Planned Parenthood’s reckoning
Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards at a Congressional hearing.Congress counts the costs.
A one year funding ban was a start, as investigations continue into the abortion industry giant being held to account for how Planned Parenthood conducts business, and just what kind of business the organization conducts.
After years of deceptions perpetrated by Planned Parenthood with the cover of complicit media and high level politicians, it took ongoing congressional investigations to finally get the admission on the record, from the head of Planned Parenthood herself, that all claims to the contrary, they don’t do mammograms, a big selling point as to why they were allegedly necessary for delivering women’s health care.
After that admission, Richards tried to turn the tables and make her best defense a robust offense in her testimony.
“The latest smear campaign is based on efforts by our opponents to entrap our doctors and clinicians into breaking the law—and once again our opponents failed,” Richards said in testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Not this time. Anyone who has seen any of the undercover videos saw clearly that the words came out of the mouths of abortion clinic workers, or Planned Parenthood medical directors, and the attitude, tone and content of those conversations were caught on film. So was the cavalier way baby body parts were either talked about in terms of marketing and profitability, or handled in abortion clinics in graphic scenes showing dismembered human bodies in their earliest stages of growth before they were ‘terminated’ by abortion.Members of Congress wanted to see the videos for themselves, especially since they were held up by a legal battle after the first ten videos were released.
U.S. District Judge Wiliam H. Orrick III, the same judge who issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of the National Abortion Federation in late July, said that CMP may release all videos and transcripts to the Congressional committee that had sought them.
“I will not countenance a game of hide the ball with respect to these documents, video footage and communications, that interferes directly with these proceedings,” he concluded…
“In our Constitutional system, there are three equal branches of government, and courts should refrain from creating needless friction with a coordinate branch of government.”
Meanwhile, some big media continue to try to provide Planned Parenthood cover. In vain, when keen journalists like Mollie Hemingway are watching.Which brings us to this unbelievably awful CNN report by Drew Griffin that aired this week. It also made me scream because of the errors, half-truths, and deceptions that it contained in its lengthy defense of the country’s largest abortion provider.
It’s so tremendously bad that I don’t actually know where to begin.
But she systematically goes through the seven biggest problems with that CNN report.About a day later, a major leak of hours of undercover videos got posted by an online news site, with yet more shocking revelations.
The footage appears to show top-level abortion industry executives discussing their baby parts harvesting trade. Got News, the group that released the tapes, say they “obtained all of the videos from a source on Capitol Hill.”
Video footage seen here says it was obtained from a “National Abortion Foundation’s annual meeting in San Francisco, CA, on April 7th, 2014.” We do not know of a group called the National Abortion Foundation and believe this description is a typo of National Abortion Federation, which issued a letter in response to the apparent leak.
On the tape titled “2nd Trimester Provider Self Care” shows panelists discussing the “stigma” associated with the procedure. Attendees respond with laughter and applause as former National Abortion Federation Executive Director, Dr. Uta Landy, read comments by abortion providers…
Who was behind this revelation? WaPo claimed ‘a controversial blogger and an infamous hacker’ teamed up on the project, in an interesting turn of events and reporting on them. And the spin and blame and deflection continued.Meanwhile, quietly, another new video was released by the Center for Medical Progress.
The eleventh video release from The Center for Medical Progress in the ongoing Planned Parenthood baby parts scandal shows the abortion doctor for Planned Parenthood in Austin, TX, Dr. Amna Dermish, describing a partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term fetuses which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.
Dr. Dermish admits she was trained by the Senior Director of Medical Services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Dr. Deborah Nucatola. Nucatola described a partial-birth abortion technique to harvest fetal organs in the first Planned Parenthood video released July 14 by CMP.
“My aim is usually to get the specimens out pretty intact,” says Dermish, speaking to actors posing as a fetal tissue procurement company. Dermish admits that she will sometimes use ultrasound guidance to convert a 2nd-trimester fetus to a feet-first breech presentation: “Especially the 20-weekers are a lot harder versus the 18-weekers, so at that point I’ll switch to breech.”
Which is illegal. And revolting and stunning, given the fact that “20-weekers’ are five month old babies, who are being negotiated for sale of their body parts.The state of Texas recently moved to disbar Planned Parenthood from taxpayer funding on account of Medicaid fraud and abortion-related crimes. Governor Greg Abbott recently said in an interview that the state of Texas is now in possession of “hard evidence” that Planned Parenthood is engaged in “violations of federal and state law concerning abortion procedures.”
“Less than 4 miles away from the Texas state capitol, Planned Parenthood routinely practices barbaric partial-birth abortions on living, late-term fetuses,” notes CMP Project Lead David Daleiden. “Planned Parenthood’s crimes are not just the result of local bad actors, but are tolerated and even encouraged at the highest levels of the national organization. State-level criminal investigations must press charges, and Congress’ new select committee must pursue a deep and comprehensive accounting of Planned Parenthood’s atrocities against humanity.”
They’re working on it.Doctor still knows best
Today's special feature is euthanasia in Belgium. The doctor who is "the Pope of euthanasia" there, Wim Distelmans, has just written a book explaining how necessary euthanasia is and how well his country's law works. I have written a review and Tom Mortier, a Belgian whose mother was euthanised by Dr Distelmans, pokes holes in his arguments.
Michael Cook
Editor
MERCATORNET
 | Doctor still knows best Michael Cook | CAREFUL! | 4 November 2015 An expert on Belgian euthanasia evades difficult questions. Read more... |
 | Surely you’re joking, Mr Denton Tom Mortier | CAREFUL! | 4 November 2015 An Australian media personality ignores the facts about euthanasia Read more... |
 | Planned Parenthood’s reckoning Sheila Liaugminas | SHEILA REPORTS | 4 November 2015 Congress counts the costs. Read more... |
 | Can the internet make loved ones ‘immortal’? Denyse O'Leary | CONNECTING | 4 November 2015 Attitudes to death are becoming increasingly weird in both the actual and the digital world. Read more... |
 | Hugging school for Korean dads Tamara El-Rahi | FAMILY EDGE | 4 November 2015 Important parenting lessons – seriously. Read more... |
 | Cuba: another country facing demographic collapse Marcus Roberts | DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY | 4 November 2015 Thanks to a poor economy, emigration, education and abortion. Read more... |
 | Not all popular books are worthwhile Jennifer Minicus | READING MATTERS | 4 November 2015 Best-selling fantasy story falls short. Read more... |
MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia
Designed by elleston
New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605
WEDNESDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2015
Doctor still knows best
Dr Wim Distelmans
The word control sums up the euthanasia debate. Patients want to control the end of their lives; society wants to control doctors who end lives. A book which omits either approach is a failure.In Pursuit of a Dignified Life’s End, an apology for the Belgian model of legal euthanasia, by Wim Distelmans, is a serious disappointment. Dr Distelmans, an oncologist, knows more about euthanasia than anyone else in Belgium, perhaps in the world. He is the country’s leading practitioner of euthanasia, a man who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of patients, according to Der Spiegel. He is its leading publicist and has received numerous prizes and honours as a euthanasia champion. And he is the co-chairman of Belgium’s Federal Evaluation and Control Commission for Euthanasia, which determines whether euthanasia procedures have been performed lawfully. Another right-to-die campaigner, Dr Marc Van Hoey, has scoffed that he is Belgium's "Pope of euthanasia".
Most of his brief book is concerned with alleviating pain at the end of life, or palliative care. Distelmans is clearly an expert in analysing and treating pain. He understands patients’ need for personal care and adequate social services, their anguish as death approaches, and the grief of their loved ones. He says that “as a child I always wanted to be a ‘do-gooder’, and Albert Schweitzer was my absolute hero.” Something of Distelmans’ youthful altruism persists in his fierce attack on the medical profession’s “therapeutic obstinacy”, its tendency to focus on medicines and machines and to forget about patients.
In one sense, therefore, his aspirations for controlling the end of life are respectable:
“Not only should the end of the dying process be dignified, but the whole process of the illness. The quality of dying in our society is still in stark contrast to our quality of life. Moreover, being sick should not mean waiting for death but rather getting the most out of life. The pursuit of a dignified life’s end includes both the pursuit of a dignified life and a dignified end.”But what about society’s right to control Dr Distelmans and his colleagues? Does Belgium’s law provide enough safeguards to ensure that the system is not being abused; that patients are not being euthanised under duress or without their consent; and that all euthanasia is being carried out lawfully?
Dr Distelmans claims to be a foe of old-fashioned medical paternalism, but like the curmudgeonly physicians of yesteryear he has little patience with his critics. A constant theme in the book is the malice of international media yelping at the heels of progressive humanitarians. “Only fundamentalists, pressure groups and sensation-seeking (foreign) media continue to show little or no respect for the final wishes of those in unbearable suffering,” he comments.
Insulated from criticism, then, he states numerous times that there are no problems at all with Belgium’s law. "Since its introduction it has become clear that the Euthanasia Law has not led to any abuse,” he writes.
No abuse? None? Not one case?
In the 12 years since Belgium’s law came into effect, after 8,000 cases of euthanasia, not one doctor has ever been charged with violating the law. This is simply not credible. The possible explanations are that Belgian doctors never make mistakes, that there are no rogue doctors, or that the commission rubberstamps the paperwork. Take your pick.
The one and only case came to light only a few days ago, when the control commission brought charges against Distelmans's critic, Dr Van Hoey, for having performed a euthanasia without asking a psychiatrist to tick a box on a form, as legally required.
Dr Distelmans’ optimism about the system which he operates, publicises and controls is not warranted, even based on the information in his book.
First, he acknowledges that he does not have the facts about illegal deaths. He writes: “Thanks to the law, there has been a significant reduction (around 50 per cent) in the incidence of unrequested life-ending treatment (a practice that is very difficult to monitor).” In one sentence he declares that there is no abuse; in the following sentence that there are many cases of involuntary euthanasia. How many? He doesn’t know. How could he? Even in Belgium, doctors who act unlawfully do not report their crimes.
Second, this contradiction is resolved by a breathtaking example of cognitive dissonance. Belgium’s law defines euthanasia as “the intentional termination of a person’s life, at his request, by a third party”. Hence, involuntary euthanasia, for Dr Distelmans, is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. There can be no such thing, since Belgian euthanasia is, by definition, always voluntary. “Henceforth,” he writes, “the historical and emotionally charged use of expressions such as euthanasia at the request of family, euthanasia of newborns, euthanasia for economic reasons, and euthanasia for dementia patients could no longer be used.”
Dr Distelmans, in his campaign to rid the world of pain, does away with the pain of reasoning. Here is his Alice in Wonderland logic at work. He discusses palliative (or terminal) sedation, an end-of-life measure in which food and fluids are withdrawn and the patient rendered unconscious with sedatives so that if he does not die of the underlying condition, he will die of starvation.
Palliative sedation is often offered as an alternative to euthanasia … In some cases, the doctor has no choice but to take a unilateral decision; it is unthinkable that a doctor would not administer some form of pain relief to a demented patient who is crying out in pain from bedsores.But this is not euthanasia, according to Dr Distelmans, because a doctor is not the direct agent of death and because it is involuntary.
His discussion of the situation becomes even more bizarre in the very next paragraph:
In 2013 Livia Anquinet, in her doctoral dissertation, reported that the incidence of deaths due to palliative sedation had roughly doubled since the introduction of the Belgian Euthanasia Law, from 8 per cent (eight thousand out of a hundred thousand) to 15 per cent (fifteen thousand). This disturbing increase is undoubtedly due to doctors being more empathetic to the suffering of terminal patients, but it may also be due to unapproved euthanasia requests.Distelmans is the co-chairman of the body which guarantees citizens that their doctor is not the Belgian counterpart of the English physician and serial killer Harold Shipman. How could he both write this sentence and repeat metronomically that there is no abuse in Belgium? By his own admission there must be thousands of Belgians who have been killed by their doctors outside the law and often involuntarily.
Finally, it is astonishing that Dr Distelmans’s book gives no account whatsoever how the control commission works. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves? He personally has been responsible for a large proportion of Belgium’s euthanasia deaths. Yet he is the most powerful figure in regulating them. In any other country this would be regarded as grossly improper and an invitation to corruption. But instead of defending himself, Dr Distelmans lashes out at sensation-seeking international media.
Supporters of euthanasia promised Belgians emancipation from medical paternalism and “therapeutic obstinacy”. But after reading Wim Distelmans’ explanation of their law, it’s apparent that Doctor still knows best. The only thing that has changed is that Doctor is carrying a syringe filled with a lethal drug.
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario