HNGN: Planned Parenthood's Top Doctor Caught On Video Discussing The Sale Of Aborted Fetus Body Parts

[The Evil Genius]

Daleiden's lawyers are idiots.  Here is part of their statement that comes immediately after what Bliz just posted:

 

They did not buy any fetal tissue.  They ATTEMPTED to buy fetal tissue.  ATTEMPTING to buy ANYTHING does not require a seller.

 

I could walk outside my building in DC and ask the first person i see for drugs.  That is ATTEMPTING to buy drugs.  The person i ask is not a seller just because I ask.

 

That and the part of the Texas penal code that allows (apparently) for medical "sales". So even if the buyers hadn't forged their ID's..and were an actual legal buyer...it appears that PP was in the ok had they actually attempted to "sell" fetal tissue. Of course, it's not really selling either though. But I am sure that's being ignored.

 

It is an exception to the application of this section that the valuable consideration is: (1) a fee paid to a physician or to other medical personnel for services rendered in the usual course of medical practice or a fee paid for hospital or other clinical services;

 

[Zguy28]

Can we change the thread title?  If you're cleared in Texas on the issue by a Republican DA, and they even charge the other guys for their deceptive editing, I think we can put the "sale" part of "discussing the sale of aborted fetus body parts" to bed.  It doesn't get too much more conclusive than that.

 

Unless we're hoping for those godless heathens in CA to come through.

Admittedly, the scope of the investigation was limited to PP of Gulf Coast. not PPoA.

 

Some FAQ's on the current indictment.

 

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-faqs-grand-jury-indicts-filmmakers-who-secretly-recorded-planned-parenthood

[Bliz]

they supposedly did get employees/whistle blowers

 

 

Supposedly according to who?  Where are the employees/whistle blowers quoted?  Where are the documents?  If those things haven't come out yet, it's pretty good evidence that they don't exist.  You want it out there so the grand jury can see it.  No reason to hold back now.  If they had it, they would be publicizing that fact.  And if there were legit whistleblowers, why are they 0-12 or whatever in these investigations?

[DogofWar1]

I stand corrected on what they were indicted for, not the editing specifically, but for the falsification of their licenses.  Editing was still deceptive, but in what is presently a non-criminal way.

 

The overarching point still stands.  PP has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing by a grand jury, and the other guys have been charged.  They've been investigated and cleared numerous times across multiple states.  At this point, the thread title is, at best, misleading.  Maybe throw parenthesis before "discussing" and "sale" with (allegedly) and (unproven), respectively?  EDIT: Worth mentioning this was in response to twa, not Zguy, but I'd still argue that some updates to reflect the current situation are in order.

[Zguy28]

I stand corrected on what they were indicted for, not the editing specifically, but for the falsification of their licenses.  Editing was still deceptive, but in what is presently a non-criminal way.

 

The overarching point still stands.  PP has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing by a grand jury, and the other guys have been charged.  They've been investigated and cleared numerous times across multiple states.  At this point, the thread title is, at best, misleading.  Maybe throw parenthesis before "discussing" and "sale" with (allegedly) and (unproven), respectively?  EDIT: Worth mentioning this was in response to twa, not Zguy, but I'd still argue that some updates to reflect the current situation are in order.

The thread title is formatted according to the rules for threads based on articles (It is the article's title or headline). If the mods wish to change it, they will get no argument from me as the OP.

[twa]

 

 

The overarching point still stands.  PP has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing by a grand jury, and the other guys have been charged. 

 

they were not indicted, that is not the same as cleared......at all   ,nor does the other being indicted clear PP

it can be presented time and time again to grand juries

[PleaseBlitz]

they were not indicted, that is not the same as cleared......at all   ,nor does the other being indicted clear PP

it can be presented time and time again to grand juries

 

 

I'll restate for DogofWar.

 

A group of TEXANS looked at all of the relevant facts, and decided that Planned Parenthood probably did not do anything wrong, and that Dedalian and his cohort likely committed 2 felonies and a misdemeanor.  

[twa]

I'll restate for DogofWar.

 

A group of TEXANS looked at all of the relevant facts, and decided that Planned Parenthood probably did not do anything wrong, and that Dedalian and his cohort likely committed 2 felonies and a misdemeanor.  

 

 

Pretty close , but probably is speculative counselor   

 

safer to say they found the evidence insufficient....or presented poorly(if ya believe the dissenters) 

[tshile]

aren't we supposed to argue that getting an indictment is easy, and if they wanted to the jury to hand down an indictment they could have?

 

that's what we always talk about with the cops anyways.

 

that not being indicted means nothing more than the prosecutor didn't want them indicted for whatever reason.

[PleaseBlitz]

Pretty close , but probably is speculative counselor   

 

safer to say they found the evidence insufficient....or presented poorly(if ya believe the dissenters) 

 

Probably is the correct legal standard.  Grand juries can indict with probable cause.  Google it.

[twa]

aren't we supposed to argue that getting an indictment is easy, and if they wanted to the jury to hand down an indictment they could have?

 

that's what we always talk about with the cops anyways.

 

that not being indicted means nothing more than the prosecutor didn't want them indicted for whatever reason.

 

there are some accusations of that(I'll spare ya the loony links) as well as complaints of a PP board member on the prosecutions staff

 

 

people always find something to **** about.

 

Probably is the correct legal standard.  Grand juries can indict with probable cause.  Google it.

 

to use probably you would need to know what evidence was presented or withheld ,no?

 

insufficient evidence seems much cleaner 

[Bliz]

aren't we supposed to argue that getting an indictment is easy, and if they wanted to the jury to hand down an indictment they could have?

 

that's what we always talk about with the cops anyways.

 

that not being indicted means nothing more than the prosecutor didn't want them indicted for whatever reason.

 

or, that being indicted is really easy and they STILL couldn't put together enough evidence to meet that low standard.  Which is consistent with a dozen highly motivated states investigating PP and coming up empty.

 

To my earlier point, that strongly suggests twa's whistleblowers are mere rumor/fantasy.  A whistleblower with a sliver of credibility probably would have been enough to get an indictment (and traction in some of those states) in and of themselves.

[tshile]

or, that being indicted is really easy and they STILL couldn't put together enough evidence to meet that low standard.  Which is consistent with a dozen highly motivated states investigating PP and coming up empty.

 

Can we pick one standard for that and stick to it?

 

Or do I have to continue to watch the people that defend the lack of indictment in police shootings then complain about the lack of indictment here? And the people who complain about the lack of indictment with police shootings defend one here?

 

I'd love to treat each case on its own merits but we see where trying that goes, and suspiciously certain people are on predictable sides every time. It's so weird.

[DogofWar1]

The thread title is formatted according to the rules for threads based on articles (It is the article's title or headline). If the mods wish to change it, they will get no argument from me as the OP.

 

I didn't mean to imply there's anything wrong rules wise; we've just been seeing a number of thread titles change over the past week to reflect updates, so I thought this one could do with one as well if there are current events on it.

 

 

they were not indicted, that is not the same as cleared......at all   ,nor does the other being indicted clear PP

it can be presented time and time again to grand juries

 

Yeah...no.

 

I'm calling bull all over that sentiment.  Planned Parenthood has been investigated in how many states?  And Congress?  And how many criminal charges have actually gotten to an indictment?

 

This has reached witch hunt status.  Well, it HAD reached witchhunt status a while ago, but we saw the thing shuffle along anyway, all zombie-like.

 

By your definition of "cleared," no one can ever be cleared of wrong doing.  By that standard, I'm not "cleared" of murder in VA.  After all, I've never been indicted for murder, but maybe it's just because the Commonwealth hasn't gotten around to it.  I mean, there's no evidence, but hey, felonies in VA have no statute of limitations, so I suppose that will just hang over my head forever.

 

So when can we consider them "cleared?"  Never?  If not never, how many more investigations are needed, and by whom?

 

EDIT:

The specific difficulty, or lack thereof, of obtaining an indictment should be mostly irrelevant here.  If this was the only place in the USA that had investigated PP's conduct, then fine, it's a reasonable debate about the ease or hardship of getting an indictment.  However, there have been plenty of investigations that have looked and come up wanting.  Indictments are not exceptionally hard to get, we know that much, so with so many opportunities for PP to have been smacked legally and yet they have not, and the absence of fringe difficulty in getting indictments, the weight of all these investigations not getting to actual charges functionally clears them.

[twa]

Al Capone was simply a tax cheat obviously

[DogofWar1]

Al Capone was simply a tax cheat obviously

 

There's a difference between a man who actively obfuscated his conduct with the purpose of making sure that direct examination of his alleged illegal conduct was as difficult as possible, and an organization that has been reasonably forthcoming and allowed direct examination of their alleged illegal conduct.

[s0crates]

Hey, don't thank me. That's not my reasoning. Thank the anti-abortion crowd.

Egad. Is the stuff in that article true?

I'm pretty sympathetic to the pro-life crowd, but that's awful.

[Larry]

Egad. Is the stuff in that article true?

I'm pretty sympathetic to the pro-life crowd, but that's awful.

I would assume, without checking, that it's a cherry picked list of events, deliberately phrased in one direction. But that yes, there's real stories behind each of them. Some of the stories I even recognize, because they were covered, at the time.

For example, yes, we actually have had a case of a court keeping a dead woman on life support for months, against the wishes of her and her next of kin, so that her brain-dead body could serve as an incubator for a fetus.

[Jumbo]

I don't read the Salon site, and have only a little awareness of its' rep--which is far-lefty-biased, right? Anyway, it's never struck me as that credible by brief scans when I'm following some link that leads to it. But these dumbass nuts and those who support them are worth keeping an eye on and dark fun to follow, almost no matter the source.

 

 

 

The insanity of Sam Brownback’s Kansas: Anti-choicers who brought you “baby parts” are now worried about animal-human hybrids

 

In the next month or so, the Supreme Court is set to rule, once again, on the legality of efforts from the Christian right to restrict access to abortion. The law in question, Texas’s HB2, uses a bunch of medically unnecessary regulations in order to make it too expensive or logistically onerous to provide safe abortion care in the state.

 

So it’s as good a time as any to be reminded of the beliefs and concerns of the people that have successfully pressured state politicians to restrict abortion access.

 

Kansans For Life (KFL), the biggest anti-choice group in Kansas, bills itself as “a nonprofit educational organization”. This month, their political action committee sent a questionnaire out to legislative candidates in the state, asking about a variety of issues of interest to their members.

 

No joke: One of the questions asked was whether the candidates oppose the creation of animal-human hybrids, which KFL calls “chimeras”.

 

Or at least the laboratory creation of such things, since, as people who oppose abortion, they have to support carrying any pregnancy to term conceived in bestiality. (Which doesn’t actually happen, but we are dealing with people who believe all sorts of fantastical things, so this clarification is necessary.)

 

You fancy city liberals who probably read science magazines like a bunch of nerds are probably laughing at KFL right now, but they ain’t sorry.

 

“It’s been a concern for over 10 years,” Kathy Ostrowski, KFL’s legislative director, told the Kansas City Star. “We’re not inventing this. This is not crazy stuff.”

 

 

  

 

more at link, though the "article" reads to me like a stupid piece even if covering a bunch of stupid people

[PleaseBlitz]

IF YOU ARENT WORRIED ABOUT CHIMERAS, THEN YOU HAVENT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION.

 

 

[Larry]

I don't read the Salon site, and have only a little awareness of its' rep--which is far-lefty-biased, right? Anyway, it's never struck me as that credible by brief scans when I'm following some link that leads to it. But these dumbass nuts and those who support them are worth keeping an eye on and dark fun to follow, almost no matter the source.

 

The insanity of Sam Brownback’s Kansas: Anti-choicers who brought you “baby parts” are now worried about animal-human hybrids

 

more at link, though the "article" reads to me like a stupid piece even if covering a bunch of stupid people

Haven't read the article. (And don't intend to, from that quote.) But that portion you've quoted sure reads like an empty attempt to fabricate a smear.

Not that I have any trouble at all believing that the folks who bought this "aborted baby parts" story (and who, I'm convinced, still buy it), aren't insane. or anything.

[twa]

some ethics panel approved animal-human hybrids the other day.....longer term than previously allowed

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3599408/Researchers-reveal-controversial-experiments-grow-animal-human-Frankenstein-organs-transplant-patients-going-on.html

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/545106/human-animal-chimeras-are-gestating-on-us-research-farms/

 

seems like it was in Asia somewhere

 

 

[Larry]

Now how did I know that someone would actually try to justify the insanity mentioned?

Y'know, twa, some ethical group recently approved putting stem cells into the brains of corpses. Better let Kansas know it's time to pass anti-zombie legislation.

[Predicto]

I don't read the Salon site, and have only a little awareness of its' rep--which is far-lefty-biased, right? Anyway, it's never struck me as that credible by brief scans when I'm following some link that leads to it. 

 

 

Salon is not far lefty.  It is limousine liberal, and generally well respected.  Their articles have a liberal slant, but no dishonesty or empty sensationalism.  

[twa]

Now how did I know that someone would actually try to justify the insanity mentioned?

 

the insanity of seeking peoples opinions?

 

there certainly exists different and legitimate concerns on the issue.

Salon is not far lefty.  It is limousine liberal, and generally well respected.  Their articles have a liberal slant, but no dishonesty or empty sensationalism.  

 

rotflmao....they serve figs with the tripe?