• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Planned Parenthood admits selling baby body parts, reported in news story out Sept. 4, 2019.

nota bene said:
This First Amendment fight isn't over.

And in the meantime, the world knows what Planned Parenthood was doing. Abortionist Dr. Forrest Smith testified that PP did not follow the established protocol:

After reviewing Daleiden’s undercover interviews with Planned Parenthood executives, Smith testified that the medical procedures Planned Parenthood abortionists used did, in fact, result in “tumultuous labor” that results in “fetal expulsion,” allowing the fetus to exit the women “without any assistance from the abortion doctor, no instrumentation.”

“In this case clearly the intent is same-day surgeries,” Smith told the San Francisco Superior Court, according to LifeSite News. “They fully intend to put the uterus into labor,” he added, noting that “very few people in abortion, outside of Planned Parenthood, do that.”

“There’s no question in my mind that at least some of these fetuses were live births,” Smith said, “No question it’s alive.” 'No question it's alive': In a California courtroom, an abortionist exposes Planned Parenthood's deceit
Click to expand...


Irredentist said:
Abortion is only legally protected up to the point of fetal viability. Claiming that planned Parenthood aborts babies after birth is just a lie. That's not what abortion is, by definition. It's not possible to abort something that is already born.
Click to expand...

I agree whenever labor is induced before the fetus is viable, it is an abortion. If labor is induced in a hospital setting or if it induced in an abortion clinic. If the contractions expelled a fetus 20 weeks or younger it is an abortion.

By the way Planned Parenthoods do not perform abortion past 20 weeks.

There are only 4 doctors in the US who perform abortions past 20 weeks
.

In 2013, there were four doctors in the country who performed abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to Slate. (Current numbers could be even lower.)
Click to expand...

Which States Offer Late-Term Abortions? They Are Very Difficult To Access
 
Last edited:
Tainted fruit, anyone?

nota bene said:
This First Amendment fight isn't over.

And in the meantime, the world knows what Planned Parenthood was doing. Abortionist Dr. Forrest Smith testified that PP did not follow the established protocol:

After reviewing Daleiden’s undercover interviews with Planned Parenthood executives, Smith testified that the medical procedures Planned Parenthood abortionists used did, in fact, result in “tumultuous labor” that results in “fetal expulsion,” allowing the fetus to exit the women “without any assistance from the abortion doctor, no instrumentation.”

“In this case clearly the intent is same-day surgeries,” Smith told the San Francisco Superior Court, according to LifeSite News. “They fully intend to put the uterus into labor,” he added, noting that “very few people in abortion, outside of Planned Parenthood, do that.”

“There’s no question in my mind that at least some of these fetuses were live births,” Smith said, “No question it’s alive.” 'No question it's alive': In a California courtroom, an abortionist exposes Planned Parenthood's deceit
Click to expand...

Yah. The Washington Examiner is a partisan source - see Washington Examiner - Wikipedia

"The Washington Examiner is an American conservative website and weekly tabloid based in Washington, D.C. It is owned by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group, which is owned by Philip Anschutz.

"From 2005 to mid-2013, the Examiner published a daily tabloid-sized newspaper, distributed throughout the Washington, D.C. metro area. At the time, the newspaper mostly focused on local news and political commentary.[1] The local newspaper ceased publication on June 14, 2013, and its content began to focus exclusively on national politics, switching its print edition from a daily newspaper to a weekly magazine format.[2]

"The Examiner is known for its conservative political stance and features many known conservative writers.[3]"

(My emphasis - see the URL for details & examples)

LifeSite News has been discussed here before - they're also quite hysterical about the issue of abortion.

Dr. Smith, for whatever reasons of his own:

"We don't know much about Smith, but we do know this: He was paid to testify on Daleiden’s behalf. He is an experienced abortionist who hates Planned Parenthood and has for quite a while, as he put it himself." (Last paragraph from the Washington Examiner story URL in the OP.

Two sources blinded by their own ideology, & a paid source who is an abortionist himself, & also loathes PP. What could go wrong?
 
Do the right thing

Originally Posted by Irredentist
Abortion is only legally protected up to the point of fetal viability. Claiming that planned Parenthood aborts babies after birth is just a lie. That's not what abortion is, by definition. It's not possible to abort something that is already born.

marke said:
Governor Northam knows the babies are alive sometimes before being killed after first making them comfortable on the table beside the mother.
Click to expand...

That set of lies has been trotted out so many times that it's surely tired by now, & deserves a rest. The issue that pediatric neurologist US Army Major & VA Governor Dr. Northam was addressing is very different from the issue to hand - no one suggests (or are you?) that the tissue from babies from therapeutic late-term abortions are being sold to fetal tissue outfits. TMK, those outfits aren't interested in late-term abortion tissue - by definition. You can refresh your memory on that issue by searching for Dr. Northam in the DP threads - under Abortion.
 
Irredentist said:
Abortion is only legally protected up to the point of fetal viability. Claiming that planned Parenthood aborts babies after birth is just a lie. That's not what abortion is, by definition. It's not possible to abort something that is already born.
Click to expand...

So if "tumultuous labor" results in "fetal expulsion" and becomes a live baby, what do you call this--infanticide?
 
Re: Tainted fruit, anyone?

southwest88 said:
Yah. The Washington Examiner is a partisan source - see Washington Examiner - Wikipedia

"The Washington Examiner is an American conservative website and weekly tabloid based in Washington, D.C. It is owned by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group, which is owned by Philip Anschutz.

"From 2005 to mid-2013, the Examiner published a daily tabloid-sized newspaper, distributed throughout the Washington, D.C. metro area. At the time, the newspaper mostly focused on local news and political commentary.[1] The local newspaper ceased publication on June 14, 2013, and its content began to focus exclusively on national politics, switching its print edition from a daily newspaper to a weekly magazine format.[2]

"The Examiner is known for its conservative political stance and features many known conservative writers.[3]"

(My emphasis - see the URL for details & examples)

LifeSite News has been discussed here before - they're also quite hysterical about the issue of abortion.

Dr. Smith, for whatever reasons of his own:

"We don't know much about Smith, but we do know this: He was paid to testify on Daleiden’s behalf. He is an experienced abortionist who hates Planned Parenthood and has for quite a while, as he put it himself." (Last paragraph from the Washington Examiner story URL in the OP.

Two sources blinded by their own ideology, & a paid source who is an abortionist himself, & also loathes PP. What could go wrong?
Click to expand...

What went wrong here is your killing the messenger. Until court transcripts are made available, all anybody has to rely on is reporting from inside the courtroom. Direct quotes were employed, and I have yet to find a source that claims that the Washington Examiner, Free Beacon, LifeSite News, or the other few sites that have reported at all on the trial have distorted, misrepresented, or falsified those direct quotes. Have you?

The San Francisco Chronicle has occasionally reported on the trial. I did a search for "Dr. Forrest Smith" and also for "Daleiden," and you can check my work:

Search - San Francisco Chronicle

Search - San Francisco Chronicle

So rather than killing the messenger, can you produce alternative news sources that contradict what I quoted?
 
Re: Tainted fruit, anyone?

nota bene said:
What went wrong here is your killing the messenger. Until court transcripts are made available, all anybody has to rely on is reporting from inside the courtroom. Direct quotes were employed, and I have yet to find a source that claims that the Washington Examiner, Free Beacon, LifeSite News, or the other few sites that have reported at all on the trial have distorted, misrepresented, or falsified those direct quotes. Have you?

The San Francisco Chronicle has occasionally reported on the trial. I did a search for "Dr. Forrest Smith" and also for "Daleiden," and you can check my work:

Search - San Francisco Chronicle

Search - San Francisco Chronicle

So rather than killing the messenger, can you produce alternative news sources that contradict what I quoted?
Click to expand...

Sure. Washington Examiner is reliably politically conservative, & LifeSite News is always anti-abortion. I'll look further. Thus far, all the references I see tie back to LifeSite. Meantime, here's someone else reporting on Deleiden & PP in Sept.:

Abortionist Says They’re Cutting Hearts Out of Living Babies’ Chests – Students For Life

"Plot Twist: Abortionist Takes Daleiden’s Side

"Now here’s where things get even crazier. Life Site reported the following:

"Dr. Forrest Smith, an obstetrician-gynecologist who is also an abortionist in California, told the San Francisco court that not only did Daleiden’s and Merritt’s now-famous videos expose the gruesome truth about the abortion industry’s trade in fetal body parts, but that things are even worse than they knew.

"Smith testified that it is almost certain that some of the abortionists featured in the undercover videos deliberately altered abortion procedures in a way that both led to the birth of living babies with beating hearts, and put women at risk. The goal in these cases would be to obtain fresher, more intact organs.

"So, one of the longest-standing abortionists in America took the stand to defend the pro-life undercover reporters. That in itself is shocking. But what he continued on to say is beyond comprehension.

"Smith watched the CMP videos and said all of the content is true, but that it gets so much worse. Planned Parenthood abortionists are delivering babies alive and dissecting them alive in order to harvest their hearts.

"Here’s the explanation:

"There is a video of Planned Parenthood employee Alisa Goldberg advocating for Planned Parenthood’s method of high-dose misoprostol for abortions.

"In small doses, misoprostol softens the cervix and mimics the start of natural labor. In large doses, misoprostol brings on full labor, causing “tumultuous” uterine contractions & fetal expulsion.

"Abortionist Forrest Smith, who has done over 50,000 abortions, said this method is likely to result in live births. Smith testified that “very few people in abortion, outside of Planned Parenthood, do that.”

"To avoid breaking partial-birth laws, compliant abortionists cause fetal heart attacks by injecting digoxin directly into the baby’s heart.

"But Planned Parenthood wants to sell the heart, which can’t be done a) with digoxin in it, b) with anesthetic in the body, and c) with an interruption in the beat. It must be harvested beating.

"Conclusion:

"Planned Parenthood abortionists are delivering babies alive, using an amount of misoprostol that’s dangerous to the mother, and cutting out their beating hearts with no pain relief."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Reading this account, I assume that studentsforlife has decided that the more lurid their coverage, the better for their organization, & perhaps, finally, for their cause. I think they're wrong, & they might incite someone to violence. Also:

1. Trafficking fetal tissues is a federal crime in the US.
2. Delivering live babies & then murdering them is a crime in the US.
3. Studentsforlife's directors have probably stepped into actionable territory here.

It's also interesting that studentsforlife is making this charge about PP & beating babies' hearts. Why aren't Deleiden & CMP et al. also making the same charge? If it's all based on the same trial coverage, surely the conclusions are the same however the evidence stacks up?
 
marke said:
The investigators lied? How so? The PP thugs did not really say what they were caught on camera saying? No, that's not it. The veritas investigators must have been accused of something else.

PP baby killers: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes and that video tape of me saying what I don't want anyone knowing I said?"
Click to expand...

Read the transcripts.
 
Re: Tainted fruit, anyone?

southwest88 said:
Sure. Washington Examiner is reliably politically conservative, & LifeSite News is always anti-abortion. I'll look further. Thus far, all the references I see tie back to LifeSite. Meantime, here's someone else reporting on Deleiden & PP in Sept.:

Abortionist Says They’re Cutting Hearts Out of Living Babies’ Chests – Students For Life

"Plot Twist: Abortionist Takes Daleiden’s Side

"Now here’s where things get even crazier. Life Site reported the following:

"Dr. Forrest Smith, an obstetrician-gynecologist who is also an abortionist in California, told the San Francisco court that not only did Daleiden’s and Merritt’s now-famous videos expose the gruesome truth about the abortion industry’s trade in fetal body parts, but that things are even worse than they knew.

"Smith testified that it is almost certain that some of the abortionists featured in the undercover videos deliberately altered abortion procedures in a way that both led to the birth of living babies with beating hearts, and put women at risk. The goal in these cases would be to obtain fresher, more intact organs.

"So, one of the longest-standing abortionists in America took the stand to defend the pro-life undercover reporters. That in itself is shocking. But what he continued on to say is beyond comprehension.

"Smith watched the CMP videos and said all of the content is true, but that it gets so much worse. Planned Parenthood abortionists are delivering babies alive and dissecting them alive in order to harvest their hearts.

"Here’s the explanation:

"There is a video of Planned Parenthood employee Alisa Goldberg advocating for Planned Parenthood’s method of high-dose misoprostol for abortions.

"In small doses, misoprostol softens the cervix and mimics the start of natural labor. In large doses, misoprostol brings on full labor, causing “tumultuous” uterine contractions & fetal expulsion.

"Abortionist Forrest Smith, who has done over 50,000 abortions, said this method is likely to result in live births. Smith testified that “very few people in abortion, outside of Planned Parenthood, do that.”

"To avoid breaking partial-birth laws, compliant abortionists cause fetal heart attacks by injecting digoxin directly into the baby’s heart.

"But Planned Parenthood wants to sell the heart, which can’t be done a) with digoxin in it, b) with anesthetic in the body, and c) with an interruption in the beat. It must be harvested beating.

"Conclusion:

"Planned Parenthood abortionists are delivering babies alive, using an amount of misoprostol that’s dangerous to the mother, and cutting out their beating hearts with no pain relief."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Reading this account, I assume that studentsforlife has decided that the more lurid their coverage, the better for their organization, & perhaps, finally, for their cause. I think they're wrong, & they might incite someone to violence. Also:

1. Trafficking fetal tissues is a federal crime in the US.
2. Delivering live babies & then murdering them is a crime in the US.
3. Studentsforlife's directors have probably stepped into actionable territory here.

It's also interesting that studentsforlife is making this charge about PP & beating babies' hearts. Why aren't Deleiden & CMP et al. also making the same charge? If it's all based on the same trial coverage, surely the conclusions are the same however the evidence stacks up?
Click to expand...

So rather than killing the messenger, can you produce alternative news sources that contradict what I quoted?
 
Re: Tainted fruit, anyone?

nota bene said:
So rather than killing the messenger, can you produce alternative news sources that contradict what I quoted?
Click to expand...

From what I've read, the messengers are DOA. But I'll keep looking.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Read the transcripts.
Click to expand...

And the transcripts say that Dr Smith, hired to give testimony, viewed Daleiden's videos. The Center for Medical Progress has not released the entire cache of videos they made so Dr. Smith was seeing only the heavily edited and made to deceive videos that CMP made public. There is no way Dr. Smith got a full and unbiased reporting of PP or their abortion practices.

According to the transcript Dr. Smith did not see a video of a baby born alive and killed, he heard Alisa Goldberg telling about a high dose misoprostol abortion and said "that method likely ends in a live birth".

The next part of article departs from transcript quotes and the writer speculates without any documentation, that " PP wants to sell the heart" and comes to the conclusion, ""Planned Parenthood abortionists are delivering babies alive, using an amount of misoprostol that’s dangerous to the mother, and cutting out their beating hearts" This is sensationalist writing. It is not part of the actual testimony.

The testimony never gives any information about when these abortions are being done. They appear to be talking about late term abortions which would have been done for risk of death or serious malformation of the fetus. Also the writer never says that every donation of fetal tissue comes from a woman who gave written consent for the donation and for any departure from normal abortion procedures. So any abortion being discussed in the video has consent from the woman.

There are only two PP clinics in the US that do donations of fetal tissue and they never give permission for the procedure to be video taped. It is unclear where Daleiden got the abortion pictures he published in his videos. There is speculation that they came from eastern European countries where late term abortions are not rare.

I think it would be educational to hear why people are supporting Daleiden, Smith, and the propaganda videos instead of supporting testimony from PP, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the investigations of many state legislative committees, and several court decisions.
 
Re: Tainted fruit, anyone?

southwest88 said:
From what I've read, the messengers are DOA. But I'll keep looking.
Click to expand...

Neither you nor I can control who sends reporters into the courtroom. I don't know why the San Francisco Chronicle wasn't reporting daily on the hearing, but insofar as I can tell, it wasn't. We are all dependent on those who were there and did report. If someone/some organization has come forward to challenge the reporting, and specifically the direct quoting, of sources you don't like, then isn't it fair to assume that the reporting is accurate?
 
Last edited:
weaver2 said:
Neither of those links give any credence to Daleiden's videos. All of his accusations of PP have proven to be untrue.
Click to expand...

Actually, they do, and I even bolded in my linked post what the court PDF said about the videos.

But never mind.
 
nota bene said:
Actually, they do, and I even bolded in my linked post what the court PDF said about the videos.

But never mind.
Click to expand...

I read the bolded.

So this is testimony by Dr Forrest Smith. Did he work for Planned Parenthood? Did he witness any of what he testified to?
 
Re: Tainted fruit, anyone?

nota bene said:
Neither you nor I can control who sends reporters into the courtroom. I don't know why the San Francisco Chronicle wasn't reporting daily on the hearing, but insofar as I can tell, it wasn't. We are all dependent on those who were there and did report. If someone/some organization has come forward to challenge the reporting, and specifically the direct quoting, of sources you don't like, then isn't it fair to assume that the reporting is accurate?
Click to expand...

It's not a question of liking the source, it's a question of trust. The US print media are all circling the drain (Gannett is on the prowl again, they've bought out another chain of papers) (& if you think the US 24/7 cable news is bad now, wait until they have to do their own legwork @ the local level. I expect they won't, & local news will also take a dive.)

The Washington Examiner began as a politically conservative outfit, & has remained so to this day. They are unreliable on abortion because the far-gone political Right in the US considers abortion to be a wedge issue - good for peeling off Roman Catholic believers from the coalition of political interests that FDR assembled back when. This also partially explains why Examiner doesn't cover abortion as assiduously as marginal tax rates, the Federal Reserve, Fortune 500 executive compensation & etc. Wedge issues are peripheral to their interests - I assume they cover wedges when it's a slow news day otherwise, & they have openings to fill in the news category.

I can understand why a legitimate newspaper would have to juggle assignments & budget & reader interest. Abortion is a tough subject, & only the fringe pursues any & all abortion stories to the bitter end: Such as LifeSite News. From their coverage, I assume they have a messianic complex, & sincerely believe that distorting stories, quotes, making up stories out of whole cloth - are perfectly defensible tactics in the service of their notion of God's Truth. (Leaving aside the notion that God needs lies in order to prop up His poor weak arguments/justifications/reasons.)

Given time, I'm sure I could tease out whatever truth there is in LifeSite News & Examiner's coverage of any given topic. But life is short, time is pressing, I have things to do, & I prefer news sources that aren't trying to sell me a particular political/ethical/economic slant. If the quality of the coverage is such that it's a must-read, that's one thing. Neither one of the two candidates under discussion is anywhere near that exalted zone. Nor do I expect them to raise their game.
 
year2late said:
I read the bolded.

So this is testimony by Dr Forrest Smith. Did he work for Planned Parenthood? Did he witness any of what he testified to?
Click to expand...

He offered his expert opinion. I believe he reviewed the videotapes' description of the tissue procurement techniques and how they differed from the established protocol.
 
Re: Tainted fruit, anyone?

southwest88 said:
It's not a question of liking the source, it's a question of trust. The US print media are all circling the drain (Gannett is on the prowl again, they've bought out another chain of papers) (& if you think the US 24/7 cable news is bad now, wait until they have to do their own legwork @ the local level. I expect they won't, & local news will also take a dive.)

The Washington Examiner began as a politically conservative outfit, & has remained so to this day. They are unreliable on abortion because the far-gone political Right in the US considers abortion to be a wedge issue - good for peeling off Roman Catholic believers from the coalition of political interests that FDR assembled back when. This also partially explains why Examiner doesn't cover abortion as assiduously as marginal tax rates, the Federal Reserve, Fortune 500 executive compensation & etc. Wedge issues are peripheral to their interests - I assume they cover wedges when it's a slow news day otherwise, & they have openings to fill in the news category.

I can understand why a legitimate newspaper would have to juggle assignments & budget & reader interest. Abortion is a tough subject, & only the fringe pursues any & all abortion stories to the bitter end: Such as LifeSite News. From their coverage, I assume they have a messianic complex, & sincerely believe that distorting stories, quotes, making up stories out of whole cloth - are perfectly defensible tactics in the service of their notion of God's Truth. (Leaving aside the notion that God needs lies in order to prop up His poor weak arguments/justifications/reasons.)

Given time, I'm sure I could tease out whatever truth there is in LifeSite News & Examiner's coverage of any given topic. But life is short, time is pressing, I have things to do, & I prefer news sources that aren't trying to sell me a particular political/ethical/economic slant. If the quality of the coverage is such that it's a must-read, that's one thing. Neither one of the two candidates under discussion is anywhere near that exalted zone. Nor do I expect them to raise their game.
Click to expand...

Again, if you think that LifeSite News or any other source has misquoted or misrepresented, you need to find alternative sources that demonstrate this. Just saying that you don't like or trust a site isn't enough, not when it's direct-quote attribution we're talking about.
 
nota bene said:
He offered his expert opinion. I believe he reviewed the videotapes' description of the tissue procurement techniques and how they differed from the established protocol.
Click to expand...

So he did not witness anything. He gave an opinion on what could have been.

Has he ever worked at a Planned Parenthood facility that did donations?
 
nota bene said:
He offered his expert opinion. I believe he reviewed the videotapes' description of the tissue procurement techniques and how they differed from the established protocol.
Click to expand...

Smith did offer testimony of PP practices. He did say they were not the standard way an abortion was handled. He did not mention that these non-standard procedures were being done with the written consent of the mother who was donating the fetal tissue to research.

"To facilitate these studies, Ms. Farrell stated that she would modify certain clinical procedures and require consent from the abortion patients whose procedures yielded fetal tissue.

It doesn't matter how many dishes of bloody tissue Daleiden shows or what PP personnel discusses about late term abortions or what techniques are used to obtain tissue samples or how many vapors the anti-abortion gang gets, consent was given for obtaining specific tissue samples using specific non-standard abortion techniques.
 
weaver2 said:
Smith did offer testimony of PP practices. He did say they were not the standard way an abortion was handled. He did not mention that these non-standard procedures were being done with the written consent of the mother who was donating the fetal tissue to research.

"To facilitate these studies, Ms. Farrell stated that she would modify certain clinical procedures and require consent from the abortion patients whose procedures yielded fetal tissue.

It doesn't matter how many dishes of bloody tissue Daleiden shows or what PP personnel discusses about late term abortions or what techniques are used to obtain tissue samples or how many vapors the anti-abortion gang gets, consent was given for obtaining specific tissue samples using specific non-standard abortion techniques.
Click to expand...

And I believe Planned Parenthood does not do abortions past 20 weeks. Ad it is generally accepted that "late term" begins between 21 ad 24 weeks. Late term is not a medical term by the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom