Don’t Be An Idiot

Planned Parenthood is not selling baby parts, you idiots

The silence of Planned Parenthood’s supporters in the last few weeks has spoken volumes. It’s been shocking how quiet many of my liberal friends have been in rushing to the defense of one of the greatest bastions of modern liberalism. But there have been a few who have vocally defended them. Most of the arguments they use are similar, so today let’s look at one which is representative of many others I’ve seen.

Apologies for the language this blogger uses, but I think there are a few important observations to be made from her video, and from the wider stream of similar Planned Parenthood defense arguments it represents. Click here for Rebecca Watson’s blog post where this video first appeared.

First of all, it’s important to note that her video came out before the most recent Center for Medical Progress video, which was released yesterday. It was even more damning than the first three, and was the first to explicitly include the word “selling” coming from the mouth of a PP “doctor”.

Three observations for Rebecca Watson, and for anyone else who would like to rush to the defense of Planned Parenthood:


As often as she uses the word “obviously” it’s almost as if she’s trying to convince herself that her assertion is self-evident. We can haggle all you like about the term “selling” (which, as stated, hadn’t been used by PP personnel in the videos released prior to her blog), but it could not possibly be MORE obvious from the footage (whether looking at the “maliciously edited” videos or the full-length versions) that Planned Parenthood is exchanging “fetal tissue” (baby parts) for money. No amount of ignorance or name-calling can change that simple fact.


The blogger compares believing Planned Parenthood sells baby parts to those who believed accusations that Jews or other “marginalized groups” were burning babies to ashes, baking them into cakes, and eating them. “How could anybody believe something so stupid?” she asks. But is this the best historical precedent for comparison to the present Planned Parenthood scandal?

I can’t say I’m familiar with the specific “heresy” she’s referring to (as she doesn’t cite any of her “research”), but the practice of widespread infanticide and child sacrifice is well-documented in many cultures throughout history. I’d be happy to provide citation links in the comments to anyone who cares to challenge that assertion. Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, advocates for legal infanticide in the US today.

And using this blogger’s own logic, why would it be wrong to eat dead babies anyway? She argues that, since abortionists are going to kill babies anyway, why shouldn’t they use this “garbage” for the betterment of humanity? How is it different to argue that we shouldn’t eat unwanted babies? Is it better to just throw them away? But I digress…

I would argue that there is a much better historical precedent here, and one which is much more recent. In the memory of those still alive today, millions of people WERE slaughtered, burned to ashes. Yet there are those who vehemently deny that the Holocaust ever happened. No amount of evidence can convince them otherwise. And sadly, no amount of evidence seems sufficient to convince some of the Holocaust taking place in our own country at this very moment.

Which leads to the final, and most important, observation…


This blogger KNOWS that what Planned Parenthood is accused of is horrible. She describes the accusations as “obviously stupid and made up,” and accuses people like me of believing “the unbelievable.” By her own admission, chopping babies up and selling their parts would be an unbelievably horrifying thing to do. I agree!

So I ask: As evidence continues to mount that this IS, in fact, taking place, at what point will you join me in demanding that we defund Planned Parenthood? What amount of evidence will it take for you to condemn this atrocity?

Because, rest assured, there is even more incontrovertible evidence coming. So far we have seen four of the twelve videos we’ve been told are coming, and each has gotten progressively worse. I expect that trend to continue! Planned Parenthood does, too, which is why they’ve secured a restraining order to prevent footage being released from other meetings which took place earlier this year. They KNOW what they’ve said and done is going to come back on them in a bad way, and they’re doing everything they can to prevent it. But one way or another, it WILL come out. When it does, will those still defending Planned Parenthood go down with the ship? Will you continue to hide your heads in the sand and pretend everything is okay, or will you finally listen to your conscience? I pray it will be the latter, and eagerly wait to welcome you to the right side of the line that has been drawn in the sand about the most critical ethical issue of our time.

How “Deceptively Edited” Was the Video Claiming Planned Parenthood Sells Baby Parts?


In the last two days, millions of people have watched this video from the Center for Medical Progress, which asserts that Planned Parenthood has been harvesting and selling aborted baby parts. Several media outlets have rushed to the defense of America’s largest abortion provider in an attempt to “debunk” the video. One such attempt, penned by Alexandrea Boguhn & Hannah Groch-Begley, makes the following claim:

A deceptive video from a conservative group purports to show a Planned Parenthood official discussing prices for the illegal sale of fetal tissue from abortions. But the full, unedited footage and transcript released by the group undermines their sensationalist claims, showing at least three crucial edits that reveal the Planned Parenthood official was instead discussing the reimbursement cost for consensual, legal tissue donations.

I encourage you to read the rest of their article, and the evidence they provide for these “deceptive edits,” here. Let’s take a look at this defense of Planned Parenthood and see where we’ve been deceived.

DECEPTION #1: The goal isn’t to “sell” tissue. Planned Parenthood only does what is reasonable and customary.

RESPONSE: I’m no legal expert, so I’m going to refrain from commenting on the technical legality of what Planned Parenthood is doing. But isn’t the bigger story the fact that selectively crushing certain body parts for the sake of harvesting other, more valuable parts is considered “reasonable and customary”?

DECEPTION #2: Planned Parenthood does not “profit” from the sale of baby parts. They “donate” the tissue, receiving “reimbursement” for their services, and “if they happen to do a little better than break even, and in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that.”

RESPONSE: Fair enough. I didn’t “profit” from the trumpet lesson I just taught, either. I “donated” my time and received “reimbursement” for the services rendered, and I’m pretty happy that I did “a little better than break even.”

DECEPTION #3: What’s the big deal? The baby parts were “donated” with legal consent. For “scientific research.”

RESPONSE: I’m an organ donor. It says so on my driver’s license. If I should happen to die, I’ve given legal consent for my organs to be harvested. I’d love for my organs to be used to save the lives of others. But do you know why that’s a noble thing? Because they are MY organs to donate! How many people would come to my defense, do you think, if I were to offer the vital organs of one of my children (be sure to crush their throats so you don’t damage anything important) to be used for scientific research? [FYI, I just about threw up typing that last sentence.] I should hope it would be no one! Not even IF it saved the lives of others, which is certainly debatable in the realm of fetal STEM cell research.

CONCLUSION: Yes, the video is edited. But do you know why what “Dr.” Nucatola says sounds so horrible? It’s because what she—and the rest of Planned Parenthood—is doing IS horrible. The only ones deceived here are those who believe there’s nothing wrong with taking an innocent, defenseless human child and systematically ripping it apart in its mother’s womb.

[Image Source: Media Matters]

What’s Growing in Margaret Sanger’s Garden?

"The greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world." ~ Margaret Sanger

With so much frenzy these days to expunge all vestiges of racism in our nation, perhaps the vigilantes of political correctness can find some rare common ground with social conservatives. Building a consensus on social issues is unquestionably difficult—some might even say impossible—but rather than bickering about cakes, flags, and dead generals, we ought to agree together that Margaret Sanger and the organization she founded have been far more effective at exterminating minorities than the most bloodthirsty Ku Klux Klan member ever dreamed of. Whatever you may think about Nathan Bedford Forrest, he is not the founder of the organization that continues to slaughter nearly 2,000 black and Hispanic children each and every week in the United States.

This despicable organization, founded with explicitly racist motivations, represents an insidious evil against which all who despise racism in any form can rally. And unlike exhuming the bodies of those long dead or tweeting trendy hashtags, there is one action which would make a real difference, preserving life and demonstrating powerfully that #BlackLivesMatter: DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

Still need convincing? Allow me to introduce you to Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

In 1925, Sanger delivered a rousing speech promoting a vision in which we “would see this old world of ours converted into a beautiful garden of children.” Sounds good, right? But how to achieve this vision?

“Before you can cultivate a garden, you must know something about gardening. You have got to give your seeds a proper soil in which to grow. You have got to give them sunlight and fresh air. You have got to give them space and the opportunity (if they are to lift their flowers to the sun), to strike their roots deep into that soil. And always — do not forget this — you have got to fight weeds. You cannot have a garden, if you let weeds overrun it.” (Source)

Sanger wrote and spoke often of “human weeds” in her quest to promote eugenics (“good genes”), and while abortion supporters frequently deny that Sanger was referring to ethnic minorities and poor people when she described “reckless breeders… unceasingly spawning [a] class of human beings who never should have been born at all,” (Source) and attribute benign motives to her warning that “we do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” (Source) the intentions of some of her colleagues are more clear.

Lothrop Stoddard, appointed by Sanger to the board of directors for the Birth Control League (later renamed Planned Parenthood), wrote in his book, “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy,” that the “white race” which had “pressed to the front and proved in a myriad of ways their fitness for the hegemony of mankind” was in danger of being overrun by races less fit to breed. He wrote, “Unless man erects and maintains artificial barriers the various races will increasingly mingle, and the inevitable result will be the supplanting or absorption of the higher by the lower types.” The lowest “type” of man in Studdard’s book? “Negroids.” (Source)

This influence is seen in Planned Parenthood today, where nearly 80% of clinics are located in African American and Latino communities (Source), with such a disproportionate number of black babies being aborted it’s nearly impossible to NOT see them as being intentionally targeted. Sanger’s disdain for immigrants, the disabled, and large families also fueled her desire to achieve “a cleaner race” through Birth Control (Source). “Equality” is an incredibly ironic buzzword to be bandied by those who also vociferously defend the organization which has carried out Sanger’s vision for the last 99 years.

Defunding Planned Parenthood on a federal level wouldn’t necessarily shut the organization down (and even if it did, it would merely put a dent in the atrocious U.S. abortion rate), but removing all taxpayer dollars from the organization would be a tremendous first step in reducing the complicity of all American people in the wholesale murder of the unborn. I call on those who truly value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL people to urge your representatives to join the fight to defund Planned Parenthood immediately.

I welcome civil discourse in the comments. And because of the preponderance of falsely attributed “quotes” on the Internet, I encourage you to fact-check what I’ve written above by clicking through the provided “source” links.

Planned Parenthood is Right

Great video from Abort73:

This morning, our pastor said he believes that the Kermit Gosnell trial has the potential to be the “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” of our generation, bringing the focus of our nation on the horrors of the slaughter of children. I pray he is right, and that God—who can use ANY situation, even the reprehensible actions of “Dr.” Gosnell, to bring about good—will soon bring about the end of abortion in America. If not, I shudder at the judgment that awaits us…

Here’s the text of the video:

Last week, Katie Stockton was sentenced to 50 years in prison for throwing her newborn daughter out with the trash. In light of all the alternatives available to her, Judge John Truitt called Stockton’s CHOICE: “incomprehensible.”

When it comes to newborn babies, the law is not pro-choice. Or is it?

While Katie Stockton was on trial in Illinois, the “Infants Born Alive Act” was being debated in Florida. The proposed law would prohibit abortion clinics from abandoning or killing babies who survive abortion—something that happens more than 1,200 times a year in the U.S.

Planned Parenthood opposes the bill.

Their lobbyist argued that the fate of any baby who survives an abortion should be left up to the mother and the abortionist. In other words, Planned Parenthood sees no difference between killing a human child before birth and after birth.

And they are right.

There is no ethical difference between abortion and infanticide. But if abandoning a baby daughter is reprehensible (as Katie Stockton did), and if snipping the spinal cords of babies who survived an abortion is reprehensible (as Kermit Gosnell did), how is it less reprehensible to rip an unborn baby apart (as Planned Parenthood does close to a thousand times each day)?

To be morally consistent, infanticide must be lawful or abortion must be unlawful.

Planned Parenthood recognizes this fact.

Do you?

40 Years of Murder

40 years ago, the Roe v. Wade decision wasn’t even the biggest news story of the day

There have been several good articles today to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling that States did not have the authority to criminalize abortion. Here are a few of the best:

  • How Abortion Became an Evangelical Issue — Al Mohler’s article from today’s Washington Post explains how evangelicals gradually became co-belligerents with Catholics in opposing abortion. Any of my fellow Southern Baptists who are not familiar with our denomination’s history on this issue (hint: the SBC wasn’t always so pro-life) should read this.
  • We Know They Are Killing Children—All of Us Know — John Piper: “For forty years this has meant that any perceived stress is a legal ground for eliminating the child. We have killed fifty million babies. And what increases our guilt as a nation is that we know what we are doing. Here’s the evidence that we know we are killing children.”
  • 5 Things You Didn’t Know About “Jane Roe” — The history of Norma McCorvey (the “Roe” of Roe v. Wade), including her conversion to Christianity and the pro-life conviction that came with it.

Abortion is a topic I’ve addressed several times on this blog. Here are some posts from the archives which may be of interest to you:

In that last post, you’ll also find some facts which conservatives today may find uncomfortable. For instance, did you know that two years prior to Roe v. Wade, the Southern Baptists passed a resolution seeking Federal legislation that would make abortion legal? Or that perhaps the most progressive legislation legalizing abortion prior to Roe v. Wade was signed into law by California Governor Ronald Reagan?

The good news is that both Reagan and the SBC, like “Jane Roe” herself, eventually became staunch defenders of life, which holds promise that the battle is worth fighting. Today’s abortionist may well be tomorrow’s abolitionist.

If You Don’t Know, Don’t Shoot

I’ve been having an ongoing conversation recently with a friend who is questioning whether or not a person can objectively know when an unborn human life becomes a “person” (or if indeed there is a difference between the two). If you’ve ever had similar questions, or know someone who has, I highly encourage you to take two and a half minutes to watch the following video (HT: JT), which contains the closing argument of Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft from a debate on the topic of abortion. Concise and logical, he makes a compelling case:

Here’s the breakdown of his point:

A Very Important 2%

In yesterday’s post I displayed my results of a quiz that identifies the presidential candidate that best matches your answers to a set of questions. Not surprisingly, my number one match was Ron Paul. Also not surprisingly, coming in at #2 was Gary Johnson.

The quiz stated that “I side 98% with Ron Paul”. While I’m not certain I’m quite that ideologically aligned with him, my blogging history should tell you that the quiz pegged my pick pretty accurately. But then it said I sided 96% with Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president.

Though, unlike Paul, I haven’t written much of anything about Johnson on here, I should say that I do like him. I agree with him on a great many things. On the quiz, his answers and Ron Paul’s were virtually identical on the vast majority of questions, which explains why the margin of difference between them is slim… at least where the quiz metrics are concerned.

But that 2% of difference is a major difference when it comes to the importance of the issues where they are different. Gary Johnson supports a woman’s “right” to choose to abort a fetus until it becomes “viable” at 5 months of gestation. That by itself is a deal-breaker for me. Though I align with Johnson on most issues on paper, I absolutely cannot and will not vote for a candidate who does not strongly oppose abortion. It’s one of the reasons I so strongly support Ron Paul: he has been the most consistent pro-life politician in Washington for decades.

Call me a “one issue voter” if you like (though I hope my history of thinking through political issues “out loud” on my blog will demonstrate that this is not the case), but I can’t think of any issue more worthy of raising to “deal-breaker” status.

Quizzes are fun, but there’s a limit to their usefulness. I may side with Gary Johnson 96% of the time, but I won’t vote for him.