Fetal Tissue Research and Defunding Planned Parenthood

With the new Trump administration there is a push to defund Planned Parenthood (PP).  This is now a hot issue.  An article in Forbes Magazine by Matthew Herper, dated August 12, 2015, titled The New England Journal of Medicine Fact-Checks the Republican Debate, the journal’s editors attack the pro-life Republican platform and especially the defunding of PP.   The article points out that the NEJM is a noted leftist organization: “its not news that the New England Journal tends to be left-leaning.”  This article and the piece below by Alta Charo are worth reading because they discuss important issues which are easily misunderstood by the general population and need a vigorous debate.

The opinion piece by Alta Charo, titled Fetal Tissue Fallout, makes some important points that need to be discussed and debated.  Charo argues that it is morally wrong to oppose fetal tissue research because, she claims, it does not increase abortions, and it provides massive dividends that save lives. Charo is a lawyer and a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin, according to the Herper article.  I wonder why a lawyer is writing an editorial in a medical journal. Could it be that the best doctors are embarrassed to do it, or perhaps they could not find one to do it? Just asking!

I agree, there is a strong argument to be made for fetal tissue research, however, the killing of an innocent human being is never moral under any circumstances.  This is a first order issue.  What is legal is not always moral; abortion is one such example. My argument is not against fetal tissue research, it’s against the killing of an innocent human being.  Fetal tissue research is not a hot button issue with the pro-life cause; I don’t know anyone who opposes it.  Has any Republican made any statement against fetal tissue research?  I’ve never heard one yet.  What we oppose is the killing of an innocent human life, not fetal tissue research.  Let’s look at it this way.  Let’s say I’m a scientist and you have a condition that may lead me to discover a cure for a certain disease, but in order for me to get what I must have for my research, I need to kill you first and then rummage through your cadaver for my research.  Would this be acceptable? Let’s further say that I find a cure for a certain condition, would this, then, lead us to conclude we can kill living human beings in order to find cures?  When we treat human life as disposable, we lose any sense of human dignity; we’re no different from animals.

Another question is whether fetal tissue can only be obtained from aborted babies. How many fetuses die in birth, or soon thereafter or from accidents.  How about still-born babies?  In the United States there are 25,000 babies  still-born per year; nearly 68 per day.  Are aborted babies the only way to get fetal tissue? Charo’s argument fails completely. As for using aborted babies for fetal tissue research, I agree there is an argument to be made, but I will leave this specific issue for another time.  Let ‘s continue with some of her other claims:

Charo argues that fetal research is not only a right but a duty.  The article blasts those who oppose fetal tissue research.  “Morality and conscience have been cited to justify not only health care professionals’ refusal to provide certain legal medical services to their patients but even obstruction of others’ fulfillment of that duty.  She does not say it, but I assume from her tone here that she puts all abortion opponents in the same basket as opponents of fetal tissue research.  Charo makes the claim that fetal research “will in no way actually affect the number of fetuses that are aborted or brought to term.”  She provides no proof or back-up for this claim.  How does she know this?  A claim such as this violates the Universal Principle of Reason. According to this principle, anything arbitrarily asserted without evidence can be arbitrarily denied without evidence.* In addition, what difference does it make whether it affects the number of abortions or not? So what? This does not support her argument.

Charo’s article blasts the researcher who exposed the sale of fetal body parts from aborted babies by PP.  She makes this statement: “The current uproar was invited when an antiabortion activist, posing as a biomedical research company representative, captured on video – which he then edited in the most misleading way possible – discussions by Planned Parenthood physicians.”  Here we go again.  How does Charo justify making this statement?  Another arbitrary  asserted claim. How does editing the video affect the content or make it misleading?  She provides no examples.  Were the people on the video fed what they said as in a movie script? There was probably dozens of hours of video, of course it had to be edited.  How does the editing change what we see PP executives saying?  Here is one of these videos, how does editing change what you see and hear in it?  A claim arbitrarily made and arbitrarily deniable.

I could not get past page one without encountering so many subjective allegations without any evidence. The bottom paragraph of page one says this: “Planned Parenthood services – more than 95% of which involve such things as contraception and screening for sexually transmitted diseases, rather than abortion.”  This is a very misleading statistic.  How did they calculate it?  When I took statistics in college the instructor had a saying, “statistics don’t lie but liars can figure.”  Here are some facts: Planned Parenthood does 30% of the nation’s abortions – over 320,000 per year.  They receive over $500 million in tax payer funds from the government each year.  Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of their services are for abortions. Click here for an article debunking this.  In addition, the Washington Post, no conservative newspaper, added another piece debunking this 3% myth.  Click here for the article.

*Ten Universal Principles; A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues, Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D, Ignatius Press, 2011, pp 7&16:

Advertisements

Planned Parenthood and the Left: An Inconvenient Truth

The recent Planned Parenthood undercover videos have provided a venue for a discussion that the leftist media does not want to have:  The horror of abortion.  The videos brought to our living room the truth about abortion.  Is abortion “a woman’s right to choose”? or “women’s health”?  The inescapable videos bring the truth about abortion in front of our eyes.  The killing, by dismemberment, of a human being.  There are people who do not want to see these images.  Why not?  They do not want to admit an inconvenient truth:  Abortion kills a human being in the most brutal way, by dismemberment, limb by limb.   We are horrified by the beheadings by the ISIS killers in the Middle East.   Abortion does the same thing and we call it “women’s health.”  Who are the barbarians?

Leftist politicians, such as Nancy Pelosi, say that the videos are doctored?  doctored?  have they watched any of them in full?  probably not. Click here to hear Ms. Pelosi verify this statement.  So, let me see if I understand this, you have not watched the videos but you think they’re doctored? Do you have any proof of this?  No.  On September 27, 2015, NBC’s “Meet the Press” host, Chuck Todd had Carly Fiorina on.  He thought he would catch her in a misstatement about her comment about Planned Parenthood in the last debate.  You could see he was salivating.  Carly humiliated him in her sharp, clear and concise response.  This is one for the ages.  Click here to see it.

As I was driving today, I saw a person with a bumper sticker on her car saying:  “I’m Catholic, I vote.”  Now this is a very naive person.  The truth of the matter is that Catholics are no different from the general population when it comes to voting on moral issues.  Democrats would never win an election if all Catholics voted according to church teaching, such as the sanctity of life and the importance of traditional marriage,    The sad fact is that liberal Catholics are no different from liberal atheists. Catholics, like liberal Christians and Jews, have substituted leftism as their number one religion; traditional religion is always secondary. Click here for an incisive analysis by Dennis Prager  on Joe Biden and leftism.

Planned Parenthood Makes Susan G. Komen an Offer They Can’t Refuse

As you may have heard, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation recently announced they would no longer fund Planned Parenthood.  A few days later (today), after they had their arms and legs broken by the “pro-choice” lobby, including Planned Parenthood, they surrendered and reversed their decision and will now fund Planned Parenthood.  This is the equivalent of a mafia don calling on you and giving you some advice.  The advice is, either you continue to pay us or we will make it very difficult for you; we may even bring your organization down.  Now, I don’t have any evidence that this actually happened, but given the quick reversal of the decision by Susan G. Komen, I can easily conclude that it happened in one form or another.

Now why would a breast cancer fighting organization like Susan G. Komen want to fund Planned Parenthood,?  the biggest abortion organization in the United States.  Planned Parenthood performed around 332,000 abortions in 2009, about a quarter of all abortions.  These statistics are not complete, since many states, such as California are not required to reports abortion figures.  Supposedly, Komen provides funding for Planned Parenthood for services such as mammograms.  Live Action, a pro-life organization has recently shown that many Planned Parenthood offices do not perform mammograms. Click here for a story from the Washington Examiner.  In a telephone sting, Live Action shows that, in fact, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.  Click here for the YouTube video proving this.

The Link Between Eugenics and Planned Parenthood

What follows below is a re-print of a piece I wrote on my former Townhall.com blog by the same name in 2008, titled “Eugenics, Planned Parenthood and Abortion.”  At that time there was no scandal, as we have today about Planned Parenthood.  This piece gives background information on how Planned Parenthood got started:

History was one of my favorite subjects in College.  The famous quote from the Spanish Philosopher George Santayana, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” is one of my favorites historical quotes because it is valid not only for world history but also our own personal history.  I mention this because it is very appropriate when it comes to the history and popularity of abortion in our culture. There are 1.5 million average abortions per year in the United States.

Abortion has strong historical ties to the Eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th Century.   Eugenics, Greek for “good birth,” is the study of methods to improve the human race by controlling reproduction.  Eugenics was a popular movement in the United States and Europe.  Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined “Eugenics” in 1883.  Galton developed Eugenics, based on the works of Charles Darwin, and specifically, “The Ascent of Man.” According to the new book “Darwin Day in America” by Dr. John G. West. In “The Ascent of Man,” Darwin clearly reveals, in no uncertain terms, that evolution, acting on natural selection and “survival of the fittest,” meant that not all humans were equal.  The fact that Eugenics was developed after these works were published, and their almost universal acceptance, is no coincidence.  Eugenics was so popular in the United States from the 1890s to 1945 that most states had Eugenics laws on the books, meaning that people considered to be less equal could be forcibly sterilized.

Adolph Hitler was an ardent evolutionist and adopted a form of Eugenics in his “Final Solution” which resulted in six million Jews murdered in Nazi ovens. The state of Indiana passed the first forced sterilization law in 1907, then 30 states followed. The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded and the mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed. Native Americans, as well as African-American women, were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge.

In 1920 17 year-old Carrie Buck was forcibly sterilized under a Virginia law because she was declared feeble-minded after exhibiting alleged hallucinations following being forcibly raped and becoming pregnant.  Carrie chose to have her baby.  After giving birth Carrie’s daughter was also considered feeble-minded.  The young girl was enrolled in school and made the honor roll before dying of an infection at the age of eight. The forced sterilization case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 (Buck vs. Bell), which ruled against her and Carrie was forcibly sterilized.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was quoted as saying that “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” according to John West.  Carrie lived a normal life and was considered to be no different from anyone else; she was married for 25 years until the death of her husband.  Carrie died in 1983.

Eugenics was supported by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the best minds of science in the United States.  In England Julian Huxley and George Bernard Shaw were ardent supporters of Eugenics.

It was the Church that complained loudly against Eugenics, specifically the Catholic Church which condemned it.  Pope Pius XI condemned Eugenics in an encyclical in 1930.  The Catholic Church deserves the greatest credit for speaking out on Eugenics and being a force for its defeat.  Protestants Billy Sunday and William Jennings Bryan also spoke out forcibly against Eugenics according to “Darwin Day in America.”  The Unites States science community, however, believed that Eugenics was good science and defended it.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was clearly dedicated to Eugenics; she considered certain races such blacks, inferior.  In 1939 Sanger created the “Negro Project.”  The aim of this project was to put a lid on the growth rate of the black population.  She was an advocate of sterilization, as well as abortion to eliminate the “unfit.”  Planned Parenthood clinics have been strategically located in proximity to black neighborhoods and schools. Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortion in the United States.  The United States government funds over one-third of the yearly budget of Planned Parenthood, approximately $300 million dollars.  That is correct, your taxes.  According to an article in “The Weekly Standard” by Charlotte Allen, in the October 2007 issue, for fiscal year 2005-2006, total government aid to Planned Parenthood amounted to $305.3 million.  This same article reveals how Planned Parenthood willfully refuses to report any statutory rapes by adult men of young girls under 16.  This undercover YouTube video filmed at a Los Angeles Planned Parenthood office confirms it.

Planned Parenthood’s targeting of blacks is totally ignored, not only by the general population, but also by blacks themselves.  It is estimated that the black population of the United States is 12%.  According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2003 there were 839,713 abortions in the United States, EXCLUDING California, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Hampshire and West Virginia.  The average yearly abortion in the United States is believed to be around 1.5 million per year.  Of this total, 37% of all abortions were black babies – and no one ever complains.  Barack Obama, a black man, and the Democratic Presidential candidate of 2008, and possibly the next President, has clearly stated: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” For more information on Obama’s stance on partial birth abortion see my last article on this blog called “I Will not Punish them With a Baby.” Dated May 8, 2008.  Clearly Eugenics is still winning, although we no longer called it that.

How the black population of the United States can ignore their children being slaughtered at such a rate is beyond explanation.  When Rodney King was beaten by a couple of Los Angeles Police Officers in 1992, the entire black population of Los Angeles erupted into the most destructive riots in history.  At the time I was vacationing in Italy and saw the utter destruction of Los Angeles on Italian Television.  A subscript on the TV pictures stated:  “Los Angeles burns.”  One man gets beaten and millions of people riot, 14 million black babies have been murdered since 1973 and nobody complains.  The black presidential candidate states that he wants to make this type of killing a constitutional right.  What am I missing here?  Have I arrived at a different planet where there is a different logic and moral compass?  I guess so.  Abortion today is the same as Eugenics was in the first part of the 20th Century.  Those of us who are pro-life are portrayed as “one-issue” advocates  and  as “ultra conservative Catholics” as did Fr. Richard McBrien, a Catholic Theologian at the University of Notre Dame, in an article in the “Tidings” titled “Banned in Boston” In the January 6, 2006 issue.

Speaking With a Forked Tongue

The recent budget battle between Democrats and Republicans highlighted the difference between the two parties.  The Democrats side with the permissive, anything goes, social agenda, such as pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, while the Republicans are socially conservative and traditional.  One of the biggest fight during this budget battle was the de-funding of Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS.  The Democrats held firm in not taking any funding away from these organizations.  As I mentioned in my last post, they would rather cut military or social security spending rather than deny Planned Parenthood, NPR or PBS any taxpayer funding.  In other words they would rather shut down the government than de-fund these organizations.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, William McGurn has a fascinating column titled “Who’s the Extremist Now,” regarding this battle for Planned Parenthood de-funding;  McGurn quotes Democratic Senators Schumer who said “Republicans in the House are making a goal-line stand on women’s health, which has nothing  – nothing to do with the budget.”  Senator Patty Murray of Washington chimes in ” what they are saying is that if you want to keep the federal government open, you have to throw women under the bus.”  Senator Harry Reid kept insisting that the only thing between a shutdown and a deal was GOP social ideology.

I want to see if I understand this correctly.  Planned Parenthood funding is a social ideology for Republicans and not Democrats who are totally intransigent on the issue?  I don’t get it.  The Democrats have powerful allies in the main stream media, most of whom agree with them.  One night last week I was watching the ABC Nightly News; reporter Jonathan Karl was interviewing a Republican Congressman about this issue.  The tone of his question was, you mean you’re going to shut down the government just because of Planned Parenthood funding?  As if the Democrats were neutral of the issue.  The duplicity is breathtaking.

The Wall Street article I mentioned earlier has some more astounding statistics that most Americans, I believe, are unaware of:  Planned Parenthood, in 2009 alone, performed 332,278 abortions.  All of them innocent human beings that science agrees are fully human.   The United States averages about 1.3 million abortions per year, this means that Planned Parenthood performed 25.5% of all abortions.  additionally, the article states that of all the Planned Parenthood clients, 97% receive abortion services, while only 3% do not.

The Art of the Fake: How Planned Parenthood Fools You

The de-funding of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider was a key rider of the recent budget fight between Democrats and Republicans.  Planned Parenthood receives $363 million dollars per year in taxpayer funding from the Democrats.  At a time when our country is nearly bankrupt with over fourteen trillion dollars in debt, the Democrats believe that providing abortion is as important as healthcare or providing senior citizens with a living pension.

This past Sunday, on the  “Fox News Sunday” program, the host, Chris Wallace, asked Eric Cantor why Planned Parenthood was such a big deal when they provide such services as breast exams, pap smears, and other services, while their abortions amount to about 3%.  This immediately caught my ear because is was so wrong.  The American Life League has some statistics on abortions performed by Planned Parenthood.  In 2006 alone they performed 290,000 abortions or 5,572 per day.  This estimate is probably low since many states, like California, are not required to report their abortion statistics.  California is the largest state in the U.S. and has not reported any statistics since 1997.

Let’s get back to the statement made by Chris Wallace that I referred to earlier about Planned Parenthood only doing 3% of the abortions.  Let’s say, for argument sake, that this was true.  Now to put this in perspective, let’s say that the government was supporting health clinics that provide free medical care to anyone who walked in but they also killed about 3% of the babies they saw under the age of two; would this be a good reason to fund the clinic with taxpayer funding?  Just asking.  This is what Planned Parenthood does; they kill about 290,000 unborn babies per year; babies up to just before delivery.  Some Democrats argued, during the budget battle that the Republicans wanted to kill women by de-funding Planned Parenthood.  I know this is hard to believe but here is the video of a Congresswoman making the charge.

Planned Parenthood’s Deception

Defunding Planned Parenthood has been a hot issue in the recent weeks, mainly due to an undercover video of a Planned Parenthood office director coaching prospective clients how they can obtain their services even though they identified themselves as underage sex traffickers. Click here to see the Liveaction.org video.  These stings are done by a brave young woman, Lila Rose and her organization, Live Action; she has appeared on many media outlets, here is a clip from the O’Rielly Factor:  Click here to watch it.

I recently wrote my Senator, Dianne Feinstein of California, to ask her to vote for the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  Her response was very predictable; she repeated the hackneyed and trite mantra that Planned Parenthood offers so many other servicers such as birth control pills that “prevent unwanted pregnancies”  and for that reason she favors taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.   The facts are that, although Planned Parenthood does offer such services, their meat and butter is abortion, so the $363 millions dollars they receive from taxpayers go to kill innocent unborn babies.  There are approximately 1.5 million abortions done per year in the United States.  In Los Angeles County, where I live, there are 154 abortions performed every day from 6:00 AM  to 6:00 PM.  Why should we who believe that an abortion is the killing of an unborn human being, be forced to pay for this atrocity?  Non abortion services, with the exception of birth control, are provided by the many pregnancy Help Centers around the county.  Not one penny is given to them for this.  If Senator Feinstein believes that this is a good idea why not subsidize these centers? She would refuse to fund these centers, why?  They really believe in abortion; a two year-old can figure this out.  We, as moral people, have a duty to vote all of these people out of office.

In her new book, Unplanned, The dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood Director, Abby Johnson details how Planned Parenthood depends on abortions to meet their bottom line.  One of the most dramatic parts of her book is when she details this fact.  Her regional directors called a meeting and stated that each office had to produce a certain amount of cash flow – they were expected to produce results.  The only way to make such money was to increase the number of abortions performed, so if an office did abortion, say only two days a week, they were expected to do more abortions.

The political  left will always tell you that they are tolerant.  Tolerant?  Mention something they disagree with, such as marriage is only between a man and a woman or abortion and see how tolerant they are.  The fact is they are tolerant of anything they believe in such as moral relativism.  If you say that you believe that the Bible, for instance, as your moral guide, they will laugh at you.  Tolerant?  No.  They are the least tolerant people I know.