Upset about fetal tissue donation? Stop funding for birth control, obviously!

04 Aug 2015 06:52 am
Posted by: Donna


The GOP majority in the Senate held a vote to defund Planned Parenthood on Monday morning, with conservatives taking to the floor, one after another, to engage in lugubrious, sanctimonious theatrics about the “selling” of fetal tissue.

During the debate in the Senate, Republican lawmakers sought to highlight those shocking videos showing Planned Parenthood arranging for the sale of aborted babies.

Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa said, “The American taxpayer should not be asked to fund an organization like Planned Parenthood that has shown a sheer disdain for human dignity and complete disregard for women and their babies.”

“The barbaric practice of conducting abortions in a way that promotes harvesting fetal organs, or profiting from such practices, has no place in modern society,” said Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana. “Planned Parenthood’s disgusting practices should not receive a dime of taxpayer money.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Democrats should not protect Planned Parenthood’s federal funds “just to protect some political group. “Women deserve better, and our country deserves better.”

Several people have noticed the oddity of these anti-choicers not going after the biotech companies that are conducting the research on the fetal tissue, and thus creating the demand for it. There is also the matter of Republicans, including some currently holding office and pretending that fetal tissue research (“sales”) is the worstest thing ever having voted to approve it in the not-too-distant past.

I’ve asked some people (both right wing and not) flipping out over this “scandal” if they intend to refuse any medication or treatment (and there are many) developed through fetal tissue research and have yet to receive an answer to that. I’ll let Elizabeth Nolan Brown of Reason, a conservative/libertarian publication, explain why the hyperventilating is so much disingenuous nonsense:

Maybe my mindless-moral-revulsion factor just isn’t finely-tuned enough, but I can’t understand why anyone who is 1) not against abortion per se, 2) not against research using human stem cells, and 3) not against organ and tissue donation should suddenly be moved to indignation by the combining of these things. If tissue from fetuses that are going to be aborted anyway might help bring about future medical progress, and the women having abortions fully consent, what’s the problem?…

…Some have suggested that Planned Parenthood’s actions may be okay, but that Nucatola’s “callous” tone is the issue. I’m not sure what to say about this except . Either you think harvesting tissue from aborted fetuses is wrong, or you don’t; the fact that a medical professional doesn’t sugarcoat the process when talking about it shouldn’t make a difference.

As Vox’s Sarah Kliff points out, “fetal tissue has historically played an important role in scientific research because of fetal cells’ ability to rapidly divide and adapt to new environments. In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers had looked at fetal tissue transplants as a possible treatment for Parkinson’s disease and diabetes.” Researchers also used fetal tissue in developing multiple vaccines, including the Rubella and polio vaccines.

In the tradeoff between possibly of saving untold lives versus the visceral ickiness one might feel about harvesting fetal tissue, it’s sad to me that so many people put more import on the latter.

…At the risk of being deemed history’s greatest monster, I’m not sure why we shouldn’t encourage more women (who are already) having abortions to donate the fetal organs and tissue to science. People who say this would encourage more abortions are either being disingenuous or have no understanding of how human nature works (man, I was really psyched about having a child, but now that I know I could give its remains to science, abortion all the way!). Even if you’re personally opposed to abortion—even if you think it should be 100 percent illegal—as long as abortion is legal and happening, isn’t it better that some good might come out of it?


One might think that this “OMG FETUS PARTS BEING SOLD!l!” posturing on the part of right wingers is yet another excuse for their ongoing attack on Planned Parenthood, which provides non-judgmental health care to (mostly young and poor) and sexually active people. That includes abortion but also contraception and STD screening and prevention guidance. One might be right about that, since I’m not aware of a single Republican Senator (or anyone else blubbering over these videos) expressing a willingness to suffer from Parkinson’s Disease so as to end this research.

And people who truly want to end abortion on demand, without also being invested in punishing women for having sex and denying their traditional gender role, don’t attack providers of contraception, sex ed, and STD treatment. They just don’t.

