Not the dollar amounts involved in selling aborted baby parts, those amounts are dissected and homogenized like Planned Parenthood does to babies bodies. No, we are talking about the gruesome paint-the-real-picture money quote.
Don’t get us wrong, we are pleasantly surprised that A-D ran the story, however homogenized, as a print item on the first page of the C-section. That the QC Times did not run the print version is consistent with their more advanced sensitivities that the truth about Planned Parenthood not be lying around subject to casual observation.
Note this excerpt from the AP which did make it into the Argus-Dispatch story and the QC Times online edition:
In another portion of the video, she appears to suggest that abortion procedures could be modified in some cases to get more intact fetuses. Under federal law, there should be no alteration in the timing or method of an abortion done solely for the purpose of obtaining fetal tissue.
The AP article, also to our surprise, is clear about the intent of the law. The second tape dialogue clearly indicates that Planned Parenthood is in violation of the law as described by the AP (see transcript below). But the AP could not bring itself to use the words used on the tape — the money quote — the descriptive phrase “less crunchy” referring to the abortion technique. Does anyone doubt that the liberal media would not hesitate to use the term to scandalize some conservative person or organization?
Meet the Planned Parenthood Forcep’ers
An excerpt from the Center for Medical Progress video of Planned Parenthood’s Mary Gatter, Planned Parenthood official and president of their Medical Directors’ Council. Posted by Jim Geraghty, National Review
“Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] or something with less suction, in order to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, “We’re not doing anything different in our care for you.” Now, to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument, and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian — who’s our surgeon who does the cases — to use an IPAS at that gestational stage, in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen. But I do need to throw it out there as a concern, because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something that’s saying, “We’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because you agree to give tissue.”
In the above quote, that “intact specimen” Dr. Gatter is discussing so casually and clinically, is a HUMAN BABY and she is describing its murder and extraction from the womb of a “patient” who agreed to “give tissue!
Agree or not , the very existence of Dr. Gatter and her smug Planned Parenthood colleague, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s “senior director of medical services” represent about the only compelling argument FOR abortion, if there ever were one . If it were based on a cost benefit analysis the abortion of these two would have certainly been justifiable, given the untold thousands if not millions of lives of babies they have directly or indirectly been responsible for ending before these little ones could take a breath outside their mother’s womb. There are no true justifications for abortion, except when one of the two lives involved in a pregnancy are in dire jeopardy.
However, when you see the cold, casual way in which these two discuss the best way (“less crunchy”) to end the lives of innocent, helpless human beings in order to preserve their organs in order to make them more salable, if you’re not moved to rage and disgust, maybe you need professional help.
But, that’s just our opinion.
DLH and R Mall
