Archive for the ‘Planned Parenthood’ Category

comp health PPGov. Brownback’s instruction Tuesday that abortion facility inspections by the medical board and health department include inquiries into organ harvesting was called “political grandstanding” by Laura McQuade, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas Mid-Missouri (PPKMM).

However, the media neglected to showcase that Kansas really has good reason to probe abortion businesses. PPKMM’s Overland Park abortion business, Comprehensive Health, did indeed have onsite abortion specimen procurement for years— involving at least two companies during the 1990s according to testimony.

Planned Parenthood hopes no one will remember that their procurement programs were a key reason Kansas passed a law in 2000 covering “harvesting” of bodily parts of unborn children.

McQuade told the media Tuesday, “Our affiliate does not have or participate in tissue donation programs.” If that is so, what is the harm in an official inquiry?

The public has a right to know, especially after the release of two shocking videos by the pro-life Center for Medical Progress (July 14 and July 21) that show secretly-recorded discussions of fetal harvesting by top-ranked physicians of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).

Of note also, is that PPKMM is using the tamer, more amorphous term “tissue donation.” By contrast, Planned Parenthood physicians in those videos clearly discuss what abortion techniques insure they can retrieve specific entire organs and “intact” samples.



Though McQuade wants the public to dismiss these discoveries about PPFA, probing the unseemly side of procuring aborted-baby body parts is not new, and did not come from pro-lifers.

According to a March 8, 2000 episode of ABC News 20/20, a whistle-blower claimed two tissue-retrieval companies he worked for went so far as to, on some occasions, encourage him to take fetal tissue obtained from women who had not consented to donate their child’s remains for research.

More specifically, on that program, Miles Jones, owner of Opening Lines, said he was able to make $50,000 a week from the sale of fetal body parts. Jones’ company supposedly held a contract with PPKMM to dispose of the clinic’s fetal tissue, from which “donated tissue” was put up for sale at a profit during a 10-week period in 1998. (Read more here and here)

Opening Lines had a price list that advertised costs for various fetal body parts, such as: $999 for the brain of a fetal child between 22-23 weeks, $150 for skin, $325 for a spinal cord, $550 for reproductive organs, and $75 apiece for eyes, according to March 2000 accounts of ABC’s 20/20 and the Kansas City Star.

Even though an investigation eight years later by the US Attorney in Kansas concluded that Jones did not violate any federal laws, the harvesting was connected to the Kansas Planned Parenthood. Gov. Brownback thus has good reason to check up on baby body part trafficking, based not only on recent history at Planned Parenthood, but on current conditions.

Kansas should be alert to this fetal harvesting issue because all three in-state abortion businesses currently perform dismemberment abortions upon living unborn children who have not already been killed with a lethal injection by the abortionist. The new law banning such abortions on still-living unborn children is under injunction and being appealed.(see here)

637 such Kansas abortions were reported to the health department in 2014. We have absolutely no idea what became of those remains, but the opportunity potentially exists for aborted baby body parts trafficking in Kansas.

Dismemberment of unborn children while still alive is the abortion method that yields “useable” intact bodily organs and limbs and is clearly the method discussed in the full-length version of the July 14 video.

Pro-life researcher Theresa Dreisher, Ph.D., who spent more than 20 years in the commercial biomedical industry, commented on the current video revelations in a new National Catholic Register report (here).

“In order to get good heart tissue, it has to be processed within five minutes of death. I bet the gruesome fact is that many of those babies are alive when they are harvested.”

The “sale” of organs for transplantation, both adult and fetal, is illegal, but donation of tissue — both from aborted fetuses and from adults — is not. Payment for “reasonable” costs, including payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, and storage is allowed under federal law, the pertinent provisos being 42 U.S. Code 274e and 42 U.S. Code 289g.

CMP director Daleiden

CMP director Daleiden

In that same NCR report,the Center for Medical Progress video project director, David Daleiden, said they have at least a dozen video exposes on this topic and plan to release one a week.

He explained, “Our investigators spent almost three years deeply imbedded with Planned Parenthood and their affiliates and we heard from their own mouths, over and over, again and again, that they make money off of selling the parts of aborted babies and have a profit motive in doing so.

“Turning aborted babies into a revenue stream is an inhuman exploitation of the not fully dead,” Daleiden continued. “They are saying that some unborn babies are more valuable dead than alive. It’s a terrible, barbaric place for a democratic society to go.”

Read Full Post »

Gov. Brownback

Gov. Brownback

Late this afternoon, pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback made Kansas the eighth state to take action to address shocking revelations about organ and tissue procurement from abortion clinics. Tapes of two undercover stings of top abortionists from Planned Parenthood can be found here.

The Governor issued the following statement: “Kansas remains committed to a culture that respects the dignity of life at all stages. Recent videos show Planned Parenthood employees treating the unborn as commodities as they discuss the sale of tissue and organs. This does not reflect the culture of life most Kansans want.”

Brownback called on the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, with the co-operation of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) “to investigate, as part of its inspection of office-based surgical practices, whether any Kansas facility is engaged in the inhumane practice of selling tissue and organs from unborn children who are aborted.”

Three abortion businesses operate in Kansas:

  • Comprehensive Health/Planned Parenthood in Overland Park is licensed as an ambulatory surgical center under KDHE;
  • SouthWind Women’s Center in Wichita and Center for Women’s Health are the offices of Kansas-licensed physicians and are governed by some surgical guidelines and limited, announced inspection by the Healing Arts Board.

Unfortunately, all three clinics should be governed by the 2011-enacted abortion clinic licensure law that had been sought for 10 years, and had been twice vetoed by former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. However, a local judge enjoined it and stalled  any progress on it at a hearing Friday (Read more here).

The first video discusses harvesting of organs and limbs, but of key importance is the fact that such retrieval is totally dependent on the unborn child still being ALIVE during the abortion.

In the video released July 14 (see here) Planned Parenthood’s medical director, who trains all their abortionists, discusses performing abortions past the midpoint of pregnancy. In the video, she describes “crushing” the unborn child with forceps in distinct areas, with the “guidance” of ultrasound in order to preserve certain requested organs and limbs.

medical arm with abortion toolWhat she repeatedly describes is a DISMEMBERMENT ABORTION –performed with a financial secondary motive. Kansas banned dismemberment abortions in April but yet another activist judge has blocked the ban from going into effect. (Read more here)

In such dismemberment abortions, the barbaric hacking off of bodily limbs and organs is done to a LIVING, well-developed little boy or girl while still inside his or her mother’s womb.

The brutal truth of fetal harvesting is that the unborn child MUST BE CHOPPED UP WHILE ALIVE to extract “useable” pre-ordered organs: hearts, lungs, livers, heads, etc.

Gov. Brownback’s statement today concluded thusly,“Human life has dignity at all stages of life. Senate Bill 95, banning dismemberment abortion in Kansas, prevents the barbaric procedure of dismembering an unborn child. We must remind ourselves and others that unborn children are just that – children – with certain inalienable rights that we must respect and protect.”

Read Full Post »

Videotaped evidence was released today showing a top Planned Parenthood abortionist discussing their selling of baby parts and how they adapt their abortion methods to better obtain certain baby organs, including intact brains. Read more here.

At this point, it is unknown which states besides California are involved, but trafficking in baby parts from an abortion (or stillbirth) is a level 2 nonperson felony under Kansas law. Kansas law also prohibits using the partial-birth abortion method and not giving medical assistance to any babies born alive during abortion.

The hypocrisy and self-serving nature of the abortion industry is revealed in this recent video, particularly in light of claims made by defense attorneys challenging the new Kansas ban on dismemberment abortions.

First, to remind the reader: a dismemberment abortion is described in Kansas and Oklahoma law as one in which a still-alive unborn child inside the mother’s womb is ripped apart in pieces by the abortionist’s sharp metal tools until he or she bleeds to death.

The Kansas law banning such abortions was blocked from going into effect July 1 by an injunction obtained under Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks for the Overland Park father and daughter abortionist duo doing business as the Center for Women’s Health (CWH). The state Attorney General is appealing that ruling.

CWH attorneys claim that dismemberment abortions are indispensable for women’s health and that any other abortion method endangers women. But today’s baby parts video expose shows certain abortionists are profiting twice from such second trimester abortions with a secondary fee ($30-$100) for each organ or body part.

In the video, the highest-ranking abortionist for Planned Parenthood breezily recounts how easy it is with ultrasound guidance to prevent crushing the desired baby parts with forceps while still completing the abortion. Yet in court filings, CWH claims that their choice of abortion method is dictated only by the woman’s safety.

Even today, all three Kansas abortion business websites list the so-called “description” of the dismemberment method (called D&E) as one in which the “pregnancy is removed.” This is so dishonest because a living unborn baby—not a “pregnancy”– is physically yanked apart, piece by piece, and reassembled in a basin to examine to insure no parts are left in the mother.

And now, we have great reason to believe that some of those pieces may be specifically targeted for resale! Imagine the horror for women who are not only learning that their past abortions actually tortured their living baby but that certain tissues and organs from their son or daughter were a second source of profit for the abortionist.

Read Full Post »

abortion lawToday, the Iowa state Supreme Court by a 6-0 vote (with one abstention) ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood’s “webcam” abortion protocol. In so doing, the Court overturned a lower court ruling and their own state medical board.

In this “innovation” (meant to maneuver around a dwindling supply of physicians wanting to perform abortions) pregnant women can obtain chemical abortion drugs without an “in-person” contact with a licensed physician.

The Iowa Supreme Court can only be commended for not claiming to “discover” a right to abortion in the state Constitution–a right that Planned Parenthood argued existed and was even broader than the abortion right created by Roe.

But the pro-abortion bent of this court is clear, in reaching its conclusion that a physician onsite exam created an “undue burden” (which, as a federal “standard” has been variously interpreted since 1992 to practically the breaking point). The Court even cited some oft-repeated abortion industry talking points about the burden of returning for medical checkups, including that repeat trips can aggravate domestic abuse for some women!

The Iowa Solicitor General pressed the point that Planned Parenthood’s own survey could not prove that women’s “access” to abortion was improved after introduction of the webcam protocol.

The Court ruled that, “based on 2013 medical standards and practices in Iowa,” the overturned law supplies only “minimal medical justification.” However, what the Iowa state lawyers wrote on behalf of the  medical board was:

“Abortion-inducing drugs are not over the counter medications. Unless and until such a time when abortion-inducing drugs are no longer required to be dispensed by physicians, physicians must do so within the confines of the standard of care. The Board of Medicine determined the standard of care requires a physical examination prior to dispensing abortion-inducing drugs.”

19 states have passed anti-webcam laws; 15 are in effect, two go into effect in July and Iowa’s has now been overturned.

Kansas’ anti-webcam provision from 2011 is under injunction, but the 2015 legislature enacted a clarification on medical emergencies, now in effect, aimed at getting the injunction removed. (Read more here.)

Read Full Post »

Sen. Jake LaTurner

Sen. Jacob LaTurner

This afternoon, the Kansas Senate passed a “technical clarification”  [S Sub HB 2228] that aims to get a 2011 ban on “webcam abortions” into effect in Kansas.

So-called “webcam abortions” are premised on the abortionist never being in the same room as the woman obtaining abortion pills.

15 other states have such bans already in place, with 2 more going into effect in July.

The Overland Park, Kansas father-daughter abortion duo at the Center for Women’s Health had sued the entire Kansas 2011 Abortion Clinic Licensure law and obtained a block against it before it was scheduled to go into effect. The law included language governing abortions “by pill.”

CWH attorneys had complained that the original abortion pill provision potentially interfered with medication-induced abortions in hospitals. Today’s language should satisfy them of legislative intent. This would allow the Kansas Attorney General to petition the Shawnee County District Court to grant a motion allowing the abortion pill provision it to go into effect while litigation proceeds.

Sen. Jacob LaTurner (R-Pittsburg) carried the measure, which passed 39-0 without debate. The House is expected to take up the measure next week after the holiday break.

The new language clarifies that, except in the case of labor induction abortions at hospitals, the RU 486 (mifepristone) abortion drug

shall initially be administered by or in the same room and in the physical presence of the physician who prescribed, dispensed or otherwise provided the drug to the patient.”

The new language also grants an exception for a medical emergency posing a threat to the mother’s life or physical health. As updated last year, “medical emergency” applies uniformly to all Kansas abortion statutes and satisfies the past concerns of the abortion clinic attorneys suing this 2011 law.

S Sub HB 2228 clearly governs abortion pills– not “morning after,” “Plan B,” “Ella,” or other so–called emergency contraception governed under K.S.A. 67-6502.

The RU486 abortion pill protocol used in Kansas and nationally, typically involves a woman taking an initial dose of RU486 (mifepristone) followed within 2 days by a second drug,, misoprostol, generally taken at home.

These abortions “by pill” cause excessive bleeding– four times as much as surgical abortions– and pose serious risks to women. As of 2011, the FDA reported abortion pills resulted in at least 14 reported deaths and over 2,200 “adverse” events including 612 hospitalizations, 340 transfusions and 58 undetected (and life-threatening) ectopic pregnancies.

Despite the risky nature of this protocol, abortionists in Iowa implemented “webcam” abortions that excluded an in-person exam or consultation with a physician. In a “webcam” abortion, the pills are dispensed via a drawer beneath a computer screen, activated after on-screen contact with a long-distance physician.

Of note, the Iowa medical board opposes the substitution of a webcam contact for an in-person abortion exam and consult. The Iowa webcam ban, after being upheld in district court, is being appealed by Planned Parenthood to their state Supreme Court.

Webcam abortions eliminate the expense of hiring onsite abortionists, and might especially appeal to abortion clinics that currently rely on non-resident “fly-in” practitioners, as does the South Wind Women’s Center in Wichita, Kansas.

Frankly, pro-lifers do not support abortion by any method but the legislature has the minimum duty to insure that the mother’s life isn’t going to be put at even greater risk for some economic benefit of abortion businesses.

Read Full Post »

comp health PP (2)Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri hates the new ban on dismemberment abortions passed in Kansas. But it is already eagerly using opposition to SB 95– “this atrocious law” in their words–to fundraise.

However, there are two things they have had to tiptoe around in bashing this example of so-called “extreme political measures.” First, is Senate Bill 95’s title in statute–“which shall be known and may be cited as the Kansas unborn child protection from dismemberment abortion act.”

The second is the descriptive definition of what is outlawed:

“’Dismemberment abortion’ means, with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child, knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”

An email solicitation sent to supporters yesterday, signed by PPKMM President/CEO Laura McQuade, read (with their emphasis in bold):

“If Senate Bill 95 goes into effect in Kansas on July 1, 2015, PPKM will need to drastically alter our surgical services. Using inflammatory and non-medical language, this bill bans one of the safest methods of second trimester abortion according to every major medical authority including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization.”

Before dissecting that information, insert the reminder that abortion is never safe for unborn babies.

SB 95 bans one method of abortion: the shredding of a still-living unborn child in which the abortionist reaches into the mother’s womb with an instrument similar to a pair of pliers and grabs onto a body part, ripping a tiny baby apart, piece by piece until she bleeds to death.

It should be noted that McQuade does not write “THE safest,” but ONE of the safest methods. She’s backing off what all abortion chatter, and testimony to committees, has been against this bill–that dismemberment was THE safest method.

(In its partial-birth ruling of 2007, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on that gruesome abortion method. At the time partial-birth abortion proponents said this was THE safest for women.)

PPKMM issued a public statement in opposition to SB 95 on April 7, the day the bill was signed into law by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. Again, their statement omitted the title of the law and gave not a hint about the abortion method banned.

The statement pledged to protect women’s “decision-making ability” and “ensure that every individual has the knowledge, opportunity and freedom to make informed private decisions.”

In reality, PPKMM wants women to stay unenlightened about the Dismemberment abortion procedure which they describe innocuously on their website as “removal of the pregnancy with forceps.”

This complete lack of candor is in line with court testimony from other abortionists that they are comfortable withholding a straight explanation of dismemberment to pregnant women considering abortion.

Truly informed decisions are those made with all the facts.

I guess the hypocrisy escapes McQuade.

Read Full Post »

media abortion biasI came across an article online this weekend in which a media critic from the Los Angeles Times insightfully demonstrated the abortion bias of the media. The article was in-depth, explaining reasons why 82% of reporters supported abortion, and then listing the ways the media shapes biased messages, including how:

  • abortion advocates are quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably;
  • the news media consistently use language and images favoring abortion;
  • newspaper op-eds favoring abortion are 2 to 1 to those opposing it.

The trigger for the analysis had been a complaint from a female reporter that abortion interests were unhappy about her reports that examined advances in the treatment of premature babies. She was told to back off because those reports were undermining support for the abortion-rights movement.

It’s logical that abortion proponents would indeed want fewer glowing reports in which medical practitioners admirably perform surgery to save preemie babies (as in the recent PBS series, Twice Born), because it can only unfavorably contrast with abortion practitioners who brutally dismember living babies in the womb–a practice recently banned in Kansas and Oklahoma. (More on this momentarily.)

But something caused me to stop reading and turn back to the byline. That’s when I got a surprise, because the article I was reading was actually published in July of 1990! The author was the late Pulitzer Prize-winning media-critic, David Shaw.

Shaw’s observations from 25 years ago were as current as when he first wrote them— as borne out in this Friday’s NPR/All Things Considered radio report on the Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act and an editorial published Sunday in the Los Angeles Times blasting the same law.

First, the NPR radio report. It was filed by an intern, Eleanor Klibanoff, who taped me talking for nearly one hour (yes, I can speak nonstop on this bill). During that interview, I spoke of the law’s purpose, the Supreme Court’s role and –repeatedly– the gruesome shredding of unborn children while the mothers are anesthetized.

At the reporter’s request I even specifically read aloud the law’s definition of dismemberment, giving me some hope that at least a few words of it would get into the final 4-minute report. No such luck.

In the aired report, NPR gave Planned Parenthood three direct quotes, while I only got one –and not anything dealing with the victim unborn babies.

My quote, unmoored from the source (Justice Anthony Kennedy), said that good public policy required that what really takes place in these abortions not be obscured.  NPR then ignored that admonishment and refused to clarify what exactly does happen during dismemberment abortion!

Also withheld by Klibanoff, or her editor, was the information that at least two pro-choice Supreme Court justices (former justice John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) had admitted that partial-birth and D&E /dismemberment abortion methods were equally brutal–not to oppose either but to make the case that if the state had an interest in preventing one, it also did in preventing the other. The partial-birth abortion method is banned nationwide and banning dismemberment abortions is long since past due.

Other errors in the NPR report were incorrect assertions:

  1. that there is no alternative abortion method to dismembering a live unborn child, and
  2. that the ban violates a Supreme Court viability standard. (That so-called standard didn’t apply to the partial-birth abortion ban in 2007 when the Court upheld the ban on that method of abortion regardless of viability and it shouldn’t apply to this method either.)

NPR’s storyline was shaped to advance abortion interests just as Shaw described 25 years ago, with comments from a pro-abortion law “expert” and Planned Parenthood stitched together to portray a meme of unfairness to women. The NPR listener heard repeatedly that dismemberment abortion is “common,” “safest,” and “medically-sound,” and how “astonishing” it is that the legislature would “override medical science.”

The Los Angeles Times editorial riffed off of that NPR viewpoint, following up last week’s New York Times slam of the dismemberment ban. Both newspapers want the ban struck down; no surprise there.

Not needing to fake the “neutrality” of NPR news, the Los Angeles Times editorialist grabbed the soapbox, but didn’t have the guts to quote the entire legal definition of dismemberment. Excluded was the essential language about “the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments [that], slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”

And while whining about the “drama” of the bill, they ginned up their own drama. They portrayed women as relying on such abortions due to possible fetal disability, miscalculated gestation, or maternal health problems –while deliberately not mentioning that other abortion methods remain available, and that the law has exceptions for protecting maternal health and life.

Then there’s the gratuitous swipe at unborn children, in case readers have somehow learned what this inhumane abortion does to a well-developing baby. The editorial insists that dismemberment abortions are done to “fetuses that are not viable outside the womb and that scientists agree cannot feel pain,” regardless of “the unscientific claims of some anti-abortion groups.” (P.S. With fetal anesthesiology a bona fide medical specialty, how long can fetal pain deniers hold sway?)

Finally, copying a page from abortion guru David Grimes’ recent columns on dismemberment (which I’ve critiqued several times), the reader is advised to, in essence, ‘chill out’ because a D&E/ dismemberment is just an unsavory ‘tissue removal like a mastectomy.’

The media top dogs are certainly collaborating with the abortion agenda, but, despite this–as NPR grudgingly admitted–pro-lifers, “are winning in the court of public opinion.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers