And Then There Were None has just released its latest short video, and you’re encouraged to share it on whatever platforms you use. Here, a few former abortion industry workers share their thoughts on what pro-life witness looked like to them from inside their clinics. Some approaches were more effective than others, which is no surprise.
“How can we ever make America great again as long as our laws and our policies say our children are worth more dead than alive?” David Daleiden posed the question at the Values Voter conference in Washington, D.C. earlier this month. He announced to the crowd that a new Center for Medical Progress video was forthcoming. This week, he delivered, documenting further the body-parts business that is integrated with the abortion industry.
In this new video, he interviews whistleblower Holly O’Donnell, former procurement technician for StemExpress, a company which worked in conjunction with Planned Parenthood affiliates to obtain fetal body parts. The video includes undercover footage of lab workers sorting “POC” (products of conception, i.e. aborted children), and here’s fair warning that some viewers may find the video hard to take.
At Values Voter, Daleiden started his presentation with a self-deprecating remark about his tendency to speak too long, adding that if he did, “You can always call the California Attorney General’s office and they will be happy to send eleven jackbooted thugs to carry me off the stage.” California is where 15 charges were filed against Daleiden and colleague Sandra Merritt over the CMP videos – and where 14 of those charges were dismissed on grounds of “legal insufficiency.”
It’s been two years since CMP’s first video was released. Yet, said Daleiden, Planned Parenthood and its allies continue “the lie that my videos are highly edited. In reality, my videos are highly accurate. After two years, Planned Parenthood still cannot deny that the people featured on these videos are their own top abortion doctors, speaking their own words that have so shocked and outraged the public, captured on camera for all the world and all of history to see.”
He is confident that President Trump would sign a bill to keep public funds from going to Planned Parenthood “if the Senate would do its job, abolish the filibuster and restore constitutional order. We are just one vote away from zeroing out [funding].” He pointed out that when Trump proposed an end to defunding efforts if PP would stop doing abortions, PP declined.
“I promise you I am not backing down in the face of Planned Parenthood’s attacks. I am all in to defeat them in every courtroom….Please continue to share these videos….[I]f we stay focused and work together, we will hasten the day when there is no longer a price tag on human life.”
See the video of David Daleiden’s speech at the 2017 Values Voter Summit: http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/archive-2017?videoId=5604081942001
A Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act has passed the U.S. House and is on its way to the U.S. Senate. It would restrict abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a point at which there is evidence that the preborn child feels pain. That’s “restrict,” not “prevent.” The bill carries a rape-and-incest exception.
The ability to feel pain is not a function of the criminal activity of one’s biological father, so the exception undermines the whole science-is-on-our-side defense of Pain-Capable. Darlene Pawlik expands on the problematic nature of the exception in “I’m Pain-Capable, How ’bout You?”
I appreciate the good intentions in this attempt to protect at least some children, and I’m not going to work for the defeat of a candidate solely on the basis of supporting Pain-Capable in its current form. I just have to wonder why the exception is in there. From a pragmatic point of view, does it gain any votes over a no-exceptions bill?
I don’t know, but I can recall a situation in New Hampshire last year when one abortion bill had no rape-and-incest exception while two others did. Was there a big difference in the results among those three votes? Not really. From my March 15, 2016 post:
There were three bills [in NH in 2016] to restrict mid- and late-term abortions. One of them, HB 1328, would have instituted a 20-week limit with an exception for abortions following rape or incest. The other bills would have limited abortions at viability (HB 1625) and at the point where the preborn child can feel pain (HB 1636). Was there any tactical advantage to including exceptions in one of the bills?
Not that I could see. Only seven representatives voted FOR the bill with exceptions and AGAINST the other two mid- and late-term bills. On the other hand, twelve representatives did the opposite, opposing the exceptions bill while supporting the HB 1625 and HB 1636.
All three of those bills failed, although HB 1625 – to prohibit abortion after viability, without a rape-and-incest exception – lost by only three votes.
Congressman Steve Scalise, the Republican Majority Whip, has acknowledged that passage of the Pain-Capable Act in Congress took some effort. I expect the same will be true in the Senate.
Whose Senate vote will be granted or withheld on the basis of exceptions language? Is there any tactical advantage to the exceptions? I don’t know, but what I saw in Concord in 2016 makes me wonder.