those are the true statistics, three percent; you’ve nothing to base your comment on but your religious bias against this fine organization of hardworking women & men who save countless lives every year providing excellent preventative health care for low income vulnerable at risk women.  You should walk a mile in their shoes and stop judging them.

          You should be thankful for your economic situation and try to have some compassion for people who have not had the breaks you’ve had.

          Peace.

          1. Matt Williams

            sisterhood: “… if you have true statistics to prove that the number of abortions is far greater than 3%, you need to either put up or shut up because those are the true statistics, three percent …”

            The bottom-line (at least for me) is that medical activity statistics are irrelevant regardless of whether the argument is either “for” or “against.” So I would say to you that by relying on the 3% number as you have in the statement above, you are falling into the same trap as BP is. (In my opinion) The abortion issue simply is not defined by numbers.

        2. Matt Williams

          BP, to torture your metaphor, the healthcare industry standard method of counting is “by building.” That “by building” method of counting has been in place for 100% of the healthcare industry in the United States since the 1960’s. That counting uses Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes that were developed by the American Medical Association (AMA) in the 1960s, and continue to be maintained by the AMA to this day. The reason this method of counting was adopted and used was to have consistency in the description of health care services in electronic and financial transactions. CPT was adopted as the counting standard by Medicare and Medicaid over 40 years ago. In the decades since the 1960’s it has been universally adopted by private insurance carriers and managed care companies.

          Why are you fighting the whole health care industry on this standardized activity reporting issue?

  9. Tia Will Post author

    BP

    All just a play on words.”

    Let me see if I have this right.

    In your eyes, the repeated statements by the PP representatives that they are receiving compensation for services, time and space provided, including zero if all of the work were done by the Daleiden company is just “a play of words”. While all of the clipping, editing, rephrasing, twisting to the point of immediate correction of the misstatement by the PP representatives, as presented by the Daleiden group are the literal truth.

    That is certainly an interesting interpretation. I remain in disagreement.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      If the outside company comes in to harvest the baby parts, and then transports them on their own, there are no costs to Planned Parenthood according to what the law states.

      1. Tia Will Post author

        TBD

        If the outside company comes in to harvest the baby parts, and then transports them on their own, there are no costs to Planned Parenthood according to what the law states.”

        And Dr. Nucatola said that she believed that if all the work was done by the Daleiden company that she believed that the charge would be zero which is in accord with the law.

  10. Tia Will Post author

    BP

    Donation of human tissue is legal. Despite his best deceptive efforts, Mr. Daleidan has not produced credible evidence of illegal activity in the form of the sales of fetal tissue. That is the point that should be being addressed, not the percentage of a completely legal service that is being provided.

    1. Barack Palin

      Says you, IMO I think Daleidan has some quotes from PP reps that at the very least looks like they’re receptive to revenue from fetal tissue.

  11. Tia Will Post author

    BP

    What I say is representative of my opinion. What Mr. Daleiden implies is his interpretation. What some individual doctor “might be receptive to” under some hypothetical circumstance in an alternate universe of  clipped and edited comments of Mr. Daleiden’s creation is equally irrelevant. What matters in terms of whether or not PP continues their services unfettered should be the law. The senate yesterday seems to have again acknowledged that it is the law, not any individual’s suspicion, innuendo, or political posturing that we are to follow.

    For a summary of the laws governing organ donation, I recommend the US Department of Health and Human Service Web Page on Organ and Tissue donation which has a summary list of the federal laws pertaining to organ and tissue donation and a link to state laws.

    1. Barack Palin

      Funny, but the Senate voted 53 to 46 to defund, just not enough to over ride a Democrat filibuster.  So I wouldn’t say that the Senate acknowledged that it is law at all.

  12. Tia Will Post author

    BP

     So I wouldn’t say that the Senate acknowledged that it is law at all.”

    So then your assertion would be that the Senate, like you, is more affected by perception than by the law ?

     

      1. Matt Williams

        Actually BP, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or colloquially Obamacare, did get the necessary 60 votes needed in order to move to a final vote. From Wikipedia …

        In January 2009 with the Republican minority in the Senate vowing to filibuster any bill they did not support, requiring a cloture vote to end debate, 60 votes would be necessary to get passage in the Senate. At the start of the 111th Congress, Democrats had only 58 votes; the Senate seat in Minnesota ultimately won by Al Franken was still undergoing a recount, and Arlen Specter was still a Republican. To reach 60 votes, negotiations were undertaken to satisfy the demands of moderate Democrats, and to try to bring several Republican senators aboard. On December 23, 2009 the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote).

  13. Tia Will Post author

    What I am saying is that it is the law that should matter. The law seems to have prevailed in this instance regardless of the cinematic gymnastics used to try to sway politicians. Can we at least agree that it is the law that should take precedence ?

    As previously stated, I have no problem with Mr. Daleiden trying to change laws with which he does not agree. I have a great deal of difficulty with him portraying words spoken presented out of order and in varying contexts as though they proved that a law was being broken when in fact it is not.

    1. Barack Palin

      What I am saying is that it is the law that should matter. 

      Remember that when conversations about illegal immigrants and other pet liberal causes are talked about.

      Laws should matter, right, you said it.

      1. Tia Will Post author

        BP

        Off topic, irrelevant, and not reflective of anything I have posted. Just as I would respect a legitimate attempt by Mr. Daleiden to change a law with which he disagrees, I reserve the right to do the same. That is, change the law, not break it.

    2. TrueBlueDevil

      The newest video (number 5) again apparently has Planned Parenthood saying they change procedures (“doctors can make it happen”) so that they can get the tissue they want, which my understanding is that this is a violation of the law. This is just one of the laws they may be breaking on a continual basis.

      (See new link, new video, below.)

  14. sisterhood

    I agree with Tia. If Daleidon had a really compelling case & straightforward evidence, he wouldn’t need to splice up the video, try to put words in the interviewees’ mouths, and basically produce something that looks to me, imho, like the product of a bored adolescent, not a serious political activist. He now lacks even a shred of credibility.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      This “bored adolescent” has garnered nationwide attention, and the attention of Congress. And there are still at least 7 videos to go.

      Didn’t Hillary Clinton even call the videos troubling?

      1. Barack Palin

        Yes she did TBD, and she took heat for it so she’s attempting to back off somewhat.  Whatever way the wind blows is how Hillary determines her positions.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Trump in a UK interview mentioned that Huma – as Hillary’s right hand person – had access to confidential information, as does disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner. Ugh.

      2. Tia Will Post author

        TBD

        Didn’t Hillary Clinton even call the videos troubling?”

        Are you suddenly seeing Hillary Clinton as someone who’s opinion you admire ?

        I think that I find the videos more troubling than any of you do. I see them as a dangerous misrepresentation of the truth which is threatening the health care of many poor American women.

      3. sisterhood

        ” “This “bored adolescent” has garnered nationwide attention…” ”
        The Kardashians also garner nationwide tention. Do you really believe all his spliced up videos are the best use of his time & energy to change the laws re: abortion?

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Who else has galvanized and educated the populace to what we are doing like this the past 10 years?

          FYI, he also posts the full video tapes, unedited.

          1. Matt Williams

            TBD, the other day when I was meeting with someone regarding my candidacy for City Council in 2016, he gave me some very sage advice. He said, “Once your campaign actually begins, if you are speaking to someone you already know, you are wasting your time.” The reason I mention that is that as best as I can see David Daleiden has indeed galvanized a lot of people, but virtually all of those people fall into the “someone you already know” category when it comes to abortion. Said another way, he has been galvanizing the choir in which he is already one of the voices.

        2. Frankly

          David Daleiden has indeed galvanized a lot of people, but virtually all of those people fall into the “someone you already know” category when it comes to abortion. Said another way, he has been galvanizing the choir in which he is already one of the voices.

          I’m not so sure about this Matt.  I for one am not anti-abortion; but this story and the videos are confirming what I see as a disturbing callousness over the moral sensitivities.  I think it is upsetting a lot of people that are middle of the road on the issue like me.

          The left and right will never budge.

          1. Matt Williams

            “disturbing callousness over the moral sensitivities” Help me understand this statement. Who is the callousness toward? Is it toward the patient who has voluntarily chosen to donate the tissue to scientific research? Or is it toward someone else?

        3. Frankly

          We returned an MRAP because of symbolism even though it was useful.  Planned Parenthood should not be selling fetal body parts even at cost if only because of the symbolism.

          1. Don Shor

            Are you willing to accept the unintended consequences of this policy with regard to the availability of human tissue for medical research?

          2. Matt Williams

            Frankly,

            First, there is no selling, only donation by the patients.

            Second, what is the symbolism associated with a patient donating fetal body tissue to stem cell research?

            Third, is the symbolism any different from the symbolism that exists from you or I having on our driver’s license the indicator that we are a tissue/organ donor?

        4. Frankly

          Second, what is the symbolism associated with a patient donating fetal body tissue to stem cell research?

          Third, is the symbolism any different from the symbolism that exists from you or I having on our driver’s license the indicator that we are a tissue/organ donor?

          Matt, you are not making the correct analogy here.  The correct analogy would be having a clinic that ends the life of people beyond a certain age because they are no longer “viable” and the family agrees to donate tissues from their corpse and the clinic charges the recipient at cost.

          The symbolism is simply a level of morbidity and disrespect for a life that otherwise should be valued or at least respected and honored.  The symbolism is poking a sharp stick into the eye of everyone having a strong moral aversion to abortion.

          1. Don Shor

            The correct analogy would be having a clinic that ends the life of people beyond a certain age because they are no longer “viable” and the family agrees to donate tissues from their corpse and the clinic charges the recipient at cost.

            Sure. In our family, we donate our bodies to science upon our deaths. My father and mother both did that. I assume that the cost of distributing the parts as needed is borne by the end user as reimbursement to the facility that processed them.
            We consider it highly respectful to use our bodies that way. I consider that you, Mr. Daleiden, and the opponents of Planned Parenthood are being very disrespectful of the women who donated the aborted fetuses. They made the decision, and in many cases I imagine it was very difficult, that some good and some purpose should come from their decision to have an abortion.
            Yet you disrespect that. You and others would block it. Some would even block all funds going to Planned Parenthood, disrupting their many womens’ health services including birth control, because of this issue. Sharp stick in the eye to those women, I’d say.

          2. Matt Williams

            “The symbolism is simply a level of morbidity and disrespect for a life that otherwise should be valued or at least respected and honored. The symbolism is poking a sharp stick into the eye of everyone having a strong moral aversion to abortion.”

            Frankly, the abortion itself accomplishes all that symbolism for everyone having a strong moral aversion to abortion. There is no tissue available to be donated without the abortion transpiring, so that bell is already rung, regardless of whether the patient chooses to donate tissue. Once you ring the bell, it can’t be unrung. For everyone having a strong moral aversion to abortion, the needle registering the level of morbidity and disrespect is already “pinned” and can’t go any higher.

        5. Frankly

          Are you willing to accept the unintended consequences of this policy with regard to the availability of human tissue for medical research?

          First, planned parenthood is a political lightening rod.  Also they are supposed to be providing services to women that need prenatal care or that cannot afford to get an abortion through a paid medical practitioner.  They are not supposed to be in the business of providing tissue for medical research.   Private practitioners can do that with the consent of the family.

          Here are the Planned Parenthood mission objectives:

          – to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual
          – to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services
          – to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality
          – to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications

          Where do you see a mission for providing fetal tissue for medical research above and beyond what is for reproductive health care?

          1. Don Shor

            First, planned parenthood is a political lightening rod. Also they are supposed to be providing services to women that need prenatal care or that cannot afford to get an abortion through a paid medical practitioner. They are not supposed to be in the business of providing tissue for medical research. Private practitioners can do that with the consent of the family.

            And what and who has made them a political lightning rod?

            They are not “in the business of providing tissue for medical research.” Their services generate that tissue, and the women donate it. They convey it to those who use it.

            They are private practitioners.

            But I will take your answer to my question as ‘yes’ you are willing to accept the loss of tissue for human medical research, because you find this all distasteful.

            Funny how emotions come into play in some of your arguments, but you disparage them when they’re on the ‘other’ side.

          2. Matt Williams

            First, planned parenthood is a political lightening rod. Also they are supposed to be providing services to women that need prenatal care or that cannot afford to get an abortion through a paid medical practitioner. They are not supposed to be in the business of providing tissue for medical research. Private practitioners can do that with the consent of the family.

            You are ignoring history in the comment above. Planned Parenthood hasn’t made itself into a political lightning rod, the right to life zealots have made Planned Parenthood into a political lightning rod. Further, all you need to do is talk to Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, James Barrett, Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, Robert Sanderson, Dr. Barnett Slepian, Dr. George Tiller, Hector Zevallos, Rosalee Jean, June Barret, Dr. Calvin Jackson, Dr. David Gandell, and Emily Lyons to get a clear perspective on what it is like to be an independent paid medical practitioner who provides abortion services.

            You are smarter than to have made such an out of touch with reality assertion.

        6. Frankly

          Sure. In our family, we donate our bodies to science upon our deaths.

          Your family allows clinics to end the life of older family members so their parts can be donated?

          1. Matt Williams

            … so their parts can be donated

            Again, you are smarter than to make such a ridiculous statement. It is a logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. You have no evidence that even one woman in all of America has gone through an abortion in order to provide body parts for medical science? Women do indeed choose to have abortions, but never for the reason you are ascribing to them.

            You are practicing a logical fallacy when you

  15. TrueBlueDevil

    Fifth Planned Parenthood Video, Texas Mega Center

    ** Sections GRAPHIC. **

    “Intact Fetuses”

    PP: 1:50 – “We deviate from our standards” [to get needed tissue donations, which I think is a violation of the law]

    PP: “Doctors can make it happen” [alter procedures for tissue collection]\

    Doctors collecting their own tissue from their abortions to conduct their own research? Will alter procedures.

    Another Texas location had concerns about what was legal.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egGUEvY7CEg

     

  16. Michael Harrington

    Secretly taping people’s discussions is problematic.  States vary in terms of the elements of the crime, or the civil causes of action.

    About 20 years ago, I was assigned to defend a pilot in a personal injury case arising from a plane crash in California.  The plaintiff’s attorney, before the litigation was commenced, chose to call the defendant pilot (who became my client later) and take a secretly recorded statement.  Then the lawyer transcribed it, and tried to use it to extract a settlement from my client.  I researched the issue very carefully, and raised it with the lawyer.  He was crowing about how is HIS state in the Midwest, he could make the tape without legal trouble.  Well, he made the tape in his state AND California, and here, it’s highly illegal to tape such private conversations.  I learned that it also violated Federal law: if the recording violated a state law, then it violates federal law.  I sent the legal research to the plaintiff’s lawyer, and the case disappeared …. His conduct cost the Plaintiff his claims, but the client probably never heard why suddenly his case had no value.

    I have not looked at the issues in this case, or the locations and applicable state and federal law to each of the meetings that were secretly recorded.

    But Mr. Daleiden and colleagues should be very careful, as I am sure many interested parties and legal authorities are looking for a way to sue them, or put them in jail.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      It looks like they were very careful (so far). Recordings in public and in states where there is one-party consent.

      How to you feel about the doctors who apparently harvested fetal tissue by altering thier procedures, thereby breaking federal laws? And possibly the doctors / managers pitching these ideas committing conspiracy to do same?

  17. sisterhood

    Re: getting a person’s consent to video them, it’s a shame law enforcement is not required to tell a person they’re interviewing that they are secretly video taping the interview. Makes me trust them less.

  18. TrueBlueDevil

    Selling “complete fetuses”… is it my imagination, or are the revelations increasing in intensity?

    And still the doctors and technicians laughing about fetal tissue, the baby’s gender, the process… all rather callous in the least. On top of that, they have so far been primarily women.

  19. Tia Will Post author

    TBD

    “Who else has galvanized and educated the populace to what we are doing like this the past 10 years?”

    First, I do not believe that he is educating the populace to “what we are doing like this the past 10 years”. I believe that he is portraying common practices as though they are illegal when in fact they are not. He is portraying this as being substantially different from a corneal, or kidney, or placental donation, because he believes it is immoral, not because he has demonstrated that it is illegal. The same laws that govern donation of these other organs also apply to the donation of fetal tissue.
    .

    “FYI, he also posts the full video tapes, unedited.”

    I do not believe that this is accurate. I started watching the 5th tape and found that there is much cutting back and forth between interviews which are interspersed with select snippets of laws and quotes from others arranged so as to bolster his version of what is being said.  I do not believe that this qualifies as “unedited”. If you have a completely unedited and unannotated version of the 5th interview, please post the link. I was using the link provided in a previous post by BP.

  20. Tia Will Post author

    TBD

    all rather callous in the least. On top of that, they have so far been primarily women.”

    Callous is in the eye of the beholder and certainly does not equal illegal. And what is the comment about being primarily women have to do with anything at all ?

        1. Tia Will Post author

          BP

          The issue is not pro Planned Parenthood or anti Planned Parenthood, the charge that is being made is the legality of their actions. It is this, and the lack of evidence for it to date on which I have been commenting.

  21. WesC

    I do not believe that just because a person is opposed to abortion, that it makes them pro-life.  In many cases the “pro-lifers” morality  is deeply lacking if all they want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed.  Why would anyone think that a pro-lifer’s morality is lacking?  Because many a person claims to be pro-life but at the same time fights tooth and nail to oppose any tax money going for these programs under the guise of lowering taxes and shrinking government.  This is not not pro-life. This is simply pro-birth.

    1. Tia Will Post author

      Wes C

      I would like to add one additional point to yours which is very well articulated about “pro life” vs “pro birth”.

      Those who oppose abortion regardless of circumstances seem to feel that their moral code of “protection of the fetus” gives them hegemony over the decision making of the woman right up until the moment of birth. The minute the child is delivered, all of a sudden this woman who they believe that they had the right to dictate to is now on her own and only now is fully responsible for the consequences of her actions. What is the moral premise behind the idea that our society ( as determined by the far religious right ) gets to determine what is best for her  and her fetus, but she is solely responsible for the well being of her  born child ?

  22. sisterhood

    Agreed. Many of the same pro-birth folks are against government spending for the unwanted baby’s social services (foster/adoption services) WIC, CSFP, SNAP, disability (maternity leave), paid sick leave for the occasionally sick mom and baby. They are also against an employer paying for the mom’s designated space for breast pumping & milk storage, and her contraception, so she doesn’t have to make the choice in the first place. It’s all rather baffling.

  23. Barack Palin

    You both missed the other Democrat talking point, then the babies grow old and conservatives push grandma in a wheelchair off the cliff.

    Peace

  24. Tia Will Post author

    Frankly

    Planned Parenthood should not be selling fetal body parts even at cost if only because of the symbolism.”

    And, once again, they are not selling fetal body parts. One cannot consider something to be “selling” if would be free if the recipient were to do all the involved work thereby freeing up the PP staff and space for their usual functions. If the charge is zero, as Dr. Nucatola stated in the full interview, then there is no sale.

    No one is “selling body parts” although Mr. Daleiden and his supporters continue to use this term which “pokes a stick” in the eyes of those of us who believe in the use of tissue for direct lifesaving or research purposes whether that tissue is a cornea, or placental tissue ( of which I have collected a great deal intact during the course of my career) or a kidney, or bone marrow, or donated fetal tissue.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      Then when the 3rd-party company comes in to collect and sort the body parts, why are they charged fees?

      Any why are numerous doctors haggling about prices for various organs, and altering their medical procedures, which is against the law?

      If it’s not about money and selling body parts, why isn’t there just a flat fee for tissue donation – say, $25 per organ or $50 per organ?

      1. Matt Williams

        “Then when the 3rd-party company comes in to collect and sort the body parts, why are they charged fees?”

        They aren’t.

        “why isn’t there just a flat fee for tissue donation – say, $25 per organ or $50 per organ?”

        The answer to that is simple, and summarized in the shipping information below.

        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

  25. Tia Will Post author

    Frankly

    Where do you see a mission for providing fetal tissue for medical research above and beyond what is for reproductive health care?”

    You are missing a key differentiating point here. As Dr. Nuctola explained Planned Parenthood does not do research on fetal tissue which as you have correctly stated is not used for reproductive research. What they do is to donate fetal tissue for research by those in other research facilities who are involved in research on fetal tissue. It is very important to understand the difference between the research aren of PP and their clinical services branch . Both Dr. Nucatola and Dr. Ginde referred to this important distinction in their interviews.

    People who harvest kidneys for transplant most often are not themselves involved in the research that has made transplantation a possibility. Just because it may not be a part of their mission statement does not mean that it is not a completely legal and legitimate part of their overall services.

    1. Frankly

      Nice try.

      Harvesting and providing tissue for research is not in their mission.

      If that is what they are doing, then they need to change their mission to reflect it.

      No organization should be doing work outside their stated mission.

      1. Matt Williams

        Frankly, in the early 1900’s when Union Carbide discovered that one of their sludge pits did not freeze during winter weather, and that the reason was that that pit had a substance in it that ultimately became Prestone, did their stated mission include the marketing and sale of automobile antifreeze? When Jack Welch charted the future of General Electric, were there a few different times when the businesses he contemplated getting into were outside general Electric’s mission?

        You are dancing on the head of a pin.

          1. Don Shor

            Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications

            Emphasis added.
            http://plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission#sthash.rYT4UQbC.dpuf

          2. Matt Williams

            At least we both know what our location is. Both of us have a predilection toward pointy headedness. 🙂

          1. Don Shor

            You are dancing on the head of a pin.
            You have no rational basis for your objection here. It is purely emotional. So there is little point in continuing the discussion.

      2. Tia Will Post author

         

        No organization should be doing work outside their stated mission.”

        I disagree. If this were held to be true for all companies then there could be no charitable work done by any group outside their mission statement . There could be no donations of money, time , services or space to any outside group if that groups activities were outside the “mission statement” of the company.

        So no forums held in the meeting spaces of local businesses for public discussion of items not in that companies “mission statement”, no events for children’s programs, no support of the arts or activities for the elderly. What is clear is that I see tissue donation  ( not tissue sales) as a positive for society and I see that donation of services is legitimate, but not necessary and that a request for a reasonable compensation for employees time and one’s space is legal albeit less charitable.

  26. Tia Will Post author

    Frankly and Matt

    Your family allows clinics to end the life of older family members so their parts can be donated?”

    Regardless of whether or not there is a logical fallacy involved here, Frankly is raising a valid point that some may have previously missed or may  not be familiar with the consent process and its implications. In the interview with Dr. Nucatola, the male interviewer actually tries to reword what she has said to imply that women are making the decision to abort in order to donate tissue. Dr. Nucatola corrects him by being clear that the consent processes have to be completely separate and in the correct order. The woman has to have made the decision to abort and signed the surgical consent form before the issue of donation is even addressed at all with her.

    I pointed this out specifically in my article on the Nucatola interview since his attempt to twist her words to mean the opposite of what she said was so blatant.

    1. Barack Palin

      Not to speak for Frankly but I think his point is that when someone is donating their organs they die an accidental or natural death and then their organs are donated.  They are not donated as a result of someone deciding to have an abortion and kill off a fetus.

      1. Matt Williams

        BP, yours is indeed a valid point, that difference clearly does exist. However, that is not the point that Frankly was making in his statement. He was specifically saying that the fetus was being aborted in order to accomplish the tissue donation.

        With that said, what your point appears to be is that a patient should not have the right to donate any of the tissue of their fetus to scientific research. Is that the point you are making?

        1. Frankly

          Matt – BP has it correct.  My point was that someone vested with authority was deciding to terminate a life generally for reasons that the life would end up being an inconvenience and justified by an opinion the life was not viable, and then the clinic that conducted the termination of that life was selling the body parts (at cost of processing) even though the selling of body parts was not in their mission.

          And I was making the comparison to a situation where someone vested with authority would decide to terminate the life of an old person or sick person because of inconvenience and justified with a determination that the life was no longer viable and the clinic that performed the termination of that life would then sell those body parts at cost of processing.

          What you were comparing is the case where the person who’s parts are being sold or donated after death would make the decision.

          Big difference.

          I was not suggesting that the mother of the fetus was making the decision to abort only to sell or donate the body parts… although if there is ever a case where there is evidence that money was given to the mother, all hell will break loose.

          1. Matt Williams

            and then the clinic that conducted the termination of that life was selling the body parts (at cost of processing) even though the selling of body parts was not in their mission.

            Frankly, the statement you have laid out above is patently false. The clinic that conducts the termination never has legal possession of the tissue (you use the term body parts, but I believe that is incorrect). The patient (the person you describe as the person of authority) transfers ownership (by donation) of the tissue to the scientific research organization. The clinic, like FedEx or UPS, fulfils the role of transfer agent, ensuring that the tissue arrives at the new owner in a condition consistent with the requirements of the scientific research being conducted. Unless there is both a voluntary donation and and voluntary request from a research organization there is no transfer undertaken.

            Regarding the case of the elderly person, if that person does not make the conscious, well-documented in the medical record, decision to donate their tissue to science, then no tissue can be transferred. Needless to say, that conscious, well-documented in the medical record, decision by the elderly/terminal patient has to be made by the patient before they die.

        2. Frankly

          Mr. Williams…

          I get the sense you are working hard to slip away from having to respond to the points I am making.

          Either that our you are failing to get it, or I am failing to explain myself well enough.

          The fetus is a life and does not make the decision to donate (using your term for sake of argument even though it isn’t really accurate) its own tissue (using your term for the sake of argument even though it really isn’t descriptive enough).  Someone else makes the decision.

          So my contrasting challenge to you… using this same decision-making construct, what if the tissue came from an old or sick person that anther decides to dispatch and donate?

          That is the difference here.  You and Don were both making a false comparison of an adult deciding what to do with his/her parts after death.  The life in the womb being terminated does not get to make the choice.

          And because the life in the womb does not get to make the choice, Planned Parenthood should not be donating (or selling) the parts.

          IMO, it would be more appropriate to demand a funeral and burial for the terminated life in the womb.

          1. Matt Williams

            Frankly, you have gotten to the heart of the issue. Your model conflates the “life” issue with the tissue donation issues. The problem with that conflation is that for a substantial number of people the “life” issues make the tissue donation issues either moot or irrelevant.

            If a person’s beliefs fall on the pro-life side of the “life” issues then metaphorically their tachometer is already pinned … and what they are really arguing about when they talk about fetal tissue is their belief that that any and all fetal tissue that is subsequent to an abortion procedure should never, never, never exist in the first place. That belief biases everything and anything they say about tissue donation/transfer. They are unable to view such donation/transfer in a vacuum.

            Regarding your elderly person situation. That person gets a funeral and burial regardless of whether they have voluntarily chosen to be a donor or not. If they have chosen to be a donor, the funeral and burial is of the body after the donated organs have been removed. If they have chosen not to be a donor, the funeral and burial is of the body with no organs removed.

            Ultimately, and this gets back to the “life” issues, there is not a clear consensus whether the removed tissue is part of the woman’s body, or a separate and distinct body in and of itself. That debate will rage from here to eternity without a resolution.

  27. Frankly

    Tia: No one is “selling body parts”

    Definition of “sell” is to give or hand over (something) in exchange for money.

    I think you need to explain how you are redefining this generally easy to understand word.  And also explaining away the words spoken by Dr. Nuctola clearly recorded.  She admits that Planned Parenthood charges per-specimen for baby body parts, uses pseudo-partial-birth abortion procedures in order to get salable parts.  You want to make the case that they are only charging to re-coop the costs of processing and/or shipping, that does not change the fact that the parts are sold.

      1. Matt Williams

        BP, your coffee transaction is between two parties … the coffee shop and you the customer. The human being employee who transfers the coffee liquid into the cup and hands that coffee cup to you provides the handling. In the case of fetal tissue, there is no storage. If there is not bona fide request from a scientific research organization in Planned Parenthood’s hands, the tissue is disposed of under the government-regulated biomedical waste protocols.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      If they were just charging for storage and transportation costs, there would be no need to differentiate prices for different items. It would be, say, $25 per tissue sample or organ.

      Secondly, when the 3rd-party vendor came in to remove tissue, there are then no “handling” or “transportation” costs.

      Third, someone should be investigating whether these 3rd-party vendors are slipping money through the back door to the doctors or “technicians”.

      Our justice system is so beholden to ideological positions / individuals, our legal system seems toothless.

      IRS scandal / targeting Tea Party groups, IRS officials don’t provide requested information, nothing happens. Planned Parenthood tapes. Clinton Email Server Lies … well, at least the last one may be getting a little attention.

       

        1. Matt Williams

          BP, I will reiterate my belief that simultaneous, transparent investigations of both Daleiden’s organization and Planned Parenthood should be undertaken. That would take the “guesswork” out of this issue.

      1. Matt Williams

        “If they were just charging for storage and transportation costs, there would be no need to differentiate prices for different items. It would be, say, $25 per tissue sample or organ.”

        You have made an unfounded assumption in the statement above. That assumption is that all scientific research organizations use the exact same tissue. The reality of scientific (stem cell) research is that cells from different parts of the human body are indeed very different, and the numbers of tissue mismatches far exceeds the number of tissue matches. For example, if you went into the hospital to have a kidney implantation (I hope you don’t have kidney disease. If so I apologize for inadvertently choosing an example that resonates negatively for you) and the surgeon is provided liver tissue to implant, the mismatch between what your body needs and what has been provided will give you a 100% kidney implantation failure rate.

        “Secondly, when the 3rd-party vendor came in to remove tissue, there are then no “handling” or “transportation” costs.”

        That is absolutely correct, and consistent with what actually happens. The vast majority of organizations that conduct scientific research using human body tissue have neither the resources nor the available time to deploy those resources to the many sites where the tissue originates.

    2. Matt Williams

      Frankly, again, “ownership” of the tissue is directly transferred from the patient to the scientific research organization. If you define a donation as a sale with a $0.00 “price” then there is a sale, but it is between the patient and the recipient of the tissue.

      1. Frankly

        Oh I get it.  From your view the “patient” owns the decision because the life in the womb is only “tissue” of the patient.  So then the patient is granting permission to donate (or sell) her OWN tissue.

        If a gunman shoots a pregnant woman and kills the baby in her womb, should the gunman just be found guilty of damaging the woman’s tissue?

        So, do you have a gestational cutoff for this view?  If the tissue is over some months in gestation, would you then consider it has some rights as a human life?

        When do you think life begins after conception?

        1. Matt Williams

          The questions you are asking are “life” issues, not tissue donation/transfer issues. Regarding those “life” issues, as I have said several times in prior posts, my personal beliefs are that each woman has a right to choose (within certain parameters that others who are much more knowledgeable than me have set for our society as a whole), and that when, in 1970 when I was personally confronted with that choice, my partner’s and my choice was life for our child. He is 44 years old now and I treasure every day of those 44 years.

        2. Frankly

          (within certain parameters that others who are much more knowledgeable than me have set for our society as a whole)

          First, I think there are few more knowledgeable that you.

          Second, this is the crux of the debate.

          Who gets to decide?  Is it a medical, scientific or moral decision?

          My opinion is that we should define “life” as being very early in gestation.   Now, I am fine setting a benchmark about “viable” life… in other words a baby in utero that has a reasonable probability of survival.

          And that benchmark would be medical and/or scientific.  Basically a hard-line gestation limit for abortion unless the mother’s life is materially in danger from the continued pregnancy.

          But then you still have the moral issue about the treatment of that life before and after the line.

          Keep in mind that I am not anti-abortion.

          Also keep in mind that science will likely keep reducing the time in gestation where a fetus is considered viable. I would expect ex-utero incubation advances to eventually explode this issue from all perspectives.

          1. Matt Williams

            Understood completely. Everything you have included in your very clear and articulate comment above is part of the “life” issues … which are separate from the mechanical/clerical tissue transfer issues.

            The core of what you have presented above is the argument that the tissue should not even be available for the mechanical/clerical transfer in the first place. That is an argument that has a lot of traction in our society, but clearly not universal, or even majority, traction. It is indeed a moral/ethical issue. With that said, whether the mechanical/clerical tissue transfer process is being completed accurately, correctly and within the legal parameters set by the government of our society is really very simple to verify through an open, transparent, investigational audit.

            One of the major challenges of any moral/ethical issue in our society is that we can’t even agree on the parameters. In 2003 a team in Santa Clara University tackled this problem and developed a framework for moral/ethical decision making. Their paper discussed five different approaches to thinking ethically.

            — First off there was the Utilitarian approach, which was developed in the 19th century to determine what laws were morally best. To analyze an issue using the Utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

            — Next there was the Rights approach. Developed in the 18th century, this approach dealt directly with an individual’s right to choose for him or herself.

            — Then there was the Fairness or Justice approach which is rooted in the teachings of the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle who said, “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.” Meaning that everyone should be treated equally with no favoritism shown or discrimination. This is a common aspect of most businesses today because of the anti-discrimination acts and equal opportunity employer (EOE) laws in effect.

            — The teams’ next approach was the Common-Good approach. The team states that this approach focuses on “ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all.” So to make a decision based on the common-good of all involved in the decision would be to make sure that that outcome provides a benefit to all individuals.

            — Last discussed was the Virtue approach which “assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive…”
            Reference:

            “Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making”, Velasquez, et al. 2003
            Online Article from Santa Clara University. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/thinking.html

        3. Frankly

          Matt – Interesting.

          So…

          Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken? How about with your sister? Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal? If your dog dies, why not eat it?

          You can take all of the approaches you listed and come to the conclusion that some or all of these should be moral (right).

          And let’s look at the MRAP decision… how did that fit into any of these approaches listed?

          Morality (the choice between what is right and what is wrong) is made complicated by our human sensitivities.

          We can argue to we are blue in the face as to where these sensitives originate from.  The pious would tend to believe that it is echos of the voice of God in their conscious and subconscious.  For example CS Lewis in his book Mere Christianity use the example that in a transaction between two people where there is negotiations, both would have a intuitive sense for when someone is taken advantage of.  In other words a built in sensitivity to right and wrong.  From Lewis’s perspective this was a reflection of and proof of “God in the house.”

          The secular would likely point to “natural law” as us evolving with sets of social and cultural norms that formed our sense of right and wrong.   Maybe they would point to cannibals and ISIS as proof.  if God was in the house and responsible for our sense of right and wrong, then why would some people do the opposite?  The pious would simply claim these are Godless people or people with the voice of the devil in their heads.

          But in any case, I think we should agree that many would consider the forced termination of a new life within the womb and then the harvesting and donating or selling of tissues and parts from that life after is was dispatched, as inflaming some pretty profound and deep-seated moral sensitivities of a great number of people.  And when you think about this type of sensitivity and compare it to the sensitivity displayed over an MRAP, well you might understand why there is a cultural war underway.

          And by the way, profound love and joy are not explained by science.

          1. Matt Williams

            Frankly, I can agree with all of the above.

            With that said, “a great number of people” is probably quite a bit short of “a majority of the people.” However, I have no way of definitively confirming that.

        4. Tia Will Post author

          Frankly

          When do you think life begins after conception?”

          No one knows the answer to this question. Why would we count life as “starting” at a point in time that we are completely unable to determine with current technology. Could one not also state the sperm and the eft are “alive” prior to meeting up. They have the potential to join up and form a blastocyst, so why not equally protect them ?  The idea that “life begins at conception” is a religious construct. We do not have a scientifically based construct of “when life begins” and I do not happen to agree with this arbitrarily chosen and unknown point in time.

          The fetus is a life and does not make the decision to donate “

          Now this is a true statement which misses a critical point. The fetus is not capable of making or communicating to us its desires ( if any) about tissue donation. So let’s look at your “end of life” issues from a different perspective. Let’s take the example of an elderly person who has lost all cognitive ability, is in a coma and on life support. No one would deny that they are alive. No one would deny that they are human. And yet, many would not have a problem with the decision made in conjunction with family members to turn off life support equipment if in the opinion of the appropriate family members this is what the person would have wanted or lacking that knowledge, what the family members themselves believe is the best course of action. These people are allowed after having made the decision to shut off the equipment to donate tissue for transplant or for research.  Do you not believe that this common practice should be allowed ?

          1. Matt Williams

            “When do you think life begins after conception?”

            Frankly’s question above opens up a whole world of possibilities and questions. One of those questions is, “Why “after conception”? There is no question that both the sperm cell and the egg cell are alive when they come into contact. They are in fact alive before they come into contact. If either the egg cell or the sperm cell is not alive when they come into contact then no conception will take place.

    3. Tia Will Post author

      Frankly

      “I think you need to explain how you are redefining this generally easy to understand word.”

      And I think that you need to stop telling me what I am saying. I am not “redefining “anything at all. There is an exchange of money. But what is being “exchanged” is the time  and expertise of the PP staff and the space and equipment needed to prepare the tissue for transfer, not the tissue itself. You are consistently ignoring this point which the PP doctors have stated and  I have posted again and again.

  28. Tia Will Post author

    Frankly

    My point was that someone vested with authority was deciding to terminate a life generally for reasons that the life would end up being an inconvenience and justified by an opinion the life was not viable”

    I think that your use of the phrase “would end up being an inconvenience” is very telling. You believe that you know what is in the hearts and minds of the women making this often agonizing decision. I would respond that neither you, nor I , nor any other poster here knows this for any individual who has chosen abortion. Since we do not know this, we have no right whatsoever to judge her or the doctors providing this legal medical service. Whether you, or Matt, or Don, or I , or anyone else approves of abortion is totally beyond the point. This is by law, the decision of the woman. If you do not like that law, then work to change it. I have no problem with that.

    But do not claim that you know someone else’s motives. Do not lie to make your points ( as Dalieden is doing). And do not hold me, or anyone else to your religious and moral standard and then state that you believe in the United States and our Constitution both of which were in part founded on the concept of religious freedom, not religious freedom for Christians only, and religious subjugation for everyone else.

  29. sisterhood

    “And do not hold me, or anyone else to your religious and moral standard and then state that you believe in the United States and our Constitution both of which were in part founded on the concept of religious freedom, not religious freedom for Christians only, and religious subjugation for everyone else.”

    Frankly, please don’t hold me to your religious or moral standards, either. I have my own.

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