A pro-life, medical ethics group has released the fifth video in its ongoing undercover video series that allegedly shows Planned Parenthood doctors and staffers allegedly discussing the sale of aborted fetal body parts.
The latest footage, which was captured on April 9, 2015, features Melissa Farrell, director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, who is observed proclaiming that her organization has been “doing research for many, many years.”
Farrell also allegedly tells two actors posing as tissue buyers that Planned Parenthood can “get creative about when and where, and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue procurement needs.”
At one point, the buyers speak with the staffer about “financial gain” over a meal, and at another point they are seen with medical staff observing fetal remains in a pathology lab — a scene that is reminiscent of what unfolded at a different clinic in the fourth video.
“This patient was at, like, 18 weeks, I think,” one medical staffer said, while sifting through fetal remains.
The clip also features the faux tissue buyers presumably asking if abortion procedures can be changed and adjusted to account for specific organ and tissue needs, including fully intact fetuses — to which Farrell seemingly responds affirmatively.
“So, if we alter our process and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this,” she said. “I mean that’s — it’s all just a matter of line items.”
Watch it below (caution: graphic):
Posted by Southern on Friday, September 18, 2015 @ 23:23:34 EDT (419 reads)
The latest video exposing the trafficking of aborted babies by Planned Parenthood showed workers casually laughing over and probing at pieces of a “baby” and “another boy.”
The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a fourth investigative video July 30 showing Planned Parenthood executive, Dr. Savita Ginde, bartering over baby part pricing while admitting that the chances of providing intact organs are better if a woman “delivers before we get to see them.” The video showed Planned Parenthood workers laughing over “five-star” baby parts while trying not to “smush” them.
Ginde is the Vice President and Medical Director of the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) in Denver. According to CMP, PPRM is “a wealthy, multi-state Planned Parenthood affiliate” that performs more than 10,000 abortions per year.
In the video, actors posing as buyers and representatives from a human biologics company spoke with Ginde about partnering to harvest intact baby organs. During their interaction, Ginde revealed that, “Sometimes, if we get – if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure – then we are intact.”
According to CMP, PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in second trimester abortions, which means “any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law.”
“We’d have to do a little bit of training with the providers or something to make sure that they don’t crush” baby parts, Ginde added.
But more horrific part of the video came towards the end.
In the clinic’s pathological laboratory, where baby parts are sorted after abortion,
Ginde and a medical assistant casually probed at baby parts from 11-12 week-old aborted babies with utensils in a dish.
At one point, a buyer asked, “What was that? A crack, was that the just the little bits of the skull?” to which they casually responded, “Mhmm.”
Ginde, later looking at the dish proclaimed, “It’s a baby” and pointed out the heart.
The medical assistant also chimed in at one point: “My fingers will smush it if I try to get it out” and laughed over the dead baby, deeming the intact parts worthy of “five stars.”
Ginde also recognized a baby brain “blasted out” with water, and noted she sometimes doesn’t use water, so that the parts aren’t as “war-torn.”
Posted by Southern on Saturday, August 15, 2015 @ 01:00:57 EDT (518 reads)
Princeton professor and animal rights activist Peter Singer argued in a radio interview that it is “reasonable” for healthcare providers, insurance companies, and government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid to kill mentally disabled babies.
Singer appeared on the Aaron Klein Investigative Radio show to discuss his latest book, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.
Klein asked Singer—who served as a task force coordinator on President Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign—if he believes that Obamacare will lead to healthcare rationing in the United States, specifically in relation to “disabled” babies.
Singer’s answer? It already has.
For example, Singer said, doctors routinely end the life of babies born with brain hemorrhages.
“If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother… doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.”
Doctors who kill disabled babies, Singer explains, are likely “just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after.”
This is not a new position for Professor Singer; on his faculty page on Princeton’s website, Singer argues that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.”
Posted by Southern on Thursday, July 30, 2015 @ 01:03:15 EDT (415 reads)
When George Lincoln Rockwell, Elijah Muhammad, and Malcolm X Shared the Same Stage
From William H. Schmaltz, Hate: George Lincoln Rockwell & the American Nazi Party, Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 1999. The section on June 25, 1961 is from Chapter 6, “1961: This Time the World,” 119-21; the section on February 25, 1962 is from Chapter 7, “1962: A World Union of National Socialists,” 133-35. The title of this pair of excerpts from Schmaltz is mine, not Schmaltz's. Warning: strong language.—A.F.
One of the most important missions the ANP undertook in the summer of 1961 was an attempt to form an alliance with the Black Muslims and their leader, Elijah Muhammad. From its inception the ANP [American Nazi Party] had referred to African Americans as “niggers” and had affirmed the premise that they were mentally inferior to whites, but Rockwell became enchanted with the idea of a coalition; Nazis and Black Muslims could be allies, since they both sought the same goal—separation of the races. Rockwell told his followers that Muhammad
has gathered millions of the dirty, immoral, drunken, filthy-mouthed, lazy and repulsive people sneeringly called ‘niggers’ and inspired them to the point where they are clean, sober, honest, hard working, dignified, dedicated and admirable human beings in spite of their color. . . . Muhammad knows that mixing is a Jewish fraud and leads only to aggravation of the problems that it is supposed to solve. . . . I have talked to the Muslim leaders and am certain that a workable plan for separation of the races could be effected to the satisfaction of all concerned—except the communist-Jew agitators.29
Black Muslim cooperation with Rockwell and the Ku Klux Klan went beyond ideology and rhetoric. There were practical implications. Like his white racist counterparts, Elijah Muhammad believed that interracial sexual relations were morally depraved and genetically destructive, for interracial sex “ruins and destroys a people.” Rhetoric aside, he wanted to establish a truce between racists and his Southern mosques. To this end he sent Malcolm X to Atlanta to accompany Jeremiah X, the local Muslim minister of Atlanta, to a secret meeting with members of the Klan. Both sides discussed race relations. Malcolm described the integration movement as a Jewish conspiracy carried out by black stooges. The parties eventually hammered out the main issue: a nonaggression pact. If the Muslims did not aid the civil rights movement in the South, the mosques would be undisturbed.30
On Sunday, June 25, 1961, Rockwell and ten troopers attended a Black Muslim rally at Uline Arena in Washington. They watched in awe as convoys of chartered buses unloaded hundreds of passengers outside the arena and the Muslim vendors made a killing on official souvenirs and literature. The Nazis were frisked at the door of the arena by several well-dressed but stern-looking Fruit of Islam guards—the Gestapo of the Nation of Islam. A special guard greeted Rockwell, said into his walkie-talkie that the “big man was coming now,” and escorted them to seats near the stage in the center, surrounded by eight thousand Black Muslims. They were encircled by black journalists, who wanted to know Rockwell’s thoughts. He told reporters he considered the Muslims “black Nazis.” “I am fully in concert with their program and I have the highest respect for Mr. Elijah Muhammad.” Rockwell pointed out his only disagreement with the Muslims was over territory. ‘‘They want a chunk of America and I prefer that they go to Africa.”
The Nazis were very impressed with the professionalism and stagecraft of the event, especially the Fruit of Islam guards, who maintained their positions throughout the lengthy program despite stifling heat in the auditorium. Eight thousand faithful followers of Elijah Muhammad waited six hours to hear him speak. After several introductory speakers, Malcolm X stepped to the microphone to deliver a talk entitled “Separation or Death.”
“Muslims are not for integration and not for segregation.” Looking up at the audience as if to beg the question, he asked what they “were for.” The audience shouted, “SEPARATION.” Rockwell and the troopers vigorously applauded. Malcolm told the audience, now quite restless in the ninety-degree heat, that before the climax of the program a collection would be taken. He told the two hundred white people sitting segregated in the center of the auditorium to chip in “and give us back some of that money they didn’t give our ancestors. . . . I don’t want to hear clinking, I want to hear that soft rustle.”
Posted by Southern on Sunday, June 28, 2015 @ 00:38:49 EDT (434 reads)
Incomprehensible as the recent events in Germany must seem to anyone who has known that country chiefly in the democratic post-war years, any attempt fully to understand these developments must treat them as the culmination of tendencies which date back to a period long before the Great War. Nothing could be more superficial than to consider the forces which dominate the Germany of today as reactionary in the sense that they want a return to the social and economic order of 1914.
The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National “Socialism” is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to “socialism of the chair” and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.
One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too, as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment, have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because, and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany, many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience.
But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt. A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extent directed against their economic policy.
What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice — their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”
Posted by Southern on Friday, March 13, 2015 @ 22:39:33 EDT (502 reads)