Thursday, September 23, 2021
HomeFeatured EntriesPlanned Parenthood, Abortion, and Fetal Tissue Harvesting

Planned Parenthood, Abortion, and Fetal Tissue Harvesting

Promoted from the Dispatches by eburke for its thorough debunking of the “safe, legal and rare” canard

 

Reasons to Support Defunding Planned Parenthood

Protecting and preserving the sanctity of human life is probably the most significant consideration for conservatives.  Eugenics and genocide via means of abortion isn’t something any rational conservative is likely to support.

Another reason that could be stated is that the sexual education program promoted through Planned Parenthood and being implemented in many public schools encourages young people to become sexually active (read promiscuous) at a young age.  Oddly enough, it actually contributes to the increase in abortions in the long run.

Then there are other reasons, such as recent evidence that Planned Parenthood looks the other way when it comes to activities such as sex trafficking of young women.  We can’t overlook the violation in proper reporting of statutory rape that took place in Kansas (164 cases went unreported), Ohio (the two cases in this report both involved incest), Missouri, and Arizona, just to name a few.

The Health Care Being Provided by Planned Parenthood

What we have been hearing in the last few days is that Planned Parenthood provides badly needed health care services that some people wouldn’t receive otherwise.  Here are some stats on the “health care” that Planned Parenthood has provided:

In 2009, PP performed 332,278 abortions, the highest number ever, and an increase of 2.5 percent over 2008.

In 2009 they provided pre-natal services to just 7,021 women.

In 2009, PP made just 977 adoption referrals.

In other words, 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care.

Despite its protestations that abortion is only a small part of its services, Planned Parenthood has increased its number of abortions for 15 straight years. During that time, it has gone from committing 9.3 percent of all abortions in the United States to committing 27.5 percent.

Public funds, derived from the taxes that are paid by we the people, are used to support Planned Parenthood.  Public funds are also used to support the Medicaid programs in different states that allow abortion services provided through Planned Parenthood, which means that some of us as taxpayers pay twice for the privilege of killing unborn babies.

But it doesn’t stop there.

Fetal Tissue Harvesting and Research

Even if Republicans manage to defund Planned Parenthood, (which would be huge step in the right direction), conservatives will still have a major battle on our hands regarding abortion in general.  Fetal tissue harvesting has become a very lucrative industry in this nation.  In 2008, advertised fetal tissue resale values were roughly $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.

The National Institute of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 that was signed into law by former President Clinton lifted the moratorium on federally funded research involving transplantation of fetal tissue from spontaneous or induced abortions, leaving an open door for the fetal tissue harvesting industry to skyrocket through the roof.  Technically, fetus tissue harvesting is illegal, but abortionists, tissue harvesters and researchers have a found a way to get around that little technicality.

Under the Anatomical Gifts Acts of 2006, donation of fetal tissue is considered to be legal if the mother signs a donation release.  The mother donates the fetal tissue to the abortion clinic.  The abortion clinic donates the tissue to tissue harvester.  The tissue harvester pays the abortion clinic a “site fee” to place employees, known as “procurement agents” who collect various body parts of the aborted babies as soon as the abortion process is finished and ship them to various research facilities. The tissue harvester donates the tissue to a research facility, but bills the research facility a “retrieval fee”.

The tissue standards of the buyer can be high, requiring that tissue be “removed and prepared…within 5 minutes after circulation has stopped.”  The best means of meeting this requirement is through partial-birth abortions (which advances the baby’s progress through the birth canal before termination of its life takes place) or even full birth with death occurring after the baby leaves the birth canal.  (Remember Dr. Gosnell?)

This is an ugly, nasty, despicable, vicious industry that supposedly supports “women’s health” and “scientific advancement in the field of medicine”.

It’s costing us far more than just dollars and cents.

Personal thoughts and a few questions

If conservatives are going to get into this particular battle, then we can’t be naïve about what we up against.  We have to be realistic about the part that fetal tissue harvesting might play in this situation regarding the abortion industry.

Defunding PP is a starting point, but any abortion facility could engage in fetal tissue harvesting activity.  We’re talking about a major source of cash flow in this industry.

I oppose abortion, but if we are going to perform abortions in this country, then we should at least demand that it be done safely.  In response to the situation with Dr. Gosnell, the state of Pennsylvania has implemented new policies that require that abortion clinics be inspected according to the same standards as outpatient facilities.  This is a proactive measure that could prevent other situations of the same sort from occurring.  I hope other states will consider reviewing their own policies regarding inspection and standards of abortion facilities.

I don’t know for certain to what extent PP or any other abortion agency may be involved in fetal tissue harvesting.  But if the abortion agency is acting as a care provider or liaison to a care provider that accepts Medicaid payment for services, wouldn’t this also mean that they would be subject to Anti-Kickback Laws?  If so, could “site fees” be identified as kickback?

 

12 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

12 COMMENTS

  1. This is an awesome post, lineholder. So much for the ‘safe, legal and rare’ mantra we hear from the ‘pro-choice, pro-Planned Parenthood’ crowd.

    But your section on fetal tissue harvesting absolutely turned my stomach. May God have mercy on us for not only countenancing the killing of the unborn, but our craven use of their ‘non-human’ body parts for human beings.

    The depths to which we have fallen.

    Sigh!

    • I had a hard time writing it, eburke. It’s gruesome to say the least, but it is also morally repulsive…like looking straight into the face of pure evil sugar-coated to make it seem good.

      Former President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Act into place in 2003. This would have curtailed fetal tissue harvesting somewhat at least. It got challenged, primarily by the National Abortion Foundation and Planned Parenthood, was ruled unconstitutional, then sat on the docket at the SC for a while.

      But according to NRLC, the SC upheld it in February of this year. I think I’m going to try to follow up on this one in a few days, because there is so much more to this than meets the eye.

  2. The whole process of killing the unborn is so stomach wrenching that I have no problem believing that these ghouls are harvesting the babies to use for “science”. Everything that has been done with fetal tissues etc have proven to not work, did these idiots think that God would help them to find cures out of the spines of babies? of course not, so it is up to us to STOP them from doing so!

  3. Just to touch base on this….is there a lawyer in the house? There’s 50 years of info on this subject. I’m not a lawyer. If conservatives want to win this particular battle, we need legal input.

    This much I can say with a fair degree certainty….
    In a situation where a health care provider has a point of conflict (whether it be moral, ethical, legal or monetary) it can become a violation of patient’s rights under several elements of the Patient Self-Determination Act if
    1) medical paternalism that overrides a patient’s right to autonomy takes place (i.e. when the health care provider selectively provides information to a patient based on the beliefs, convictions or desires of the health care provider in an effort to dictate the patient’s choice of treatment)
    2) the conflict of interest prevents full disclosure to the patient regarding possible outcomes of treatment
    (for example, when an abortionist tells a patient that they can withdraw from an abortion at any time prior to the actual event without any complications taking place and this isn’t true)
    3) the conflict of interest prevents full disclosure to the patient regarding third party involvement (such as when the abortionist is also the “procurement agent” and therefore has a secondary vested interest in making sure that the abortion takes place)

    Those are three options I can think of stemming from the Patient Self-Determination Act alone. But I’m not finding anything to indicate that this challenge has been made in a court of law.

    An abortionist who is also a “procurement agent” isn’t going to be totally objective in the advice that is offered to patients. So it really isn’t pro-choice…it’s 150% pro-abortion.

  1. This is an awesome post, lineholder. So much for the ‘safe, legal and rare’ mantra we hear from the ‘pro-choice, pro-Planned Parenthood’ crowd.

    But your section on fetal tissue harvesting absolutely turned my stomach. May God have mercy on us for not only countenancing the killing of the unborn, but our craven use of their ‘non-human’ body parts for human beings.

    The depths to which we have fallen.

    Sigh!

    • I had a hard time writing it, eburke. It’s gruesome to say the least, but it is also morally repulsive…like looking straight into the face of pure evil sugar-coated to make it seem good.

      Former President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Act into place in 2003. This would have curtailed fetal tissue harvesting somewhat at least. It got challenged, primarily by the National Abortion Foundation and Planned Parenthood, was ruled unconstitutional, then sat on the docket at the SC for a while.

      But according to NRLC, the SC upheld it in February of this year. I think I’m going to try to follow up on this one in a few days, because there is so much more to this than meets the eye.

  2. The whole process of killing the unborn is so stomach wrenching that I have no problem believing that these ghouls are harvesting the babies to use for “science”. Everything that has been done with fetal tissues etc have proven to not work, did these idiots think that God would help them to find cures out of the spines of babies? of course not, so it is up to us to STOP them from doing so!

  3. Just to touch base on this….is there a lawyer in the house? There’s 50 years of info on this subject. I’m not a lawyer. If conservatives want to win this particular battle, we need legal input.

    This much I can say with a fair degree certainty….
    In a situation where a health care provider has a point of conflict (whether it be moral, ethical, legal or monetary) it can become a violation of patient’s rights under several elements of the Patient Self-Determination Act if
    1) medical paternalism that overrides a patient’s right to autonomy takes place (i.e. when the health care provider selectively provides information to a patient based on the beliefs, convictions or desires of the health care provider in an effort to dictate the patient’s choice of treatment)
    2) the conflict of interest prevents full disclosure to the patient regarding possible outcomes of treatment
    (for example, when an abortionist tells a patient that they can withdraw from an abortion at any time prior to the actual event without any complications taking place and this isn’t true)
    3) the conflict of interest prevents full disclosure to the patient regarding third party involvement (such as when the abortionist is also the “procurement agent” and therefore has a secondary vested interest in making sure that the abortion takes place)

    Those are three options I can think of stemming from the Patient Self-Determination Act alone. But I’m not finding anything to indicate that this challenge has been made in a court of law.

    An abortionist who is also a “procurement agent” isn’t going to be totally objective in the advice that is offered to patients. So it really isn’t pro-choice…it’s 150% pro-abortion.

Must Read