Where we’ve been:

Prolegomena

Legal Case – 1

Legal Case – 2

Having seen in #2 that there is ample reason to believe that Planned Parenthood’s leaders are involved in illegal activity, and having acknowledged in #1 that anyone breaking the law must be held accountable, we now take up the question of punishment.  Who should be punished, and how?

It is clear, for example, that any doctor caught altering the abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving organs should be held accountable; likewise, any particular individual selling fetal organs at a profit must be made to pay the penalty.

But the argument being made by the Center for Medical Progress, and such Senators as Joni Ernst and such Representatives as Diane Black, is that this is a systemic problem.  That is, Dr. Nucatola and Dr. Gatter are not simply admitting what they are, personally, willing to do.

They speak for Planned Parenthood, in a leadership capacity.  They speak for the way things are, organization-wide.

Consider also, that Planned Parenthood has not denounced the words or actions of either of these leaders, but has only apologized for their “tone.”  PP’s President, Cecile Richards, says they would take swift action over any wrongdoing, but there have been no reported repercussions for the relatively straightforward admissions of illegal activity.

Therefore, if Planned Parenthood does not discipline its own employees, and if the problem appears to be systemic, it is only fitting that the organization, as a whole, is punished.

The bills that have been proposed as a result of the CMP videos act to withdraw federal (taxpayer) funding from Planned Parenthood.  They do not actually shut down PP, nor dry up all of their funding, nor prohibit them from continuing to do abortions, nor prohibit anyone else from doing abortions.

Rather, if an organization is to be held accountable for violating federal law, it seems reasonable to deny them federal support.  One does not pay the mugger for the privilege of being mugged.

This is, as far as I can tell, straightforward and fair.  After all, any taxpayers who are especially supportive of PP’s mission can always donate more money to the organization.  There would not be any restriction on this.

Moreover, the bills introduced by Rep. Black and Sen. Ernst would redirect the $500+ million to other, (one presumes) equally worthy women’s health centers.  So, taxpayer money would continue to support women’s health at exactly the same rate as now.  The only difference is that different health centers would benefit from that money, rather than the single health center that enjoys it all now.

In summary, one large women’s health organization, which we have reason to believe is engaged in illegal activity, would be denied taxpayer funding; 9,000 other women’s health organizations, which we have reason to believe are providing legal services to women, would benefit from a collective windfall of $528 million.

See the first two posts – Prolegomena and #1 – for an introduction to this series.

The first video released by the Center for Medical Progress depicts Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood, meeting with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics firm.  (Note:  There is a video edited for length and content, and a full, unedited video below the fold).

Recall from the first post that it is illegal to change the abortion procedure in any way for the purpose of preserving fetal organs and tissue.  Now:

2:54 – Dr. Nucatola notes that livers are in demand, and that they will use ultrasound guidance to “crush” the right parts of the fetus, in order to preserve certain organs.

3:53 – Dr. Nucatola explains how the abortion provider will sometimes change the “presentation” of the fetus for the purpose of preserving certain organs.  In medical terms, she explains that if the baby is presenting head-first, then they will have to crush the head; but if they can turn the baby around to feet-first, then the head will probably be able to come through without damage.  There is no mention of the safety of the mother.  The motivation is entirely the preservation of fetal tissue.

5:57 – Dr. Nucatola, on hearing that her buyers are interested in certain tissues, explains that she can “maintain dialogue” with the abortion providers, and they can make changes to the process to increase the success of preserving tissue.

Recall also that it is illegal to profit from the sale of fetal tissue.

7:13 – Dr. Nucatola advises that the legal arm of PP said they needed to steer away from the idea that PP is a middleman, because it could look like they are selling tissues.  She goes on to reiterate that their pricing is “per specimen,” which belies the fact that they are not simply recovering their costs.  That is, a liver from one abortion might be more costly than a liver from another abortion – but they will charge a standard price, rather than charging for the actual costs of the procurement.

The second video features a conversation with Dr. Mary Gatter, PP’s President of Medical Directors’ Council.  (The edited and unedited videos are, again, both presented).

Clips pertaining to selling fetal tissue at a profit:

0:22 – Actor posing as buyer asks what price Dr. Gatter is expecting.  Dr. Gatter responds with a negotiation tactic (as she later admits) – why don’t you tell me what you’re used to paying?

1:21 – Dr. Gatter refers to “our volume” – the number of abortions – from which the supply of organs will come.  This is indicative of her view that she is trading in a commodity, rather than simply offering donated tissue as it happens to become available.

1:48 – Dr. Gatter explains that, in some cases, there was essentially nothing for PP to do in order to provide tissues to a buyer; but compensation was still expected and exchanged.

2:22 – Buyer asks what sort of compensation is usually offered for “in tact” fetal tissue.  Dr. Gatter responds, “Why don’t you tell me what you are used to paying?”  But if PP was only recovering their costs, this would be irrelevant.

A little later, Dr. Gatter explains that, “You know, in negotiations whoever throws out the figure first is at a loss, right?”  The buyer pushes further, and Gatter responds with $75 per specimen.

The buyer responds that this is too low – she would be willing to pay more – and Dr. Gatter admits she was willing to pay $50 per specimen.  Again, negotiation would be irrelevant if PP was simply recovering costs.

6:49 – She conditionally accepts the $75 per specimen, but says she will go and find out what other affiliates are getting.  Of course, it should not matter what other affiliates are getting – she only has to know what it costs Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley Planned Parenthoods in order to procure the tissues in question.

Once more, recall that altering the abortion procedure in any way, for the purpose of preserving tissues, is illegal.  Note:

4:38 – Buyers ask about getting second trimester specimens, and Dr. Gatter explains that there is a little bit of a problem with this.

Ordinarily, they use one technique, but if they want to preserve the specimen, they have to use a technique that applies less force by suction.  She admits that this is a violation of protocol, which both PP and the patient have signed and agreed to.

However, she personally finds the argument against changing the procedure to be specious, and she will consult with the legal arm of PP to see what they can do.

And she admits, a second time, that the consent says there’s to be no change in procedure, in accordance with the law cited.

6:11 – If the business relationship with the buyers goes forward, Dr. Gatter will follow-up on the legality of using a “less crunchy” technique to procure the tissues requested.

By my estimation, there is enough reason here, in just these two videos, to suggest that systemic illegal activity is at work within Planned Parenthood.

Systemic, because these are leaders within the organization, and not dismissible as rogue agents.  In fact, at the end of the first video, Dr. Nucatola is explicitly lauded as “amazing” by Cecile Richards, President of PPFA.

Illegal, as demonstrated above.

There are more videos, and I will note the evidence of illegal activity in further posts.  However, the main thrust of the legal case will continue in the next post.

To date, six undercover videos have been released by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP), and it is these videos which have touched off the current push to defund Planned Parenthood.

In the context of the videos and in the surrounding debate, it is alleged that Planned Parenthood has violated two laws:

1.   Purchase of Tissue

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

(Related)  The term valuable consideration’ does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.’.

and

2.  Informed Consent of Donor 

No alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.

In brief:  1) You can’t sell fetal tissue at a profit, you can only recover your costs, and 2) You have to do the abortion the typical way, you can’t change the way you’re doing the abortion in an attempt to obtain tissues.

What CMP and their allies claim is that Planned Parenthood breaks both of these laws, and the videos prove it.  We will return to this claim.

Since they believe the claim is self-evidently true, they are seeking to defund PP.  But what does that mean?

Two bills have been introduced in Congress, one in the House and one in the Senate.  The bill in the Senate was recently introduced in a procedural vote, to see if it would garner the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster, and the measure failed 53-46.  Therefore, there has been no federal law passed to defund PP.

The House bill calls for the prohibition of federal funds given to any women’s health agency that provides abortions; the Senate bill is limited to defunding Planned Parenthood.  Both bills provide for the funds to be redistributed to other women’s health agencies; neither bill affects the legal right of women to have an abortion.

PP received $528.4 million in fiscal year 2013-14, according to their own annual report.  This comprises about 41% of their total revenue (see page 20).  Naturally, this would be a significant blow to their budget, and defenders of PP argue it would be unjust.  This objection will be treated in a later post.

Ultimately, it is a matter of fact that if Planned Parenthood has broken the law, they should be held accountable.  No friend of justice will debate this.

In the following posts, I will seek to show, in light of CMP’s videos, that there is reasonable cause to believe that PP has broken the law.  Then, I will argue that nothing short of federal defunding will rectify the situation, until or unless PP should give up providing abortions.

(Even if you are pro-choice)

I speak from the uncountable number of arguments and apologies I have encountered from pro-choice people.  If I am somehow neglecting your argument, feel free to introduce it.

I doubt, however, that any pro-choice argument can be reduced past this:  You are pro-choice because you believe in a woman’s right to choose.  That is, you believe in rights.

Bear in mind, first of all, that “rights” in general must be more basic than “the right to choose.”  The set of all rights bestowed on human beings includes such things – in the pro-choice rendering – as the “right to choose,” but it also includes – in the general American rendering – the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Very well.

Now, the right to life is pre-eminent.  Without the right to life, you could not have a right to liberty.  Enjoying liberty entails being alive.  Likewise with the pursuit of happiness, or equal treatment under the law, or whatever.

(Be patient with me.  I am not sneaking in a pro-life argument.  We are simply understanding that upon which we already agree.)

So one who is human and alive has a right to life; and we agree, at least, that a human is alive when she is born.  Thus, even when the child is born prematurely, we make every effort to help her survive.

**PAGE BREAK**

The first moral case is that Planned Parenthood allegedly permitted fetuses to be born alive – which makes them infants, for whom we agree the right to life is secure.

Then, they harvested organs.

Now, let me throw out the first offer, and make myself vulnerable in this discussion:  If this story is false, then the claim is invalid.  The story rests on the testimony of an eyewitness.  Eyewitnesses are notoriously imperfect.

And yet, their testimony is still accepted as evidence.  (Or do you not accept the testimony of rape victims?)  It is reliable enough that we consider it true, unless there is reason to believe it is false.

It is valid enough that an investigation is warranted, as it would be in a case of rape, or even a case of petty theft.

But if the testimony is true, what do you say?

If you are a person of integrity, you will say that Planned Parenthood has therefore committed an atrocity, murdering an infant in cold blood for the purpose of harvesting its organs.  Indeed – as we saw with the first two videos – for the purpose of making a profit.

You do not need to be pro-life to find this morally reprehensible.  You can be pro-choice and be every bit as disgusted and outraged (not petty outrage – real outrage) as anyone else.  You do not need to compromise on a woman’s right to choose in this instance.

If you are morally and logically consistent, you will want criminals to be held accountable.  There is a legal and moral law prohibiting the killing of infants, and it should be enforced.

We can stand together on infanticide.  If they are guilty, Planned Parenthood should be defunded and prosecuted.

NB – A possible objection is that, even so, the baby delivered in this instance was clinically dead, and one cannot kill what is already dead.  The beating of the heart is something like stored electrical energy, which was released, but this is not the same thing as being alive.

I answer that,

1. This is in the context of the accusation that Planned Parenthood makes efforts to deliver fetuses “fully in tact,” which is essentially the definition of partial-birth abortion (illegal) and sounds perilously close to delivering born alive infants (resulting in infanticide).
2. Even so, as my wife the PICU nurse said, every effort would be made to preserve and resuscitate the infant if it showed signs of life.  This certainly would have been true at the moment of delivery, even if, minutes later, the signs of life were incidental at best.  (She also notes that the rate of survival is not good in these cases, though neither is it zero).

As you may or may not know – but you probably know – there is a developing push to defund Planned Parenthood.  You might also know – but perhaps not – what exactly that means, or why it is being pushed.  In the following posts, I hope to bring you up to speed.

A few disclosures are required:

– At this point, I agree with the push to defund Planned Parenthood (PP).  Readers may assume a bias, but I don’t think it disqualifies me to inform you.

– Moreover, I will attempt to engage what the PP apologists are saying.

– You are your own judge and jury.  I will assume you are of fair and sound mind, even if you are inclined one way or another.

– While I will try to make the best, most complete case possible, I am not a full-time journalist, and furthermore, it is possible that I will make some errors.  Factual errors will gladly be corrected.

– I am pro-life.  What you read is a greatly subdued tone, in order to make a dispassionate case to the as yet uninformed and undecided.  If you are committed either way, I encourage you to keep your peace, or write your own blog posts.

Here is my outline:

1.  The layman’s legal case to defund PP.

2.  The moral case to defund PP, even if you are pro-choice.

3.  My on-going case to protect the lives of the unborn.

See you next time.

He truly is, and I enjoy his style.  But in this case, it is entirely unintentional.

I came upon this video through Reasonable Faith, which is a website and a ministry everyone should know about.  More on that another day; suffice to say that Dr. William Lane Craig is a true scholar, a true gentleman, and even he loses his patience with the platitudes and inchoate assertions made in this video.

For example, Gervais says that he thinks determinism is sound, then goes on to say that he feels that he has free will.  And then says it doesn’t matter either way.  And then says that, of course, people have to be locked up when they commit crimes, we can’t just have murderers going around unchecked.

If you’re not laughing or at least shaking your head, you might be an atheist.  Listen here and here for Dr. Craig’s responses.

This could-might be a spoof done to troll Christians.  Maybe Gervais is being funny on purpose, after all.  One can hardly be sure, because it’s devoid of logic, and deluged with bottom-of-the-barrel witticisms and so much hand-waving you’ll catch a cold.  Dr. Craig’s reply to one of these assertions sums it up:  Is there any need to refute this silliness?

There isn’t, except that children may be taken in.  It is a well-known claim that Dawkins thinks religious education amounts to child abuse; it is well-nigh obvious that he ought not to be considered an authority on the subject.

So much for the spokesmen.  Who is it who lauds these men, and what are they saying? Dear reader, enjoy the comments.

With 267 votes of confidence, Tony Hall writes:

To believers of all religions. Since all of your different gods claim to be the “creator of everything”, you have to ask yourselves “so who created your god?” and if you say “no-one did”, then you have to admit the most incredible thing of all.  Your god does not believe he had a creator.  So your god……. is an atheist.

HA!….(holds mouth)…(sputters)…HAHAHAHAHA!

No, let’s be charitable.  Old Tony worked hard for this bit of …insight?

First, there’s the really biting LOWER CASE G! which just oozes with disdain.  Tony, that hurts, bro.

Second, as a believer, I’ve never troubled myself asking, “Who created your god?” so you got me there.  Why didn’t I think of that?!?!

Ah yes – because I realized, as a child, that the question was absurd.  But for Tony, Dawkins, and Gervais, it’s magicians all the way down.

Third, Mr. Hall performs his own sleight of hand, unbeknownst even to Mr. Hall, one assumes.  I say unbeknownst, because he concedes enormous ground to the believer.

To get to his point, he has to admit that the chain of creators – Who created you?  And who created that?  And who created that? – ends in “our god,” or else his stunning conclusion will have no impact.  The astute believer will say, “Very well,” and now we all agree that the chain of creators ends with G/god, who was not created by anyone else.

So Tony is not an atheist.

Surely, though, Mr. Hall would protest that this is just a thought experiment, to show the absurdity of believing in God.  Very well, says the believer, what have you got?

Well, says Tony, if no one created G/god, then surely G/god will look around and say, “Well, if I don’t have a creator, there must be no G/god.  Therefore I am an atheist.”

Huh?

If God looks around, and sees He has no creator, He concludes…that He doesn’t exist?  Is this not about the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard?

Tony, Tony…if you looked around the room and saw that there were no other Tony’s…would you conclude that you did not exist?

Of course not.  You just are Tony, and it doesn’t matter if there’s any other Tony-ness going on.

Likewise, God just is God, and the fact that He is uncreated does nothing to change whether “a God” exists.  Of course He exists, He’s the one observing that He has no creator.

To Tony’s credit, he is the only one who even attempts to demonstrate a provable point.  We have Sarge Izzard playing on words for some laughs (“If the Lord is your shepherd, then that makes you mutton.”), which is absolutely not beneath me.  In his case, he simply thinks too highly of himself, or the joke would be humorless.

NotEnoughLions – courting controversy with respect to Cecil? – engages in some pop psychology, which is more or less aimless and, like the eminently more interesting Freud, also assumes atheism is true.  One sees how narrowly read the atheists are when they make claims like this; they don’t realize that plenty of Christians already have acknowledged their point, and made it more forcefully.

Of course, as one commenter notes, “All atheist videos have the same comments,” and it’s only a matter of time before someone trots out the whopper:

Any time you are under the delusion that an invisible, all seeing, all powerful, all knowing power is influencing your choices it is dangerous because whatever enters your warped mind may be interpreted as the command of that influence. It is dangerous!

This from Anthony Rizzo, who is also hitting home runs for the Cubbies.  I wish he’d stick to what he’s good at – a point Dr. Craig makes about Gervais and Dawkins, as a matter of fact.

The time it takes to unravel the tangles of meaning (are we talking about the genuinely deluded, or are you assuming atheism is true?) and the cherry-picked observations from history is not at my disposal here.  Suffice to say:  Even if Stalin, Mao, and many others did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism (arguable), they certainly did not commit them in the name of God.  As their crimes dwarf any religious death tolls you can bring up, by orders of magnitude, we can at least say this:

Perhaps belief in God is not the thing which causes the most human suffering, or inspires the most violence.  If we were to prioritize our efforts in order to prevent the greatest atrocities repeating themselves, perhaps there are other variables to consider first.

This is an extraordinarily modest claim.  If you cannot find your way to agreeing with it, you’re probably a new atheist, and there’s little reason to refute your silliness.

A hashtag has been trending on Twitter today, and at this moment has something like 17,300 18,100  22,300 hits:  #anotherboy

What this means, in brief, is that the word/phrase/topic of “another boy” has been cited over 22,000 times today.  It ranks as one of the top 10 hashtags.

What does “another boy” refer to?  In the fourth undercover video released by the Center for Medical Progress, the buyers are shown the organs of a recently aborted fetus.  A doctor and a medical assistant isolate and identify the organs, when the doctor asks, “Did you see any legs?”

The assistant casts about, then drags a longer piece toward the front of the petri dish.  They doctor notes it with some satisfaction, then says, “And another boy.”*

As I’ve recently become familiar with Twitter, this hashtag – and all the signification and context – this first-world, destined to become a relic of the early 21st century electronic media linguistic cue – this #anotherboy –

Well, it was devastating.

Start here:  In an environment which could not be more pro-choice, which could not be more conditioned to seeing a fetus as subhuman, this medical doctor actually says, “It’s a baby,” and later effuses, “And another boy.”

Look, no one knows what you’re thinking.  No one is going to harangue you, right now, for giving this a try.

Just let that settle in.  Somehow, this abortionist doctor looks at a petri dish of “the products of conception” and sees a baby boy.

I have more to say – in fact, I would suggest our doctor has more to say, though she did not intend to.

That is – this is another boy.  Another funny, physical, messy, sweet, troublesome, fearful, courageous, clumsy, beautiful boy, who we have let be reduced to a pile of his physical parts.  How many boys have we lost this way?  How many girls?**

Finally, there is the meaning which she did not intend (by her tone), but could not have been more clear about (by her actions):  This was “just” another boy.  As if it didn’t matter the slightest bit, as if human potential were negligible.

Again, you’re reading this alone.  What about you and your human potential?  What about the people you love and admire?  Might we throw them away so easily, and would you remain silent?

Friend, I’m another boy.  I was conceived unexpectedly, in a country where taking my life in the first several months was legal, for any reason at all.  I was all kinds of inconvenient, a cause for deep anxiety, and I hear that my mother would have been perfectly justified, in this culture, to end my life.

Fortunately, hers is a greater dignity than any set of rights could bestow on her.  And her grandchildren will thank her for that.

*I’m being deliberately understated here.  It would not strain any disinterested person to think this phrase was actually “exclaimed” and deserves an explanation point in the retelling.

**75,000 – Today.

In a previous post, we saw a quick and dirty demonstration of human exceptionalism.  In short, humans stand out from the rest of the animal kingdom not just in degree, but in kind.

What that means, in other words, is that human nature is something unique and valuable – one might say precious, to be treasured.

Among those who believe humans are exceptional, but are pessimistic about it, are the misanthropes.  You will hear them refer to humanity as a virus, as something needing to be limited – or exterminated.

If Nature teaches us anything, it’s that self-loathing indicates a disorder.  Quick:  What else in all the Universe do you know that loathes itself, other than a human?

Not even a virus does.

In fact, the misanthrope’s very premise, that the Universe would be better without us, justifies this argument that self-loathing denotes a disorder.  In other words, everything is in order, except us.

What is the disorder?

Genesis does, indeed, give us the answer, but let St. Paul summarize it*:

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.  As it is written:

Again – how else will you understand the misanthrope?  Do you suggest that humans are entirely and all good?  If there is some failing, some disorder, what explains it?**

There is a reason you let the heretic talk:  If he goes on long enough, he will prove your point.

Anyway, the misanthrope may wish to respond that, at the start, I suggested that human nature is unique and valuable, to be treasured.  I did.  He will say, “What makes you say that?”

And I respond:  What restrains you from living in the wild, like a beast?  Human nature – and the resulting society – are obviously better, even when they’re worse.

*Romans 3:9-12

**Damn bronze-age religion, it’s like they knew something about human nature.

This is an unexpected aside, but it’s fun for me, and I think at least one other person will enjoy it.

An astute reader with lightly barbed sense of humor observes that I have “begged a lot of big questions” in the first post.  My response is that yes, indeed I have.

It is worth pointing out that “begging the question” is a formal logical fallacy, which is short hand for “assuming your conclusion in the premises.”  The phrase has been adapted to its colloquial meaning, which is something like “the conversation leads me to ask an obvious question, which can best be answered by me.”

In any case, I have done something that may look more like the former, formal logical fallacy, in implying that humans are exceptional because they are exceptional.  But really, if the argument were laid out, it might go like this:

1.  We notice that humans are exceptional (eg. in their development of technology) among all animals.

2.  Distinctly human behaviors are marked by the capacity to reason.

3.  Humans alone have the capacity to reason.

Granted, this is rather rough-and-ready, but one sees that I have not assumed “reason” in the first premise.  Being exceptional does not necessarily imply that reason is involved.

Therefore, when we analyze (with our reason) what makes the exceptional, we identify the use of reason, which leads us to our conclusion in #3.

If, on the other hand, you want to insist that I have begged the question in the colloquial sense, I will probably shrug and move on.  One approaches these topics – any topic, really – with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of assumptions, and there is little time to prove to what all sane people think is obvious.