New Planned Parenthood Video

The 10th undercover video about Planned Parenthood’s practice of selling fetal tissue.

This one is called Human Capital: Episode 4 Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Criminal Enterprise.

What to watch for.

  • Right off the bat you see several PP staff saying they think it’s OK to sell tissue, and make a fair income.
  • 2:10- Dr. Westhoff, Senior Medical Advisor for PPFA, says they are concerned about Public Relations issues with this practice.
  • 2:25- Dr Cullins, VP for External Medical Affairs, says this sort of thing could destroy PPFA and the “buyer’s company, if the ydon’t “time these conversations correctly.”
  • 2:45-  Deb VanDerhei, Senior Director of CAPS. 1st question, what kinds of tissues are you looking for. 2nd question, let’s talk money. Notice how she asks the question. In all of these videos, there is this negotiation that happens between clinics and these companies. But if the money changing hands is simply to cover the costs of preserving and shipping the tissues, why not just say, you have to cover these costs. Why this negotiation?
  • 4:05- “The headlines would be a disaster.” Followed by obvious concern for what happens when clinics engage in getting paid for the tissue. “New York Times Headline”
  • 5:00- Dr. Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services, says there are no guidelines and there will never be guidelines for tissue procurement. Why not? If this is such a big issue, if clinics who break the law scare you, make your company afraid of big headlines, why not set down guidelines and protect everyone?
  • 6:43- VanDerhei again. She says that independent clinics generate a fair amount of income doing this. She goes on to say that they are not comfortable talking about this through email.
  • Multiple times Nuctols and VanDehei say that they don’t have policies, this could be big news stories, and generally don’t want to get involved on a national level, while also saying that it seems fair to gain income, and they do talk with their local clinics about how to handle this stuff. But they have made the choice to have no national policies.
  • Around 9:00- Vanessa Russo, Compliance Program Admin for PP Keystone, is talking to Vanderlei. It’s obvious she thinks these laws are “ridiculous”. And that people giving money for tissue is a “valid exchange.”
  • 9:55- VanDerhei talks about a hearing in Congress years ago on this subject, where the claims about changing abortion procedures for tissue sale were found to be false. Then we see Nucatola herself talking about changing abortion procedures to end up with better tissue samples for sale.

If what they are doing isn’t illegal, why not have a national policy on how to handle it? Why are they afraid of headlines?

If PPFA clinics and doctors never change their abortion procedures to aid in collecting tissue samples for “remuneration” why do some many talk about doing exactly that?

Planned Parenthood Investigated the Investigation of Itself, Media Suddenly Interested

Planned Parenthood investigated the investigation of itself and then sent the report to Congress. Not surprisingly, their report on themselves says they didn’t do anything wrong. But this article goes over the details of the report… Which says the videos don’t really contain deceptive edits, but they asked questions that showed staff members agreeing with doing bad stuff. And they used 2 cameras, and cut out chunks of time (like when people went to the bathroom or were;t saying anything). And even though there isn’t any evidence of audio tampering, we can’t rule it out… they probably just made stuff up.


Reading thru the report itself there are numerous times when the investigators say something like- we don’t know what was cut out, or what was said in this gap, or what was said before. They do not say the video was obviously altered or doctored.

The report spends a bit of time talking about the phrases “a baby” and “another boy” which are in this video:

Apparently these phrases made Planned Parenthood very nervous. They asked for them to be examined specifically. Fusion GPS goes on at some length about how the sound during the time ‘a baby” is uttered is “incomprehensible” and then later points out that the words “another boy” might have been somehow brought out by something the journalist said. You can review these segments yourself: “a baby” at about 9:03 and “another boy” at about 11:09.

I can hear the words ‘a baby” but so what? Aside from the fact that it’s emotionally damning, who cares if the technician said that? Abortions (which pro life people already think kill babies) are not illegal. Calling a dead fetus a baby isn’t illegal or wrong. And it seems likely that the technician was doing what they must do, and making sure they had all the parts of the fetus. So when she said it’s “a baby” she likely meant she has the whole fetus. Similarly with “another boy”, who cares if the technicians talk about the gender?

Except that images of defenseless babies ripped apart, and the tone of the technicians engaged in the grisly work have an emotional impact on the viewer. It’s disturbing.

Let’s assume the journalists trapped the staff people, they were trying their hardest to get incriminating footage and using every mean necessary… The simple fact is, if the staff member were only recouping tissue sample storage and shipping costs they wouldn’t negotiate this way. The costs would be fixed, and much lower. And they would never suggest altering an abortion procedure to allow for more intact organ harvesting, which is illegal, no matter what anyone might say on or off camera, unless they do actually alter abortion procedures for that purpose.

This is the last paragraph of the Summary in the report:

At this point, it is impossible to characterize the extent to which CMP’s undisclosed edits and cuts distort the meaning of the encounters the videos purport to document. However, the manipulation of the videos does mean they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries unless supplemented by CMP’s original material and forensic authentication that this material is supplied in unaltered form. The videos also lack credibility as journalistic products.

According to the article from the Blaze, CMP plans to turn over all material to the authorities. That last sentence is just hogwash. Staff members negotiating prices, offering to change how abortions are done, the testimony from former procurement techs, these all have value as journalistic products. Has anyone at Fusion GPS ever watched an undercover report before?

Who is Fusion GPS, the company that headed up this investigative endeavor? The Weekly Standard says they are a Democratic Opposition Research Firm. Here’s a Wall Street Journal article, mentioned by Weekly Standard, where Fusion GPS is identified doing an investigation into Frank Vandersloot (campaign donor to Romney) back in 2012. Frankly, this analysis done by an actually neutral party would mean a lot more.

Many of the media outlets who have been ignoring these videos as much as possible have some interesting headlines:


Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 7.37.09 PM


Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 7.38.52 PM

NY Times;

Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 7.40.01 PM

Huffington post:

Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 7.42.39 PM

I mean, who really wants to read a 10 page report, anyway? Let’s trust the company that is accused of wrongdoing to commission a report from a partisan source, and the media who ignored the story as much as they could until now.

{UPDATE} CMP released 30 minutes of footage as an addendum to the Full Footage released from the TX undercover video. They also released a detailed response explaining the gaps in the “full footage” videos they released, and said again that the entire video files would be submitted to authorities, with no gaps or cuts. This clip was not included with the original video out of human error:

Hillary Clinton’s Emails

If you’ve been following the election at all you have probably heard by now that Hillary Clinton, current front runner for the Democrats, is under criminal FBI investigation for what she may or may not have done with classified material contained in emails.

Let me say that again, the FRONTRUNNER for the Democrats in the 2016 Presidential campaign is under criminal investigation, by the FBI, for how she handles classified, secret documents.

Here’s an article that looks at the scandal and her defense of her actions:

‘Born classified’: Hillary Clinton’s best argument in the email scandal just got destroyed

It seems clear that several documents, several emails with classified information were mishandled by Clinton.

What does that mean?

Legally, I’m not sure. But politically, it could be bad. If this were a few decades ago, she would have already dropped out. But in today’s political climate, some people will still believed this is just partisan politics.

There are only a few possible conclusions you can draw from this situation:

1. Hillary Clinton is so inept that she did not realize that she had mishandled any material, and really doesn’t think she did anything wrong.

2. Or Hillary Clinton knew she was handing classified information through here private email server, but was more interested in what she wanted than the law.

3. Or Hillary Clinton didn’t care that what she was doing might be against the law. She just didn’t take the time to find out if it was OK to have her own email server.

4. Or Hillary Clinton doesn’t understand cyber-security at all, and thought her private server would be secure enough.

5. Or Hillary Clinton knew fully that she was breaking the law, but was more interested in keeping her communication private than obeying the regulations which require them to be public.

None of these conclusions make me want her as President. They all throw up major red flags, either about ability to lead and handle sensitive material, or integrity.

If we elect Hillary Clinton, we get what we deserve.