We’ve all seen the same videos — the undercover filming of Planned Parenthood officials sipping wine while they discuss how to harvest butchered baby parts at the highest rates of profitability.
I’m amazed at how many celebs have come out and defended the barbaric organization. David French, over at National Review, has investigated their excuses, which boil down to these three:
The desperate, the immoral, and the nonsensical. To take it from the top, David writes:
1. The first — and most desperate — defense relied on buzzwords like “extremist,” and “anti-woman,” and “politically motivated” — almost always paired with an allegation that the tapes were edited. Yet by releasing the full tapes simultaneously with the condensed versions, the Center for Medical Progress was able to respond with simple truth. Yes, they were pro-life, and yes, they were running a sting. But the Planned Parenthood officials said what they said, and it was shockingly brutal.
But if that argument fails, here’s another:
2. Then came the immoral claim — that harvesting aborted fetal tissue for medical research is actually a good thing. Here’sSlate’s Mark Joseph Stern: “The graphic images of aborted fetuses are meant to disgust me, to convince me that abortion is abarbaric act of killing. But I don’t see death in these videos. I see hope.” How can one see hope in a mutilated child? Stern claims that by killing these kids and selling (or, excuse me, receiving handsome reimbursements for) their body parts, Planned Parenthood is helping advance medical research toward curing diseases like ALS, which killed a friend of his. I too have known people who’ve died from ALS, and it is indeed a horrible disease. But the ALS sufferers I’ve known would never ask a single baby (much less thousands) to die for the sake of research that one day might possibly yield a treatment. And this is especially true when advances in adult-cell research may very well yield methods of potential treatment that don’t rely on fetal tissue at all. The only way for Stern and others to justify their moral calculus is to dehumanize the aborted child — and to do so in a way that defies science. After all, from the moment of conception a child is a distinct and separate human being, possessing its own DNA. In the face of this inarguable fact, Stern and others like him are judging not just that one human life is worth more than another but that other humans can and should be chopped to pieces, their body parts apportioned to labs for the sake of preserving a favored population.
And then, least convincingly:
3. Planned Parenthood’s most nonsensical defense is calculated to appeal to the wavering middle, to those who don’t like abortion but also don’t necessarily want to see it outlawed. We’ll call this Planned Parenthood’s “pro-life” defense — that defunding Planned Parenthood will actually increase abortions by depriving women of much-needed contraceptives. Planned Parenthood claims that the 327,000 abortions it performs annually represent just 3 percent of its total services, and that its contraceptive distribution programs actually prevent 216,000 abortions per year. But if the contraceptive services are so valuable and the abortions so inconsequential to Planned Parenthood, why not drop 3 percent of its business to save the 97 percent? If Planned Parenthood stopped killing babies on a mass scale, it would no longer be America’s most controversial “health care provider.” But Planned Parenthood would rather close its doors than stop killing babies — because of ideology and self-interest. The 3 percent number has always been misleading. Planned Parenthood counts both distributing a pack of birth control pills and performing an abortion as “services,” yet the abortion yields far more revenue. Its protestations to the contrary, abortion is big business for Planned Parenthood, and the group is working furiously to keep it that way.
The whole article — complete with charts and further breakdown — is well worth the read.