Kill the messenger

According to Politico, the Justice Department is going to investigate those disturbing videos in which a Planned Parenthood official haggles over the price of fetal body parts. No, not Planned Parenthood, silly, the videographers:

JUSTICE TO PROBE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS — While congressional committees investigate Planned Parenthood’s practices, the Justice Department agreed to look into whether the group that released the sting videos obtained the footage legally. In response to a request by House Democrats, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday afternoon that Justice would “review all of the information and determine what the appropriate steps moving forward would be.” Planned Parenthood has staunchly defended its practices and claims that the Center for Medical Progress illegally obtained its footage, then excessively edited it to misrepresent what the organization does.

Center Executive Director David Daleiden isn’t phased. “They will attack me and my organization all day long, but that does not change the facts about what our investigation has uncovered and what the American people now know — that Planned Parenthood is engaged in an enterprise-wide operation that traffics and sells baby body parts,” he said in a statement.

According to Fox News, the second video released by Center for Medical Progress shows a  Planned Parenthood official agreeing to to sell “intact tissue” for $100 each, while sipping wine and saying she wants a Lamborghini. There may be more videos to come.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, there is no federal hidden camera law. Wiretap laws cover the interception of phone calls and other wire transmission. So, what is Lynch investigating? Whistleblowing?

In most cases, one may record one’s own conversation, secretly or otherwise. I drove a lawyer to distraction by recording my deposition in a civil case. I laid the device on the table but no one noticed till the end. My lawyer told the other lawyer it was perfectly legal in Nevada. It was a good thing I recorded it because I used it to catch errors in the transcript.

Planned Parenthood gets $500 million a year in federal funding through various programs.

Harry Reid defended Planned Parenthood and called the videos “politically motivated.”

Screen grab from video of Planned Parenthood official negotiating the sale of fetal body parts.


53 comments on “Kill the messenger

  1. It seems the Justice Dept. has been relegated to the enforcement arm of the DNC. They ignore blatant transgressions of federal law by those in the progressive ranks…while aiming their guns on those who are perceived political foes. The two women in these videos need to be put in a cell next to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. The dark and foreboding history of Planned Parenthood is a despicable one…so much for the “black lives matter” mantra. And as for our wobbly Senator from Searchlight…once again he demonstrates that he is a MINO…Mormon in name only. He is first and foremost a progressive leftist Democrat…period.

  2. Vernon Clayson says:

    What’s really funny is Harry Reid saying something is “politically motivated”, his every word and act is “politically motivated”. Being a Senator is a tremendous accomplishment but too many fall into the trappings and become someone else, phonies, despots and tyrants, not the person they were before they gain the office.

  3. They ought to look at the patriot act while they are at it

  4. iShrug says:

    Ask James O’Keefe III about exposing ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and Border Patrol. Hidden camera exposes are fine when they are filmed by “60 Minutes,” but if a citizen journalist does it, prepare for harassment and possible jail time.

  5. Rincon says:

    If abortion is murder, then it should be banned in all circumstances except self defense of the mother. If not, then it’s ridiculous to allow abortion for convenience, but not allow the use of body parts that can save lives.

  6. iShrug says:

    Oh, it’s murder, Rincon.

  7. “Murder” is a legal term…in 1973 the US Supreme Court legalized the killing of the unborn in all fifty states (Roe vs. Wade, Doe vs. Bolton). So technically or rather legally…it is not murder. Is it killing? You tell me. This video was made by Dr. Bernard Nathanson MD. who ran the nations largest abortion clinic in New York and was a co-founder of NARAL, a leading pro abortion activist and lobbying group. Planned Parenthood has performed more abortions than any other organization since 1973.

  8. Rincon says:

    I find it ironic that Conservatives, who often want to venture to offending countries and kill lots of people are so concerned about zygotes and fetuses (feti?), and the “peace, not war” Liberals are fire breathing killers when it comes to abortion.

  9. Nyp says:

    So you guys want to impose the death penalty on women who have abortions. I disagree with that.

  10. Spinners gonna spin…

  11. Winston Smith says:

    Nips and Gooks, zygotes and fetuses, it’s all about dehumanizing the enemy, right Rincon?

  12. nyp says:

    What is a better name for a zygote or blastocyst?

  13. Winston Smith says:


  14. Steve says:



    how about Basil?

    Any of those names give you a warm fuzzy, nyp?

    Maybe Cecil fits your world view?

  15. Rincon says:

    I called Liberals fire breathing killers, so I suppose I was dehumanizing the enemy. My apologies to the Liberals

  16. Steve says:


    you probably own an apology to the firebreathers!

  17. nyp says:

    Personally, I do not believe that women who uses an IUD or takes a morning-after pill are guilty of infantacide and should be prosecuted for murder. But, that’s just me.

  18. Steve says:

    Nor do I, nyp.
    Though I do not understand the nearly militant attitude toward those who say a viable life is nothing more than a zygote to be discarded like so much trash.
    And why such a push to force others to accept it, from either side.
    This is a decision that should be left to the individual or couple involved and their doctor should not be forced to do something outside his or her belief or faith.
    Moreover, it should not be something other people have to pay for.
    This is as elective an action as the activity that caused it in the first place. This not an unavoidable medical necessity.

  19. Rincon says:

    Nice picture Steve. And, OK, my apologies to the fire breathers,

    I suppose from your post that we could call you pro choice (no insult intended), but it got me to thinking. If an IUD is kosher, then we are implicitly agreeing that a blob of human genetic material(a zygote, or, to avoid dehumanizing, a one celled baby) is expendable. In that case, it is no longer a question of whether abortion is ethical, but rather, at what point it stops being ethical.

  20. Rincon says:

    It also occurs to me that there may not be a convincing secular argument that a one celled blob of genetic material or, to avoid dehumanizing, a one celled baby named Oscar, should have rights. If that is true, then I would conclude that anyone who would ban an IUD would be doing so on religious grounds. Yes? No?

    To avoid misunderstanding Steve, I call you pro choice because you seem to believe that it is a decision to be left to individuals, not the government. I think that fits the definition.

  21. Steve says:

    ” it is a decision to be left to individuals, not the government”


  22. That works well for everyone except the one being suctioned, saline poisoned, or dismembered.

  23. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for the fetuses, and I did not speak out because they said it was just a blob of cells.

    But wait…I was once a fetus, and then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

  24. Steve says:


    If a zygote has developed members then it is no longer a zygote.
    Seems like an appropriate description of when a Zigote becomes a baby and, therefore, a human life.

  25. This story is about Planned Parenthood harvesting body parts from aborted fetuses. The red herrings flopping about on the deck are from the little nyper and Rincon. If your statement “This is a decision that should be left to the individual or couple involved and their doctor should not be forced to do something outside his or her belief or faith.” or your quote from Rincon ” it is a decision to be left to individuals, not the government” exactly”…only refers only to zygotes and birth control, my apologies…if it doesn’t, then my statement stands.

  26. Rincon says:

    So, if it’s OK to kill a zygote, then at what point does it become not OK? Is there a secular argument against abortion before the formation of a brain precursor?

  27. Great, another red herring or is this one a carp…you sure like to fish, don’t you?

  28. Steve says:

    You read what I wrote correctly Brien, the challenge is determining at what point a potential becomes an actual. (human life)

    Having actual body parts (members) seems to be a good indication of actuality.

  29. Or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Obviously…”having body parts” doesn’t matter to the progressive left or when “a potential becomes an actual.” As stated by Debbie “Blabbermouth” Wasserman Schultz…head of the DNC, there should be no restrictions on a woman’s right to choose abortion through the entire nine months. Abortions are not performed on Zygotes, Blastocysts, or embryos.

  30. Steve says:

    “Abortions are not performed on Zygotes, Blastocysts, or embryos.” would have been a much better reply for nyp’s snark.

  31. I really don’t think there is such a thing (“a much better reply for nyp’s snark”). And honestly the whole potential human life argument is little more than a smokescreen and is patently absurd. Is this “little one” alive? Of course…why else would he or she have to be killed? Is it human? It’s certainly not a reptile, nor a bird, nor an animal. He or she…has their own set of genetic DNA markers and the same number of chromosomes as you and I. This is not potential human life we’re talking about…it’s human life with great potential. And as shared by Dr. Bernard Nathanson MD, who changed from an abortionist & pro-choice advocate to a champion for the unborn…stated clearly and unequivocally in the video…owing to the scientific advances in fetology and fetoscopy, the unmistakable humanity of the unborn child is no longer in question.

  32. Rincon says:

    Legitimate questions are not red herrings and this is a legitimate question. If it’s OK to kill a one celled human, how about 2 or 4 or a million? It’s not my fault if you don’t want to draw a line. I also notice we still haven’t found any secular argument On what basis is it immoral to kill a fetus – of any age? (No, I’m not in favor of late term abortions). I understand if this takes you out of your comfort zone. Most people simply keep their views and don’t ponder the ramifications.

  33. nyp says:

    so, “HighFlyinBrien” does not believe that protectable life begins at the moment of conception or even at the time of implantation, of the zygotes or blastocysts . I agree with him, although that position puts him at odds with many right-to-life groups that seek to ban the use of IUDs or Plan B pills. But, what is this about “body parts” Does that mean that terminiating pregnancies anytime within the first ten weeks is OK,but at 11 weeks is murder?

  34. Rincon says:

    The question could easily be turned around for a Liberal. Is it not murder if you can kill a term baby before it emerges from the birth canal?

  35. More rabbit trails…from the un-dynamic duo…

  36. nyp says:

    The question of when protectable life begins is anything but a “rabbit trail.” Anyone who cannot answer that question is not really qualified to discuss the issue of abortion.

  37. Nice try…so now it’s “when protectable life begins”…no matter what the retort, the goal posts will be moved.

  38. Rincon says:

    Don’t sweat it, nyp. They’ve got the chants and slogans memorized, but when pinned down to specifics, they have to punt. As I said, they’re saying more about themselves than they are about the issues.

  39. Right back at ya…red herrings, rabbit trails and word games seem to be all you have…

  40. Rincon says:

    Lemme see if I have this straight. You say killing a zygote is OK, but not a fetus old enough to provide harvestable body parts, but asking where you consider the cutoff point to be is a “rabbit trail”. Is this right?

  41. Steve says:

    Brien (and to a strong extent, me) want to see PP investigated and closely monitored to keep this from really becoming a problem…..

    if it isn’t already a real one now.

    Iv’e read their response, though I have yet to see the (supposed) unedited and purportedly one hour long video that shows the incident under discussion in its full context.

    I would like to see a transcript of it, reading is faster than video. (six times faster as Tom has pointed out previously)

  42. Deflect, distract, and stone wall…the tool box of the not so dynamic duo.

  43. Rincon says:

    Says the guy who won’t answer a straight question.

  44. Straight question…that’s hysterical.

  45. Steve says:

    Lemme see if I have this straight. You say Planned Parenthood can’t possibly be even remotely suspect in any way shape or form because they are absolutely, one hundred percent, for women.


  46. Rincon says:

    You used my phrase Steve, but I don’t see where I’ve mentioned gender. Is it me you’re talking to?

    As for my straight question, there are only two major questions about abortion and that’s one of the two: 1) Is there any time before birth that taking a human life is ethical; 2) If so, what times are they? How can you POSSIBLY think that either of those aren’t legitimate questions? You certainly can opt not to answer, but don’t accuse me of deflecting, distracting and stonewalling. Ironic because by definition, the only one stonewalling here is you.

  47. Steve says:

    It’s not about abortion, Rincon. Its about whether PP committed a crime (or crimes) or not!

    You are trying to change the subject to avoid the hard questions.

  48. Rincon says:

    I am avoiding the hard question of whether PP committed a crime or not – because I don’t really care very much. They’re not my hero or enemy. They’re just another pressure group among many. I’m more interested in the broader issue of abortion. I’m also pleased that I learned from this discussion. It changed my views somewhat.

  49. Steve says:

    Now we know what you think of PP….and it is not far from my opinion of them either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s