WORKAROUND: Despite Court Injunction, New PP Videos Are Released

“We can’t stop affiliates from breaking the law.” That’s the word from a Planned Parenthood executive in the latest Planned Parenthood video, released by Charles C. Johnson of the website Gotnews.com.

Gotnews clip 1Deb VanderHei, a national director of the Consortium of Abortion Providers, tells an undercover Center for Medical Progress representative that Planned Parenthood affiliates may still accept cash, and that the parent organization has no control over that. VanderHei’s admission directly contradicts assurances made by Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards.

A court enjoined David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) from releasing any more of the explosive videos which showed Planned Parenthood officials admitting wrongdoing. However, this time the videos–which were recorded by CMP undercover investigators–were not released by Daleiden’s organization. Instead, Gotnews.com obtained the complete set of eleven as-yet-unseen videos from an informant on Capitol Hill.

According to Charles Johnson, the videos were obtained by a Congressional whistleblower, an internet hacker named Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer, who was not subject to the court order. The “Weev”Auernheimer uploaded the videos to YouTube, where they are available for viewing.

Here, a video from Planned Parenthood of Michigan. The Planned Parenthood official is talking about the Northland Family Planning Clinic, near my house.

"I'll follow you over Kathy. I was probably in more sympathy with your point of ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"If you're at all interested in knowing . . . the Catholic Dogma . . ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Thank you, Mrs. Harris! Christmas blessings to you. I hope to see you over at ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."

Browse Our Archives



What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Rob B.

    The Internet Legion for the Defense of Planned Parenthood will attack this website in 3…2…

  • Proteios

    I understand the challenge of controlling subsidiaries of a central authority. Im Catholic and have been to some parishes and wondered..did you read the catechism? So I get it. But the problem is that what PP is doing is so repulsive and distasteful that the only way to accept that they are still required when 1000s of agencies exist that do their same (referrals) role for womens health, is ignorant. PP is just no longer necessary. They are bullies and exploit women as much as any other pimp. We demand better for women.

    • axelbeingcivil

      How do you exploit someone by providing them with cheap or outright free medical care? Exploitation implies that you’re twisting people’s arm; that they can’t help but turn to you because they can do nothing else, typically by extorting resources from them. Yet if other clinics exist that provide the same services, as you say, how can they possibly be exploitative?

      • Sue Korlan

        The medical care they provide isn’t free; the taxpayers pay for it. We would get a much better return on our money by using community health centers to provide the needed services, excluding abortion, to provide these free services.

        • axelbeingcivil

          It’s free to them, which is the point, and doesn’t really answer my question. How is any of this exploitation? Is providing people with condoms exploiting them? Providing them with birth control pills? Giving them advice on how to breastfeed? Providing nutritional guides for new mothers?

          If you want to talk about return on investment, you’ll also have to explain how separating a streamlined hierarchy into dozens of local chains would also make things more efficient, or how closing clinics will lead to better access to the health services they provide.

          • Sue Korlan

            The local organizations are already there. Every county in the country has a government health center. Where I grew up they sent nurses to all the schools to provide free immunizations. Giving them the money to provide Planned Parenthood’s non – abortion services makes sense because there are many more of them, none of them or their affiliates have been convicted of Medicaid fraud (yes, I know PP tosses them out of the organization once they’ve been caught), and because it makes more sense to me to give government money to government agencies instead of those feeding from the public trough. Furthermore, an organization whose head makes half a million dollars a year should be able to come up with the money they need without taking ours.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Again, if those organizations are already there, providing the same level of scale and quality as PP, there’d be no need for PP and people wouldn’t bother going to it.

            Still, maybe we can agree on this much: The United States definitely could use a proper public health service. If that were the case, your argument would definitely be stronger, more people would get health access, and fewer abortions would occur anyway simply because the cost of raising children would be more affordable and proper access to prophylactics and sexual education would hopefully go up as well.

            I’d like there to be fewer abortions too; making it so that unwanted pregnancies don’t happen in the first place and so that women who WOULD like to have children can do so and raise them properly and healthily is something we’d both like to have happen.

  • Captain_America

    What I am finding hilarious is the radicals of the Sixties, who highly approved of “civil disobedience”, and who would use rude gestures toward court orders, are howling like a herd of rhesus monkeys at the “illegality” of the videos.
    What goes around… but, wait, those “”Radicals” are now the “Establishment”. Of course, NOW they approve of repressing dissent. LOL.

    • axelbeingcivil

      Generally speaking, people favour civil disobedience because they believe the system is corrupt. When the system works towards a just end, why would they be in favour of civil disobedience?

      • Captain_America

        Well, axelbeingcivil, May I , in civility, remark your assumptions, both in your question to my post, and in your assertions elsewhere about this site, are either — dare I say — naïve, or — I hate to use the word — trolling.

        The presumption that PP is a simple, honest, healthcare provider for women and that there’s nothing wrong with abortion (the system working toward a “just end”) leads me to assume the worst, that you are indeed, naïve.

        I am for the record, on the side of humanity, which disallows the legitimacy of euthanasia, abortion, racial discrimination, economic exploitation of the poor, polluting the planet, and a plethora of other crimes against human dignity.

        The Left says “This is good, That is bad”, while the Right says “That is good, This is bad.” Both are wrong.

        Because both are so busy worshipping Mammon, they do not realize they are on the same side. If the incoherent ideologies which blind and drive the chattering classes were laid bare, it would easily be seen how regardless of calls for “compassion” or “resolve”, the end product of these man-made fantasies is the death, dismemberment, or oppression of some other human being.

        I am sure you have noticed this discussion is in the Patheos “Catholic Channel”. Might I — in civility — suggest you learn something of Catholic Social Teaching, as well as the theological supports for human dignity before making a statement like you just did?

        God Bless You.

        • axelbeingcivil

          It’s not trolling to disagree with people, nor is it to seek out people you disagree with (that is, in fact, probably the only way to properly develop your views). Likewise, I think we might agree on most issues, even if we might disagree on fine details. Abortion is just an issue which we fundamentally disagree on, since your point of recognizing personhood is different to mine. If you want to discuss that, we can, but that’s not what I was disagreeing with you about.

          What I was disagreeing with you about is your remark to try and point out some form of hypocrisy by those who have, in the past, called for civil disobedience (or who are a part of a group associated with those who have in the past) suddenly being upset over others engaging in it. If you believe the system is acting unjustly, civil disobedience is a moral response to an immoral system; if you believe the system is acting justly, civil disobedience is an immoral response to a moral system. It’s not inconsistent to praise the former and condemn the latter. Not unless you claim that civil disobedience should be legal when “your side” does it, at least, which I think is a very rare claim, at least compared to “It should never have been illegal in the first place”.

          • Captain_America

            Perhaps we would agree on more than we disagree, emotional and faddish issues aside.

            You misunderstand the thrust of my accusation of hypocrisy. It is the nature of revolutionary movements to extol dissent when OUT of power, and to excoriate dissent when IN power. (The Sin problem again, I am afraid.) See Muad’Dib on this one. (http://40.media.tumblr.com/8af5471ea884302c4875ee16253a8e30/tumblr_mp62hhAo1Y1rl43cyo1_1280.png)

            The most telling is, “they” are For whistleblowing with Snowden and Agin it when it is the PP videos. “They” are For civil disobedience when it is for Cause X, and Agin it when it is someone like Kim Davis. I am for whistleblowing all the time, ditto “civil disobedience” with the caveat, as MLK noted, there is a price to be paid for defiance, especially when those being defied have the availability of Force.

            Besides, there is no such thing as a “settled” condition, nor of pure justice anywhere on earth. The ones most surprised are the ones who discover you can not nail the pendulum of history at one particular point — those who try get hurt, badly.
            God Bless You.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’d have thought most people would be in favour of civil disobedience when it’s for a cause they agree with, and opposed when it’s for a cause they’re against. There is, naturally, a cost for these actions, as there probably should be, but people’s favour would be contextual. People who are upset with Kim Davis aren’t upset because they oppose the very notion of civil disobedience but because she, personally, is taking a stand against a cause they believe in and, they believe, hurting people in the process.

            Likewise, people aren’t opposed to the CMP for the very act of whistleblowing but because they think the CMP is doctoring the videos to try and concoct a controversy where there isn’t one; that Planned Parenthood isn’t, astonishingly, in the process of selling fetus organs.

            These don’t seem hypocritical positions to me; they’re not philosophical opposition to the concepts or kinds of acts, but to these specific acts.

          • Captain_America

            I see our probable agreement is far less than I had hoped. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, in all equity.
            Humanity is not something which is of a malleable definition according to the whims of the present ruling class. The present ruling class, the Cognitive Elite, thinks it knows what is best for everyone else. Including death, if the demands of the elitist logic arrive there.
            I define humanity as an absolute, and not dependent on the faddish opinions current at the time.
            You seem to regard the unborn human as not human. The National Socialists regarded Jews and others as vermin, and not worthy of life.
            The latest death-mongering from the ignorant Left is for euthanasia, or assisted suicide. I guarantee, regardless of the convoluted excuses and euphemisms employed by apologists for murder, that “voluntary euthanasia” will become Involuntary so fast you will be left trying catch up with what you are supposed to believe –and enthusiastically approve. (The National Socialists also had their Action T-4 for the crippled, weak, mentally ill or mentally disabled. — In the name of “efficiency” as well as “compassion”.)
            I have other issues with the Nihilist Right, but those are for another place and time.
            Since this discussion has become one in which no further progress can be made, since I abhor the stance you have taken, and there is a deep improbability you could be convinced I am right regarding the full spectrum of human dignity, let us part amicably.
            God Bless you.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Your absolute definition is a product of your culture, your upbringing, your time. You might view it as an absolute, but it’s most certainly not one universally agreed on, past or present, and your claim that it’s absolute no more makes it such than anyone else’s.

            As for the question of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, the two aren’t synonymous; euthanasia might be voluntary, it might not, but physician-assisted suicide is by definition voluntary, advocated for by people who want to take their own lives but cannot, or who cannot do so in a manner they find satisfactory. That you feel there is somehow no real difference between this and murder shows a vast gulf between your mindset and those of right-to-die advocates.

            As for the improbability of being convinced, I would disagree there, at least for myself; I know I have a standard of evidence on this issue as I was, for a long time, thoroughly opposed to abortion. What swayed me was exposure to sufficient evidence that the brain of a fetus is incapable of conscious experience with all certainty before ~24 weeks or so; prior to this, synaptic connections just haven’t formed in the higher brain regions. In truth, it’s unlikely any conscious experience happens at all before three months, post birth, probability is not certainty and, indeed, after 24 weeks, the issue is usually moot anyway; no medical doctor performs them later than that unless there is some life-threatening ailment or deformity (such as the fetus having developed without a brain, or the mother having a uterine cyst that causes internal hemorrhaging).

            I’m very much open to being swayed on this issue, but I think the evidence for this stance is exceptionally strong. If you feel you have no counter-balancing evidence to oppose this, one must ask why you believe what you do in the first place.

          • Captain_America

            The delay in my response is occasioned by my absence from the Internet – I take Sunday off to worship God and rest.

            I do not wish to lightly dismiss your remarks, however, in your pursuit of rationality you must have noticed that however logical your process, ultimately, your assumptions are founded on faith in something, not on
            empirical – and ever changing – “scientific” research.

            Accordingly, while you relativize my remarks, yours you seem to take as absolutes. I find it humorous you trivialize my position as if I were the slave of time and place, whereas you float above the limitations of mere mortals in your thinking. That, my dear sir, is hubris of the worst odor. To this, I can but reply, morality is not a matter of popular consensus. Determination of humanity is neither to be
            derived from some false utilitarian calculus as to the inconvenience of the weak and helpless among us, nor by the cultural imperialism of Western Academics.

            The “evidence” you tout as conclusive is, like all things in
            science, subject to change. Science cannot be used to determine humanity, to do so is to place a burden on it which it is not equipped to handle.

            Your pardon, but while you claim persuadability, you other
            posts evince an advocacy which seems rather firm in its proselytizing stance.

            Yes, there is a difference between my mindset (cast in stone is your implication, is it not?) and those who believed murder is the answer to social problems.

            As you see, I do not work off of the fads of the media, nor
            from the constant mantras screamed by the bien pensants who conceive their positions to be “humanitarian”, when they are derived from the oldest form of sin. (If you are unfamiliar, the sin in question is when — mythologicaly, if you wish — Cain murdered Abel.)

            I am not concerned to be “up to date” in my thinking. Had you noticed, you would have observed that Captain_America is a Roman Catholic of the worst sort (from the POV you have declared) – not apologetic for the Church failing to submit to the idols of the marketplace, nor being a subversive mole from within. I am neither particularly Traddie nor Trendie, but I do hold with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the teaching of the Magisterium, and 2000 years of defending life against the Patrician Class and its apologists the Cognitive Elite, who would slaughter millions for a stupid political ideology ( in fairness, all political ideologies are stupid), or for an additional denarius.

            I believe we have nothing further to discuss, however, if
            ego demands your having the last word, by all means, take it.

            Good Bye (God Be With You) and God Bless You.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I don’t think I’ve given my remarks a special privilege of any sort of absolutism while denigrating yours in some way. I stated that I am willing to be convinced otherwise of my position and stated the grounds by which my conclusions had shifted in the past. I believe in the basic value of a human person – that is, that human beings are deserving of certain rights and protections, foremost of which is a right to life – but disagree with you on what could and should count as a person for the purpose of guaranteeing those rights.

            In this regard, we’re both working from the same initial principle: That there is something about a person that makes them worthy of protection in such a way that we do not extend to, say, an earthworm and would, in theory, extend to other sapient beings we might some day encounter if such beings exist or come into existence through one means or another.

            Hence I’m asking you where and why you draw your lines. When I say your worldview does not have some external objective appeal, I’m not implying mine does; I am simply asking for justification that can be weighed for the sake of reason. I’m not trying to demand anything of you that I would not demand of myself and have had demanded of me in the past.

            If you can provide that, I’m interested in hearing it. If you can’t, perhaps that’s a topic worthy of introspection.

            I’ll refrain from commenting on the rest of the post, and leave you with that if you see fit to reply.

          • kathyschiffer

            Let me step in here: I (and, in fact, my brother and sisters) all were born “premature.” That is, we had all reached seven to nine months’ gestation when my mother went into labor. So that day I came out–my birthday–I was not a “person”? You seem to believe that real estate (whether or not inside the womb) determines personhood; I think that’s a convenient speculation designed to allay the abortive parents’ guilt; but it’s not sound medical science.

          • axelbeingcivil

            If you’d read my post, you’d note that the demarcation line given for personhood under this definition is when there is a capacity for conscious perception. This outright can’t exist until the beginning of the formation of synaptic connections in the higher parts of the brain, which starts ~24 weeks into gestation, or about the six month mark. You were born at around the seven month mark, you said, so you’d qualify for personhood under this definition, regardless of whether you were inside or outside the womb at this point.

            Being inside or outside a person doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with this definition of personhood, and at no point did I actually mention such as being important, so I’m uncertain why you’d bring it up.

            (As a note, the 24 week mark is the demarcation point for the merest possibility of conscious perception, not the initiation of it. That truthfully isn’t likely to occur until three months after birth, but I think, by that point, this discussion is moot anyway.)

          • Sue Korlan

            I refer you to the Not Dead Yet website and Second Thoughts Massachusetts for plentiful examples of involuntary doctor assisted suicide. The disability community is strongly opposed to physician assisted suicide for just this reason. The law in the US allows abortion for any reason for all 9 months of pregnancy. They do happen, even when the child is healthy, at later stages of pregnancy.

          • axelbeingcivil

            At your recommendation, I’ve looked into both groups. Not Yet Dead was surprisingly difficult to get information on due to a local Halloween-themed concert by the same name, but Second Thoughts was easier.

            I can empathize with the people speaking on the Second Thoughts side of things; these are people whose lives are already hindered by a society that seems to care little for them, and which throws roadblocks in their way in addition to whatever infirmities they already suffer from. To them, the provision of doctor-assisted suicide can easily seem like an attempt to get them to “unburden” society or their family. That such is even a concern in this world is a grievous condemnation of how we treat our infirm and elderly.

            The problem arises likewise that there ARE people who wish to end their lives comfortably and surrounded by those they love when their minds and bodies are still intact enough for them to appreciate it, instead of spending years, months, weeks halfway between agony and sedative-induced stupor. It is an awful decision to make, but one that deserves respect; these people want to die but cannot end their lives, and those who want to help them cannot do so without being arrested as murderers.

            As far as the “disability community” is concerned, there’s plenty of voices backing each camp and I understand just why someone might throw in with either. Personally, I think that the discomfort with assisted suicide comes more from a hopelessness in the face of discrimination and fear that this is just more teeth added to a dragon that no-one has thus far managed to slay; instead of galvanizing people to fight more vocally in the defense of all disabled, it’s divided them into two groups.

            That said, I don’t see any examples of involuntary euthanasia on these websites. Or if there are, they’re well hidden. Can you link me to them?

            As for the law regarding abortion in the United States, that simply isn’t true; Roe vs. Wade guaranteed the right to seek abortion uninterfered with before viability (generally about 24 weeks of gestation), but after that, states are free to impose restrictions and there is, indeed, no state that lacks such restrictions. Every single state in the union has a law restricting abortion past a certain point, with most uniformly setting it to viability and the rest using some form of time limit (24 weeks LMP is common, as is 20 weeks post-fertilization).

            The only reasons an abortion can be procured after that point is if there is a threat to the mother of some sort, with the sorts of threats allowed varying by state, though it is mandated by law that it at least be included that one be provided if the mother’s life is in danger.

            As such, in the United States, depending on the state, a woman is free to seek an abortion for any reason before the 5th or 6th month. After that, there has to be a demonstrable threat to her life and/or health. Prior to that, though, the vast majority of abortions tend to happen before the 10th week of gestation and, of that, the largest tends to be around the 8th or 9th week; usually as soon as a woman can be reasonably certain she is pregnant.

            Late term abortions happen pretty much exclusively because of some seriously crippling, usually life-threatening problem. You can pretty much guarantee that any woman receiving a third trimester abortion will have wanted the baby. They represent less than 1% of all abortions for a reason.

            And, since I’ve asked you for sources, it’s only fair to provide my own:

            The CDC on abortion statistics: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6311a1.htm

            The Guttmacher Institute’s compilation on abortion laws by state: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

            Yes, I know Guttmacher has a stated intent, but they’re just reporting laws by state here.

          • Sue Korlan

            The next time I get to the library I will look them up sites for you. It may be a while but I do get back to people.

            The Supreme Court ruled in Doe vs Bolton that a woman’s health includes her economic status, her age, and her psychological state, and later the courts ruled that not being able to fit into one’s swimsuit was a woman’s health issue for which abortion is an acceptable cure. So abortion is actually legal in this country for any reason for all 9 months of pregnancy under the guise of health.

          • axelbeingcivil

            You’ll have to provide citation on the swimsuit point. Likewise, saying that this is for “any reason” is ludicrous to me. Yes, the definition of health is necessarily broad, but such laws inevitably require the signature of physicians and possibly a psychologist before the procedure is provided, and it requires them to state that the woman’s health is in some manner of serious danger; not things that people in the medical field are wont to sign off on lightly, all things considered. Likewise, given that we are talking past the six month mark at this point, most abortions that occur at that point are wanted pregnancies that have suffered from some sort of abnormality; characterizing them otherwise is rather dehumanizing towards women who have to make the agonizing decision to abort a pregnancy they WANT because it is incapable of surviving to term or beyond birth.

            Still, it can be pointed out that, of the few who do abort late-term because it’s an unwanted pregnancy, you might consider the fact that one of their primary reasons to do so is because of the sheer cost, and that providing cheaper access to abortion is one of the best ways to ensure it occurs earlier, before any possibility of conscious perception develops within the fetus. I doubt this will make a particular different to you, but it IS worth pointing out.

  • ginalex

    The PP videos were highly edited. Just in case no one knows that.

  • Frank

    Keep getting these videos out and revealing the truth.

    Meanwhile another several thousand innocent, vulnerable unborn children were killed yesterday mostly for reasons of convenience and comfort.

  • axelbeingcivil

    It’s not actually illegal for them to accept reimbursement for preparation and shipping expenses, though… They were never saying “We won’t break the law”, because they weren’t in the first place; they were saying “We will tell our clinics and affiliates to stop this practice because it makes some people uncomfortable”. Problem is, as has been pointed out perhaps a thousand times now, it’s really expensive to prepare and ship tissues, especially if they need to be shipped quickly. I work in a lab and getting cultures in can take months and be exceptionally expensive and that’s when you’re just working with established cell lines; shipping actual tissues between facilities can cost upwards of a hundred dollars each just within the same state, yet alone cross-country, and that’s without the cost of preparation.

    And when an organization says that affiliates that are often struggling to get by anyway can’t get reimbursement for the costs of that preparation and shipping, unlikely to even meet the total costs of it, it’s understandable to say that there might not be an exceptionally high compliance rate.

    You’re not helping anyone by telling lies. Certainly not your own credibility.

    • Sue Korlan

      If you watched the videos you would have learned that the purchasers provided the staff to prepare the shipments as well as paying for them. And you aren’t facing the much more troubling accusation that the abortionists changed the way they performed the abortions in order to procure better body parts. One of the things sidewalk counselors do is document women being taken from abortuaries in ambulances. It happens a lot more than people like to think. Legal doesn’t mean safe, especially when what matters to the abortionist is the quality of the fetal remains rather than the health and safety of the woman.

      • axelbeingcivil

        There are different levels of preparation and processing. The materials used in preparation of tissues are different from, say, the time and expense used in dissecting said tissues. That’s why PP’s affiliates collect maybe 20 to 100 dollars and not tens of thousands, because that’s what a finished tissue collection actually costs. 20 dollars covers maybe the cost of containers and cleaning/preservation. A hundred is the cost of shipping and packaging within the state. This also covers the cost of the time spent actually preparing the materials.

        A collection of isolated hematopoietic stem cells will probably cost upwards of 20,000 dollars for a few million cells (which is basically a small smear in a tiny tube). If Planned Parenthood wanted to make a profit, they’re definitely going about it the wrong way.

        As for the cases of risk, that’s a concern but not one that persuades me; the risks of dying in pregnancy (about 0.016% of all pregnancies in the US) are greater than dying from an abortion (0.0017% of all abortions). You are, according to the CDC, about ten times more likely to die from complications related to pregnancy as you are from an abortion. Not that this particularly matters; both these rates are negligible, and every medical procedure carries risks. These risks can be managed in safe, properly stocked clinics, ensuring that women who seek abortions are well cared for.

        Legal does not, indeed, mean safe, but the same is true for aspirin, and giving birth.

        Finally, on the modification of procedures, federal law makes it a crime to make alterations to the procedure or timing of an abortion, this is true, but you’re making an assumption that they are doing so; selecting the format or type of procedure is not the same as modifying said procedure, nor is making informed decisions within that context; a surgeon who decides to start a cut from the bottom instead of the top because it will make surgery easier is not altering the procedure but making an informed decision within its context.

  • MaryTN

    Well, you could end the affiliation…..