In its latest deceptively edited video, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) claims to have caught a Planned Parenthood official “haggling” over the price of “baby parts” and agreeing to change abortion methods to aid the fetal tissue collection process. But the full video and transcript show the official confirming that any change in procedure is done pursuant to medical advice without additional risk to the patient, and that the compensation being discussed was about legal reimbursement for costs associated with tissue donation.
Anti-Choice Group Released Another Deceptively Edited Video Purporting To Show Planned Parenthood Official “Haggling Over Payments” For “Baby Parts”
Center For Medical Progress: “Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices, Changes Abortion Methods.” In a video released on July 21, the Center for Medical Progress claimed to have recorded PPFA Medical Directors' Council President Mary Gatter “haggling over” prices for fetal tissue donations and offering to change techniques “to get more intact body parts.” According to the organization's press release:
By the lunch's end, Gatter suggests $100 per specimen is not enough and concludes, “Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it's fine, if it's still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).
Gatter also suggests modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses: “I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen.”
Gatter seems aware this violates rules governing tissue collection, but disregards them: “To me, that's kind of a specious little argument.” Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
The video, like last week's featuring Dr. Nucatola, was produced by The Center for Medical Progress and is part of CMP's nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study, “Human Capital.” [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15]
DECEPTIVE EDIT: Center For Medical Progress Cherry Picks Quotes To Claim Video Shows Planned Parenthood Was Paid For Fetal Donations
Edited Video: Gatter Admitted “Planned Parenthood Received Payment In Spite Of Incurring No Costs.” The Center for Medical Progress' press release claims that the deceptively cut video shows Gatter admitted that Planned Parenthood receives payment for fetal tissue donation “in spite of incurring no costs,” pointing to the 8-minute long video where Gatter saying the process “was logistically very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. So there was compensation for this”:
Gatter also admits that in prior fetal tissue deals, Planned Parenthood received payment in spite of incurring no cost: “It was logistically very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. So there was compensation for this.” She accepts a higher price of $100 per specimen understanding that it will be only for high-quality fetal organs: “Now, this is for tissue that you actually take, not just tissue that someone volunteers and you can't find anything, right?” [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]
Full Video Shows Gatter Was Discussing Process Of Obtaining Consent And Sorting Donations. The Center for Medical Progress' transcript of the full-video reveals that when Gatter said “It was very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. There was compensation for this,” she was discussing the process of working with a company to obtain consent for the donations and decide which donations could be used, citing how it was “logistically ... very easy” because a representative was there to help make the decision (emphasis added):
GATTER: So Novogenix was our partner in PPLA and they would send us- you know, big volume. They would send their staff to the site, and our staff, our medical assistants were used to discussing with the patients, do you want to consent? And they would say yes or no, and a lot of them said yes. Maybe it wasn't entirely sixty, and then once the patients have signed the consent form, the patients did not receive digoxin, and Heather would look at the tissue- that's probably Laura- she would take the pieces that she wanted and it worked out well for everyone. She was unobtrusive, she was helpful, she did all that kind of stuff.
LAUREL [Gatter's Colleague]: Oh, my apologies. Hi.
GATTER: So we just started the conversation.
GATTER: They're a start up, they've have been about a year in business. They are for profit company connecting researchers with people willing to donate tissue. We just started talking- they were a little bit concerned about the fact that they're in Long Beach, but they understand that every California affiliate is paired up in a tissue donation program, except for Pasadena. Volume, that you for getting it to me is eight hundred a year. We were just starting to talk about the process worked with Novogenix down in Los Angeles when I was there. To back up a little bit, PPFA, our parent body, is on board with tissue donation, but we have to ask for a waiver to do it, and we have to lay out for them what our program's gonna be like. And it's absolutely a requirement that we use only the official, federal government form for tissue donation, that we don't modify it in any way. Novogenix was working on a concept that California has slightly different requirements, and so it's different, and so they wanted to very reasonably insert the California requirements into the consent form, the federal form, PPFA said no, you have to have two separate forms, so it just added to the burden of consent issues. But I was also explaining to them, back when I was in Los Angeles maybe sixty to seventy percent of people said yes to tissue donation.
