Planned Parenthood and the Media Should Stop Lying About CMP Videos

Come mid-July, it will have been two years since the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released their first in a series of undercover videos depicting conversations with high-level abortion industry executives. By giving the nation a peek behind the closed doors of the abortion industry, David Daleiden and his team at CMP have shifted the public discussion about abortion. Their undercover footage reached millions of people, many of whom were open to being swayed on the abortion issue, by giving them the opportunity to observe the depravity of the abortion industry for the first time.

For those who watched the tapes of Planned Parenthood and other abortion industry executives bartering over human body parts and speaking of crushing human skulls, there is little doubt that what the tapes show is evil.

With such damning video evidence showing their executives engaged in illegal behavior and nonchalantly talking about the horrors of abortion, Planned Parenthood knew it had to mount a defense. They couldn’t argue that bartering for human body parts wasn’t wrong and they couldn’t argue that the footage wasn’t real. They were left with only one excuse: they accused CMP of deceptive editing, a claim that has since been proven to be categorically false.

Two studies were done to determine the authenticity of the footage. One of the studies was commissioned by Planned Parenthood and conducted by Fusion GPS. The other was carried out by Coalfire Systems and commissioned by Alliance Defending Freedom.

Fusion GPS is an opposition research firm that has been used for partisan purposes by Democrats on multiple occasions, most notably when they produced a wholly unsubstantiated dossier accusing President Trump of performing unseemly acts with Russian prostitutes. Coalfire Systems, on the other hand, is a highly respected forensic firm servicing Fortune 500 companies and analyzing evidence in civil and criminal investigations.

While there is certainly a credibility gap between these two organizations, both firms definitively concluded that there was no evidence of audio or video manipulation.

The Fusion GPS study found that although there were cuts in the footage, there was no signs of edits or manipulation that would alter the meaning of the dialogue “[Our] analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation,” the report says.

Fusion GPS researchers cleared CMP of two specific accusations of audio manipulation made by Planned Parenthood and their allies. Roughly one hour and twenty minutes into CMP’s fourth video, a Planned Parenthood nurse off-camera proclaims, “It’s a baby,” while picking through the remains of a dismembered child. Planned Parenthood claimed that the interaction was suspicious, insinuating that their nurse did not actually say what the video depicted her saying. But Fusion GPS researchers explicitly refuted this claim in their report: “Neither internal nor expert analysis found any artifacts of editing in or around this segment that would suggest the audio was inserted or manipulated using technical tools.”

Similarly, Planned Parenthood accused CMP of manipulating the footage audio to portray a nurse as saying, “It’s a boy!” as she discovered the gender of the dead child. Yet their own commissioned analysis categorically rejected their claim: “Again, neither internal nor external analysis found evidence that CMP inserted or manipulated this dialog post hoc. [Our forensic expert] found the audio spectrum to be consistent and continuous before, during, and after this dialog.”

The Coalfire report was even more unequivocal in its conclusion that the videos had not been altered in any way that would mislead the viewer. They ascertained that the footage is “authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing.”  Additionally, while there were cuts in the footage, the edits were only of time spent “commuting, waiting, adjusting recording equipment, meals, and [for] restroom breaks.”

It is extraordinarily rare that two forensic studies, commissioned by political opponents and dealing with such a politicized issue, would come to the same conclusion. In addition, CMP released the full and unedited footage of all their encounters to show that their videos were not deceptively edited. It should have been a slam-dunk victory for the Center for Medical Progress. Why then do so many people still believe Planned Parenthood’s utterly falsified claims?

Planned Parenthood is not fighting this battle alone. Below are articles from prominent “mainstream” publications following the forensic studies which, as we just went over, were nearly unequivocal in their rebuke of Planned Parenthood’s claims of “deceptive editing”:

“Planned Parenthood videos were altered, analysis finds” -The New York Times

“How Planned Parenthood hoax avoids the Truth” -CNN

“Republicans Look to Punish Planned Parenthood Without Any Evidence” -Washington Post

“Planned Parenthood videos: Deceptive edits found by report” -Politico

“Why the undercover Planned Parenthood Videos Aren’t Journalism” -Columbia Journal Review

“Planned Parenthood to House, Senate leaders: Videos manipulated” -The Hill

“Planned Parenthood takes us inside the anti-abortion video editing shop” -LA Times

“Planned Parenthood Says Experts Found Misleading Edits In Videos” -NPR

Although the headlines are misleading, the articles from which they are pulled are even worse. Media reports like these have been so astoundingly inaccurate that purposeful dishonesty with the intent of protecting Planned Parenthood is the only reasonable explanation.

For all intents and purposes, these “news” organizations are public relations firms providing pro-bono service to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry. The shameless lying displayed by mainstream news seems to surpass that of Planned Parenthood’s own press releases. Even the usually reliable CNN host Jake Tapper cast aside his integrity to carry water for the nation’s largest abortion provider.

There is exactly zero justification for Planned Parenthood’s baseless accusations that the videos were misleadingly altered. Planned Parenthood’s own commissioned study discredits their claims. Anyone claiming otherwise is an intentional liar or a useful idiot.

Without social and alternative media, the truth about CMP’s videos would likely have been hidden from the American public. The information gatekeepers of traditional media have a small range of tolerable thought on the abortion issue, and they are willing to do what it takes to suppress the pro-life movement’s efforts to disseminate the truth about the abortion industry.


James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.


 

Culture of Death: Parents Successfully Sue Doctor For Wrongful Birth

Iowa’s Supreme Court recently ruled that the parents of a disabled child can sue their doctor for failing to warn them of the boy’s disability. Had Jeremy and Pamela Plowman known that their child, referred to as “Z.P.” in the lawsuit, had cerebral palsy, they say they would have had him aborted prior to birth.

Iowa is the 24th state to allow “wrongful birth” lawsuits through court decisions and the 25th overall. This decision is a logical extension of landmark abortion cases like Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), which established that parents have the right to kill their children in the womb for any reason. If the right to kill unborn children exists, it follows that a doctor’s failure to inform the parents of an unborn child about the presence of an undesirable trait would indeed be a violation of that right.

This case reminds us that we find ourselves in a culture of death. This is the culture created by the abortion industry, along with help from Supreme Court decisions written by Justices Harry Blackmun (of Roe) and Anthony Kennedy (of Casey).

Short of overturning Roe and Casey, there isn’t much we can do in the legal realm. However, this case provides an opportunity for the pro-life movement to gain ground in the culture.

It’s difficult for most people to relate to the victims of abortion, in part because we can’t remember our lives in the womb. That’s why it’s so important for those engaged in pro-life apologetics to share the stories of those who have survived botched abortions.

There’s a reason that the abortion industry, abortion lobby, abortion supporters, and mainstream media pretend that survivors of abortion like Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden don’t exist. There’s a reason they react maliciously when we show images of children killed by abortionists. They do this because their culture of death can be perpetuated only if the victims of abortion remain faceless.

I don’t know Z.P. I don’t even know his full name. But I know that he is a human being with inherent worth and that it would have been an act of violence to kill him.

Thankfully, Z.P.’s disability was not recognized prior to his birth. Let’s hope the Plowmans eventually come to understand the beauty and value of their son.


James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.


 

Oregon Legislation Would Allow Nursing Homes to Starve Dementia Patients

Nora Harris, 64, is in an advanced stage of Alzheimer’s. Although she is conscious, she can no longer use utensils to eat and drink.

Under current Oregon state law, so long as Nora is conscious, her caretakers must offer her food and water and help her to eat and drink.

Bill Harris, Nora’s husband, believes that Nora would rather starve to death. He sued to stop the spoon-feeding last year but lost the case.

Oregon lawmakers are now considering legislation that would allow nursing homes and hospitals to starve and dehydrate patients like Nora.

Oregon Right to Life says SB494, which passed the Senate last week, “would allow the starving and dehydrating of patients who suffer from dementia or mental illness.” David Kilada, Oregon Right to Life’s political director, explained the legislation in a post on ORTL’s blog:

“SB 494 removes current safeguards which prohibit surrogates from withholding ordinary food and water from conscious patients with conditions that don’t allow them to make decisions about their own care. Currently, patients like Nora are given help with eating and drinking when they cannot do it themselves. This is not tube feeding or an IV—this is basic, non-medical care for conscious patients.

“The way these safeguards are removed is subtle. A cursory look at SB 494 might lead you to think it merely updates the law regarding advance directive. This is true, but there’s more. If the bill passes, it could allow a court to interpret a request on an advance directive to refuse tube feeding to also mean you don’t want to receive spoon feeding! SB 494 would also create a committee, appointed rather than elected, that can make future changes to the advance directive without approval from the Oregon Legislature. This could easily result in further erosion of patient rights.”

The patients who would be affected by SB494 aren’t comatose. They aren’t relying on ventilators, tube feeding, or an IV to stay alive. Instead, these patients are fully conscious and aware; they are simply unable to feed themselves.

Current Oregon administrative rules require that nursing homes offer their patients three meals and snacks each day. The facilities must also provide “assistance with eating (e.g., supervision of eating, cueing, or the use of special utensils).”

Patients can refuse to eat the food they are given, but Nora still expresses a desire to eat. SB494 would allow Nora’s nursing home to withhold food and water from her, even if she wants to eat and drink.

With its passage in the Senate, SB494 now moves to the House of Representatives. Oregon was the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide in 1997 for terminally ill patients. Since then, a total of 1,127 patients have died from doctors giving them prescription medication to end their lives, according to a 2017 report by the Oregon Public Health Division.

When Doctors and Judges Turn Murderous

Update (06/14/2017): The European Court of Human Rights will allow Charlie Gard to be kept on life support while they consider the case.


Doctors and judges in Great Britain may kill an innocent baby boy today.

Charlie Gard is ten months old. Like many baby boys, he likes holding his stuffed animal monkey.

Sadly, Charlie has mitochondrial disease, an extremely rare genetic disorder affecting the part of cells that create the energy needed for life. Although Charlie has been on life support for months, a doctor in the United States has offered the family an experimental treatment that might save his life. Tens of thousands of people have donated $1.6 million to pay for the treatment.

Even with the possibility of successful treatment across the Atlantic, Charlie’s doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London refused to let his parents take him to America for treatment. Specialists then petitioned a British Court for permission to end his life, despite pleas from the his parents to keep him alive.

Justice Francis, the High Court judge who heard Charlie’s case, ruled that “it is in Charlie’s best interests” for the hospital “to permit Charlie to die with dignity.” In his ruling, Justice Francis rejected the objections of those who ask why courts should make these decisions and override the rights of parents:

“The duty with which I am now charged is to decide, according to well laid down legal principles, what is in Charlie’s best interests. Some people may ask why the court has any function in this process; why can the parents not make this decision on their own? The answer is that, although the parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests.”

According to Connie Yates, Charlie’s mother, the American doctor says there is no reason why the treatment wouldn’t work for her baby boy. Yet the British doctors and judges steadfastly refuse to budge.

Connie posts regular updates on her Facebook page. Her timeline is filled with pictures of her holding her son, alongside captions like “We won’t give up on you baby boy” and “If he’s still fighting, we’re still fighting.”

Throughout the ordeal, her social media posts have kept a positive tone. At times, though, her vexation seeps into her posts. “We have had the money for over 2 months but we are NOT allowed to take OUR OWN SON to a hospital that want to try and save his life!” Connie wrote last week.

“Why can’t we be trusted as parents?? I would never sit by my Sons side and watch him suffer, I’m not like that! Why can’t the drs in America be trusted either?? Why why why can’t we try and save our Sons life??”

Connie and Chris (Charlie’s dad) are heroes. When doctors told them their son’s life wasn’t worth saving, they kept fighting. When a judge unilaterally decided it’s better to kill the baby than to allow them to seek treatment elsewhere, they kept fighting.

The Telegraph, an English newspaper, even published an insensitively written editorial by a mother who had lost a son. Her advice to Charlie’s young parents? “Sometimes in life things just don’t go as you want them to… Sometimes you have to let go.”

But these heroes keep fighting. They know the immeasurable value of their baby boy’s life.

On the other hand, if Charlie is killed, the doctors and judges involved in his case will be nothing less than murderers, perversely justifying their senseless slaughter with the fallacious claim that their murderous act will be merciful and in the best interest of their victim.

What about the parents? Don’t their wishes and beliefs count for something? Are they not ultimately responsible for their child?

We cannot stand silent as this innocent baby boy is murdered by the government that is supposed to protect him and the doctors who swore an oath to “do no harm.” This is the fruit of the culture of death. This is the fruit of the “death with dignity” movement. We have devalued life to the point that doctors and judges think they can decide whose lives are worth living.

Yesterday, Charlie’s parents were able to enjoy their first picnic with him. “Charlie was awake the whole time. It was wonderful for him to feel the sun on his face and the wind in his hair,” Connie said. “We put on some music and Chris and I lay down next to Charlie. For the first time in months we felt like a normal family.”

Charlie’s fate now rests in the hands of the European Court of Human Rights. It will likely decide today whether Charlie’s life is “worth living.”

No matter how the Court decides, we cannot give up fighting for the most vulnerable. We must keep defending life.


Blaine Conzatti is a columnist and research fellow at the Family Policy Institute of Washington. He can be reached at Blaine@FPIW.org.

New Undercover Video: Abortion Industry Insiders Concede That Abortion is Violent Killing

Even abortionists now admit that they are contract killers.

Abortion is a violent act that ends the life of a human being. The pro-life movement has spent countless hours attempting to convince the public of this truth.

The latest undercover video from inside the world of abortion indicates that the abortion lobby is getting ready to concede that abortion is murder.

At a National Abortion Federation conference, Lisa Harris, director of Planned Parenthood of Michigan, tells a crowd of abortion industry insiders that the pro-life argument accurately represents the nature of abortion:

“Given that we actually see the fetus the same way, and given that we might actually both agree that there’s violence in here… Let’s just give them all the violence, it’s a person, it’s killing, let’s just give them all that.”

Although this development will likely come as a surprise to many, the abortion lobby doesn’t have much of a choice. As our scientific capabilities grow, the argument that the unborn child is not a living human being becomes progressively less tenable.

Modern ultrasound technology has been a boon for the pro-life movement, and in the not-too-distant-future, 3-D printing technology will allow doctors to place exact models of unborn children in the arms of their mothers and fathers. Incubation and artificial womb technology will continue to push viability earlier and earlier into the pregnancy. New media innovations and technologies are allowing the pro-life movement to display the humanity of the unborn on a large scale.

Excluding the most dogmatic of abortion zealots, these technological developments have effectively ended the debate over whether an unborn child is human.

The abortion lobby’s admission that abortion involves killing an unborn person will be an extraordinarily difficult position to defend. As pro-life individuals, this is a huge opportunity. We are now able to show the humanity of the unborn child without any pushback on the issue. We must take advantage.

Get out and make the argument. Use images and winsome arguments to illustrate the humanity of the unborn child. And if someone wants to argue the child’s humanity further, refer them to this video.

Editor’s Note: The shocking video has been pulled by YouTube. YouTube claims the video violates the video-sharing website’s terms of service.  A copy of the video is available here: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/center-medical-progress-video.


James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.

4 Reasons Suicide Is Increasing Among Young Adults

Suicide is back in the news again.

After seven of its students committed suicide, a Colorado school district last month temporarily pulled from its libraries 13 Reasons Why, the young adult fiction book turned Netflix television teen drama that critics say glamorizes suicide.

The book chronicles the suicide of Hannah Baker, a high school junior who leaves behind thirteen cassette tapes explaining her reasons for committing suicide.

Like Hannah Baker, many young adults are turning to suicide as an escape from the pressures of life. From 2000 to 2015, the suicide rate increased 27% among those aged 20 to 35 (the U.S. average suicide rate among all age groups increased by almost 21% during the same time period). Washington State’s suicide rate is 16% higher than the national average.

 

Two Factors That Fail To Explain The Increasing Suicide Rate

Many experts blame increased economic hardship and inadequate mental health services for the recent rise in suicide. However, these easy explanations misrepresent available data and fall short of adequately explaining the troubling trend.

From a material perspective, life on earth has never been better. Thanks to global trade and extraordinary technological advances, Americans today enjoy a higher standard of living, greater economic security, longer life expectancy, less crime, and more leisure than any other people throughout history. Even the poorest among us live far more prosperous lives than our richest grandparents could have imagined. And let us not forget that Americans living in poverty still boast a higher living standard than the average European.

Additionally, the recent increase in suicide cannot be blamed on undersupplied mental health services. Both federal and state governments have progressively increased mental health funding over recent decades (paradoxically, the inefficient and inflexible bureaucracy created to administer mental health programs and treatments may make it more difficult for those struggling with mental health conditions to receive the care they need).

In exclusively focusing on economic circumstances and mental health funding, we ignore profound cultural shifts that better explain rising suicide rates.

 

Four Reasons Suicide Is Increasing Among Young Adults

Here are four factors likely contributing to the significant increase in suicide among young Americans:

Delayed Marriage: More than ever before, young people are choosing to delay marriage or forgo it entirely. In 1960, the median age at first marriage was 22.8 for men and 20.3 for women, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Today, the median age at first marriage has increased to 29.5 for men and 27.4 for women. Almost half of 34-year-olds have never been married.

These unmarried millennials sacrifice the benefits that come with being united to a committed partner in marriage. A survey of scientific literature conducted by the Marriage and Religion Research Institute found that married individuals are healthier, happier, and more financially secure than their unmarried peers. They experience greater emotional and psychological well-being than those who are unmarried. Notably, married individuals are less likely to commit suicide.

Increased Worker Mobility: Americans move for work more often than Europeans. Although greater worker mobility boosts the economy and results in better matching of employees and jobs, it can also cause individuals to become detached from communities that help provide belonging, happiness, and emotional and financial support.

Researchers have discovered a link between residential mobility and suicide. “Indeed, residential mobility can be associated with higher levels of stress, crime, poor health, and what sociologists call ‘social disorganization,’” writes Ryan McMaken for the Mises Institute.

Decreased Religiosity: Young Americans have increasingly disconnected from religious institutions over the last few decades, choosing instead to live according to their own “personalized spirituality” or rejecting religion entirely.

A Pew Research Center study published two years ago found that only 28% of millennials born between 1981 and 1996 attend religious services weekly, significantly less than 51% of the Silent Generation (those born between 1928 and 1945). Younger millennials are also less likely to believe in God (80%) and consider religion to be an important part of their lives (38%).

Unfortunately, by eschewing involvement in religious communities, millennials sacrifice the kinship and solidarity those communities provide. Religion helps provide meaning to life, and religious communities equip individuals with the relationships and support necessary to withstand life’s treacherous seas.

Unsurprisingly, religiously unaffiliated individuals had “significantly more lifetime suicide attempts” than their religiously affiliated peers, according to a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry. The study’s authors also concluded that “subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide.”

Postmodernism: Millennials attain higher levels of education than previous generations. This makes them more susceptible to postmodernism, the prevailing worldview taught in higher education.

Postmodernism posits that reality is unknowable and meaningless. In attempting to overthrow traditional values, postmodernism dispenses with objective and transcendent truths that provide individuals with a realistic framework through which to perceive the world. Postmodernists sort everyone into one of two groups: the oppressors and the victims, the latter of which suffer from systemic societal and cultural oppression at the hands of the former.

Survey data indicate a considerable number of millennials have bought into the postmodern worldview propagated by their colleges and universities. Only 40% of those under age 35 believe “right and wrong never change,” and just 4% of millennials hold to a biblical worldview.

Philosopher Richard M. Weaver observed decades ago that “ideas have consequences.” Teaching the next generation that life is meaningless, truth is unknowable, and that tradition and conventional wisdom must be discarded yields predictable results. Such a corrosive worldview will only produce rotting fruit.

 

There Is No Easy Fix

Suicide is increasing because our culture has lost its moorings. We need to acknowledge that the exploding suicide rate among Americans and Washingtonians will not be solved through a growing economy or greater mental health funding. As long as individuals continue to disconnect from the relationships, communities, and truth that provide meaning to life, suicide will continue becoming more prevalent.

There is no easy fix. Reversing the trend depends on effectively confronting the lies accepted by culture and society fueling hopelessness and social disorganization. We must also work to ensure our communities can successfully provide for the material, emotional, and spiritual needs of their members.


Blaine Conzatti is a columnist and research fellow at the Family Policy Institute of Washington. He can be reached at Blaine@FPIW.org.

Under Trump, Fight Against Human Trafficking Intensifies

In the mainstream media’s recent mission to topple Trump’s presidency at any cost, some of his accomplishments have flown under the radar. One accomplishment that should be garnering considerable media coverage (but remains largely unreported) is recent success in the fight against human trafficking.

According to an article by Liz Crokin of Townhall.com, over 1,500 human trafficking arrests have been conducted by the FBI in the last two months alone. Naysayers are already contending that these arrests are in no way associated with the president. Some go as far as calling these victories “mythical.”

The facts seem to contradict the narrative proposed by the cynics. Some of the more prominent arrests for human trafficking include:

  • January: During the Detroit Auto Show Law Enforcement Officers made over a dozen arrests and rescued 14 adults and 2 underage victims
  • January 27: Operation Someone Like Me resulted in 42 arrests by LEOs in Tennessee
  • January 26-28: Operation Reclaim and Rebuild resulted in the arrest of 474 individuals with 27 adult victims and 28 underage victims rescued.
  • February 9 : Twenty-nine sex traffickers and 723 johns were arrested nationwide during the National John’s Suppression Initiative.
  • February 21: Nine individuals arrested with 11 women and 1 underage victim liberated in New Orleans.
  • March 7: San Joaquin County Sting resulted in 10 individuals arrested and 2 victims saved.
  • March 10: The Guardian Angel Human Trafficking Operation resulted in 9 arrested.

Law enforcement’s increased emphasis on reducing human trafficking has resulted in more arrests related to human trafficking than the entire 2014 calendar year (in which there were only 480 arrests) and the 2015 calendar year (750 arrests). Such a dramatic increase in arrests suggests that something has changed. It seems to me that Trump’s vociferous support of law enforcement since the first day of his term could be the catalyst.

In any event, we can certainly celebrate that our children and millions of children nationwide are safer due to the devotedness of local law enforcement and FBI agents. The media should leave politics aside and give mention to the success and dedication of those working to eliminate human trafficking.

 

Kyli Erickson is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog.

PP Abortionist Laughs About Dismemberment Abortions in New Undercover Video

The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released new video footage yesterday of undercover conversations with high-ranking abortion industry executives. The recording depicts conversations that occurred at the North America Forum on Family Planning. In the video, former Planned Parenthood abortion provider DeShawn Taylor is prominently featured discussing the dismemberment abortions she performs.

The footage shows CMP activists, posing as fetal tissue buyers, talking with Taylor about the importance of intact fetal tissue to scientific research. Abortionists often manipulate the position of the fetus during pregnancy to maintain the monetary and research value of intact fetal tissue, which is alluded to by the undercover buyer:

Buyer: Breech position [delivery of child feet first] is great, I’ll just throw that out there.

Taylor: Part of the issue is, it’s not a matter of how I feel about it coming out intact, but I’ve got to worry about my staff and people’s feelings of it coming out looking like a baby.

Here’s a good rule of thumb for Taylor: If he or she looks like a baby, they’re probably a baby.

Taylor also talks about the “creepiness” of aborted fetuses being referred to as babies:

Taylor: Arizona is so conservative, I just don’t even want to send a full fetus for cremation or any of that. The people who do our paperwork for the fetal death certificates, they email us calling them “babies.” “Baby” this, “baby” that, “baby so-and-so.” And I’m like, “that’s creepy.”

It’s actually a good sign that Taylor retains some semblance of a conscience. The idea of killing babies is “creepy” to her, but she still has enough cognitive dissonance to allow herself to deny the reality that these are indeed babies that she is dismembering.

At this point, the conversation transitions from the immoral to the illegal:

Taylor: In Arizona, if the fetus comes out with any signs of life, we’re supposed to transport it to a hospital.

Buyer: Is there any standard procedure for verifying signs of life?

Taylor: …I mean, the key is, you need to pay attention to who’s in the room, right?… Because the thing is the law states that you’re not supposed to do any maneuvers after the fact to try to cause demise, so it’s really tricky… It’s really tricky, so most of the time we do [use digoxin] and it usually works, and then we don’t have to worry about that because Arizona state law says if there’s signs of life, then we’re supposed to transport them to the hospital. [Laughter]

Taylor is referencing Arizona Revised Statute 36-2301, which states, “If an abortion is performed and a human fetus or embryo is delivered alive, it is the duty of any physician performing such abortion and any additional physician in attendance as required . . . to see that all available means and medical skills are used to promote, preserve and maintain the life of such fetus or embryo.”

Taylor’s comments seem to be a blatant admission of criminal activity. Per her own words, if those in the room are alright with allowing a living child to die—despite it being as much illegal as it is depraved—then Taylor is, too.

Next, they discuss the difficulty of pulling the limbs from a child’s body during dismemberment abortions, also known as dilatation and evacuation (D&E) abortions. This is a technique where a sopher clamp is used to remove the child from the womb one limb at a time.

Taylor: Research shows that [digoxen] doesn’t make the procedure easier in someone who is well-trained, but I have to tell you anecdotally, my biceps appreciate when the [digoxen] works. [Laughter]

Buyer: Really? It’s in the biceps? When you’re doing a D&E?

Taylor: It does not take me any longer to complete the procedure, but it takes more force.

Buyer: Really? So when you’re doing a non-[digoxen] D&E…

Taylor: It takes a bit more. It takes a bit more. Yeah.

Buyer: Wow.

Taylor: So I remember when I was a Fellow and I was in training, I was like, “Oh I have to hit the gym for this. [Laughter.]

Man, the life of an abortionist is tough, am I right? All that muscle strain from having to rip off the arms and legs of human babies as they try to squirm out of your clamps? The humanity!

The release of this video yesterday comes one day after David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress were charged with 15 felony counts for their undercover investigations. In April 2016, the California Department of Justice raided Daleiden’s home for footage. The timing of yesterday’s release indicates that CMP wanted to preempt these recordings from being seized.

The work of CMP is incredibly important because the abortion industry relies on the fact that many in our society dehumanize the unborn. While footage like this—which plainly show the inhumanity of abortionists speaking about the difficulty of dismembering human beings and allowing crying, born-alive babies to die on the table—is an incredibly effective way to restore dignity to those being slaughtered, it is only effective if people see the footage.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media will not spread these recordings for us, and the little coverage they will dedicate to the story will almost certainly demonize the journalists and defend Planned Parenthood. After all, that’s what they’ve done with every CMP video so far.

Daleiden, Merritt, and the team at CMP have done the hard part, and now they are being attacked with the full force of leftist politicians. We have an easier job. Share the video they worked so hard to obtain. Do your part and show this video to as many people as you can. Lives depend on it.

 

James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.

Abortion Supporter and Professing Conservative Tomi Lahren Doesn’t Understand Conservatism

Conservative firebrand and TheBlaze TV host Tomi Lahren appeared on ABC’s The View this past Friday, discussing Trump, terrorism, Russia, and other political issues. Most notably, however, Lahren admitted to The View’s audience that she is “pro-choice.”

Regarding abortion, Lahren said:

“I am pro-choice, and here’s why. I’m a constitutional [conservative], someone that loves the Constitution. I am someone that’s for limited government, so I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say that I’m for limited government but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies… I’m for limited government. So stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well.”

Aside from the fact that “pro-choice” is a dishonest phrase to convey the pro-abortion position, Lahren displays an astounding ignorance of the Constitution and the philosophy of limited government.

Objectively speaking, the right to abortion does not exist in the constitution. The alleged right to abortion was invented by seven Supreme Court justices in Roe v. Wade (1973). The right to life, on the other hand, is declared in the Declaration of Independence and protected in the Constitution. Indeed, the right to life is the first inalienable right enshrined by the founders.

Lahren also grossly misunderstands the implications of the limited government philosophy. Limiting government does not require the abolition of government or provide the absolute freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies. In a society built upon the principles of limited government, the state still has an important role: upholding the inalienable rights of each of its citizens, beginning with the right to life.

As previously mentioned, the right to life is first among all rights. In fact, without the right to not be killed, the concept of inalienable rights ceases to exist. The right to speak freely, believe freely, bear arms, and all other fundamental rights depend on someone first being alive to exercise those rights. If the right to life can be taken from us, so can all the others.

For this reason, opposing abortion is foundational to limited government ideology. Legal abortion undermines the very principle of inalienable rights. Without inalienable rights, government growth is inevitable, effectively making limited government impossible. A government that strips human beings of the inalienable right to life is not a limited government. It is a tyrannical and violent government. Any constitutionalist would know that.

 

James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.

It Doesn’t Matter Whether Margaret Sanger Was a Racist

It is accepted truth on the left that Margaret Sanger was a patron saint of feminism and all-things-good-in-the-world. It is accepted truth on the right that she was a vicious racist. There isn’t a more polarizing figure in all of politics, which in the era of Trump is saying something.

In this debate, there seems to be no middle ground between the two polar opposite positions, and neither side is willing to acknowledge any evidence that might moderate their view.

The quotes that are typically used to show Sanger’s possible racism are the following (although this is by no means an exhaustive list of her writings and speeches that seem to flirt with racism):

On page 108 of the April 1932 edition of Sanger’s magazine Birth Control Review, she wrote, “Birth control must ultimately lead to a cleaner race.” She often spoke of race, even naming one of her books Women and the New Race.

In a 1939 letter to fellow eugenics advocate Clarence Gamble, she wrote, “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Here, Sanger is writing about what she called her “Negro Project,” through which Sanger and other eugenicists were attempting to implement population control in communities of color. As her comments indicate, Sanger and others realized needed the support of black clergymen to be effective.

In 1926, she spoke to members of the Ku Klux Klan about eugenics and population control.

In her 1932 speech for to the New History Society, Sanger said that America must “keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others.”

On the other hand, the progressive defenses of Sanger’s views may have some merit. When Sanger spoke of race, she may have been advocating the eradication of bad genes in general, not specifically some inferior race of people based on skin color. Sanger very well may have written that she didn’t “want word to get out that we want to exterminate the negro population,” because that’s not what she was trying to do. She may have gone to the KKK because they were an influential group and she wanted their backing, regardless of whether or not she agreed with their cause of racial supremacy. I actually have no idea how a progressive would defend her statements about immigrants, but I’m sure they’d find a way for that as well.

I think it’s safe to say that although she didn’t think highly of people of color, there does not seem to be enough strong evidence to claim that she was, or was not, racist. The evidence is ambiguous and to claim definitively either way is speculation.

What we do know with absolute certainty about Sanger is that she advocated for horrible things. When she writes in a 1923 article for The Thinker that “[Birth control] means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks—those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization,” both sides of the debate get caught up arguing whether or not by “human weeds” she is referring to people of color. Let’s say she wasn’t. She’s still referring to the “poor”, the “dysgenic”, the “imbecile” and the “criminal” as human weeds to be eliminated. Regardless of whether or not she was talking about specific ethnic groups, this is a patently inhumane thing to say.

In her speech to the New History Society, Sanger said that America should establish a population congress that would “apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” Whether she was referring specific ethnic groups for segregation and sterilization is beside the point – she was advocating for the compulsory segregation and sterilization of American citizens. Her plans were carried out in some areas to devastating effect.

Sanger wrote in Women and the New Race that “the most compassionate thing a large family can do to a small child is to kill it.” Regardless of how her supporters may attempt to justify such comments, attitudes like this are indicative of the incredibly dark worldview from which Sanger was operating.

The pro-life movement would do well to refrain from making the claim that Sanger was a racist, even if the evidence indicates that she likely was. Doing so gives abortion supporters plausible deniability to our argument and distracts everyone from the universal horror of Sanger’s ideas, whether or not they were rooted in racism. There’s no need for pro-lifers to make uncertain assumptions about the existence of racist motives. Putting charges of racism aside, Margaret Sanger, as the face of the eugenics movement, is among the most nefarious characters in American history.

If pro-lifers can stay away from debatable charges of racism and stick to the fact that Sanger spoke of the poor, disabled, criminal and illiterate as “human weeds,” campaigned to exterminate the lower class, and advocated, with some success, for some of the worst human rights violations since slavery, then Sanger’s supporters can go nowhere to hide from the truth.

 

James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.