Rick Santorum: Destroying Planned Parenthood Will Help To End Racism In America

Planned Parenthoood rally at the State Capitol.Anti-abortion activists are absolutely aflutter with the release of the James O’Keefe-style edited video that claims to show that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal tissues. To hear them tell it, Planned Parenthood employees are getting rich off our tax dollars and making big money on the side by selling the medical waste that is left over after an abortion procedure. This is a heavily doctored video that is designed with one purpose in mind – to take down Planned Parenthood by ending public funding for the services they provide – and Republicans are more than happy to comply with the wishes of the angry anti-abortion crowd.


The governors of a couple of states that have been trying to close every clinic within their borders are predictably launching investigations, and of course, there’s 2016 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum:

Santorum, ignoring the fact that the video’s claims were quickly debunked, called for a full-scale government investigation into Planned Parenthood and criminal prosecution. He also linked his war against Planned Parenthood to the recent debate over the Confederate flag in wake of the Charleston church shooting.

“If you want to scrub all racism from America, let’s start with Planned Parenthood because it was started by a racist named Margaret Sanger,” he said, alleging that Sanger was bent on “culling out the ‘undesirables,’ including blacks, in America, so if you want to go back and take down the Confederate flag, let’s take down Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood has continued to do disgusting things.”

Santorum also criticized Hillary Clinton for receiving the Margaret Sanger Award — whose other honorees include Martin Luther King, Jr., who praised Sanger — claiming that it is “remarkable that she is able to get away with that.” Santorum vowed that if he were to be elected president he would use the bully pulpit to go after Planned Parenthood. (Source)

The story that Rick Santorum is telling is the same tired old talking point that anti-abortion activists have been using for years. As far back as I can remember as a child attending these rallies, people like Rick Santorum and others have parroted the same old stories about Margaret Sanger and racism. Meanwhile, many of these same anti-abortion activists see absolutely no problem with our criminal justice system where black people are incarcerated and executed at a disproportionate rate. They also conveniently forget that abortions represent a mere three percent of the overall services Planned Parenthood provides, while thirty-five percent of their services involve preventing pregnancies in the first place.


Rick Santorum and the other conservatives who are jumping on this debunked video as a chance to attack Planned Parenthood aren’t interested in the truth – they never have been. They have a mission to end access to women’s healthcare in the name of being “pro-life” and they’ll stop at nothing to accomplish this. If Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal and other anti-abortion presidential candidates were solely concerned with abortion, they’d follow the lead of Colorado, which has greatly reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies with their family planning programs that Republicans have attacked.

Don’t tell Rick Santorum or the people who actually think he would be a good president this, but Planned Parenthood is doing more to prevent abortions than they are. Or maybe you should, just to watch their angry and confused reaction.



Comments

Facebook comments

  • Charles Vincent

    Surely you are aware that it is a federal offense to sell organs or organ tissue here Manny? The video I saw wasn’t edited and she clearly is selling both pull your head out of your ass it’s preventing you from seeing clearly.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organ_Transplant_Act_of_1984

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU

    • Florencio Villanueva

      But they’re not selling the parts. They are donating them and charging for shipping and handling.

      • Charles Vincent

        “The Senate Report accompanying NOTA stated that “human body parts should not be viewed as commodities.””
        The this video they are used as commodities lady. And whether they charged for shipping or for the organ is irrelevant it’s not to be traded for. The law is there for a reason and that lady in the video is no better that the ghouls who roofie victims and harvest organs to sell on the black market, leaving the victim in a tub full of ice to die.

      • Florencio Villanueva

        NOTA has to do with organ transplants, not parts used for research. They aren’t using the fetal specimens to place into people.

      • Charles Vincent

        “NIH has long prohibited funding of research that would harm an embryo or a fetus. The 1974, Congress passed the National Research Act which imposed a moratorium on federally funded research on fetuses “before or after abortion”. The Department of Health and Human Services lifted the moratorium the following year, after they developed regulations that mandated equal treatment of fetuses whether “they were intended to be carried to term or intended to be aborted”. In 1987, a second moratorium was imposed when NIH received a request to fund treatment of Parkinson’s disease with fetal transplants. By 1989, the Secretary of Health and Human Services extended the moratorium indefinitely because “such research would increase the incidence of elective abortion.” (Download a Wake Forest Law Review on this subject).

        Since 1973, NIH-funded grants involving fetal research conformed to the following standards. First, the woman providing the tissue must give consent to the donation of the tissue but only after she had consented to the abortion. Second, the abortion cannot have been made for the purpose of donating the tissue. Third, the donor cannot restrict the tissue donation to an individual recipient. Fourth, there must be no alteration in the timing, method or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy made solely for the purpose of obtaining the tissue. Finally, the research must be made in accordance to applicable state laws.

        The last requirement turned out to be a thorny thicket of onerous regulations. In many states, abortion control laws may require specific schemes to control the manner and timing of fetal tissue donation, usually to assure that the request to donate did not encourage the decision to abort. Some laws prohibited use of fetal tissue for “non-therapeutic” purposes (usually defined as therapy or procedures not necessary to preserve the life or health of the child or mother). Some states prohibited destruction of embryos for research purposes (including extraction of cell populations) but allowed routine disposal of embryos by in vitro fertilization clinics. Most states have regulations that restrict or prohibit transport or sale of fetal tissues.

        In 1987, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) proposed the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) to encourage organ donations. The 1987 UAGA did not distinguish between fetuses of elective or spontaneous abortions. Nearly half of the states adopted the 1987 UAGA. At that time, 25 states enacted fetal research statutes that were incorporated into their abortion codes. In 1984, Arizona passed a law explicitly prohibiting all fetal tissue research. Various courts had struck down similar statutes passed in Louisiana, Illinois, and Utah, on grounds that the terms like “experiment”, “routine”, “investigation”, and “treatment” were unconstitutionally vague and infringed on a woman’s right to privacy and choice to make reproductive choices free of governmental interference. In contrast, Arizona prohibited all fetal research. However, in a 2001 case (Forbes v. Napolitano), the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Arizona ban on fetal tissue research was unconstitutional.

        In 1993, Congress passed a law called the NIH Health Revitalization Act (the NIH Act) that explicitly allowed federal funding of fetal tissue transplantation research and regulated the transfer of human fetal tissues. The NIH Act explicitly forbade purchase (or sale) of fetal tissues. It defined human fetal tissue as “tissue or cells obtained from a dead human embryo or fetus after spontaneous or induced abortion, or after a stillbirth.” In other words, as long as NIH had nothing to do with the abortion, it could fund studies of fetal tissues from an abortion (http://www.ptei.org/news/article_01.html). However, NIH researchers must still conform to the complex state laws that restrict methods of obtaining, using, or transporting fetal tissues. Both federal and state laws prohibited modifications of abortion procedures to improve sterility or quality of tissues collected.

        By 1999, NIH was supporting about $20 million of projects that obtained tissues from aborted fetuses and distribution of these tissues. An additional 135 research projects relied on these tissues for their studies. In the meantime, NIH still had a moratorium on the use of in vitro fertilized embryos for stem cells. In December 1999, NIH (under President Clinton) proposed new draft guidelines that allowed use of in vitro fertilized eggs that were donated by the parents and the use was independent of the decision to create the embryo. The cells could be derived from excess embryos made for clinical need and donated by persons undergoing infertility treatment or fetal tissue obtained from pregnancies that had been terminated. In August 2000, NIH issued the guidelines and lifted the moratorium.

        In 2001, when he came into office, President Bush reimposed the moratorium on use of in vitro fertilized embryos for stem cell research. Many feared that he would also halt studies of all aborted fetal tissues (see the following multiple sclerosis news article). President Bush favored use of fetal tissues from spontaneous abortions but not therapeutic or electrive abortions (see the following evote.com article). Ironically, President Bush’s father, President Bush senior, had funded a $2 million NIH study in 1991 to examine tissues from 1250 spontaneous abortions and 247 ectopic pregnancies aborted because of risk to the mother. Of nearly 1500 fetuses examined, only 7 tissue samples were potentially useful for transplantation research, indicating that this is not a practical source of fetal tissues for research or therapy.

        On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced a widely publicized decision to allow NIH to fund human embryonic stem cell research but only on embryonic stem cell lines derived before his announcement. He based this decision on the determination that 72 human embryonic stem cell lines were available for study and that this was sufficient for research. Both opponents and supporters of embryonic stem cell research decried this decision. Opponents felt that there should be no use at all while supporters felt that it was too restrictive. In 2002, NIH admitted that only 12 of the 72 cell lines are truly pluripotent stem cells and available for scientists to use. Furthermore, all the lines had been grown on mouse feeder cells and therefore not suitable for therapeutic use.

        In summary, the current situation continues to impose serious and complex restrictions on scientists or clinicians who want to use human fetal tissue for transplantation. Fetal research applications receive special ethical reviews at both institutional and NIH levels, where additional “ethical” restraints may be imposed. While the federal laws do not prohibit research of tissues obtained from “dead” aborted fetuses, as long as the decision for abortion was independent, both federal and state laws continue to prohibit manipulation of the living embryo or fetus, or alterations of the abortion procedure that are not medically necessary for the mother or fetus. Even privately funded research must be very careful to avoid breaking federal and state laws regulating use of fetal tissues. Most of these laws impose onerous fines and imprisonment for such infractions.”

      • Florencio Villanueva

        After reading all that, it supports my claim that what Planned Parenthood is doing is not illegal. From the last paragraph, “while the federal laws do not prohibit research of tissues obtained from ‘dead’ aborted fetuses, as long as the decision for abortion was independent.”

      • Charles Vincent

        Prove every abortion made by planned parenthood was done in such a manner and then prove they followed all state and federal laws.

        “Most states have regulations that restrict or prohibit transport or sale of fetal tissues.”

        “Even privately funded research must be very careful to avoid breaking federal and state laws regulating use of fetal tissues. Most of these laws impose onerous fines and imprisonment for such infractions.”

        None of what I posted supports anything you said and anyone with at least two functioning brain cells can see that. You can have your own opinion but you most certainly cannot make up your own facts.

        Also the little blurb you posted is sorely lacking proper context nice try at contextomy but you failed.

      • Florencio Villanueva

        I don’t have to prove every abortion followed all the laws as I wasn’t the one that made the claim that they didn’t. I don’t have to prove innocence, you have to prove guilt.

        You post that there are regulations and restrictions they have to follow, but what they are doing still isn’t prohibited. Things can be regulated and still allowed to take place. Which is why they aren’t allowed to charge for the tissues, but can get compensated for shipping.

        It’s not my fault you don’t understand the things you post. Regulations and prohibiting are two different things.

      • Charles Vincent

        If you want to win this argument you better be abler to prove they followed all Laws and that all the abortions that used fetal tissue or organs for either research or transplant purposed where done according to the law period. Otherwise your blowing smoke and spouting nothing but your opinion neither of which are facts.

        Why do you have to you as this is simple your ad lapidem of my initial posts dismissing them as absurd without providing the proof that they were absurd. this is a classic argument made by lazy people or people that are ignorant.

      • Janice Jacobs

        If you want to win the argument you better prove that they didn’t follow the laws. And these video from a notoriously pro-life right wing organization don’t count. Otherwise you’re the one blowing smoke and spouting nothing but your opinion neither of which are facts. I’m sure the congressional hearing that turned up nothing wont help your case either. Have fun in your ignorance

      • Charles Vincent

        learn to read post dates.

      • Charles Vincent

        You also missed this;
        “…continues to impose serious and complex restrictions on scientists or clinicians who want to use human fetal tissue for transplantation.”

        Note the last word transplantation, which is why NOTA applies from my earlier posts. You need to learn how to read things more carefully.

      • Florencio Villanueva

        Why should I have to be the one to prove they followed the law. The whole point of this issue is that an activist group claims to have proof PP is doing something illegal when it shows them doing nothing of the sort. You just want to shift the burden of proof. Prove that they broke just one law and I will concede.

        I didn’t say they were absurd just that they had nothing to do with this.

        Transplantation, which has nothing to do with what PP is doing. You need to learn reading comprehension.

      • Charles Vincent

        The nih regs do but you conveniently ignored that.

      • Charles Vincent

        On the contrary it is you who is shifting the burden here it’s called;
        Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim)

        In this instance I am the one that is denying/questioning the claim made by the author and by proxy you. It is you and the author who have the burden of proof here not I.

        I also understand that you have apparently not seen the full two hour video and are basing your conclusions on assumptions in place of facts.

        “It’s not my fault you don’t understand the things you post.”
        Oh a nice combination of ad lapidem and ad hominem.

        “Regulations and prohibiting are two different things.”
        Uh no they are not regulations are what prohibits things in this case, please equivocate less.

        Moreover this post holds for your other response as well.

      • Florencio Villanueva

        The claim was that the video proved that PP is doing something illegal, which it does not. I just have to prove that they never said anything that incriminates them, which I did by point out the things she said doesn’t show they are doing anything illegal. She never said they were making profits of the sales or anything else.

        If you can show me anything that says otherwise I’d love to see it.

        “Since 1973, NIH-funded grants involving fetal research conformed to the following standards. First, the woman providing the tissue must give consent to the donation of the tissue but only after she had consented to the abortion. Second, the abortion cannot have been made for the purpose of donating the tissue. Third, the donor cannot restrict the tissue donation to an individual recipient. Fourth, there must be no alteration in the timing, method or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy made solely for the purpose of obtaining the tissue. Finally, the research must be made in accordance to applicable state laws.” Rules PP must abide by. Nothing saying they can’t donate tissue.

        “In 1993, Congress passed a law called the NIH Health Revitalization Act (the NIH Act) that explicitly allowed federal funding of fetal tissue transplantation research and regulated the transfer of human fetal tissues. The NIH Act explicitly forbade purchase (or sale) of fetal tissues. It defined human fetal tissue as “tissue or cells obtained from a dead human embryo or fetus after spontaneous or induced abortion, or after a stillbirth.” In other words, as long as NIH had nothing to do with the abortion, it could fund studies of fetal tissues from an abortion. However, NIH researchers must still conform to the complex state laws that restrict methods of obtaining, using, or transporting fetal tissues. Both federal and state laws prohibited modifications of abortion procedures to improve sterility or quality of tissues collected.” The NIH Act forbade the sale of tissue, which PP isn’t doing, they are donating them. Researchers, the ones getting the donations, must follow state laws that restrict methods of obtaining, using, and transporting tissue, which would explain the cost she said of $30-$100.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Fourth, there must be no alteration in the timing, method or procedures
        used to terminate the pregnancy made solely for the purpose of obtaining
        the tissue.”

        Not only in the first video but the second one as well they both state that they change the method and procedure in the second the lady knew it was not legal to do so but she said in essence we don’t care if you don’t.

        This is plainly spelled out in the NOTA and NIH laws/regulations. One you so nicely quoted again for me. If they are doing that they are most definitely selling parts.

        ” which PP isn’t doing, they are donating them. Researchers, the ones
        getting the donations, must follow state laws that restrict methods of
        obtaining, using, and transporting tissue, which would explain the cost
        she said of $30-$100.”

        If they were donating them there would never be a discussion about price of the specimens would there? No one discuses the price of shipping and handling those costs are flat rate from carrier to carrier.

      • Florencio Villanueva

        That’s not what she said. She said she would need to ask the surgeon and she needs to get consent first. She says it’s a hassle but of course stuff like that have complicated rules to follow.

        Not if there is different shipping rules they have to follow for each state.

      • Charles Vincent

        In the video this article talks about no but there is a second video now, one where what I said happens and it’s a pp executive saying it. And even in this video the lady talk about the procedure being changed if the want intact brains.

      • Florencio Villanueva

        Ah yes the second video. The one where the buyer is trying to pay MORE than what the executive says it would cost, and she clearly says that they don’t profit from it.

      • Charles Vincent

        Ah yes contextomy to cover the dodge of the illegality of what the video Highlighted.

        Care to try again or are you going to duck the issue once again because I proven your assertion wrong.

      • Florencio Villanueva

        I was merely showing the ridiculousness of the video and how the activist was clearly trying to get the woman to accept more money than was need and the woman was having none of it, which was what the videos were about, that PP was profiting off the tissue, not that donating them was illegal.

        But go ahead and keep thinking you’ve proven anything. It’s been several days and and you still don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • noah vail

        these videos have been shown to be doctored so no proof there

      • Charles Vincent

        Watch the full two hour unedited video, furthermore they haven’t been debunked by anyone. Now there is a third video and it clearly shows PP has been selling organs and tissue. Keep on being a mindless apologist for them.

      • Janice Jacobs

        “Undedited” Again, all doctored video no matter how long it is

      • Charles Vincent

        The raw video isn’t doctored chief

  • Florencio Villanueva

    Nothing that was said in the video was illegal or “damning”. Specimen are donated for research purposes and they are compensated for shipping and handling.