Archive for September, 2015
WARNING: THE VIDEO LINKED IN THIS PIECE CONTAINS GYNECOLOGICAL IMAGERY WHICH MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR SOME VIEWERS
by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
Carly Fiorina, CNN Republican presidential debate, September 16, 2015:
“Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’ This is about the character of our nation, and if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this [Planned Parenthood defunding] bill, shame on us.”
Ms. Fiorina was referring to a Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) video depicting a few seconds of a 17-½ week fetus, still alive and moving, following an intact-delivery abortion. In the link below we post the entire unedited video. The total running time is approximately 13 minutes and the video is in five segments as the camera operator turns the camera on and off.
CBR and the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), in whose undercover Planned Parenthood investigative video the CBR abortion footage appears, have been falsely accused of misrepresenting a miscarriage as an abortion. The first segment of the unedited video depicts the abortion itself, with the baby delivered alive and struggling in the abortionist’s gloved hand. Segments 2 and 3 depict the baby still moving in a stainless steel pan after repeatedly being handled abusively by the abortionist. Segments 4 and 5 are static gynecological shots of the baby’s mother.
This unedited version of the disputed footage proves incontestably that this termination is an abortion. Mothers at risk of miscarriage present at hospitals, not abortion clinics. Hospitals are in the business of sustaining pregnancies and saving babies. Abortion clinics are in the business of terminating pregnancies and killing babies. This video depicts a termination and the subsequent abuse and neglect of a preemie obviously delivered alive. No attempt is made to provide the neonatal intensive care a hospital would extend to a wanted baby. It is possible that the abortionists performing this termination violated both state and federal law by withholding care from a baby who survived an abortion.
Ms. Fiorina made reference to a baby’s heart still beating while its brain was being harvested (a process which Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services calls “digging”) and a former StemExpress “procurement technician” says, “I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think” (National Review, August 19, 2015). The article adds that “… her StemExpress supervisor instructed her to cut through the face of the fetus in order to get the brain.”
The unedited version of the abortion linked below depicts an intact-delivery termination and Planned Parenthood partner StemExpress admits through its CEO (Cate Dyer), “Oh yeah, if you had intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety …” (The Daily Signal, August 21, 2015).
A World Magazine article, August 19, 2015, describes “… an aborted baby’s beating heart, a post-abortion occurrence that’s not uncommon, according to Ben Van Handel, executive director of Novogenix Laboratories.”
Ms. Fiorina’s characterizations are not hyperbole.
The terms of our abortion clinic access agreements explicitly forbid us from disclosing any information which could identify the abortion providers from whose clinics we obtain imagery. Dates, locations, affiliations and staff and patient information are confidential. Violating these prohibitions could subject CBR to legal liability and jeopardize clinic access for current and future projects. We are even obligated to delete the audio track on all of our videos.
The Grantham Collection is a component of the CBR abortion imagery archive. Questions related to this very disturbing video below should be directed to Gregg Cunningham, firstname.lastname@example.org, 949-206-0600.
WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS GYNECOLOGICAL IMAGERY WHICH MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR SOME VIEWERS
Check out my article at Townhall.com, In the Abortion Debate, the Facts Matter.
There is a place to rate the article, so please let Townhall know what you think. Look for the graphic just below the Townhall article and sound off! Leave comments, too.
The column answers the standard arguments against abortion victim photos (AVPs).
To see what I mean by the MM-50, see the graphic at upper right. As a movement, we give way too much weight to the opinions of (a) our friends, e.g., the pro-lifers who like our stuff on Facebook, and (b) our opponents, i.e., the people who hate us no matter what we do or say.
We should pay more attention to the MM-50, because they ultimately decide who wins and who loses. They don’t come to our debates, watch our videos, read our essays, or anything else. For these millions of ignorant and apathetic people, we have only 3 seconds to tell our story and prove it, before they figure out who we are and look away. Only pictures can prove our case in 3 seconds or less.
Don’t forget to rate the article! Also, please share it on social media.
from the National Abstinence Education Association (link):
New Survey: Taxpayer Dollars Funding Programs that Pressure Teens to Have Sex
Congress must correct sex education policy in upcoming budget debate
The results of a new nationally representative survey of teens reports that they think their “comprehensive sex education” classes pressured them to have sex. This troubling news comes just as Congress takes up the FY 2016 spending bill, which funds sex education.
Nearly 4 in 10 teens report that programs, like those currently funded under the President’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, are actually encouraging teens to have sex. In fact, teens reported that their sex education classes exerted pressure to have sex more than their dating partners. One in five teens also said that demonstrating contraception sends the message that teen sex is expected. Male teens are twice as likely to feel this pressure than their female classmates.
Valerie Huber, President of Ascend/NAEA remarks: “The fact that youth are hearing from their sex education classes that sex as a teen is okay, and even expected is very troubling. And just as troubling, is the fact that the federal sex education budget currently sends 95% of funding to the very programs that teens say make sex feel like an expectation. Don’t our teens deserve a healthier alternative? They certainly do!”
The House and Senate FY 2016 appropriations drafts combine to give healthier information to teens. Specifically, the following changes to sex education policy are proposed:
- Parity. Parity in funding and policy for the Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) approach. Currently 95% of all sex ed. funding goes to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which normalizes sex for teens.
- Healthy Relationship Provisions. Key provisions of the Healthy Relationships Act, a bicameral bill that assures that SRA funding actually goes to programs that give youth the skills to wait for sex.
- Accurately Naming the Program. Referring to SRA programs as “SRA programs,” rather than the less precise – and often mischaracterized term – “abstinence education.”
Soon, Congress must decide how to continue funding the government. This is their opportunity to right a wrong clearly revealed in the recent teen survey.
Huber concludes: “Now is the time to send a healthier message to America’s youth. We urge Congress to ratify the sex education funding and policy changes proposed in the FY 2016 spending bill. It’s not too late to improve the information and messages that teens receive, but we cannot delay: Congress can assure teens are empowered with great expectations for their future rather than the risky expectation of sex as a teen.
Note: The survey was conducted by the Barna Group with 533 U.S. Teens ages 18 and 19 from an online consumer research panel, July 9 – 17, 2015. This data is representative of “adult” teens (no consent needed for participation) who have access to the internet in some form.
The more the leftists try to pretend that this video isn’t there, the more they discredit themselves.
Yes, the baby in the video isn’t the same exact baby whose face was cut open to harvest the brain, but so what? Planned Parenthood still cut through a baby’s face to harvest the brain. And their only defense is to say, “No, the baby in that video isn’t the same one we killed; we cut open the face to get the brain of a different baby!” Do they really think people will buy that?
You are currently browsing the Fletcher's Blog blog archives for September, 2015.