Posts

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.

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.

Environmentalist: Support Abortion for Population Control

On his nightly news show, Fox News host Tucker Carlson had an interesting exchange with a top environmental lobbyist. Carlson asked Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, what the organization’s abortion advocacy had to do with protecting the environment. Brune’s response:

“We believe in empowering women’s rights,” Brune said. “We believe that women who have rights and who have the ability to have choice about their reproductive—make their own reproductive choices—will help to produce strong families and will help to protect the environment at the same time. Sierra Club is pro-choice.”

Carlson, sensing that Brune was evading his question, pushed for a specific answer.

“It helps to address the number of people that we have on this planet,” Brune replied. “We feel that one of the ways that we can get to a sustainable population is to empower women to make choices about their own families.”

There are a couple things to notice. First, it is a bit of a shock hearing an abortion-supporter so candidly speak of abortion as population control. Many are of the opinion that this kind of thinking died out with the eugenicists, but alas, here it is, indicating that the grisly ideas of the eugenicists are still influencing Americans.

Second, it doesn’t take a logician to see the horror in what Brune is saying. He’s not prescribing population control through contraception or other means of preventing human life from coming into existence, but the taking of existent human life. If ending human lives is a moral good because it’s good for the environment, mass human suicide or euthanasia would seem to be a moral good as well. That may seem like a stretch, but that is Brune’s ideas taken to their logical conclusion.

Unfortunately, this save-the-trees-but-kill-the-babies reasoning is not outside of mainstream progressivism. This is a worldview that puts an extremely low value on human life, especially in comparison with the Judeo-Christian worldview. As Dennis Prager (who will be the special guest at our 2017 Annual Dinner) puts it, “As ironic as it may sound, the God-based Judeo-Christian value system renders humans infinitely more valuable than any humanistic value system.

This is because without God, humans, born and unborn, are quite literally just clumps of cells, ultimately worth nothing more than the matter they are composed of. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian worldview acknowledges the special place human life occupies within creation.

Both the Judeo-Christian worldview and the intersectional environmentalist worldview hold that the beauty of nature is not to be squandered. However, the Judeo-Christian worldview also posits the value of protecting human life as society’s greatest good. The earth and its resources were created to serve human life—not the other way around.

 

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.

FPIW Signs Letter Asking Congress to Adopt Pro-life Healthcare Reforms

Recognizing the potential for unprecedented action on healthcare reform during the 115th US Congress, several pro-life organizations have delivered a letter to legislators, calling on them to ensure that any healthcare reforms prohibit federal taxpayer dollars from being used for abortion.

Joseph Backholm, President of Family Policy Institute of Washington, signed on to the letter, joining representatives from Family Research Council, Priests for Life, American Center for Law and Justice, National Right to Life, Christian Medical Association, Students for Life of America, and dozens of other pro-life organizations.

Congress is currently considering several legislative proposals to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. The letter, which was delivered to Republican Members of Congress today, reminds them that “any bill funding healthcare must carry restrictions on abortion funding or it will end up funding the brutal practice of abortion.”

“We are greatly encouraged by the many Republican healthcare proposals that embrace the principle that abortion is not healthcare and should not be incentivized through federal healthcare programs including tax credits for health insurance,” the letter says.

The letter can be read in its entirety here.

 

 

“Pro-Choice” Should Be “Pro-Abortion”

In a recent discussion with an abortion supporter, I apparently made the mistake of calling her “pro-abortion.” She gasped and emphatically made me aware that she was not pro-abortion, just “pro-choice.”

This begs the question: what choice was she talking about? Was she talking about school choice? Health care choice? Where-to-go-for-dinner choice?

I support the Second Amendment. I think the right of an individual to choose whether they want to own a firearm for self-defense is crucial to the prevention of an abusive government. It would be reasonable to label my position pro-second amendment or pro-gun rights or simply pro-gun. Likewise, it would be very unreasonable and rather pointless to label my position “pro-choice.” That doesn’t explain what choice I am advocating.

The same goes for abortion. The phrase “I am pro-choice” is an incomplete sentence. To be intellectually honest, the speaker must specify what choice they are advocating. Just as I am pro-gun, pro-abortion is the appropriate term to describe the position of the abortion supporter.

When considering the nature of the debate, it’s easy to understand why abortion advocates so fervently demand to be called “pro-choice” rather than something which accurately defines their position: they do this because their position is ghastly.

In a legislative hearing in Florida in 2013, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It is Planned Parenthood’s position that children born as a result of botched abortions should be left alone on the table to die if still unwanted. When asked to defend this position, Snow’s response was, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, the family, and the physician.”

Snow redirects the discussion to the issue of “choice” because no one can win a debate from a platform of “pro-leaving the baby to die on the table.” This goes for the killing of an unborn child as well. Pre-birth abortions entail the use of clamps to remove the child from the womb one limb at a time. Several other violent techniques are also used, including saline solution, which is used to dissolve away his or her skin. “Pro-human dismemberment” and “pro-burning the skin of a baby until his or her internal organs fall out” are not winning slogans.

It will be ‘game over’ for the abortion industry if the debate over abortion becomes focused on what abortion actually entails. That’s why they work so hard to make the debate revolve around euphemisms like “choice” without regard for the choice being discussed.

So, the next time someone tells you they’re pro-choice, ask them, “What choice?”

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.

Should Women Be Able to Sue Doctors for the Emotional Damage from Abortion?

It’s no secret that abortion can cause significant emotional damage to women who choose it.  But should women be able to sue their doctors if they experience emotional damage from an abortion?

Iowa State Senator Mark Chelgren thinks so and has introduced legislation that would do just that.

In an interview with Fox News, Sen. Chelgren explained the purpose of the bill.

“What we’re asking for is that individuals, doctors and clinics that make money off of women by giving them abortions are simply held accountable. That’s all this does. It protects women from people who would normally be trying to sell them something in a time when they are under the most stress that is kind of imaginable.”

The legislation allows a lawsuit regardless of how much time has passed since the abortion.

Despite the fact that emotional risks associated with abortion are well documented, no state currently has a law that specifically permits lawsuits for those harms.

Known side effects from abortion include regret, anger, guilt, shame, a sense of loneliness or isolation, loss of self confidence, insomnia or nightmares, relationship issues, suicidal thoughts and feelings, eating disordersdepression, and anxiety.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, AmericanPregnancy.org describes that the risk of side effects has a lot to do with the the mother’s beliefs about the baby.

“Those who believe it is not a baby until it is born have less of a chance of experiencing negative emotional consequences. However, those who believe it is a baby are more likely to experience negative emotional side effects.”

If passed, the legislation would likely create a deterrent to doctors performing abortions.

As a result, abortion industry advocates are describing the legislation as “anti-woman.”

Is this an appropriate way to limit the number of doctors willing to provide abortions? Comment below.

 

Klippert Bill Would Ban Sale, Use, Donation of Aborted Fetal Tissue

As the legislative session picks up steam, so does the ongoing debate over aborted fetal tissue in Washington State.

Yesterday, we wrote about a new effort in Congress to eliminate federal funding from entities that traffic in aborted fetal tissue.

The effort picked up steam in Washington State as well as Rep. Brad Klippert, from Kennewick, introduced House Bill 1243 to ban the sale, use, and donation of aborted fetal tissue.

The legislation comes on the heals of a Final Report by the Select Panel on Infant Lives, commissioned by the House of Representatives, which discovered that the largest bank of aborted fetal tissue in the United States was the Birth Defects Research Lab (BDRL) at the University of Washington.

According to the final report, BDRL has procured aborted fetal tissue from thirteen separate abortion providers in Washington State and distributed aborted fetal tissue to forty different entities around the country.

All of that would become illegal under the proposal.

In addition to banning the use of aborted fetal tissue, the legislation would also require the remains of an aborted baby “be decently buried, or cremated within a reasonable time after death.”

The legislation has thirteen co-sponsors in addition to Rep. Klippert.

The bill has been assigned to the House Health Care and Wellness Committee but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

You are encouraged to contact your legislators about this legislation through the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000 or email them by clicking here.

Who Else, Besides Planned Parenthood, Should Lose Federal Funding?

Planned Parenthood has received a lot of public scrutiny lately.  Even before the Center For Medical Progress released videos that revealed how intricately Planned Parenthood is involved in the trafficking of aborted baby parts, they were already the nation’s number one provider of abortions with a very troubling past.

President-elect Trump has promised to stop federal funding of Planned Parenthood, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said that effort is included in a critical reconciliation bill.

But Planned Parenthood isn’t the only entity deserving of losing its federal funds.

Last week we wrote about the Birth Defects Research Lab (BDRL) at the University of Washington and its refusal to cooperate with federal subpoenas.

Their refusal to cooperate with subpoenas or respond to public records requests means there are many things we do not know about the BDRL.

But the things we do know raise serious concerns about the wisdom of giving them federal tax dollars.

In response to the disturbing videos from the Center for Medical Progress, the House of Representatives created a Select Panel on Infant Lives to investigate whether baby body parts were being sold for a profit.

The Select Panel’s final report was released on December 30th. 

Along with fifteen recommendations for criminal charges for Planned Parenthood and related entities, the Select Panel’s final report identified the BDRL at UW as the largest bank of aborted fetal tissue in America.

They have received aborted fetal tissue from thirteen different entities around the country (though all but one are in Washington State) and they have provided aborted fetal tissue to more than forty entities throughout the world.

They are also funded by federal tax dollars. In 2015, they received a $600,000 grant from the National Institute for Health to fund general operations.

In addition, the doctors who work at the Birth Defects Research Lab are also abortionists who perform abortions at some of the same abortion clinics that provide the BDRL with aborted fetal tissue.  Others BDRL doctors have focused their research on abortion.

