Caught Selling Baby Parts Planned Parenthood Doubles Down on the Lie [VIDEO]

Cecille Richards - President of Planned Parenthood

Cecille Richards – President of Planned Parenthood

By. Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse

If a man is merely a biological machine, his sole value is determined by where he fits into the larger machine. He becomes a commodity, a thing to be used in ways that bring gain to other people. We call this a utilitarian world view.

Planned Parenthood ‘aborts’ (kills) unborn babies and sells their parts. It’s a bloody but lucrative business, and the profits increase when Planned Parenthood can provide more intact baby parts to its customers. The unborn child is reduced to a commodity (something to be bought and sold) that serves a larger machine.

In order for this uninhibited trade in baby parts to take place without any pangs of conscience however, a profound dehumanization has to occur first. No one, except perhaps a handful of people beyond the reach of normal human love and compassion, would argue that it is proper to slice up a newborn child in order to sell its parts. Yet Planned Parenthood does just that sometimes moments before the child is born.

The lie that justifies this grisly business is that the unborn child is merely “potential human life.” But since when did potential become divorced from being? Only human beings have human potential. Left unmolested, the developing child in a few short months will appear just like you and me.

The Apostle Paul says that we can do not do anything against the truth (2 Corinthians 3:18). When the truth threatens to lay bare the utilitarian justifications Of Planned Parenthood, when the lie that unborn children are not really human is revealed to be the lie that it is, only one option remains: more deception.

In the video below the President of Planned Parenthood Cecille Richards doubles down on deception. To Planned Parenthood an unborn child suddenly becomes human once you can sell its parts. Now that the lie has been revealed, all that remains is the denial that any parts are sold.

Plannned Parenthood is a business built on blood that self-justifies using the utilitarian logic that abortion is a net social good. This is what happens when dehumanization takes place, when human beings are viewed as commodities, as cogs in a larger machine that exists only to make people like Cecille Richards and her cohorts very, very rich (Richards makes almost half a million dollars a year).

Too much blood. Too much burning of the conscience. Too many children dead that who otherwise would be alive. Too many lies.

It’s time to jail the law breakers and shut Planned Parenthood down.

From The Center for Medical Progress, the producers of the video:

Planned Parenthood senior executives and medical directors told CMP investigators that Planned Parenthood’s abortion providers would be happy to alter their abortion procedures in order to harvest higher-quality baby body parts. The representatives with the most experience harvesting fetal organs, Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola, and Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s Director of Research Melissa Farrell, indicated this already happens at their sites as a routine matter. When Planned Parenthood makes decisions about a woman’s abortion procedure based on what will serve its own tissue procurement needs, it is not treating her like a patient with rights and dignity, but like a harvesting pod.

The harvest and sale of aborted fetal organs and tissues exists to meet the demand for fresh and undamaged body parts, typically from the 2nd trimester of pregnancy. These practical constraints, plus the financial benefits offered by tissue purchasers, create incentives for Planned Parenthood to change their abortion procedures and even use illegal methods like partial-birth abortion to get fresh and intact specimens. In tissue harvesting cases, the absence of feticidal chemicals combined with the active attempt to remove the fetus as intact as possible make it far more likely the fetus may be born alive, only to be vivisected to death for his or her body parts.

Planned Parenthood has never provided any justification or explanation for the admissions of their abortion providers in this footage, because it is simply too damning. State, local, and federal law enforcement must listen to the broad public mandate for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and continue their investigations to criminal prosecution.


  1. I’m troubled by the recent events of the grand jury indictment of the two people who brought those videos to light. They are now being indicted on “tampering with a public record.”

    We’re quickly becoming a nation who transmogrifies the citizens from Human beings to mere organisms. . .

    • I think the indictment of the hoaxsters behind those deceptively edited videos is overdue. They received a “tampering with a public record” charge because they made fake IDs, and it’s a felony charge because they used their fake IDs to defraud Planned Parenthood.

      • Fr. Hans Jacobse :

        You can view all the raw feed on the website. No credible source claims they are “deceptively” edited.

        Planned Parenthood was not “defrauded.” They were exposed selling aborted baby body parts.

        • No, Hans, Planned Parenthood was not exposed “selling aborted baby body parts”. CMP claimed that their videos showed that. But the unedited footage they later posted revealed that they had deliberately edited out parts where Planned Parenthood employees repeatedly speak of “tissue donation”. Because those parts contradicted CMP’s malicious lies.

          The CMP scammers attempted to frame Planned Parenthood for a crime they did not commit. But the only violations of the law their videos actually exposed were those committed by CMP themselves. Eleven states took CMP’s hoax videos seriously enough to investigate, and eleven states cleared Planned Parenthood.

          But you’re still uncritically repeating CMP’s false witness. Don’t participate in their smear campaign.

          • Fr. Hans Jacobse :

            Robin, are you serious? Did you watch to the videos? Lots of talk about hearts, livers, spleens, and so forth. Lots of talk too about performing abortions to make sure the body parts remain intact. That’s a crime, BTW.

            To Planned Parenthood, human body parts are “fetal tissue” until they can make a dollar off them. Then the “fetal tissue” is defined in very human ways. First the abortion, then the sale of the baby parts. It’s a ruthless and bloody business which kills the conscience.

            If the raw video contradicted any of the edited videos, PP would have run point-counter point corrections the next day. They haven’t. Why do you suppose that is?

            • It is still legal to donate tissue from a legally aborted fetus, and for that tissue to be used for medical research. It’s a practice that has led to medical breakthroughs. The 1954 Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded for growing a polio vaccine in extracted fetal kidney cells.

              Planned Parenthood can’t make a dollar off fetal tissue, and doesn’t want to. Indeed, CMP’s “unedited” footage shows a Planned Parenthood exec repeatedly saying they want to cover their costs, not make money. “Nobody should be ‘selling’ tissue. That’s just not the goal here.”

              If you’re looking for counterpoints from Planned Parenthood, just go to their website, where you’ll find press releases like this one:

              But for detailed corrections, Media Matters goes further in depth:

              • Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

                Media Matters? The Planned Parenthood website? Really?

                Planned Parenthood has been caught red handed boasting that they perform abortions so that fetal organs emerge intact. Easier to sell that way. Time for a thorough investigation. Democrats in Congress stymie it because the federal funding going to PP is the same amount as the lobbying cash that flows back into their campaigns. All this is hidden behind euphemisms of course but you can only contain corruption and evil so long.

                Abortions have been going down but PP has managed to increase their market share, mostly by promoting abortion in inner-city neighborhoods. Progressives like it that way. Let progressive ideas destroy the black families and then come in and profit off their demise. Cynical, but then abortion is a bloody business. Rakes in big money though. Richards makes over half a million a year, great defender of woman rights that she claims to be (but no heart for the unborn).

                Rich Lowry in the New York Post:

                The 3 percent factoid is crafted to obscure the reality of Planned Parenthood’s business.

                The group performs about 330,000 abortions a year, or roughly 30 percent of all the abortions in the country. By its own accounting in its 2013-2014 annual report, it provides about as many abortions as Pap tests (380,000). The group does more breast exams and provides more breast-care services (490,000), but not by that much.

                The 3 percent figure is derived by counting abortion as just another service like much less consequential services.

                So abortion is considered a service no different than a pregnancy test (1.1 million), even though a box with two pregnancy tests can be procured from the local drugstore for less than $10.

                By Planned Parenthood’s math, a woman who gets an abortion but also a pregnancy test, an STD test and some contraceptives has received four services, and only 25 percent of them are abortion. This is a little like performing an abortion and giving a woman an aspirin, and saying only half of what you do is abortion.

                Big Abortion is lucrative Robin. Stop hiding behind the euphemisms and progressive ideology. They sell the idea that abortions are humane, necessary, even enlightened social policy. Do you really believe that they are moved by altruism to donate ‘fetal remains’ to science instead of disposing them down the drain if they can cash in on it?

                • Between October 12, 2015 and November 20, 2015, I was hospitalized six separate times hoping to fend off a surgery that was inevitable. I had also just concluded a remedial course in “IRB’s [internal review boards] and the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Research.” The irony of this situation is that, as I sat in a pre-surgical bay, “pre-medicated” with a benzodiazepine to “take the edge off,” a nurse walked in with a clipboard and told me, “I need you sign the consent for surgery” and stood by, waiting. I told her, “You can come back because I intend to examine this thoroughly.” In reading the document, I knew I would reach the statement that began, “Unless otherwise specified, any material removed from your body will become the property of [my surgeon’s medical group].” Unless otherwise specified? No one ever inquired as to my specification. With the pen provided me, I lined out the entire paragraph & wrote a note specifying I did not agree to the terms as presented, and indicated they must contact me. It has not happened, I am presuming, because the hospital depends on electronic records and merely audits the presence of the consent form in a “hybrid” chart of written documents, predominantly legal.

                  So, what is the point? I had a familial, genetically influenced form of colon cancer to which my maternal grandmother succumbed, my mother survived twice, and which I developed at a relatively young age. This fact, I guarantee you, did not escape the data mining of the human parts & specimen brokers who are tracking its whereabouts. Fourteen inches of my sigmoid colon was removed on November 20, 2015. On November 21, 2015, it was well known to cancer researchers and the like. And for all the hype of “medical breakthroughs” and personalized treatment dependent upon the human genome, blah-blah-blah, the baseline medication to treat colon cancer Fluorouracil [5-FU] has been in use since 1957. To be cognizant of the fact that I am “contributor” to this ghoulish and foul business – with total ambivalence to the fact that we cannot abandon medical research in order to survive – is disconcerting. To simply say, “This is abortion, and therefore murder,” or “This is abetting lifesaving research for the most vulnerable and needy” begs the meditation on the houseman left to manage when the Master is away; it’s never simple.

                  • James Bradshaw :

                    Mr Stankovich, forgive me, but I find your posts difficult to decipher.

                    Are you saying that you see no difference between an abortion and a biopsy?

                    • All I’m saying, Mr. Bradshaw, is that there is a moral uproar over the harvesting and preparation of these fetal materials for medical research – and let me be clear that abortion is a horror that cries out to heaven – yet no one is interested in who is purchasing these specimen, and what has been and what will be developed relying upon this abortive material. I personally believe no one wants to know. I have mentioned here a number of times that you cannot procure the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) in the United States – which, ironically, in my home state of CA is mandated by law for children to be admitted to school – that is not derived from the cell line of an aborted fetus. I was told by a pharmaceutical industry representative it is not because of a lack of technology or an overwhelming cost difference to produce an alternative by recombinant DNA. The pharmaceutical companies simply did not want to duplicate their effort, despite efforts, for example, from the Vatican to do so, and stopped. This not a moral & ethical dilemma that responds to “outrage and posturing.” It is extraordinary complicated, but begins with the simplicity of a call for repentance. But apparently we a prophet.

                • Fr. Hans, I agree with you totally. Although I think I read somewhere that abortions have been going down because some states like California no longer maintains abortion statistics. So I’m wondering if abortions are going down at all. And even if they are, isn’t the use of the morning after pill alleviating much of the need for an abortion? Which further devalues human life. . .

      • James Bradshaw :

        Robin, how was PP defrauded? Was something stolen from them? Were they accused of doing something they didn’t do?

        Either way, it seems bizarre to me that one can feel moral outrage about someone using a fake id but not over someone flushing a fetus down the toilet or dismembering it for personal profit. For the record, I don’t think a day-old fertilized egg is a person, but at some point of development, we’re no longer talking about a clump of cells.

        • Then perhaps it will slightly lessen your outrage to learn that Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit organization, has not actually dismembered any fetus “for personal profit”.

          Condemn Planned Parenthood for performing abortions at some of their facilities if you will, but it is unrighteous to spread CMP’s false witness about profiting off fetus parts.

          • James Bradshaw :

            Fair enough. But for supporters of abortion, why would there even be an issue of selling “tissues” besides the fact that there are criminal penalties attached to it? It’s kind of like smoking pot. It’s only bad because it’s illegal, not because there’s anything wrong with smoking pot, per se. PP wouldn’t be selling “body parts” because a fetus (at any stage of development, for some) really isn’t a person. It’s a parasite. So why not change the laws in this regard, too?

          • Fr. Hans Jacobse :

            Depends how you define “personal profit.” Cecile Richard’s pay package reaches almost $600,000. It takes boatloads of abortions to fill that coffer. She is poster girl for Big Abortion. Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Big Abortion.

            I’d like to know what the abortionists featured in the videos are paid.

            • You have lost sight of of the fact that the majority of PP offices do not provide abortion services. All of their offices, however, provide contraceptive information & medications; STD information & treatment; and general gynecological services to those who otherwise could not receive it.

              This grand jury exoneration is the eighth time PP was exonerated in 2015-16 in the US when no wrongdoing was found. In several of the full tapes, the “investigators” literally begged them to sell body parts for exorbitant amounts of money, and they refused, thus the investigations were charged with attempting purchase. What PP is doing is perfectly legal in the US, and if you intend to vilify them, you are obligated to vilify the company that delivers human heads for a weekend workshop on a new cosmetic procedure, and the heads serve as “practice.” Likewise for the company that delivers “mid-legs” to practice new orthopaedic procedures on the knee, pretty much any body part you want for a “rental” fee, delivered to a meeting room at the airport Holiday Inn. Would be as outraged to find that your parent or adult child – who prescribed an anatomical donation be made upon their death – had been beheaded and was being carved at the Marriott? ” Ben Carson defined “Washington ethics” at the last debate as, “If it’s legal, it’s OK to do it.” But we knew that.

              • James Bradshaw :

                Mr Stankovich, I may have missed your point, but there’s a difference between using the bodies of those who chose to do donate them to science upon their natural deaths and using the bodies of those whose lives were taken by others for their own purposes. It’s not a trivial distinction.

                • Mr. Bradshaw,

                  It is a legally protected right in the United States to to personally seek, and for others to perform surgical abortions and to offer fetal parts and tissue specimen to researchers for the cost of preparing the specimen for delivery. The matter of who took whose life and for what purpose is moot, and as a matter of law, and morality – at least as we understand it – should play no role, nor is allowed to influence “triers of fact.” You certainly recall the blindfolded lady holding the scale of justice that decorates so many of our legal institutions, no? In my mind, this make the distinction you note downright pointless. And it’s not as if no one cares; but the fact is – as I noted below – it seems very few are willing to stand up to the feminists, the LGBT movement, and pretty much anyone else who express “outrage” to protect their neck from what I described below as “the current cultural victimization paradigm.”

                  As near as I can tell, Mr. Bradshaw, the Lord spoke very clearly that “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matt. 11:12) The phrase “the violent take it by force” [βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν] literally means that one “grabs it like a wolf” (i.e. with all the cunning and resolve, derived from the ancient Greek ἁρπάζω – and the only instance of this term in the New Testament), and quite literally, acting with all the force and violence that the motivation to accomplish one’s resolve entails. Conversely, I am not able to find a single reward for cowardice, and it seems to be going around like the Zika virus.

  2. M. Stankovich :

    Honestly, I am astonished you didn’t see this Grand Jury decision coming. The SCOTUS is currently refusing the state’s appeals to establish and/or reinstate older legislation attempting to limit “medical” abortions, which seems to express “writing on the wall” that there is no mandate to continue to investigate abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood, if only because there is no evidence they violated the law. Undoubtedly, they will successfully incorporate this legal “victory” into the current war of gender-distinctive “rights,” the war on “misogyny,” and the war on “male privilege.” Nothing plays to the current cultural victimization paradigm than “triggers” of “injustice” and perceived marginalization. What are lost – quite obviously – are the larger moral questions of abortion and the procurement of human specimen for medical research, but isn’t this an old game, after all? This, as I have mentioned many times, leads us to the new quicksand which begins with the words, “I am outraged.”

    I keep asking myself when Orthodox Christians will finally figure out that rhetoric, posturing, and “outrage” are are astonishingly ineffective in addressing the moral catastrophes of our time. Nineveh was spared by action: torn garments, dust & ashes, and bended knees. Nineveh had a king who believed the mind of the Lord could be changed – an outrageous belief, contrary to the word of the prophet – and, indeed, the Lord was moved to “repent” of His decision. Today, there are few outrageous voices of believers – many of whom are scorned for their “zeal” – who rely on the Scripture, the Fathers, and the Holy Tradition, yet the demonstratively ineffective tactic of “outrage” is deafening.

    • Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

      Michael, no astonishment needed. The grand jury is merely a ploy to discredit the messenger. The narrative claiming the videos were doctored doesn’t play since everyone has access to them, so this is the next step. It was simply a matter of finding a local prosecutor who would take it on. The same Texas office has another prosecutor who sits on the board of the local Planned Parenthood, and the prosecutor who got the indictment receives campaign funds from another lawyer who represents a late-term abortionist. This entire affair emits the noxious odor of pro-abortion ideology. I think the prosecutor would like to force a plea-bargain because it gives Planned Parenthood enough political cover to attack CMP’s credibility in order to restore theirs. It’s a lie of course but short of authentic repentance, Planned Parenthood has no recourse but to double down on the lie.

      As for the “moral catastrophes of our time,” you are on the right trajectory. Abortion is merely a way to destroy the masculine. How so? In order to destroy the masculine, you first have to destroy the feminine. What better way to abolish feminine identity but to reduce the unborn child to a commodity and thus reduce childbearing to a utilitarian function?

      And what is the energy driving the deconstruction? Hatred of the unseen hierachies and the God who made them. Did you catch this interview with the aging feminist matriarch Gloria Steinem? Two points to highlight: 1) her hatred of monotheism; and 2) the most garbled and confused defense of Mohammed as feminine liberator.

      • James Bradshaw :

        “Abortion is merely a way to destroy the masculine. ”

        You lost me on that one. It reads to me as if the emasculation of men is somehow a more egregious offense than infanticide. This sounds upside down.

        If by emasculation you mean it leads to moral cowardice or apathy, then I’d only assert that these traits are hardly gender-specific. There are, after all, many female Christian martyrs who displayed the fortitude of men.

        • Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

          The energy behind the defense of infanticide as a social and even necessary good is demonic. It affects the soul and thus the mind. The spiritual character of that energy however has a larger goal than merely the destruction of human progeny. It strikes at the core of human anthropology and seeks to twist the human person into something he is not. Human personhood draws its being and substance in something more than biology and is defined by things higher than social function. It draws from unseen realities. It is those realities that the energies seek not only to obscure, but destroy.

          Abortion ideologues carry that hatred of humanity and thus the unseen realities which define what man really is, although not with the awareness that I describe it here. Steinem, unwittingly for the most past, revealed. “Monotheism” is the problem she said and, from her point of view — which borders on radical nihilism although of the kind rewarded in places where she lives apparently — it is. Those who value life however see it for what it is — the destruction of the ground from which good flows.

          God is neither male of female but we refer to him as He. The masculine pronoun exists to distinguish that his manner of creation is replicated nowhere in creation. Yet he is Creator, the one who gives and sustains all life. Within the creation women do that so first that value must be destroyed. Next comes the masculine, the destruction of the pronoun so that finally they can destroy God or, failing at that, at least obliterate Him from the cultural memory.

          This is what the struggle is really about my friend.

          • So how would you define personhood?

            Philosopher Charles Taylor wrote, “A person is a being who has a sense of self, has a notion of the future and the past, can hold values, make choices; in short, can adopt life-plans.” But that definition might not suit you, because it does not encompass brainless zygotes.

            • The definition of personhood by Taylor is self serving to the modernist religion. It is defined by power – power over “self” through “choices”. Of course modernists themselves are not consistent, because if Taylor had a 2 year old and I came along and murdered the child, he would of course not say “well, she was not a “person” because her sense of self was not practical and she made no plans for her future”. Nope, he would testify at my trial that a person (one he loved) had indeed been killed (unjustly, thus my deserved criminal prosecution).

              This modern psychological self based on radical free “choice” is a very modern notion (not really possible until modern psychological notions of self – Freud is of course a central figure). It is also repugnant in reality, because even modern believers don’t really hold to it as they rightly see something more valuable in a person (such as a young child) than the mere ability to “plan” for the future.

              Personhood in allmost all the worlds major religions and philosophical systems (past or present) begins at conception. Even the ones with slavery recognized the person of the slave (thus they could purchase their freedom and be regular citizens, or have it granted by the king, etc.) Modernism of course being one of the few exceptions, which only points to how dark and murderous it truly is and explains why the murder of the young and old and sick come so readily to it…

              • Regarding Taylor’s Catholic modernism, I cannot speak to that.

                When personhood begins is a separate question from what personhood actually means.

                If infants are only potential persons, that does mean that infants don’t have moral status or rights. Same if patients in vegetative states are potential people, and so forth. But then the foundation of such rights would be something other than personhood per se.

                • “Catholic modernism”

                  That is a sort of LOL moment. What does one do with a mishmash – an incoherent and obviously false (attempted) synthesis of two deeply incompatible philosophies like “Catholicism” (i.e classical Christianity) and “modernism”? Well, one just has to sort of shrug and see the foolishness of it. One does not have to scratch the surface but just a little bit to see this. That said, it was in the fires of Scholasticism that nominalism (and thus modernism) was born.

                  “When personhood begins is a seperate question from what personhood actually means…But then the foundation of such rights would be something other than personhood per se.”

                  On a technically semantic level there is a truth here. Obviously, what is not a person is not a person, and vice versa. Of course, that is not where the disagreement between modernism and well, just about everyone else lies. Christianity (or Judiasm or Islam or Platonism or pre-moden western philosophy or fill-in-the-blank) is of course not semantically empty or contradictory.

                  Like a good modern, you have have quickly reduced the question to “rights” and something called “the foundation” of them. I will give you a hint: in Christianity, a “person” is a Reality (this is hard to grasp because you are a nominalist) that comes before (i.e. is a “foundation”) anything in the political realm (i.e. such things as “rights”). This will be very difficult for you to grasp, because in nominalism a Real Person does not and indeed can not even exist (it is literally a philosophical impossibility). To a modern the question of the political is where you begin (and end) to think about and investigate personhood – in other words a person is a political creation. Thus it is all about Will and Power (or in the language being used here “choice”, “planning”, etc.). At least Nietzsche was honest about this, too bad his intellectual descendants are not…

                  No doubt this is all a bit confusing to you – a number of posters here can point you to a reading list if you wish to understand basic Christian anthropology (or any anthropology besides modernism).

                  • You’re the one who brought up modernist religion. Wikipedia has an article on what modernism means in Roman Catholicism. But I gather that was not what you meant.

                    I don’t know anything about Charles Taylor’s religious beliefs other than that he’s Catholic, and cannot respond to your presumptions about him.

                    I’m afraid you’ve lost me with your digressions about nominalism and Nietzsche. I’ll pass on the reading list, thanks. Though I’m pretty interested in social science, I’m more interested in the anthropology that deals with things that exist in reality.

  3. Michael Bauman :

    What ever the legalities or philosophical justification one need not look any further than that abortionist response to a Doritos commercial during the Super Bowl. Because the commercial depicted an unborn child desiring the Doritos his father was holding; Doritos was lambasted for the horrendous crime of “humanizing the fetus”.

    Oh the inhumanity!

    This despite the fact that Doritos was dehumanizing the child by defining the child as a ravenous consumer. That was not enough dehumanization for the killer elite.

  4. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    This despite the fact that Doritos was dehumanizing the child by defining the child as a ravenous consumer. That was not enough dehumanization for the killer elite.

    This is a very good point. The deadly irony in the commercial is that the portrayal of the unborn child as consumer is precisely the mentality the informs abortion ideology, ie: the child as consumer item to be discarded at will.

    And yes, abortion ideology is aggressively anti-life that they object to any humanization of the unborn child. They can’t deny the self-evident truth revealed through a sonogram so they demand that the sonogram not be shown.

Care to Comment?