So Heather, a Novogenix person would come to the site, and our staff would sign the patients up, and get consent. Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal, they have been paying by the case, and there was some discussion about do we, in a different way, or I don't know what you're used to doing, how you're used to doing compensation. Patients don't care what we do, of course, but- [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]
Video Shows Gattner Was Talking About “Costs Associated With The Use Of Our Space” -- Compensation For Which Is Legal According To Federal Law. Even in the 8-minute video, Gattner's full comments reveal that the compensation being discussed was to offset clinic costs such as “costs associated with the use of our space,” a legal industry standard for fetal tissue donation.
GATTER: And we don't want to be in the position of being accused of selling tissue and stuff like that. On the other hand, there are costs associated with the use of our space, and all that kind of stuff.
ACTOR: Exactly. Yes, right. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15]
DECEPTIVE EDIT: Video Crops Gatter To Claim Planned Parenthood Modifies Abortion Procedures “To Get More Intact Fetuses”
Edited Video: Gatter “Suggests Modifying Abortion Procedure To Get More Intact Fetuses.” According to CMP's press release, the 8-minute version of its video shows Gatter “suggest[ing] modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses.”:
BUYER [ACTOR]: You know, 10 to 12 week, end of the first trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens then that's something we can work with.
GATTER: So that's an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks and we switch to using IPAS or something with less suction or to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we're kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient we're not doing anything different in our care of you. Now to me, that's kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen. But I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing to something and we're signing to something that we're not changing anything with the way we're managing you just because you agreed to give tissue. You've heard that before.
BUYER [ACTOR]: Yes, it's difficult. It's touchy. How do you feel about that?
GATTER: I think they're both totally appropriate techniques, there's no difference in pain involved. I don't think the patients would care one iota. So I'm not making a fuss about that.
[TIMESTAMPS JUMP FROM 12:38:25 TO 13:09:41, REMOVING NEARLY 8 MINUTES]
GATTER: Now you have my email address right? Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a “less crunchy” technique to get more whole specimens. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15, 7/21/15]
Full Video Shows Gatter Reiterating That She Cannot Modify Procedure Herself And It Won't Heighten Patient Risk. Left out of the edited video is Gatter and her colleague explaining that there are at least two different ways to perform the type of abortion in question, but the “slight variation” of IPAS (manual suction) does not put the patient at any more risk. Because some have argued that the consent forms patients sign would not allow doctors to perform a potentially longer procedure, even if the longer procedure were just as safe, before Gatter can endorse one type of procedure over the other she specifically tells the CMP actor she will have to consult with the surgeon she works with (emphasis added):
ACTOR: You're not putting the patient at any more risk, right? As you said.
GATTER: No. Just slight variation of the technique.
LAUREL: Which, the consent they're signing is for suction aspiration, it doesn't describe what kind it is.
GATTER: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we're not doing anything different, so.
ACTOR: That's what I need to understand, because what I'm seeing it as, of course, I'm looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.
GATTER: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you're slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you're increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they're technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.
ACTOR: So it's technicalities, is what I'm hearing.
GATTER: It's something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]
Abortion Methods Described By Gatter Are The Most Common Methods Of Abortion During First Twelve Weeks Of Pregnancy. The methods of abortion Gattner identified as most common at her clinic are two variations of what is known as “aspiration” abortion, one variation of which uses a manual pump. According to women's health group Our Bodies Ourselves, the procedure is the most common method “during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy” and is “a safe medical procedure” with small risk of complications:
Although the number of women in the United States choosing medication abortion (abortion with pills) is increasing each year, aspiration abortion (also called surgical or suction abortion) is the currently the most common method used for abortions during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. In 2010, about 72% of all first trimester abortions were aspiration abortions.
Some of the reasons women choose aspiration abortion over medication abortion are easier access and higher success rates. In addition, a surgical abortion is shorter and completed in a predictable period and fewer office visits are needed.
In aspiration abortion, the uterine contents are removed by suction (aspiration), which is applied through a cannula, a thin tube that is inserted into the uterus and connected to a source of suction, either an electric pump or a handheld syringe. (If no electric pump is used, the abortion is a manual vacuum aspiration, or MVA.)
Aspiration abortion is a safe medical procedure. Fewer than 1 in 200 women who have an aspiration abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy experience a complication that requires hospitalization. The risk of death from abortion is always lower than the risk of death involved in carrying a pregnancy to term. [Our Bodies Ourselves, 4/2/15]
Association Of Reproductive Health Professionals: “Overall Effectiveness, Patient Satisfaction, And Complication Rates Are Comparable” For Both Types Of Aspiration Abortion. In a 2008 reference guide for clinicians, ARHP confirmed that both electric or manual vacuum aspiration “are safe and can easily be performed.” Additionally, “in patients who are less than 50 days of gestation, [manual vacuum aspiration] results in less patient perception of pain”:
Vacuum uterine aspiration allows for the simple evacuation of the uterus through a cannula attached to either an electric or manual vacuum source. Both methods of evacuation are safe and can easily be performed in any setting, including an office, emergency room, or the operating room. When conducted in the outpatient setting rather than operating room, vacuum uterine aspiration can result in substantial cost savings and significantly reduce patient waiting periods for services.
Overall effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and complication rates are comparable for EVA and MVA. MVA is highly portable, virtually silent, reusable, and available at a low cost. In patients who are less than 50 days of gestation, MVA results in less patient perception of pain as compared to EVA, but takes longer to complete. Additionally, pregnancy tissue may be easier to identify after MVA than EVA. Clinicians also report high satisfaction in the use of MVA. [Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, “Manual Vacuum Aspiration,” June 2008]
Federal Statute 42 U.S.C. 289g-1: The “Research On Transplantation Of Fetal Tissue” Law Does Not Ban Alterations In Medical Procedure. In its explanation that “federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection,” the CMP press release incompletely described the statute governing fetal tissue donation. In fact, 42 U.S.C. 289g-1 only regulates alterations to the procedure that are done “solely” for obtaining the tissue; alterations for other reasons are permitted:
In research carried out under subsection (a) of this section, human fetal tissue may be used only if the attending physician with respect to obtaining the tissue from the woman involved makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the physician, declaring that--
(ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue [42 U.S.C. 289g-1, Accessed 7/21/15]
Planned Parenthood Statement: Fetal Donations Were Done “Under The Highest Ethical And Legal Standards,” And Provide Them “No Financial Benefit.” In a July 17 statement responding to the first video, Eric Ferrero, Planned Parenthood's Vice President of Communications, explained that the organization's clinics “help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research” with “the highest ethical and legal standards.” Ferrero noted that the organization received “no financial benefit” from the arrangement aside from reimbursement of “actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue” -- consistent with industry standards:
"In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.
“A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood's mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood's participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.” [Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 7/14/15]
Federal Law Allows For Donations Of Fetal Tissue With Consent. Federal law regarding the use of human fetal tissue does not prohibit the use of donated materials. [Title 42 U.S. Code § 289g-2, Accessed 7/14/15]
Health And Human Services Independent Review Board: Providers May Accept Payment “For Reasonable Expenses” With “Informed Consent.” The set of standards outlined by the Health And Human Services Independent Review Board guidebook, the industry standard for medical research, explains that payment for fetal tissue may be obtained “for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues” (emphasis added):
Prohibiting Payments and Other Inducements
· Payments and other forms of remuneration and compensation associated with the procurement of fetal tissue should be prohibited, except payment for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues.
· Potential recipients of such tissues, as well as research and health care participants, should be properly informed about the source of the tissues in question.
· The decision and consent to abort must precede discussion of the possible use of the fetal tissue and any request for such consent that might be required for that use.
· Fetal tissue from induced abortions should not be used in medical research without the prior consent of the pregnant woman. Her decision to donate fetal remains is sufficient for the use of tissue, unless the father objects (except in cases of incest or rape).
· Consent should be obtained in compliance with state law and with the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. [Health and Human Services Institutional Review Board Guidebook, Accessed 7/14/15]
First Full Video Released By Group Revealed That Crucial Portions Were Edited Out. This video is the second in a series released by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP). The first was a July 14 video, which also relied on deceptive edits to falsely claim Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola had discussed how the organization “sells the body parts of aborted fetuses.” The nearly nine-minute video and an accompanying press release also claimed that Planned Parenthood was in violation of 42 U.S.C. 289g-2, a federal law regulating the use and sale of fetal tissue. Yet the entire, unedited, nearly three-hour version of the first video that CMP released contains several sections that were edited out of the shorter video, which contradict the group's assertions. For example, as the unedited transcript shows, Dr. Nucatola says, “Nobody should be 'selling' tissue,” and she repeatedly referred to “tissue donation” during the conversation. The edited video also jumps ahead nearly eight minutes in the middle of a discussion about money in an attempt to falsely frame Nucatola's comments as having to do with the sale price of tissue, but the unedited version reveals that she was actually discussing reimbursement costs for legal donation during those missing minutes. [Media Matters for America, 7/14/15]
Center For Medical Progress Describes Itself As A Non-Profit “Group Of Citizen Journalists.” According to the organization's website description of itself:
The Center for Medical Progress is a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances. We are concerned about contemporary bioethical issues that impact human dignity, and we oppose any interventions, procedures, and experiments that exploit the unequal legal status of any class of human beings. We envision a world in which medical practice and biotechnology ally with and serve the goods of human nature and do not destroy, disfigure, or work against them.
The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed 7/15/15]
Center For Medical Progress Has A Small And Recent Internet Footprint. CMP's presence online was nearly non-existent until several weeks ago. The group's Facebook page shows no posts before May 24 of this year and the organization didn't join Twitter until May 30. No videos other than the deceptively edited Planned Parenthood clips appear on the group's YouTube site. The website address listed on their Facebook page leads to a Postal Annex in Irvine, CA instead of real organization. [Facebook.com, accessed 7/15/15; Twitter.com, accessed 7/15/15, YouTube.com, accessed 7/15/15; Yelp.com, accessed 7/15/15]
Center For Medical Progress: Daleiden Is “Founder” And Project Lead For The “Human Capital” Investigation. According to the Center for Medical Progress' website, Daleiden not only spearheaded the “Human Capital” investigation that produced the deceptively edited video attacking Planned Parenthood, he also founded the organization. Daleiden's bio also describes his past work at conservative news outlet The Weekly Standard:
David Daleiden is a citizen journalist with nearly a decade of experience in conducting investigative research on the abortion industry. In 2013, David started The Center for Medical Progressas a vehicle through which to pursue sophisticated, in-depth, and scintillating investigative journalism projects pertaining to contemporary bioethical issues.
As Project Lead at CMP, David recently completed the organization's first long-term project, the 30-month-long “Human Capital” investigation documenting Planned Parenthood's illegal sale of body parts from aborted fetuses. Prior to CMP, David worked as Director of Research for a national new media education and advocacy organization. David is a graduate of Claremont McKenna College with a B.A. in Government, and his writing has been published in The Weekly Standard and The Human Life Review. [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed 7/15/15]
Life Legal Defense Fund Credits Daleiden As Director Of CMP's Project. In a press release discussing CMP's first video, the Life Legal Defense Fund credited David Daleiden as the director of the “Human Capital” project behind the deceptively edited video, thanking him specifically “for bringing these shocking practices to light”:
The “Human Capital” project was a nearly 3-year-long undertaking produced by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP). Directed by CMP Project Lead David Daleiden, the effort secured audio and video recordings of Planned Parenthood administrators and abortionists casually agreeing to sell freshly-extracted parts from their abortions. CMP's devastating expose of PP's trade in body parts may be seen at centerformedicalprogress.org.
Life Legal gives the credit for bringing these shocking practices to light to David Daleiden. But Daleiden gives a lot of credit to Life Legal: “The Center for Medical Progress thanks Life Legal Defense Foundation for their initiative and foresight in consulting on and helping to develop this project.” [Christian News Wire, 7/14/15]
Daleiden Was Formerly The Director of Research At Live Action. In 2009, Daleiden was the director of research for the discredited anti-abortion group Live Action, which has been criticized before for deceptively editing undercover footage of abortion clinics in an attempt to smear Planned Parenthood. According to Daleiden's bio from the time on Live Action's website, he assumed his role in 2008 and was later banned from Pomona College's campus after “videotaping a Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles speaker denying Planned Parenthood's responsibility for the cover-up of statutory rape”:
David Daleiden has a passion for promoting the culture of life in communities and campuses across the country. He is proud to be a part of the Live Action team.
A native of the Sacramento area, David first became involved with the pro-life movement at age 15, working with local college pro-life groups and learning from veteran activists in his community. He founded a pro-life club at his high school, helped bring pro-life debater Scott Klusendorf to his hometown, and has participated in the “Genocide Awareness Project” to show abortion images to the public. David points to such images as the original impetus for his work in the pro-life movement.
During high school, David was also heavily involved in speech and debate. He first met Lila Rose in the Junior State of America (JSA) organization, and over the years became more and more involved in Live Action.
In 2007, David began his studies at Claremont McKenna College (CMC) in Claremont, California. David currently runs a Live Action chapter in Claremont, which routinely conducts sidewalk counseling efforts, community education, and campus activism.
David took on his current role as Director of Research for Live Action in 2008 during the early stages of the Mona Lisa Project. In March 2009, David and a fellow student were banned from sister campus Pomona College after videotaping a Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles speaker denying Planned Parenthood's responsibility for the cover-up of statutory rape. The ban was soon lifted after intense public scrutiny. [Live Action, 8/17/09; Media Matters for America, 2/4/11; Media Matters for America, 5/31/12]
Snopes: Daleiden Is Reportedly Friends With Conservative Figure Best Known For “Severely Edited” Videos. A Snopes.com takedown of CMP's video noted that Daleiden is reportedly a friend of James O'Keefe -- another conservative figure notrious for using “severely edited” videos to target liberal organizations:
An individual named David Daleiden has been widely credited as the “leader” of the Center for Medical Progress. While Daleiden's online footprint is minimal, a 2009 Claremont University article (penned by fellow conservative activist Chuck Johnson) reported:
James O'Keefe is a friend of David Daleiden's. O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have been going coast to coast documenting instances of ACORN employees willingly giving advice on how to avoid paying taxes and shielding a would be pimp (running for congress) and a prostitutent from the watchful eye of the law. They've brought their investigation to New York City, Washington D.C., and Baltimore.
O'Keefe came to prominence in 2009 after he produced “egregiously misleading” and “severely edited” videos targeting agencies such as ACORN." [Snopes.com, 7/14/15]
Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, Serves On Board of Directors. “Operation Rescue President Troy Newman serves on the Board of Daleiden's Center for Medical Progress. During this investigation, Newman advised Daleiden, providing consultation services and material support.” [Christian Newswire, 7/14/15]
Newman Called Murder Of Abortion Clinic Doctor A “Justifiable Defensive Action.” In a 2003 press release, Newman defended Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection for murdering abortion doctor John Britton in Pensacola, FL. Newman argued that Hill should have been able to defend himself by classifying the murder as justifiable.
Today's scheduled execution of Paul Hill is not justice, but is another example of the judicial tyranny that is gripping our nation. A Florida judge denied Rev. Hill his right to present a defense that claimed that the killing of the abortionist was necessary to save the lives of the pre-born babies that were scheduled to be killed by abortion that day. Our system of justice is based upon 'innocent until proven guilty,' but in Rev. Hill's case, there was no justice because the court prevented him from presenting the legal defense that his conduct was justifiable defensive action.
“There are many examples where taking the life in defense of innocent human beings is legally justified and permissible under the law. Paul Hill should have been given the opportunity to defend himself with the defense of his choosing in a court of law. [Operation Rescue West press release, 9/3/03]
Newman Stalked Clinic Workers. A 2004 Los Angeles Times story detailed Newman's anti-abortion activism:
Newman will pick through clinic workers' trash to figure out where they do business; he'll trail them at a distance to learn their routines. His goal is not just to make their lives uncomfortable. He wants to unsettle and disgust their friends and associates, so their hairstylists and their pharmacists, even their neighbors, make it clear they're not welcome in Wichita. [Los Angeles Times, 2/17/04]
Vox: Center For Medical Progress “Appears To Be Associated” With Life Legal Defense Foundation. In a July 14 post detailing the controversy around the deceptively edited video released by CMP, Vox noted that the Life Legal Defense Foundation “appears to be associated with” the organization, linking to a series of materials on Life Legal's website from the Center For Medical Progress. [Vox, 7/14/15]
Life Legal Defense Foundation Has Been With The Center For Medical Progress “From The Very Start.” In a press release discussing CMP's video, the Life Legal Defense Fund said it had been working with CMP “from the very start”:
Life Legal Defense Foundation was finally able today to reveal its support of an undercover operation proving that Planned Parenthood routinely peddles the organs and tissues of babies aborted in its “health centers.” This systematic profiteering is known about and approved by officers at the abortion giant's highest levels of authority. Planned Parenthood's abortionists will even alter the abortion procedure in order to guarantee the tissues most sought after--regardless of what might be best for the aborting mother.
Life Legal gives the credit for bringing these shocking practices to light to David Daleiden. But Daleiden gives a lot of credit to Life Legal: “The Center for Medical Progress thanks Life Legal Defense Foundation for their initiative and foresight in consulting on and helping to develop this project.”
Familiar as we are with the contract killer's practices, Life Legal can't claim to be surprised by Planned Parenthood's utter disregard for medical ethics. But we are delighted that it has been so ably and thoroughly documented by David Daleiden.
Life Legal is proud to have taken an active, essential role in exposing Planned Parenthood's “Dr. Frankenstein” wrongdoing. Katie Short, Life Legal's Vice-President for Legal Affairs, remarked, “Planned Parenthood's unconscionable acts are recorded and proven. But it will take a lot of pressure to bring consequences to bear. After these revelations, the first thing every public official should be asked is why a penny of taxpayer money is going to fund any part of Planned Parenthood's work.”
Having been with the project from its inception, Life Legal is committed to following through. Planned Parenthood will not lightly escape the judgment it has merited by trafficking in babies' eyes, hearts, livers, muscles, and other organs and tissues. [Life Legal Defense Fund, 7/14/15]
Life Legal Defense Foundation Does Not Meet Standards Of Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance. According to the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance, which “helps donors make informed giving decisions and promotes high standards of conduct among organizations that solicit contributions from the public,” the Life Legal Defense Foundation does not meet their standards for charity accountability. Citing the organization's indirect compensation of board member's sibling as well as inaccurate “presentation of LLDF's fund raising and program service expenses. [Give.org, Accessed 7/15/15]
Right Wing Watch: Life Legal Defense Foundation Espoused Conspiracy Theory That National Defense Authorization Act Was “Really A Way ... To Round Up Anti-Abortion Activists And Imprison Them Indefinitely Without Trial.” In a January 2012 post, Right Wing Watch called out members of the “Religious Right” -- including the Life Legal Defense Foundation -- who forwarded the fringe conspiracy theory that the Obama Administration's National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 would allow the government to permanently imprison pro-life activists without a trial. Speaking to LifeSiteNews.com at the time, Dana Cody, the president and executive director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, said her organization was studying the NDAA because it says “enemy territory could be anywhere,” and added, “If it's within the discretion of the government under the National Defense Authorization Act, of course it will be used by the government to intimidate and silence pro-life people, especially those who are in the public forum.” [Right Wing Watch, 1/4/12]