Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Planned Parenthood's war on girls

My hero Lila Rose of Live Action releases this undercover video of a Planned Parenthood counselor helping her work out the logistics for a sex-selective abortion. The "pregnant" woman tells the Planned Parenthood employee that she will abort her child if she's a girl. The Planned Parenthood hack also gives her some tips on how to defraud Medicaid, lie to her family and lie to doctors, etc.

The video (also at the links)



Abortion is the world's most prolific killer of girls. 100 million girls are missing in the world today, mostly because of sex-selective abortion, most in Asia, but sex selective abortion is common in the West as well.

In the undercover video, the Planned Parenthood counselor wraps it up with "Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy".

To "get your boy", Planned Parenthood will help you kill your girl.

33 comments:

  1. Actually, I agree. Sex selective abortion should be banned. Some European countries have discussed the possibility of withholding the sex of the fetus in all cases if antenatal screening is performed. Couples I have known having antenatal screening, if offered news of the fetus' sex usually decline preferring to be 'surprised'.

    Preferring males to females is a cultural problem, only to be solved by removing all discrimination against females.

    I have a little doubt about the video. Sex determination by ultrasonography is almost 100% accurate by 13 weeks. There shouldn't be any need to wait till 20 weeks (which is my personal cutoff point for elective abortions) to be accurate.

    If it was videoed in a Planned Parenthood clinic, was the counsellor giving rogue ill informed advice to be helpful but not particularly accurate to her client, and not actually following the policies of Planned Parenthood?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The old rogue employee defense.

      There are a lot of rogue employees at PP. At some point you have to wonder if there is a culture of deception at PP.

      Have you seen the other videos?

      Joey

      Delete
  2. 6:30-6:40 is the nadir of this video, in my opinion.

    Dr. Egnor, have you read J. Budziszewski's "What We Can't Not Know: A Guide"? I am working my way through it at the moment and I think he has some interesting ideas regarding the psychology surrounding the issue of abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr Egnor,

    The video is .... unnerving to say the least.
    Horrible stuff.
    The 'terror' the 'sexual revolution': The Femicide.

    Bach,
    "Preferring males to females is a cultural problem, only to be solved by removing all discrimination against females."
    In other words: Never to be solved.

    "There shouldn't be any need to wait till 20 weeks (which is my personal cutoff point for elective abortions) to be accurate."
    As I understand it, the procedure is favoured after 8 weeks and more so near 20 weeks. It is easier to locate and kill the baby or 'foetus' at that size.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How do we know the sex of the child being killed if the child is not a child, but actually an extension of the woman's body?

    None of my body parts have a gender.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the question the pro-abortion lobby does NOT want asked.
      Excellent point, Trish.

      Delete
  5. So Planned Parenthood hates women. Yawn. We already knew that. Old news.

    Here's the Left's logic. If you you oppose killing children, you're anti-woman.

    If you support killing baby girls specifically because they are girls, you are pro-woman.

    Makes sense to me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, that last comment was from me, TRISH.

      Delete
    2. Yes, Trish. I think you're one of those "anti-woman women". Kidding, kidding.

      Woman-hater!

      The Torch

      Delete
  6. Lila Rose is my hero as well.

    I'm a vet of OIF and OEF, and I never did anything as noble as Ms. Rose. If I live to be a hundred, I probably never will.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  7. The video would be distressing if the claims that Lila Rose makes weren't complete bullshit. Like everything else that Lila Rose puts out. But Egnor doesn't mind being a lying sack of shit, so he passes the lies along to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      You saw the tape. Which part don't you understand? She went in for a sex selective abortion, they encouraged her to wait until the 23rd week, then showed her how to defraud Medicaid. The tape doesn't lie.

      Media Matters is a George Soros funded smear machine. No credibility whatsoever.

      This is the lawyer, isn't it?

      The Torch

      Delete
    2. That Media Matters page was humorous reading.

      But Planned Parenthood has said that they're against sex-selective abortions! Who are you going to believe--the PR rep for the baby-killing industry, or your lying eyes?

      TRISH

      Delete
  8. Y'all,

    Actually, I still have some doubt about the video. It did seem to me to be overacted, both by the counsellor and the client. I can't rule out the possibility that it was staged. How difficult would it be to splice a sequence showing someone walking up to a clinic and then adding a sequence in some anonymous office.

    I still see the possibilities as: 1. Planned parenthood condones sex selective abortions. 2. It's a rogue employee. 3. It was staged, and didn't happen, not in a Planned Parenthood clinic anyway.

    I'm inclined to believe (2) or (3) based on the overacting and inaccurate information (CrusadeRex - you've claimed before that most abortions are performed later, after 20 weeks, because it's a 'larger target', but you're wrong then and you're wrong now).

    I still think that sex selective abortion is objectively wrong (it leads to imbalance of males/females and will cause unhappiness down the track - although it will make females more highly esteemed, perhaps).

    But women do have the right to decide what is to happen to their bodies. They do have the right to decide if a fetus is wanted and doesn't have detectable abnormalities, such as trisomy 21. But the rights have limits. She doesn't have the right to chose the sex of her children or abortion late in pregnancy - for personal reasons.

    By the way, CrusadeRex, when you state that the solution for sex selective abortions being removing all discrimination against women 'will never happen', it reveals more about your mindset.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Planned Parenthood fired the woman in the video. So it's not staged. There was no acting. You're grasping for straws here.

      Women don't have the right to decide what happens to other people's bodies, to include their own offspring. She wants to determine the sex of the child because it's a separate life, distinct from the mother. If it has a penis, it's a little boy. If it has a vagina, it's a little girl. In neither case is it a piece of the woman's body, like a gland or organ. It's a person who happens to be connected by an umbilical cord.

      You even heard the Planned Parenthood employee explain that the brain is already formed at twenty-three weeks.

      Statement from Infanticide HQ:

      "Planned Parenthood insists on the highest quality patient care, and if we ever become aware of a staff member not meeting these high standards we take swift action,” she said in a written statement. “Within three days of this patient interaction, the staff member’s employment was ended and all staff members at this affiliate were immediately scheduled for retraining in managing unusual patient encounters. Today opponents of Planned Parenthood are promoting an edited video of that hoax patient encounter.”

      They call it a "hoax" not because it didn't happen, but because the woman who caught them on camera wasn't really pregnant. By the way, if it was "edited" and a "hoax", why then did they fire the woman?

      But she got canned. She was a real PP employee and she was not acting, although that's a very imaginative coping mechanism you've conjured up. The lengths some people will go to in order to avoid reality is really quite astounding.

      Rogue employees are everywhere at PP. While I doubt that they're acting on specific policy from the baby-killing giant, I do think that there is a lot of winking at behavior that is illegal and unethical. And when you work at Planned Parenthood, it's all unethical and should be illegal!

      TRISH

      Delete
    2. Watching anonymous try to justify gendercide is nauseating.

      These "clinics" make Nazi death camps look like a picnic. Is it any wonder that Dr. Mengele became an abortionist In Buenos Aires after the war?

      The Torch

      Delete
    3. The employees were retrained to make sure they don't get caught next time.

      That kind of "retraining".

      The Torch

      Delete
    4. Torch,

      Get some reading skills, will'ya. I stated from the beginning that I think that sex selective abortion should be banned. If you think that that's justifying 'gendercide', then you need to work on your comprehension skills.

      OK, if it happened, and Planned Parenthood fired the employee concerned, then it makes (2) more likely. The employee is a rogue one, and not particularly well informed. If she thinks that it's necessary to wait till 20 weeks to do a scan to determine fetal sex, then she's not following any rational protocol and she's made it up by herself.

      If she thinks that sex selective abortion is allowed (I don't think that it should be) and wants to help her client to achieve it, then she should be advising an ultrasound as soon as possible after 13 weeks, performed by someone who is technically proficient, without revealing that the only information that she's after is fetal sex - and if female, then going to have an abortion (which I disagree with anyway).

      Delete
    5. "But the rights have limits. She doesn't have the right to chose the sex of her children or abortion late in pregnancy - for personal reasons."

      In the United States of America, she does. Sadly.

      See the insanity of our abortion laws now? Let's work together to change them. Raise a stink about it. Don't defend these people. Don't vote for politicians who take the extreme no-limits, any time/anywhere position on abortion, which is most liberal Democrats when you get down to it. Work to get a plank in the Democratic platform that would put an end to this crap.

      The Torch

      Delete
    6. Torch,

      OK, I didn't express myself clearly enough for you. I was giving my personal opinions, not what's legal in America. When I wrote that a woman doesn't have the right to have a sex selective abortion, that's a personal opinion. To be clear, I should have written that she shouldn't have the right to a sex selective abortion, and in my very first comment #1 I wrote that sex selective abortion should be prohibited. Is that clear enough for you?

      Delete
    7. Bach,
      G'day.

      "(CrusadeRex - you've claimed before that most abortions are performed later, after 20 weeks, because it's a 'larger target', but you're wrong then and you're wrong now)."
      No. I was not wrong. I based my numbers on information given to me by military physicians and personal friends.
      The truth is simple: You were an apologist for murdering unborn children then, and you are now.

      "By the way, CrusadeRex, when you state that the solution for sex selective abortions being removing all discrimination against women 'will never happen', it reveals more about your mindset."
      Yes. It does. Besides being an obvious fact of matter, the statement does reveal something about the way I think.
      It reveals I do not believe in Utopia.
      I do not believe that all forms of discrimination against ANY set or group can be eliminated, without eliminating all humans first.
      You, on the other hand, do believe their will be some transcendent point when all bigotry and evil will be banished -(drum roll and add echo)- by education and science. (end echo, and hit the cymbals)
      Your observation/comment is revealing too!
      You have, yet again, confirmed your own belief in wide eyed positivism, while attempting to paint me as some sort of sexist bigot or Neanderthal for objecting to femicide, and abortion in general.

      By the way, Bach - while we are on the subject of mindsets and psychological evaluations and motivations: Your refusal to use your own Google nickname says something about your mindset.

      Delete
    8. CrusadeRex,

      I based my assertion on when abortions are done on the statistics compiled by the Canadian health authorities. It's their job to compile accurate data because it determines how public funds are spent, how resources are directed, etc and are regulated by legislation to ensure that they do their job in compiling accurate statistics.

      Your unnamed friends on the other hand may be giving you inaccurate data because they have an agenda or they might just be mistaken. They might be remembering the rarer late abortion and forgetting the much more frequent early abortions (as an analogy, if you walk down the street and step on 100 fallen leaves and one gold ingot, the next day you won't remember the leaves but you'll certainly remember the gold ingot).

      I'm anonymous. So are you.

      I'm not an apologist for murdering children. It's just that a fetus isn't a child. I have my limits though. I disagree with late abortion for personal (the mother's) reasons, and I put that as after 20 weeks, since there is some evidence that the fetus can possibly feel pain after 24 weeks. After 20 weeks, there has to be an adequate indication, in my opinion.

      And anyway, regarding ending discrimination. We've come a long way already. Women used not to get any education. Now they do, making up the majority of students in medical schools in which admission is based on ability in many universities. It's hardly utopian to think that the progress made already won't continue.

      It will be cultural changes that will improve women's standing, not science or education (although both will support the position that there's no rationale to discriminate).

      Delete
    9. "I based my assertion on when abortions are done on the statistics compiled by the Canadian health authorities[...]ensure that they do their job in compiling accurate statistics."
      That is among the strangest things I have read in ages.
      First off it is the PROVINCIAL government that allocates funding. They simply provide reports and stats (often inaccurate and leading to inquiry) to the Feds.
      Secondly each province has their own rules and standards with regards to such procedures.
      Thirdly the medical services are NOTORIOUS for their shoddy record keeping - especially when it comes to elective procedures (like abortion).

      "Your unnamed friends on the other hand may be giving you inaccurate data because they have an agenda or they might just be mistaken. [...]but you'll certainly remember the gold ingot)."
      If I find a gold ingot, I will remember the EXACT details of it's location. But I understand what you mean.
      A better example would be finding a rotting corpse. Then you might forget the leaves and the GPS locator. The horror (not delight) might erase details. But, that is not the case with my associates. They have seen plenty of horror, some of it right at my side.
      As for an agenda: Yes, they have one. They (most of them) are bound by oath to protect the people of this country, and by an even more profound oath to protect ALL life.

      "I'm anonymous. So are you"
      I am CrusadeRex, so all posters can identify and respond to my comments. My reasons for anonymity are professional, but I have the courtesy to use an identifiable tag. So did you at one point, Bach.


      'I'm not an apologist for murdering children."
      You redefine what a child is in order to legitimize the slaughter of the unborn. A rose by any other name.

      "It's just that a fetus isn't a child."
      VoilĂ !

      Delete
    10. CNTD


      " I have my limits though. "
      No one is contesting that. It's just that THESE specific limits are arbitrary and are used to justify the destruction of human potential - new HUMAN life.

      "I disagree with late abortion for personal (the mother's) reasons, and I put that as after 20 weeks, since there is some evidence that the fetus can possibly feel pain after 24 weeks."
      So killing someone who is anaesthetized (without pain) is okay? Killing a (totally defenceless) human that cannot feel pain is not murder?

      "After 20 weeks, there has to be an adequate indication, in my opinion."
      What type of indicator?

      'And anyway, regarding ending discrimination. We've come a long way already."
      Sure. Equality is a long road, but it does not end discrimination.

      "Women used not to get any education."
      And now the women of the world are educated? Oh hang on! I know what you mean: The women of your own privileged culture.

      "Now they do, making up the majority of students in medical schools in which admission is based on ability in many universities."
      Where? Most of the world?

      "It's hardly utopian to think that the progress made already won't continue."
      Uh..that is exactly what I mean by utopian. You believe 'progress' MUST continue. This is where your BELIEFS differ from my own.
      I simply hope that some aspects of 'progress' MAY continue.

      "It will be cultural changes that will improve women's standing, not science or education (although both will support the position that there's no rationale to discriminate)."
      It COULD be cultural changes that improve the standing of women, but only to the point of equality. Again, even equality (legal) does not mean the end of discrimination.
      Ask any person of ethic minority status if their 'equality' protects them from the insidious presence of discrimination.
      As for science. It is a tool. It will 'support' whatever is politically expedient. In the 19th and 20th centuries it supported genocide, eugenics, and the normalization of grossly destructive and immoral behaviour.
      What the sciences 'reveal' is only as good as the Scientists themselves; and scientists are human beings with ALL the flaws of their fellow humans.

      Delete
  9. It’s absurd to think that an organization dedicated to women’s health services, primarily staffed by women, and preoccupied by women’s rights issues, is waging war on girls. What in the world do you think is their motivation? China envy? Demonic rewards? Self loathing? More sex partners for their daughters? What a joke.

    In the month of May there where three instances of arson on women’s clinics, and anti-abortion Christians are conducting “sting” operations that result in highly edited propaganda videos, and I’m supposed to believe that it’s people like me waging war on you? You’re all so weak minded and easily manipulated.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that if someone is in favor of abortion he should practice it whatever the motivation otherwise his whole belief will be in crisis.

      Anyway, can you tell me PP how many women refused abortion after they asked? or I have to tink that every woman who enters PP offices receives what she asks?

      Delete
    2. @KW:

      There are 100 million missing girls. Most were killed via sex-selective abortions.

      If that's not a "war on women", what is?

      Delete
    3. @KW,

      Very interesting that you should posit 'demonic rewards' among your possible motivations.
      Very telling indeed.
      It clearly illustrates a few possible reasons.
      1) You completely misunderstand theology, population control, and the reasoning skills of your opposites.
      or
      2) You see demonic rewards as a historical precedent for killing children (for the 'earth'/crops, Baal, or 'sustainability')
      or
      3) You have recently become aware of the New Age/ Wiccan position on abortion and the incredibly high presence of these 'practitioners' in that 'field'.

      Of course, like Anton LeVay, you probably do not believe in Devils (yet) - but you have made a very interesting point despite that fact.

      What do the rest of you folks think? Is there a demonic or - dare I say - a Faustian connection here?

      Delete
    4. mregnor,

      What makes you think that most of the 100 million missing girls are due to sex selective abortion?

      There are three possibilities; sex selective abortion, sex selective infanticide (daughters are deliberately killed) and sex selective neglect (daughters don't get as much of the family's resources, don't get given medical care as early as sons).

      The disparity in sex numbers is greatest for the poor than the rich. To have a sex selective abortion, you need to have access to high quality ultrasound and be able to afford it. For the poor in countries without social security, children, particularly sons, are their insurance for a reasonably tolerable old age, if they manage to survive that long.

      The rich have the resources to fund their old age. There was a recent case in China where a couple were fined an enormous sum of around $200,000 for breaching the one child policy by having a daughter after the first child, a son. They were shocked, but still paid immediately.

      Undoubtedly, sex selective abortion does occur, but you have no justification for claiming that it accounts for most of the shortfall in females.

      Delete
    5. The other two reasons for missing girls-- infanticide and neglect-- undoubtedly happen, but no one believes that they account for enough female deaths to leave a deficit of 100 million.

      Many if not most of the female deficit is in Asia, particularly in China and India. Ultrasound technology is widely available in both countries.

      Delete
  10. Gendercide video, part deux:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-abortion-group-releases-2nd-gendercide-video-showing-planned-parenthoods-alleged-sex-selection-abortion-assistance/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Now the unedited version of the video is available. Huh, what do know, the part where the PP worker suggested giving up the child for adoption was edited out, as was the part where she said she doesn’t know any doctors that would be sympathetic,.

    No surprise there. That’s the difference between information and propaganda.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards yesterday opposed a ban on sex-selective abortions on the grounds that it would “limit [a woman's] choices as she makes personal medical decisions.”

      that's all.

      Delete