Posts

NC Caves to Moneyed Interests, Deserts Women and Children

North Carolina legislators approved legislation repealing parts of HB2 yesterday.

HB2 was a common sense law that protected the privacy rights of women and children in schools and other government buildings by requiring that individuals use only restrooms and changing facilities consistent with their biological sex.

The repeal legislation, which is the result of a compromise between Democratic and Republican legislators, is designed to appease the NCAA, who threatened to prevent the state from hosting college sports championships unless the state repealed the contentious law.

In a press statement released after the passage of the legislation, NC Values Coalition President Tami Fitzgerald blamed state leaders for “letting down” North Carolinians:

“The truth remains, no basketball game, corporation, or entertainment event is worth even one little girl losing her privacy and dignity to a boy in the locker room, or being harmed or frightened in a bathroom.

“I hope that our state will learn from this and stand stronger in the future against the bullying and intimidation tactics of groups like the NCAA, the NBA, and billion dollar corporations who care more about their political, hypocritical agendas than the well-being and dignity of the people in our great state.”

The legislation passed yesterday repeals HB2’s prohibitions on individuals using the bathroom, changing facilities, and showers of their choice, regardless of biological sex.

However, it maintains HB2’s ban disallowing local governments from passing their own policies regarding private areas for three years.

HB2 was made necessary after the Charlotte City Council approved an ordinance forcing all businesses, schools, churches, and government buildings to allow individuals to use the bathroom, locker room, or changing facility of their choice, regardless of biological sex.

Ironically, the repeal legislation was opposed by both pro-family and liberal groups. Pro-family organizations view the deal as selling out the privacy of women and children to appease big business.

Liberal organizations like Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the Human Rights Campaign oppose the compromise because it maintains the three-year prohibition preventing local governments from setting their own policies.

Some companies and organizations threatened to leave the state and encouraged a boycott after the passage of HB2 last March.

Despite the boycott, tourism is “thriving” and business is “booming” in North Carolina, according to the Washington Times. The paper claims that North Carolina’s economy was generally unharmed by threats of boycotts and desertions.

 

Blaine Conzatti is a columnist and 2016 Research Fellow at the Family Policy Institute of Washington. He can be reached at Blaine@FPIW.org.

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.

#DefundPP Rallies in Washington State

On Saturday, February 11th, pro-life Americans across the nation gathered at local Planned Parenthood locations to show their support for defunding the abortion giant.

The #DefundPP rallies, which were organized by the #ProtestPP coalition, boasts backers like the Pro-Life Action League, 40 Days for Life, and over 60 other pro-life organizations.

According to the Pro-Life Action League, the rallies were initially going to be postponed until the fall of 2017, but the GOP’s announcement that they would work to defund Planned Parenthood caused the Coalition to push up the date to show public support for the congressional effort.

Those attending the rallies proposed redirecting federal funds for women’s health services to Federally Qualified Health Centers (FHQCs) instead of Planned Parenthood.

When reporting on the topic of defunding Planned Parenthood, news outlets conveniently forget to mention the thousands of Federally Qualified Health Centers that offer many women’s health services except for abortions. In fact, the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that these FQHCs served eight times more individuals than Planned Parenthood in fiscal years 2010-2012. The Institute also found that there are 9,170 FQHCs, compared to the 700 Planned Parenthood locations around the United States.  In reality, defunding Planned Parenthood would not restrict access or funding to true women’s health services.

Overall, the rallies were a resounding success. Over 228 rallies were held in 45 states. In Washington, rallies were held in Kennewick, Kent, Olympia, Pullman, Seattle, and Wenatchee (Spokane’s rally had to be pushed back due to inclement weather). The Wenatchee rally counted 125 people in attendance with approximately 10 who showed up in opposition to the rally.

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.

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

UW BDRL Refuses to Cooperate Despite Congressional Subpoena

Planned Parenthood affiliates and related organizations profited from the sale of aborted baby parts, according to a congressional report released last week.

The 418-page report, released by the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, concludes a year-long investigation into the gruesome and oftentimes illegal practices of the abortion industry. The Panel’s report will likely have resounding implications for Washington State relative to Attorney General Ferguson’s review of Planned Parenthood in 2015 and the University of Washington’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Here are three important takeaways from the report, which can be read here:

  1. Criminal Referrals

The Panel made 15 criminal referrals to law enforcement officials, recommending criminal charges against Planned Parenthood affiliates and other organizations, including Stem Express, a tissue procurement company that made 2,800 percent profit on baby brains.

The report documents the illegal behavior of abortion providers, tissue procurement companies, and medical researchers by detailing how the abortion industry profits from the sale of aborted fetal tissue, changes abortion procedures to maintain the monetary value of profitable aborted baby parts, and violates laws protecting the safety and privacy of patients.

“Over the last year, the Select Panel’s relentless fact-finding investigation has laid bare the grisly reality of an abortion industry that is driven by profit, unconcerned by matters of basic ethics and, too often, non-compliant with the few laws we have to protect the safety of women and their unborn children,” said Congresswoman Diane Black, a member of the Panel. “The findings of this panel should incense all people of conscience.”

  1. UW’s Business Relationship with Planned Parenthood and Attorney General Ferguson’s Seemingly Incomplete 2015 Review of Planned Parenthood

Eight pages of the report detail the questionable activities of the University of Washington’s Birth Defects Research Laboratory (UWBDRL), the nation’s largest fetal tissue bank that often acts as a middleman between abortion clinics and medical researchers. UWBDRL secures aborted fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics in Washington State, which it then sells to other medical researchers across the nation.

This section of the report validates concerns raised by the Family Policy Institute of Washington in late-2015 about UWBDRL and Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s investigation of Planned Parenthood affiliates.

Following the conclusion of Ferguson’s review of abortion providers, which claimed that Washington abortion providers had not engaged in illegal activity, FPIW filed a public records request to obtain documents and written communications relevant to the review.

FPIW’s examination of the documents appeared to indicate that the attorney general’s review was incomplete, especially concerning the relationship between Planned Parenthood affiliates and UWBDRL.

Most concerning from FPIW’s perspective was an email exchange between Deputy Attorney General Paige Dietrich and Ian Goodhew, Government Relations Director at the University of Washington.

This correspondence, quoted verbatim in the Panel’s report, details Dietrich’s request for business agreements between Planned Parenthood and UWBDRL as part of the then-ongoing attorney general review. Goodhew responded to this request by seeking assurances that “[the attorney general’s office] will hold those confidential and not share with anyone without consent?” After Goodhew had voiced his concerns about the agreements going public, Dietrich rescinded her request, replying, “I don’t think we’ll need copies of the agreements.”

After discovering this exchange, FPIW filed a public records request to obtain the business agreement.

But after months of foot-dragging by UWBDRL, who repeatedly delayed releasing the documents, Planned Parenthood eventually filed a lawsuit against FPIW to prevent the release of the business agreement. That lawsuit is currently playing out in a federal court.

Astonishingly, UWBDRL failed to provide the business agreement to the Panel’s congressional investigators, despite congressional subpoenas and a court preliminary injunction enabling the university to provide the House committee with the business agreement.

The congressional report concluded that “UW’s incomplete production raises more questions than it answers and demonstrates the need for further investigation.”

The report also details the failures of Ferguson’s 2015 review. It claims Ferguson’s office made conclusions “without apparently conducting” a forensic analysis of UW’s practices. The report asserts the attorney general’s inquiry “apparently ended without an examination of an agreement between UW” and Planned Parenthood clinics.

That congressional investigators reached many of the same conclusions as FPIW serves only to further vindicate FPIW’s concerns about the attorney general’s review and the relationship between UWBDRL and state abortion clinics.

  1. UW’s Close Relationship with Abortion Clinics

The Panel’s report identifies a cozy relationship between UW faculty and staff and Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics.

Several UW faculty members perform abortions at Planned Parenthood and Cedar River abortion clinics, and the former medical director for Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and Northern Idaho now serves as a UW clinical associate professor.

The University of Washington also places medical students at outside abortion clinics, including some that perform abortions well into the second trimester.

Furthermore, the University of Washington provides abortions through its family planning program at the UW Medical Center.

 

 

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:

After Fetal Brains Sold by UW, FPIW Files Public Records Request in Indiana

FPIW filed a public records request with Indiana University (IU) on Thursday morning, seeking information related to IU’s relationship with the University of Washington Birth Defects Research Laboratory (UWBDRL).

Earlier this week, FPIW learned that UWBDRL sold aborted baby brains to Indiana University on at least two separate occasions dating back to 2013.

screen-shot-2016-12-02-at-8-28-30-am

Public records recovered in Indiana show an invoice from UWBDRL charging Indiana University for two aborted fetal brains.

Some critics have questioned whether UWBDRL may have violated federal human trafficking laws that prohibit the sale of fetal tissue.  But this development is especially concerning considering the outstanding questions about UWBDRL’s business arrangement with Planned Parenthood clinics in Washington State.

You can read FPIW’s public records request letter here.


FPIW is being sued by Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry following the filing of a public records request with the University of Washington. We must know what financial arrangements UW has with Planned Parenthood, and we won’t stop until the people get the answers they are entitled to.  We’re in this battle. Will you fight alongside us?

 

 

BREAKING NEWS: UW Sold Fetal Brains to Indiana University, Still Blocking Release of Public Records

The University of Washington’s Birth Defects Research Laboratory (UWBDRL) sold brains from aborted babies for $200 each to Indiana University, according to an invoice recently uncovered by Indiana Right to Life.

The invoice, dated July 25, 2013, records the sale of two shipments of brain tissue.

screen-shot-2016-12-02-at-8-28-30-am

The Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington often acted as a middleman between abortion clinics and medical researchers, securing aborted fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics in Washington State that it then sold to other medical researchers across the nation.

Some critics have questioned whether UWBDRL violated federal human trafficking laws that prohibit the sale of fetal tissue.

The recently released invoice showing UWBDRL’s sale of aborted fetal tissue to Indiana University is concerning, especially since there are questions still remaining about UWBDRL’s business arrangement with Planned Parenthood clinics in Washington State.

When Zach Freeman, FPIW’s Communications Director, filed a public records request soliciting the business agreement between Planned Parenthood and UWBDRL, Planned Parenthood sued, effectively delaying the release of the business agreement indefinitely.

Without the business agreement, which is not being made public because of Planned Parenthood’s ongoing federal lawsuit, we cannot know whether UWBDRL engaged in illegally selling aborted fetal tissue. Since UWBDRL is a public entity, the public deserves to know the extent of UWBDRL’s relationship with Planned Parenthood, as well as whether any laws regarding trafficking aborted fetal tissue were violated.

Click here to contribute to the legal fund.