Women as forced breeding stock for the state.

31 Jul 2015 06:48 am
Posted by: Donna

ICYMI, due to the massive phony freakout from the Right over bogus Planned Parenthood videos (and the inexplicable treating of it as credible by many mainstream news people) this is happening in Alabama:

An unnamed woman, who is referred to in court documents only as Jane Doe, is asking for permission to travel to Huntsville to end her pregnancy. She says she was unable to get an abortion before she was taken into custody and is now feeling desperate. “I am very distraught, and do not want to be forced to carry this pregnancy to term,” she wrote.

Jane Doe — who has to get permission from the court to be transported to the nearest clinic because prison officials consider abortion to be a non-emergency procedure — is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argues that it would be “cruel and unusual punishment” for the state of Alabama to deny her constitutional right to abortion.

Now, as Lauderdale County District Attorney Chris Connolly prepares to argue against this request, he is asking the court to strip Doe of her parental rights so that she will no longer have the right to end her pregnancy. In a hearing to determine the outcome of the case, which is expected to be decided by Friday, the state court appointed an attorney — known as a “guardian ad litem” — to serve on behalf of Doe’s fetus.

In case is wasn’t clear, the parental rights the DA is trying to strip Jane Doe of are not those of any existing children she has, but of those over her fetus. And because the fetus would be under state protection, Jane Doe would be forced to continue the pregnancy and give birth and then (possibly) have the state decide the eventual placement of the baby they forced her to deliver. After all, why wouldn’t they try to assert the same guardian ad litem interest they did over it in the fetal state? This is truly a new frontier in prison labor!

But don’t think women who are already imprisoned are the only targets of forced breeding programs by our nice anti-choice friends.

More broadly, as state officials go to court to defend harsh abortion restrictions from legal challenges, it’s not uncommon for lawyers to argue that these policies are necessary because it’s in the state’s best interest to preserve the life of the fetus. And when states move to prosecute pregnant women for allegedly endangering their pregnancies by using drugs, officials sometimes appoint legal representation for the fetuses but not for the women who carried them.

For our allies who (still) think Roe is safe (why??) or that overturning it would be no big deal because it would simply leave the issue to states to decide, what is going on right now in Alabama and other states hostile to reproductive rights should serve as the kind of screeching alarm that a smartphone jars you out of a nap with to alert you to a flash flood warning. Post-Roe America (which is currently the de facto reality in large swaths of it) is not a sweet idyll where women are gently admonished not to have abortions “as a form of birth control” and wise authority figures step aside to allow women and their doctors to take advantage of those magnanimous rape and “life of the mother” exceptions when necessary. Nope, it’s a place where the second a woman’s pregnancy test shows up positive she becomes the property of the state.

Irin Carmon reported on Thursday evening that Jane Doe had suddenly changed her mind:

An Alabama woman who sued in federal court to leave jail for a first-trimester abortion, and who faced the termination of her parental rights in response, has now signed an affidavit with a new lawyer saying she no longer wants the procedure. The news has come as a surprise to her prior attorneys, who have been helping her access an abortion, and who say they have not yet spoken to their client.

“After much consideration and counsel, I have decided that I no longer desire to pursue an abortion procedure and intend to carry the unborn child to full term and birth,” the affidavit reads in part. It was filed on Wednesday night by a new attorney, Maurice McCaney, who was court-appointed to defend the woman when the county attorney moved to terminate her parental rights.

“This lawsuit is about Jane Doe’s constitutional right to make her own determination regarding her pregnancy rather than the state, a state court judge, the district attorney, or the sheriff,” said Randall Marshall, legal director of the ACLU of Alabama, who was representing Jane Doe in her petition to leave the jail for an abortion. “If this is truly her decision, it must be respected. However, the circumstances under which this affidavit was obtained are highly suspicious and we are in the process of trying to determine Ms. Doe’s true wishes.” …

…McCaney declined to comment further to msnbc, citing his client’s privacy, but did confirm that he is the same person listed as vice-chancellor of Victory Christian Academy. The affidavit makes repeated mention of the phrase “unborn child” and says, “I have arrived at this decision of my own volition and choosing without any promise of present and/or future consideration and without any undue influence, duress, or threat of harm.”

I sure hope so (gulp).

AZ GOP wants Dems to return Planned Parenthood contributions because of course they do.

29 Jul 2015 06:52 am
Posted by: Donna


Per Miriam Wasser in Tuesday’s New Times:

The Republican Party of Maricopa County is calling on four Democratic Arizona politicians to “return every penny” of the cumulative $45,000 in campaign contributions they received from Planned Parenthood in the last few years, and to “publicly rebuke fellow Democrats” for asking the Department of Justice to investigate the Center for Medical Progress — the fake company created by the anti-abortion activists behind two recent undercover videos purportedly detailing how Planned Parenthood “sells” fetal tissue.

“The voters of Arizona demand a higher ethical standard from their elected officials,” states a press release from the county GOP. “Democrats have once again shown that they care more about maintaining the steady flow of political donations from Planned Parenthood than they do about truth and justice.”

According to the press release, Planned Parenthood donated $22,500 to Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, $14,999 to Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema, $5,000 to Congressman Ruben Gallego, and $3,000 to Congressman Raul Grijalva during the last few election cycles.

Hear me, Democratic politicians of Arizona, return any of those contributions or rebuke any calls for investigation* and I will demand any donations I have ever given you back and you will be the subject of scathingly negative blog coverage from me forever and in perpetuity. And I mean that. I am so not kidding about this that should I meet my untimely demise I shall somehow plague you from beyond, dropping tracks on your ass like Tupac.

Not that I’m worried about Arizona Dems, as Rep. Ruben Gallego’s office has already told them to pound sand pretty forcefully:

“Planned Parenthood provides healthcare services to many women in the Congressman’s district that otherwise would not have access to care. Arizona Republicans have jumped at any opportunity to restrict access to not only abortion, but also a wide variety of women’s health services — all while pushing junk science on Arizona’s women. Congressman Gallego is proud to support Planned Parenthood and the important work they do.”

This is a great opportunity for these Arizona Dems to make a forceful stand for women but people should pay attention to what the AZ GOP did here. This may be more than just a faux outrage publicity stunt but rather part of a concerted effort to make taking money from Planned Parenthood “toxic” (recall that’s how Brahm Resnik’s Channel 12 Sunday Square Off panel, including the “pro-choice” person on it, characterized the organization). And it appears to be a national strategy aimed at the national Planned Parenthood PAC’s startlingly successful targeting of political races in 2012.

As Robin Marty explains at Dame Magazine:

Defunding Planned Parenthood as a health care organization would do a great deal to energize the values voters grassroots that the GOP needs desperately to turn up at the polls during the next election. Depressing Planned Parenthood’s PAC donations, and keeping them from being able to play a significant role in the 2016 cycle? That’s even more valuable, and with a major and continuing scandal being packaged and fed to media outlets, that’s entirely possible.

According to Sunlight Foundation, Planned Parenthood’s political advocacy arms had “near perfect ‘return on investment’” for the 2012 elections, using their fundraising gains for calls, get out the vote efforts, candidate awareness campaign and other resources, and most of that went to the presidential race. The 2016 White House race will be the most expensive ever, especially when it comes to outside interest groups, and conservatives want every advantage they can grab, especially when they can’t be sure that their own candidate will have any mainstream voter appeal.

Manufacture a scandal, limit Planned Parenthood’s ability to participate in the 2016 presidential race. It’s that simple.

The two major Planned Parenthood PACs spent a total of $15 million in 2012, which is hardly Koch-level money, but since they were so good at targeting it (along with an army of engaged volunteers that the Kochs could only dream of) you can understand why the GOP wants them out of the way in 2016. Even in the small amounts they’ve spent on Arizona races, Planned Parenthood has tended to pick the right horses to bet on.

So the next time you may be tempted to think that reproductive rights are a low priority issue (and, if so, you should stop that for reasons I’ve made abundantly clear approximately nine million times) and Democrats should focus on other things, just remember who it is providing tangible and effective resources and support to elections. Planned Parenthood is one such group doing that.

*As to anti-choicers being butthurt about a possible DoJ investigation, the “Center for Medical Progress” grifters may also have to contend with some serious charges of fraud and invasion of privacy in California.

Yes, it’s Clinton Rules

28 Jul 2015 12:51 pm
Posted by: Donna

nyt logo

I don’t buy NYT Public Editor Margaret Sullivan’s explanation for the paper’s glaringly flawed “exclusive” story (splashed across the front page and digital platforms) about a criminal investigation on Hillary Clinton over her emails. No, what happened appeared to yet another instance of “Clinton Rules” though I do agree with the general point about scoop journalism Sullivan makes here:

There are at least two major journalistic problems here, in my view. Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop led to too much speed and not enough caution. Mr. Purdy told me that the reporters, whom he described as excellent and experienced, were “sent back again and again” to seek confirmation of the key elements; but while no one would discuss the specifics of who the sources were, my sense is that final confirmation came from the same person more than once.

The reporters and editors were not able to see the referral itself, Mr. Purdy said, and that’s the norm in such cases; anything else would be highly unusual, he said. So they were relying on their sources’ interpretation of it. All at The Times emphasized that the core of the initial story – the request for an investigation – is true, and that it was major news, as was the later development.

Hindsight’s easy, but I’ll take a stab at it anyway. Here’s my take:

First, consider the elements. When you add together the lack of accountability that comes with anonymous sources, along with no ability to examine the referral itself, and then mix in the ever-faster pace of competitive reporting for the web, you’ve got a mistake waiting to happen. Or, in this case, several mistakes.

Reporting a less sensational version of the story, with a headline that did not include the word “criminal,” and continuing to develop it the next day would have been a wise play. Better yet: Waiting until the next day to publish anything at all.

Sullivan acknowledges at the end of her piece that readers don’t look to the New York Times for scoops, which further makes it dubious that a rush to be first was the primary driver of the debacle. The reporters and editors involved probably felt perfectly fine running the story based on a dodgy tip from GOP Congressman Trey Gowdy’s committee because, as Media Matters has extensively cataloged, it fits the established pattern of NYT coverage on the Clintons going back two decades.

I’ve subscribed to the Times for most of my adult life, with a sense of pride, but I’m having second thoughts lately given this Clinton nonsense and their insistence on employing the sex-obsessed Ross Douthat as a columnist.

Anti-choicers have much in common with Birthers. Why is Brahm Resnik legitimizing them?

26 Jul 2015 06:27 pm
Posted by: Donna

brahm resnikSeriously, Brahm?

A few years ago I was on the Phoenix Channel 12 Sunday Square Off panel (I can’t for the life of me find the video) and one of the topics was Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio conducting a “cold case investigation” of President Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility for the Presidency. Donald Trump had swanned in to weigh in on it, as I recall, since I remember saying something about his hairline and that he should go away.

I distinctly remember Channel 12 news anchor and reporter Brahm Resnik covering the “investigation” because, well, it was newsworthy to the extent that the county sheriff was conducting it but also treating the substance of it with the derision it deserved. In 2014, Resnik reiterated that, when he interrogated then-Arizona State Senator and candidate for Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) about her support for the 2011 “Birther Bill”.

“Did you believe President Obama needed to show his birth certificate to the secretary of state?” asked host Brahm Resnik.

“I believe that what is in state law is sufficient,” Reagan repeated.

Resnik said the bill caused “embarrassment” for the state. “Do you recognize that?” he asked.

“I recognize that what is in state law right now is –”

“Do you regret that vote?” Resnik interjected.

Reagan threw her up hands and repeated: “The state law is sufficient, and we don’t need to revisit –”

“You don’t want to talk about that vote anymore,” Resnik concluded, before thanking his guest and cutting to break.

Resnik’s treatment of the Birther nonsense was perfectly reasonable. He covered it because it was “news”, put it into the context of it being ridiculous, and held those in positions of power and influence (like Michele Reagan) accountable for their craven capitulation to such lunacy.

Let me interject to stipulate to a few things here:

It is your prerogative to dislike Barack Obama being President. It is further your prerogative to dislike him being President because he is black. That is an opinion. You are entitled to that. What you are not entitled to are your own facts. To wit, the assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and was somehow smuggled into Hawaii by a bunch of prescient Communists in 1961, is simply not a fact. It has been thoroughly debunked. It is a delusion that continues to be promulgated by white people who don’t like the President because he is black*.

Similarly, it is your prerogative to dislike abortion. You may object to it because you feel it is killing a baby. It is further your prerogative to dislike it because it allows women to escape the “consequences” of sex. But, as with the circumstances of the President’s birth, you are not entitled to your own facts.

You don’t get to claim that abortion causes breast cancer as a fact, when it does not. You don’t get to claim that most women who have abortions regret it as a fact because they don’t. You are not entitled to have your contention that legal abortion is unsafe treated as the truth when the fact is that first trimester abortion is about the safest medical procedure in existence. I could go on and on with the lies, but you get the point.

Yet despite the anti-abortion movement’s long and well-documented history of lying**, the latest iteration of the decades-old urban legend of Planned Parenthood selling fetal body parts for profit has been treated as credible by several reporters and news organizations (with several others rightly regarding the doctored video with skepticism from the beginning). Again, people are entitled to their opinions about abortion but they are not entitled to pass off a smear job that produced exactly zero evidence of selling of fetal tissue for profit as “proof” that it is happening. And journalists should not give them an uncritical platform from which to do that.

Having gotten the stipulations out of the way, let’s talk about this week’s episode of Sunday Square Off. The Planned Parenthood “scandal” was one of the topics discussed on a panel composed of Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting’s Evan Wyloge, AZ Republic columnist Laurie Roberts, and…wait for it…former President of the Arizona Right to Life and current anti-abortion activist Shane Wikfors.

Here’s how Brahm Resnik promoted the panel:

The “Square Off” round table also discusses the political fallout in Arizona from the Planned Parenthood controversy — whether the Legislature will pass new restrictions on abortion and why Democratic candidates might not accept Planned Parenthood donations.

The sinking feeling I was already having slid further.

I don’t know what Brahm Resnik’s opinion of abortion is and I don’t need to know that for him to be a competent reporter on it. (I’ve never gotten the sense that he’s the type of guy who would scream outside of clinics on his days off but, whatever, I don’t know.) So I am incredulous at both his choice of Wikfors to be on the panel with no pro-choice person (and no, Laurie doesn’t count, which I’ll get to in a bit) to offer a counterpoint and his decision to present the story as matter of pure political calculation. Oh, and as a way to concern-troll Democrats (without an actual Democrat being there to respond) about contributions from Planned Parenthood.

The show began with Resnik interviewing Dr. Cara Crist, who is the new head of the state health department. Aside from him describing a fetus as an “unborn child” at one point and the smear job against Planned Parenthood as a “hot topic”, this part of the show was fine. Dr. Crist explained the new (unnecessary, but not too onerous) reporting requirements for abortion and stayed neutral on pending legislation and litigation. Interestingly, Resnik brought up the “abortion reversal” law and it was obvious he was scornful of it. Then he pivoted to anti-vaxxers(!) and it was crystal clear to anyone watching that Brahm Resnik will never put one on his show to spout their unscientific garbage.

And then there was the panel. Laurie Roberts, who describes herself as pro-choice, spent much of her time wringing her hands over the graphic description of the medical procedures in the smear video. She also expressed her concern about “sanitizing abortion” and treating it as a situation where “you just take a pill and it will go away”. Which is actually a description of over 90% of abortions. They are done under sanitary conditions in a clinic in the first trimester by a simple surgical procedure or a couple of pills. But Laurie is not going to let a little thing called “facts” intrude on her morbid and maudlin narrative.

Then Shane Wikfors was up and unleashed a stream of gobshite, describing abortion as the “least regulated medical procedure in the state” (uh, what?) and calling Arizona Planned Parenthood president Bryan Howard a liar, insinuating strongly that fetal parts are, indeed, being sold for profit by Planned Parenthood. There was some back-and-forth between him and Roberts where Roberts defended abortion rights but reiterated how we all need to feel very, very bad about these crushed fetal organs and have a “conversation” about limiting later term abortions (which are all done on demand by irresponsible skanks, apparently, and never for medical reasons). Evan Wyloge (who didn’t seem to have a huge interest in this topic) stated a couple of obvious things about the “political fallout” but that was about the extent of his contribution.

Not a single person on the panel, including Brahm Resnik, acknowledged that the late term abortions described in the video might have been done due to pregnancy complications (fetal deformities or threats to the mother’s life or health). A stronger pro-choice advocate than Laurie Roberts would have brought that up but instead we were treated to a discussion about a women’s health issue that completely erased the women affected by it.

*”But…but…Donna, why is it racist to have questions about the President’s birth certificate? Because, shut up, you know it’s racist.

**And that’s just the dishonesty! There’s also the unrelenting and sneering hostility toward women who are sexually active. I don’t have people telling to close my legs and stop being such a whore on a regular basis online because of “life”. And the violence! Perhaps there is some magic number of bombings and murders of doctors that the anti-choice movement has not exceeded yet that would finally cause the MSM to conclude “hey, this is a movement of deeply misogynistic shameless liars who are occasionally prone to violence and maybe we should stop treating them like they’re credible”. You know, like they don’t treat Birthers and anti-vaxxers.

I know his type so well. He gets so angry when you don’t smile for him.

24 Jul 2015 06:07 am
Posted by: Donna

I’m so white I could be Conan O’Brien’s twin sister so I obviously can’t speak to the experience of racialized encounters with law enforcement. Let me just get that out of the way. But when I watched the arrest video of Sandra Bland there was something that police officer Brian Encinia said – and the tone in which he said it – to the late Ms. Bland that hit me viscerally as a woman. “Oh, I know him.”

From the transcript:

Encinia: OK, ma’am. (Pause.) You OK?

Bland: I’m waiting on you. This is your job. I’m waiting on you. When’re you going to let me go?

Encinia: I don’t know, you seem very really irritated.

Bland: I am. I really am. I feel like it’s crap what I’m getting a ticket for. I was getting out of your way. You were speeding up, tailing me, so I move over and you stop me. So yeah, I am a little irritated, but that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket, so [inaudible] ticket.

Encinia: Are you done?

Bland: You asked me what was wrong, now I told you.

Encinia: OK.

Bland: So now I’m done, yeah..

I have a strong sense that Brian Encinia is the type of guy who has ordered a woman, possibly a stranger on the street or in a elevator or whatever just minding her own damn business, to “smile” on more than one occasion. I got that shit a lot when I was in the near vicinity of Ms. Bland’s age (28)*. Pissed me off royally as well as making me feel awkward and embarrassed but many times I would comply, simply out of a desire to have the fucker leave me alone or because he had power over me. But when I refused to smile for the smile-demanders, oh man, did they get hostile!

In watching and listening to Encinia’s interaction with Bland, I did not perceive an actual interest on his part about whether she was okay or not. I heard zero empathy in it. I detected the distinct sound of a white guy annoyed that a young woman, and a young black woman at that, dared to express anything short of enthusiasm for making the traffic stop that he initiated for a probable bullshit reason (failing to signal a lane change while pulling over to the side for Officer Encinia) an ego-buoying experience for him.

Huffington Post has compiled the entire transcript, which contains Sandra Bland using some very blunt language toward the officers who (finally) arrested her after pulling her out of her car and manhandling her quite a bit.

Here’s the telling statement from Encinia for why he “roided out” on Bland so soon after the stop, and well before she cussed him and the female cop out.

She gave me her driver’s license. I came back to the car and started running her stuff. Print it out. Coming to get back to the car to complete and tell her what’s she receiving and what to do and so forth.

At that time, she’s still very much irritated and so forth. I’m pulling her over for she didn’t turn on her signal and so forth and so forth.

She wouldn’t even look at me. She’s looking straight ahead, just mad.

He could have told her the reason for the ticket and simply handed it to her or dropped it on her lap. They both would have been on their ways. Him with an anecdote about how a grouchy black woman wasn’t deferential to him. Her with one about the white cop who (probably) profiled her and pulled her over for a bullshit reason. But no, Brian Encinia had to have that smile.

*Now that I’m 46 I can go about my entire day with a scowl on my face and, weirdly, no man demands that I brighten my, and his, day by flashing a winsome grin. You’d almost think that the annoying men who pestered me to “smile” on an almost daily basis up until about ten years ago were never interested in my well-being at all!

Cathi Herrod smears AZ Planned Parenthood CEO

23 Jul 2015 06:52 am
Posted by: Donna


Oh my.

Statement from Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod

PHOENIX – “Like millions of Americans, I was horrified to see a top Planned Parenthood official callously discussing the strategic dismemberment of preborn children for the possible sale of their organs. As the video revealed, this issue has struck close to home because the Planned Parenthood executive clearly discussed Arizona as a target state for this process due to Planned Parenthood Arizona having a ‘business savvy’ CEO, Bryan Howard.

Mr. Howard has denied any wrongdoing. Yet his words ring hollow, especially after a new video shows another Planned Parenthood executive saying she ‘wants a Lamborghini’ while discussing compensation for preborn children’s organs.

If Bryan Howard and Planned Parenthood truly have nothing to hide, then prove it. They should open up their records to authorities for an immediate investigation.

There is clearly smoke here, and now the onus is on Bryan Howard and Planned Parenthood to prove there is no fire by opening up their books to investigators. According to Planned Parenthood Arizona’s 2013-2014 annual report, they performed abortions on

7,100 women during that fiscal year. Did they compromise the health and safety of these women in order to profit off their preborn children’s organs?

Arizona women deserve to know.

No more talk, no more excuses.”

For more information, contact Aaron Baer, 330.219.1792 or

Center for Arizona Policy promotes and defends the foundational values of life, marriage and family, and religious freedom. For more information, visit

Wow. So Bryan Howard is guilty of, uh…something…, because a Planned Parenthood rep in another state said something complimentary of him on the second “gotcha” video (produced by a disreputable ,to put it mildly, group) that, once again, showed nothing illegal happening.

Yes, the doctor being scammed by the actor did make a quip about wanting a Lamborghini. CAP appears to be both unable to recognize a joke (which is entirely possible since puckered-up prudes are famously humorless) and stupidly unaware that a $200,000 car would require a lot of “sales” of donated fetal tissue – well over 2000 of them at the highest estimated $100 “sales” price per unit, taking taxes and overhead into account. I’m not the foremost expert on economies of scale but I’m pretty sure this is not an efficient way to acquire a Lamborghini.

And I’ll remind everyone that CAP’s blubbering about the “health and safety” of women in this press release stands in stark contrast to their opposition the HPV vaccine a few years ago:

The vaccine has become a hot-button issue across the U.S. with social conservatives rallying against requiring it because they say it sends the wrong message to young people about sex.

“This is not a disease that schoolchildren catch sitting at a desk,” said Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which backed the prohibition.

You think someone like her might want to scrutinize the records of abortion patients for reasons other than ensuring they were healthy and safe? I sure do.