So are Republicans going to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood?

[ivwshane]

I think you and I are talking about different kind of sensitivities here. I am not talking about goriness, but about human dignity. Imagine you need a kidney transplant. And luck would have it so that there is a volunteer who is willing to donate her kidney to save your life. She does so out of love (love for your or love for humankind in general), and does not care about compensation. You would of course be grateful for her incredible humanity, and even though she does not ask for anything else in return, you know you will do whatever you can when she is in need in the future.

Now, imagine a different situation where there is a doctor between you and a donor, and you and the donor do not get to see each other. The doctor does not seem to care whether you and the kidney donor have a meaningful communication, but seems more interested in extracting more money out of you and from your insurance. Moreover, the doctor tells you there are other kidneys available in different price ranges, and it is up to you and your size of wallet. You feel no choice but to choose the most expensive kidney you can afford so that is what you do. After the surgery you overhear the doctor bragging to his colleagues how much money he made by selling you a "premium" kidney that he would not waste his money on..

****

This is the kind of sensitivity I was talking about. Not goriness. I do not know how the Planned Parenthood doctor should have talked - maybe the doctors should not be put to such situation to begin with. I do not think commodification of fetal organs will help realize the ideal pro-choice folks seek.

So basically the propaganda hit piece worked on you. Just say that next time, we know what that entails.

 

[sandorski]

I think you and I are talking about different kind of sensitivities here. I am not talking about goriness, but about human dignity. Imagine you need a kidney transplant. And luck would have it so that there is a volunteer who is willing to donate her kidney to save your life. She does so out of love (love for your or love for humankind in general), and does not care about compensation. You would of course be grateful for her incredible humanity, and even though she does not ask for anything else in return, you know you will do whatever you can when she is in need in the future.

Now, imagine a different situation where there is a doctor between you and a donor, and you and the donor do not get to see each other. The doctor does not seem to care whether you and the kidney donor have a meaningful communication, but seems more interested in extracting more money out of you and from your insurance. Moreover, the doctor tells you there are other kidneys available in different price ranges, and it is up to you and your size of wallet. You feel no choice but to choose the most expensive kidney you can afford so that is what you do. After the surgery you overhear the doctor bragging to his colleagues how much money he made by selling you a "premium" kidney that he would not waste his money on..

****

This is the kind of sensitivity I was talking about. Not goriness. I do not know how the Planned Parenthood doctor should have talked - maybe the doctors should not be put to such situation to begin with. I do not think commodification of fetal organs will help realize the ideal pro-choice folks seek.

If the Doctor acquired the Organ from an Organ Bank, it would just be a body part.

 

[lopri]

So basically the propaganda hit piece worked on you. Just say that next time, we know what that entails.

Perhaps if you could enlighten me what propaganda you spoke of. You are rather quick to switch to attack mode to friendly ears.

If the Doctor acquired the Organ from an Organ Bank, it would just be a body part.

Yes, it is a body part, not a bottle of water or a bar of soap.

Do people really not see the difference between the two scenarios above or is it me that is so out of mainstream? Or is it because I tried to explain using imaginary stories instead of abstract principles?

 

[ivwshane]

Perhaps if you could enlighten me what propaganda you spoke of. You are rather quick to switch to attack mode to friendly ears.


Yes, it is a body part, not a bottle of water or a bar of soap.

Do people really not see the difference between the two scenarios above or is it me that is so out of mainstream? Or is it because I tried to explain using imaginary stories instead of abstract principles?

It's not an attack, it's a fact. You've been persuaded by a propaganda video to believe a doctor is callous and uncaring while totally ignoring or not realizing the context of the PP reps job. As I said people who deal with this stuff every day have to develop a thick skin. Doctors who have to tell patients they have cancer or tell parents their child has died, don't do it while being all emotional.

The propaganda video was edited and produced to elicit a response like the one you've had. You either recognize this or you don't. Me pointing that out to you doesn't change the fact.

 

[sandorski]

Perhaps if you could enlighten me what propaganda you spoke of. You are rather quick to switch to attack mode to friendly ears.


Yes, it is a body part, not a bottle of water or a bar of soap.

Do people really not see the difference between the two scenarios above or is it me that is so out of mainstream? Or is it because I tried to explain using imaginary stories instead of abstract principles?

To start with, your scenarios are ridiculous and not analogous to what the PP persons have said. Thing is, Doctors are just used to dealing with these things. A Kidney is more similar to a Car Part than some sacred piece of meat.

Hell, they'll even ask about your penis and not once flinch. They will do it using the Latin terminology, usually causing the patient to look puzzled, but they'll just clarify and just carry on as if nothing special happened. It's their job to deal with these things everyday. Body Parts to them is no different than a coffee cup is to you. If they need to deal with one, they get it and do what needs to be done with it. They don't mourn or get curious about the person it came from.

 

[lopri]

OK. So here is a (mis)understanding. Earlier you suggested my uneasiness with the depiction in the video might have to do with goriness. So I tried to explain that it is not goriness, and in that process I conjured up imaginary stories to get the point across.

I do not know whether the doctor in the video is a caring person or not. The point I was making is that we do not want to commoditize fetal organs because that is disrespectful to the women (especially if it's done behind the women's back), and such commoditization can have coercive effect on both the doctors and the patients.

To the extent the video made me think about such and post in this thread, I guess you could say I was "persuaded by a propaganda video." But isn't that what everyone in this thread is doing?

 

[lopri]

To start with, your scenarios are ridiculous and not analogous to what the PP persons have said. Thing is, Doctors are just used to dealing with these things. A Kidney is more similar to a Car Part than some sacred piece of meat.

Oh. My. Gosh.

I did not say Kidney = Fetus. And in no way I am equating the doctor in the video with the doctor in my hypo. The whole made-up story by me is not to be compared with the circulated videos whatsoever. ivwshane thought my uneasiness with the video might have to do with its goriness, so I wanted to explain that was not the case, and along the way I wanted to expand on my thought I briefly stated in my earlier post (#295).

If we start pricing fetal organs, then it is not out of imagination that the doctors might start thinking of them as commodities. And we know that money can change people's decisions. Money can also have coercive power. We want women to make autonomous decisions, free from not only government coercion but market coercion.

I think I am going to bow out. Emotion runs too high here for a detached conversation, IMO.

 

[ivwshane]

OK. So here is a (mis)understanding. Earlier you suggested my uneasiness with the depiction in the video might have to do with goriness. So I tried to explain that it is not goriness, and in that process I conjured up imaginary stories to get the point across.

I do not know whether the doctor in the video is a caring person or not. The point I was making is that we do not want to commoditize fetal organs because that is disrespectful to the women (especially if it's done behind the women's back), and such commoditization can have coercive effect on both the doctors and the patients.

To the extent the video made me think about such and post in this thread, I guess you could say I was "persuaded by a propaganda video." But isn't that what everyone in this thread is doing?

Again, you've been duped. Fetus' are donated with the woman's consent and only after the decision to have an abortion has already been made. By law the woman doesn't have a say in how the fetus is to be used and by law abortion service providers cannot sell fetal tissue for a profit but they are allowed to cover their costs. Speaking of selling for profit, if you think PP is raking in profits by charging $100 for a fetus you are out of touch with reality. The secondary market, those that buy fetal tissue, turn around and sell that tissue for up to $20k.

PP could easily make way more if it was actually interested in making money off of selling fetal tissue.

Unless you find the diseases the fetal tissue research is being used for more appealing than fetal tissue that was going to be discarded anyway, I have no idea why you would be disgusted at all.

 

[sandorski]

Oh. My. Gosh.

I did not say Kidney = Fetus. And in no way I am equating the doctor in the video with the doctor in my hypo. The whole made-up story by me is not to be compared with the circulated videos whatsoever. ivwshane thought my uneasiness with the video might have to do with its goriness, so I wanted to explain that was not the case, and along the way I wanted to expand on my thought I briefly stated in my earlier post (#295).

I think I am going to bow out. Emotion runs too high here for a detached conversation, IMO.

I'm not talking about ivwshanes "goriness" argument. I'm addressing your idea that the Doctor was being callous. They are just being Matter-of-fact, like practically every Doctor is.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not talking about ivwshanes "goriness" argument. I'm addressing your idea that the Doctor was being callous. They are just being Matter-of-fact, like practically every Doctor is.

Actually that was the point I was making as well, I just used goriness as an example of doctors becoming desensitized to such things.

He later clarified what his point was, which is that commoditizing leads to bad things. To which I had to correct his wrong assertions on the matter.

 

[sandorski]

Actually that was the point I was making as well, I just used goriness as an example of doctors becoming desensitized to such things.

He later clarified what his point was, which is that commoditizing leads to bad things. To which I had to correct his wrong assertions on the matter.

ahhh ok, thanks.

 

[Mxylplyx]

It's not an attack, it's a fact. You've been persuaded by a propaganda video to believe a doctor is callous and uncaring while totally ignoring or not realizing the context of the PP reps job. As I said people who deal with this stuff every day have to develop a thick skin. Doctors who have to tell patients they have cancer or tell parents their child has died, don't do it while being all emotional.

The propaganda video was edited and produced to elicit a response like the one you've had. You either recognize this or you don't. Me pointing that out to you doesn't change the fact.

One of our good family friends is a neurosurgeon. She sais during a long surgery, she'll sometimes be using the cauterizer, and the scorched flesh smells like cooked meat and makes her hungry. Is she a monster? No, she's just someone who does surgery on humans every day, and detaches herself. She couldn't do her job effectively if she was consumed by the emotional aspects of it.

 

[Anubis]

One of our good family friends is a neurosurgeon. She sais during a long surgery, she'll sometimes be using the cauterizer, and the scorched flesh smells like cooked meat and makes her hungry. Is she a monster? No, she's just someone who does surgery on humans every day, and detaches herself. She couldn't do her job effectively if she was consumed by the emotional aspects of it.

Surgeons have to be like this and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it

the ones that aren't break down and have to move on to something else


same applies to a mortician or a coroner. I know a few. their work is their work, its no more impactful to them then my office job is.

 

[First]

Well, you're flat-out wrong. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Polling for approval of abortions under any circumstances shows support of just 29%

Support for abortions under certain circumstances is a mere 51%, not a "super majority".

You're confused again. Read all of it; 79% support some form of abortion, but it 3rd trimester or 1st trimester. 61% support the right to 1st trimester abortion. Read.

Reallocating federal funds from PP to other health service providers does not deny or hurt service for women.

There are tons of non-P government funded HC centers in each state.

This is highly disputed, and again, the half billion PP receives from the feds annually is specifically allocated to women's health services but not abortion. It's a serious violation of the Hyde statute to use those funds for abortions. There's no question that defunding PP has everything to do with conservatives' disagreement with abortion, a minority viewpoint in America.

My post had nothing to do with "anti-choice bias". Instead, I'm saying the liberals' argument that reallocating funds away from PP would deny services to women is utterly bogus. There are plenty of other HC service providers.

No, there are not and I quite clearly quoted your own partisan source to show you why. Read it again, you're confused.

And since you claim that PP uses NO govt funds for abortions you must admit that reallocating those govt funds cannot impair anyone's ability to have an abortion. Right? Or do you want to have it both ways (as you seem to argue here): No federal funding is used to provide abortions, but we can't reallocate that federal funding because it would deny abortion services to women.

I've never said defunding PP would lead to denial of abortion services to women, though, so you have me confused with someone else. Though frankly, denying PP those funds could cause them to shutter locations I imagine, and since they also provide privately-funded abortions in those same locations, then an indirect effect could be the denial of abortion services. That's not a particularly crazy scenario to envision.

That website was chosen because it popped up first under a google search and had a handy chart with the number of clinics etc. I don't know anything about the site nor did I read the article nor ask anyone here to. I.e., any bias they may have is irrelevant since we're not concerning ourselves with their opinion or analysis.

Yikes. So you choose a source at random without doing any due diligence whatsoever.

And you wonder why your posts might be, erm, easily refutable? Come on.

If you think their numbers our wrong; hook us up to the correct info.

Fern

What numbers, your reply didn't contain anything resembling convincing data. You just listed the nominal amount of other health providers, to which I say so what, it says nothing in the context of a 320M U.S. population.

 

[werepossum]

No, you've been duped again. If you read the actual transcript you will see that prices are dependent on several factors. Some of those factors are, will the procurer come to pick up the specimen, does it need to be shipped, who will provide the containment, etc. Thats why no specific numbers are given.

This is just another testament to how good propaganda works.

One of the directors specifically declined to name a price because it would put her at a less advantageous position in the pricing negotiations. She also agreed to approach the abortionists to possibly modify their procedures to maximize income. Neither of those is consistent with just covering expenses. For that matter, neither is wanting a Lamborghini.

That may as well be, but since there was no such qualification in either direction (pro-choice or pro-life), I have to take the wording of question as it is. It seems like my impression on 2015 America was completely wrong. Plus, according to the graph, "Always Legal" has outnumbered "Always Illegal" since 1976 and that has never changed.

Agreed. In my opinion, it's perfectly normal that "Always Legal" outnumbers "Always Illegal" since women have possible direct damages (being forced to bear a child that in their particular circumstances they do not want to bear) whereas no matter how staunch an advocate of fetal rights one might be, it's inherently something that happens to someone else. (And hopefully tempered by some regard for the unwilling mother's rights as well - although that might be wishful thinking more than the rule.)

 

[ivwshane]

One of the directors specifically declined to name a price because it would put her at a less advantageous position in the pricing negotiations. She also agreed to approach the abortionists to possibly modify their procedures to maximize income. Neither of those is consistent with just covering expenses. For that matter, neither is wanting a Lamborghini.


Agreed. In my opinion, it's perfectly normal that "Always Legal" outnumbers "Always Illegal" since women have possible direct damages (being forced to bear a child that in their particular circumstances they do not want to bear) whereas no matter how staunch an advocate of fetal rights one might be, it's inherently something that happens to someone else. (And hopefully tempered by some regard for the unwilling mother's rights as well - although that might be wishful thinking more than the rule.)

Incorrect, again.

ACTOR: Okay, so, when you are, or the affiliate is determining what that monetary --

NUCATOLA: Yes.

ACTOR: So that it doesn't raise any question of this is what it's about, this is the main -- what - what price range would you --

NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved. It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that's going to be doing everything, or is their staff going to be doing it? What exactly are they going to be doing? Is there shipping involved, is somebody coming to pick it up -- so, I think everybody just wants to -- it's really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, well what do you do for this $60, how can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free. So it just needs to be justifiable.

And, look, we have 67 affiliates. They all have different practice environments, very different staff, and so with that number --

ACTOR: Did you say 67?

NUCATOLA: 67.

ACTOR: Okay. And so of that number, how much would personality of the personnel in there, would play into it as far as how we're speaking to them --

NUCATOLA: I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they just, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get otherwise.

ACTOR: You're not putting the patient at any more risk, right? As you said.

GATTER: No. Just slight variation of the technique.

ACTOR: Okay.

LAUREL: Which, the consent they're signing is for suction aspiration, it doesn't describe what kind it is.

GATTER: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we're not doing anything different, so.

ACTOR: That's what I need to understand, because what I'm seeing it as, of course, I'm looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

GATTER: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you're slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you're increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they're technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.

ACTOR: So it's technicalities, is what I'm hearing.

GATTER: It's something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that.

How many times do I need to prove people wrong before they ask themselves, "should I research this issue myself or keep believing the people with the videos who keep lying to me"?

 

[werepossum]

Incorrect, again.

How many times do I need to prove people wrong before they ask themselves, "should I research this issue myself or keep believing the people with the videos who keep lying to me"?

Download the Gatter interview. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=iOQgEiRBNLeL_gA_1y4Tzw&bvm=bv.99804247,d.cWw

Or you can watch it, albeit with a Planned Parenthood statement first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw

005300
Buyer: What would you expect for intact tissue? What sort of
compensation?
Gatter: Well why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying.
Buyer: Okay. I don’t think so. I’d like to hear, I would like to know, what
would make you happy. What would work for you?
Gatter: Well, you know in negotiations the person who throws out the figure first is at a loss, right? So [laughs]
TRANSCRIPT BY THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS
Page 10 of 26
Buyer: No, I don’t look at it that way. I know, you want to play that game, I
get it.
Gatter: I don’t want to play games, I just don’t want to lowball, because I’m
used to low things from—
Buyer: You know what? If you lowball, I’ll act pleasantly surprised and
you’ll know it’s a lowball. What I want to know is, what would work for you.
Don’t lowball it, tell me what you really—
Gatter: Okay. $75 a specimen.
​

This is also the "lady" who wants a Lamborghini. Although in her defense, she is much less amenable to tailoring procedures to maximize income than is Nucatola.

 

[ivwshane]

At this point it's pretty apparent that you couldn't care less about the truth so I won't bother continuing to post the unedited transcripts that totally dispute your claims.

GATTER: So Novogenix was our partner in PPLA and they would send us- you know, big volume. They would send their staff to the site, and our staff, our medical assistants were used to discussing with the patients, do you want to consent? And they would say yes or no, and a lot of them said yes. Maybe it wasn't entirely sixty, and then once the patients have signed the consent form, the patients did not receive digoxin, and Heather would look at the tissue- that's probably Laura- she would take the pieces that she wanted and it worked out well for everyone. She was unobtrusive, she was helpful, she did all that kind of stuff.

LAUREL [Gatter's Colleague]: Oh, my apologies. Hi.

GATTER: So we just started the conversation.

GATTER: They're a start up, they've have been about a year in business. They are for profit company connecting researchers with people willing to donate tissue. We just started talking- they were a little bit concerned about the fact that they're in Long Beach, but they understand that every California affiliate is paired up in a tissue donation program, except for Pasadena. Volume, that you for getting it to me is eight hundred a year. We were just starting to talk about the process worked with Novogenix down in Los Angeles when I was there. To back up a little bit, PPFA, our parent body, is on board with tissue donation, but we have to ask for a waiver to do it, and we have to lay out for them what our program's gonna be like. And it's absolutely a requirement that we use only the official, federal government form for tissue donation, that we don't modify it in any way. Novogenix was working on a concept that California has slightly different requirements, and so it's different, and so they wanted to very reasonably insert the California requirements into the consent form, the federal form, PPFA said no, you have to have two separate forms, so it just added to the burden of consent issues. But I was also explaining to them, back when I was in Los Angeles maybe sixty to seventy percent of people said yes to tissue donation.

So Heather, a Novogenix person would come to the site, and our staff would sign the patients up, and get consent. Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal, they have been paying by the case, and there was some discussion about do we, in a different way, or I don't know what you're used to doing, how you're used to doing compensation. Patients don't care what we do, of course, but-

ACTOR: You're not putting the patient at any more risk, right? As you said.

GATTER: No. Just slight variation of the technique.

ACTOR: Okay.

LAUREL: Which, the consent they're signing is for suction aspiration, it doesn't describe what kind it is.

GATTER: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we're not doing anything different, so.

ACTOR: That's what I need to understand, because what I'm seeing it as, of course, I'm looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

GATTER: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you're slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you're increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they're technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.

ACTOR: So it's technicalities, is what I'm hearing.

GATTER: It's something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that.

CMP: No, I don’t look at it that way. I know, you want to play that game, I get it.

Gatter: I don’t want to play games, I just don’t want to lowball, because I’m used to low things from —

CMP: You know what? If you lowball, I’ll act pleasantly surprised and
you’ll know it’s a lowball. What I want to know is, what would work for
you. Don’t lowball it, tell me what you really—

Gatter: Okay. $75 a specimen.

CMP: Oh. That’s way too low.

Gatter: Okay.

CMP: And that’s, really, that’s way too low. I don’t, I want to keep you happy.

Gatter: I was going to say $50,
because I know places that did $50, too. But see we don’t, we’re not in
it for the money, and we don’t want to be in a position of being accused
of selling tissue, and stuff like that. On the other hand, there are
costs associated with the use of our space, and that kind of stuff, so
what were you thinking about?

Enjoy your propaganda!

 

[CitizenKain]

Download the Gatter interview. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=iOQgEiRBNLeL_gA_1y4Tzw&bvm=bv.99804247,d.cWw

Or you can watch it, albeit with a Planned Parenthood statement first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw

005300
Buyer: What would you expect for intact tissue? What sort of
compensation?
Gatter: Well why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying.
Buyer: Okay. I don’t think so. I’d like to hear, I would like to know, what
would make you happy. What would work for you?
Gatter: Well, you know in negotiations the person who throws out the figure first is at a loss, right? So [laughs]
TRANSCRIPT BY THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS
Page 10 of 26
Buyer: No, I don’t look at it that way. I know, you want to play that game, I
get it.
Gatter: I don’t want to play games, I just don’t want to lowball, because I’m
used to low things from—
Buyer: You know what? If you lowball, I’ll act pleasantly surprised and
you’ll know it’s a lowball. What I want to know is, what would work for you.
Don’t lowball it, tell me what you really—
Gatter: Okay. $75 a specimen.
​

This is also the "lady" who wants a Lamborghini. Although in her defense, she is much less amenable to tailoring procedures to maximize income than is Nucatola.

Guess who is too stupid to understand context.

It really all boils down to that people who think abortion is bad cannot accept that anyone who discusses abortion without weeping and crying is a literal monster.

 

[Zorkorist]

This discussion is about Planned Parenthood, an abortion factory, sponsored by the state.

And whether a bit of baby tissue arm should be sold for 5 or 10 dollars.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

It's a barometer, of what people think is okay.

Killing babies.

-John

 

[fskimospy]

Guess who is too stupid to understand context.

It really all boils down to that people who think abortion is bad cannot accept that anyone who discusses abortion without weeping and crying is a literal monster.

Context only matters when it's convenient.

 

[brycejones]

This discussion is about Planned Parenthood, an abortion factory, sponsored by the state.

-John

Nope, it may be about Planned Parenthood, but calling them a state sponsored abortion factory is wrong.

 

[werepossum]

At this point it's pretty apparent that you couldn't care less about the truth so I won't bother continuing to post the unedited transcripts that totally dispute your claims.

Enjoy your propaganda!

Most of all I enjoy Planned Parenthood making my "propaganda" for me.

I made a specific point. You told me that was incorrect. I linked to show it was true. So you proclaimed it propaganda.

Guess who is too stupid to understand context.

It really all boils down to that people who think abortion is bad cannot accept that anyone who discusses abortion without weeping and crying is a literal monster.

lol Perhaps you can explain this "context". I suspect it's the same context that makes "All lives matter" actually mean "Not all lives matter" even when it's said by someone who agrees with you 100%. Ah, context, that magical potion that makes everything mean exactly what you need it to mean at the moment to support the ideology.

It is amusing that I can support not defunding Planned Parenthood and support a woman's right to choose an abortion and yet still be hysterically attacked by the far left if I don't sing every line in the approved hymnal. What a rigid ideology you guys serve.

 

[Atreus21]

God help us.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINIC CUT THROUGH DEAD BABY’S FACE TO GET HIS INTACT BRAIN
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...t-through-babys-face-to-get-his-intact-brain/

In the latest video produced by the Center for Medical Progress, Holly O’Donnell describes a medical technician using scissors to cut through the face of a newly aborted but nearly fully developed baby boy at a Planned Parenthood facility so that his intact brain could be extracted.

You know, I feel like a democrat now. I really, really hope this lady is lying.