When the Select Panel subpoenaed documents from the BDRL, the documents they provided concealed much of the information the Panel was actually requesting. They described UW’s cooperation with their subpoena in this way:

“The invoices either do not specify what clinic services are involved or, when they apparently elaborate on the nature of such services, those elaborations are redacted—rendering it impossible for the Panel to conduct a forensic analysis of UW’s financial arrangements with clinics. UW’s incomplete production raises more questions than it answers and demonstrates the need for further investigation” [1]

Setting aside the nature of the work taking place at the BDRL, there is something people of every political persuasion should be able to agree upon.

Entities subject to public records laws that do not want the public to know what they are doing should not be funded by the taxpayers. If you want to do something privately, do not ask for public money to do it.

Regardless, there is simply no good reason tax dollars should ever be used to fund those who traffic in aborted baby parts.

The Hyde Amendment is a federal law prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortion.  It is a recognition of the fact that hundreds of millions of Americans do not want their money being used to pay for abortions.

Since we have the decency to honor the Hyde Amendment, why would we require federal tax dollars to be used to fund the dissection of aborted babies?

But what about the lost opportunity to cure diseases? Significantly, the Select Panel’s Final Report noted that there is more than enough tissue from babies who die naturally through miscarriage to support all current research.

Selling the parts of aborted babies isn’t necessary for science and it isn’t something civilized people do.  Moreover, entities that refuse to allow the public to inspect their activities should not be funded by the public.

Last week I was in Washington DC discussing the appropriateness of tax dollars being used to fund the BDRL and others who traffic in aborted body parts.  For the most part, Congress was unaware that this was happening and they were universally unaware of how hard the BDRL is working to keep their publicly funded work from being seen by the public.

But when they learned, they were as concerned as you are.

While there is a great deal of sympathy, that will translate into action when the public demonstrates it matters to them.  That’s why they need to hear from you on this issue.

To contact your U.S. Representative about this issue click here.

For contact information for your U.S. Senators click here.

Additionally, proposed just today in Olympia, House Bill 1243 would prohibit the sale, donation, or use of aborted fetal body parts in Washington State.  Please contact your legislators here to share your thought on that legislation.

[1] Select Panel on Infant Lives Final Report pg. 259-260

Stop Using Religion to Justify Your Abortion

America is not and should not be a secular society, but we do have a secular government. The idea of theocracy is horrifying to nearly all Americans on all sides of every political divide; as well it should be. Theocracy strips citizens of freedom and often of their decency.

Because of this, convincing the public that your political opposition is advocating laws which are theocratic in nature is the easiest way to win the battle of ideas. This is exactly what the abortion lobby has done.

The talking points of Planned Parenthood and NARAL have been wholly mainstreamed by the education system, Hollywood, and the news media.  Their claim is that pro-life individuals seek to impose their religious views on the parents of a preborn child. Abortion supporters are the freedom fighters and pro-lifers are the theocrats. This could not possibly be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is true.

In a debate with a pro-abortion individual, you will hear the following arguments:

“The child isn’t human until he or she can survive on their own.”

“The child isn’t human until he or she can feel pain.”

“The child isn’t human until he or she has brain activity.”

“The child isn’t human until he or she goes through the birth canal.”

“The child isn’t human until a few months after birth.”

These beliefs are all well and good for an individual to hold. This is a free country. But it’s important not to mistake these claims for science and instead call them what they are: philosophy and religion.

It is a scientific reality that conception was the beginning of all of our lives. The child, even in the earliest stages, meets every scientific requirement for being human (full set of human DNA) and every scientific requirement for being alive (metabolism and growth). It is objective fact that we have all been human and alive since the moment we were conceived.  Anything added to the discussion beyond these basic truths is either religion or philosophy.

If one wishes to ascribe to a different set of beliefs from what science tells us about the pre-born, that’s fine. But you can’t impose that arbitrary, unscientific belief system on another human being in order to take their life away. No one may use their personal philosophy or religion to legally strip the human nature from someone who is scientifically human.

The pro-life position is not one of religious legalism. It is one of science and of basic human decency. One does not have to appeal to a higher power to say, “Hey, don’t dismember that preborn child.” It should be clear to everyone with a functioning conscience and a shred of attachment to scientific reality that dismembering a preborn child is terrifyingly immoral.

The pro-abortion position is one that requires a denial of scientific realities and a silencing of the conscience. It is a movement of dehumanization and violence. And despite its advocates accusing everyone else of being the religious legalists, the pro-abortion position is one of violently imposing arbitrary belief systems on innocent human beings, in violation of every rule of pluralism and tolerance.

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.

What’s Next for the Abortion Industry?

Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry are facing some major challenges after the November election, including the revelation that groups in several states, including the University of Washington, have indeed been profiting from the sale of fetal body parts.

Listen to today’s podcast here: