NRL News

Planned Parenthood on the defensive following release of tell-tale videos (Part Two)

by | Jul 24, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

Dr-Nucatola-week-after-img  When you have PPFA professionals unknowingly uttering one jaw-dropping thing after another to two undercover investigators, how could you rank them? How do you say one is worse than another?

To my mind the two worst (for different reasons) begins with one that is actually something from a “consent” form in which the beleaguered woman agrees to “donate” body parts of her about-to-be-aborted baby. Only, of course, the language is intended to mislead, not inform.

Research using the blood from pregnant women and tissue that has been aborted has been used to treat and find a cure for such diseases as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and AIDS

 So the baby’s heart or lungs or liver is “tissue that has been aborted.”  And if she “donates” her baby’s organs she is hastening the day when we find a cure for everything but teenage acne, which is as untrue as it as manipulative.

The other quote comes from Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director for medical services for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America,  the PPFA official munching on her salad and drinking her red wine in the first Center for Medical Progress video. She says

You know I asked her at the beginning of the day what she wanted, yesterday she wanted,  she’s been asking, a lot of people want intact hearts these days they’re looking for specific nodes. AV nodes, yesterday I was like wow, I didn’t even know, good for them. Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs. And then, like I said, always as many intact livers as possible. …Some people want lower extremities, too, which, that’s simple. That’s easy. I don’t know what they’re doing with it, I guess if they want muscle.

  It’s all awful but there’s this quick, almost parenthetic statement that continues to haunt me: “good for them.”

It’s a reference to the first time Dr. Nucatola had fielded a request for “AV nodes,” presumably a reference to atrioventricular nodes, a cluster of cells in the center of the baby’s heart.

I’m surprised she didn’t spit up her wine: I mean, like, wow, man, how cool is that?!

Why do I mention this? Because I read a piece today that appeared online in the pro-abortion-plus Mother Jones magazine that reminded me how much trouble PPFA may be in.

“Pro-Choicers Are Actually Freaked Out About These Planned Parenthood Sting Videos,” according to Molly Redden. “And they should be.”

Now, of course, Redden is trying to first make the point that both videos are unfair and that “politicians” are unjustly taking advantage of the uproar, and remind her audience that PPFA has passed through other bad times. Having said all that, why is should pro-choicers be ‘freaked out’?

Not because PPFA has done anything wrong–they would, of course never cut corners or take advantage of distraught women. But because….well, you have to go back a few years.

Her point, all dressed up in abortion-speak, is that PPPFA weathered the 2009 dustup because “Planned Parenthood’s status as the nation’s largest abortion provider was secondary to its reputation as a critical women’s health care provider.” Put another way, PPFA waved the mammography flag (although few, if any affiliates, actually provided mammograms), deflecting attention away from the tons of money it makes off of killing unborn babies. 

This time it’s different! Here it is summarized in 15 words:

The recent videos have refocused the public on Planned  Parenthood’s role as an abortion provider.

   I never expected to read the following from a pro-abortion source, even if it is tempered by qualifiers and a misstatement a third of the way through. Redden writes 

Crucially, there are moments in the videos when Nucatola and Mary Gatter, the medical director of Planned Parenthood, describe in frank detail the use of fetal organs and body parts. These portions of the video invoke images of “late-term” abortion—a political, not medical term that anti-abortion activists use as a catch-all phrase to describe abortions that take place after fetuses start to “look like babies.” Nothing is more controversial in American abortion politics. A majority of voters consistently support a right to abortion early in a woman’s pregnancy, but when the question comes to second- and third-trimester procedures, those same voters become increasingly hostile to abortion rights.

 So (1) the videos remind us that PPFA’s primary mission is abortion; (2) two leading PPFA officials spoke cold-bloodedly about what PPFA affiliates do to unborn babies; (3) PPFA is extracting whole organs from well-developed babies whom everybody but the Abortion Lobby agrees “look like babies”; and (4) the public not only greatly opposes second and third trimester abortions, these videos are a reminder that babies this advanced in their development are aborted and dissected for body parts!

Redden ends with this back-handed admission:

Earlier this week, Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said that the videos “give us a window into the soul of the big abortion industry.” If the public comes to believe her, it could spell disaster for the largest women’s health care network in the country.

Categories: Uncategorized