The 4 Most Embarrassing Things Cecile Richards Said In Defense Of Planned Parenthood

[Draggingtree]

The Federalist: The 4 Most Embarrassing Things Cecile Richards Said In Defense Of Planned Parenthood

She did her best, but her talking points were really bad.

 

By Mollie Hemingway JULY 27, 2015

We’re two weeks into the release of videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of organs harvested from the unborn children they abort. The first video, featuring Dr. Deborah Nucatola, included the graphic discussion — over lunch — of where to crush the aborted baby to preserve her heart, liver, lungs and brain to ensure their usefulness to the buyer. The second video, featuring Dr. Mary Gatter, included discussions of “less crunchy” abortion techniques that can be used to preserve valuable human organs and the haggling over the price of those body parts, even though Planned Parenthood claims that they are only reimbursed for costs (costs which, if such a claim were true, should not vary one cent in the face of eager buyers willing to bump up the price). That video ended with Gatter saying she’d bump the price up if other affiliates were earning more for the organs. Then she joked about how she’d like to get a Lamborghini.

[Valin]

From Babylon 5 (THE SINGLE GREATEST SHOW EVER! )

 

[Valin]

Hitler Learns About the Planned Parenthood Videos

Steven Hayward

July 27, 2015

 

A couple of readers suggested I work up another “Hitler Learns About. . .” parody of the Planned Parenthood videos. I hesitated a long time on this. There’s nothing funny or ironic about this story, like a botched play call at the Super Bowl. The reductio ad Hitlerum style of argument is usually wrong or trivializing of the most monstrous evil of the last century when applied to current political or moral issues, and the issue of abortion—even late term abortion—admits of some genuine moral ambiguities at the margin. But the abortion absolutists—think Barbara Boxer, who once said on the U.S. Senate floor that the protection of the law shouldn’t attach to a live, born human being until the parents took the child from the hospital—aren’t dealing with the rare difficult cases at the margin.

 

(Snip)

 

 

And if you think this was too strong or inappropriate, take in Brit Hume on the same subject. Brit is a very nice and calm man. He is not here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgQkP2Jyxi0&spfreload=10

[Valin]

4 things Planned Parenthood's president admitted under oath
Matt Mackowiak
Oct 1 2015

(Snip)

 

The real value of the hearing was that, unlike when Richards appears on TV, this time she was under oath. That yielded several admissions.

 

First, Planned Parenthood often says that abortions are only 3 percent of the services they offer. The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" has given this dubious claim "three Pinocchios." When Richards was asked to divide the number of patients Planned Parenthood saw last year by the number of abortions, the answer was 12 percent. Even more amazingly, when federal funds are exempted, 86 percent of Planned Parenthood's revenue comes from abortions.

 

Second, Richards and Planned Parenthood advocates regularly claim that women receive mammograms at Planned Parenthood facilities — as she did on CNN in 2011, to give one example. Asked by freshman Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah) if Planned Parenthood facilities offer mammograms, Richards admitted they don't. None of the 650 to 700 facilities offer mammograms, nor do they even have the equipment.

 

Third, Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.), the author of the bill to end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood by shifting the funding to community health centers, asked Richards to explain her claim that her bill would block access for women's health. Community health centers outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities by at least tenfold, and they offer additional services like mammograms that Planned Parenthood does not offer. Richards had no real answer.

 

Fourth, Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.) asked the single most interesting question of the day: If federal funds do not go to abortion services, would ending federal funding reduce abortion services? He cleverly caught Richards in a trap. Admit that federal funding goes to abortion, and Planned Parenthood is violating federal law. Admit that ending federal funding doesn't reduce abortion services, and you undercut the defense of Planned Parenthood's funding. She had no real answer and was clearly stumped.

 

There were other interesting moments: