This has to be one of the most bind boggling stories I have ever read. To be an abortionist is odd, being proud of your work slaughtering innocent children is extremely disturbing and then to be a black man is horrifying.
Abortionist Willie Parker Aborts Up to 45 Babies a Day and Claims to be a Christian
Dave Andrusko Feb 22, 2017 Washington, DC
We’re nearing the end of the day, and as promised earlier, I did want to talk about the interview the New York Times Magazine conducted with itinerant abortionist, Willie Parker.
As you need to know about the magazine’s motivation is in the headline: “Willie J. Parker Changed His Mind About Abortion.” Of course, it goes without saying (since Ana Marie Cox is writing for the New York Times Magazine), Parker’s “conversion” is from “someone who, for religious reasons, didn’t want to provide abortion” to becoming a practicing abortionist who flies into a location and takes the lives of up to 45 babies in a single day.
The name of his book? “Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice.”
So why is Parker so popular with pro-abortion publications and pro-abortion writers? He is African-American, which allows him to analogize (falsely and maliciously) opposition to “feminism, reproductive justice and gender equality” to support for slavery. (Parker tells us he “comes from a heritage of people who know what it’s like to have your life controlled by somebody else.”)
That the unborn child has his or her life “controlled by someone else”; and that (when the baby is a girl) she has no “gender equality” is too mundane for the saintly Mr. Parker.
What else? Parker’s a spiritual sort of guy whose reverse Road to Damascus experience came when he overcame “a religious understanding that left me unable to help women when I felt deeply for their situation.”
Indeed lopping off the heads and crushing the torsos of tiny babies allowed him to overcome a kind of paralysis. It is fair to conclude that becoming an abortionist was a kind of second, second birth: “It felt as life-altering for me to move from being unable to do abortions to being able to do them as it did to move from being a nonbeliever to becoming a believer.”
Take that all you crazy Christians who oppose abortion!
The interview covers some of the same terrain other interviews with Parker have walked. For example, Cox asks about how Parker “talks about ‘verbicaine’ during procedures, or conversations with patients in which you try to lighten the mood.”
Parker offers one of his off-the-rack explanations for this gibberish. But if you read the interview he gave Esquire magazine’s John Richardson , what comes through is that Parker’s “verbicaine” is intended to enable many women to keep submerged a central truth in their lives that keeps trying to surface: what they are about to do violates something at their very core.
There are a few shots at “elite white women and the sacralization of motherhood,” which is apparently a topic in his book, and at the very idea that Planned Parenthood and other “providers” would target poor women of color.
Needless to say, there is nothing about the warp speed with which Parker practices his grisly trade. He aborts and aborts and aborts some more with assembly-line like efficiency.
And, of course, nothing about the “moral choice” of late-late abortions.
Sarah Kliff, then of the Washington Post, began a highly sympathetic 2012 interview with Parker, describing him as “a doctor who has performed late-term abortions.” If you read other stories, Parker freely acknowledges performing abortions at 24 weeks, 6 days…and beyond.
Willie Parker: African-American, man of faith, a convert to the cause of equality for women–the total package, the kind that readers of the New York Times Magazine devour and by which they are made to feel superior.
That all this is in service of a man who thinks that opposition to abortion, ultimately, “comes back to the early Judeo-Christian narratives that say the fall of man was caused by a woman,” as he told Richardson. “That’s woven into our culture, and it has to be deconstructed at every level.”
So at the end of Richardson’s story when Parker matter-of-factly points out the aborted baby’s skull and eyes and the beginnings of a spinal cord, the nausea you and I experience is not a reflection of our revulsion and our common humanity but actually a reflection of how we blame Eve for everything.
No wonder the New York Times Magazine loves him.
This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today - an online column on pro-life issues.
Another description about race - http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/
Snoopes has long been held by many as a source for a story’s authenticity. How sad this provides more evidence they are going beeper down the rabbit hole.
Snopes Defends Planned Parenthood, Falsely Claims Abortion Biz Offers Prenatal Care
Micaiah Bilger Feb 22, 2017 Washington, DC
Sometimes even the fact checkers need fact checked.
The pro-abortion bias of the popular fact checking website Snopes came through recently when it claimed pro-lifers are wrong to say Planned Parenthood lied about providing prenatal care.
Snopes rated the claim “mostly false,” arguing that Planned Parenthood never said it provides prenatal care at all its centers. It also claims Planned Parenthood leaders did not emphasize prenatal care as a primary service, and pro-lifers took their comments out of context.
The fact check is based on a new Live Action investigation showing employees at the Planned Parenthood abortion business denying women prenatal care. At 92 of the 97 facilities investigators contacted, prenatal care was not something the clinics offered. The ones that did offered only very limited prenatal services or referrals to non-Planned Parenthood facilities.
Reports soon after the initial investigation broke also revealed that many Planned Parenthood facilities – including every single one in Pennsylvania – advertised prenatal services online but did not actually provide them. As a result of the sting, dozens of the abortion group’s facilities removed “prenatal” services from their websites, LifeNews reported.
The Snopes report does not mention this, and instead defends Planned Parenthood by picking apart the specific words and quotes used in the Live Action video, “The Prenatal Care Deception.”
According to its “fact check”:
These [Live Action] calls were framed by two misleading and out-of-context quotes from Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards present in an attempt to make it seem as if her organization was falsely touting the number of prenatal care services they provide.
This video quotes snippets of Richards’ saying: “Prenatal care. These are the kinds of services that folks depend on Planned Parenthood for,” and “a president who will fight for pre-natal care!” We could not find the specific origins of the first snippet, but it’s clear that Richards was listing several services that Planned Parenthood provides (and not claiming they offer only or primarily prenatal care), as she said “these are the kinds of services that folks depend on planned Parenthood for. But Live Action apparently omitted the first portion of her statement.
In her remarks Snopes cites, the Planned Parenthood CEO clearly claimed that prenatal care is a regular part of the services Planned Parenthood supposedly offers — even though that’s untrue at virtually all Planned Parenthood centers. The remarks came during a 2011 rally with pro-abortion Congresswomen Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, and Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, and others.
Richards said, “Breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings, prenatal care – these are the kinds of services that folks depend on Planned Parenthood for.” But people don’t depend on Planned Parenthood for prenatal care since virtually none is offered to pregnant women.
During a March 24, 2011 interview with C-Span, Richards again defended Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding by claiming several times that it provides prenatal care to expecting moms.
Richards, who earns nearly $1 million a year, made a similar statement again last year when Ohio pro-life Gov. John Kasich signed a bill to defund Planned Parenthood.
“This legislation will have devastating consequences for women across Ohio,” Richards said in a statement to Vox. “John Kasich is proudly eliminating care for expectant mothers and newborns. He is leaving thousands without vital STD and HIV testing, slashing a program to fight domestic violence, and cutting access to essential, basic health care.”
Snopes also claims other Planned Parenthood quotes in the Live Action video also were taken out of context, simply because they did not include the speakers’ references to the other non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood offers.
The context of these quotes is important since Live Action shared this video with the title “the Prenatal Care Deception.” In order to set up the “deception,” Live Action needed to try to establish that Planned Parenthood supposedly unjustly bragged about the prominence of their prenatal care services before offering supposed audio recordings of calls with Planned Parenthood representatives who stated that the organization did not in fact provide these services.
Snopes then attempts to debunk this by presenting numbers from Planned Parenthood’s 2014-2015 annual report. But these numbers show the exact opposite of the argument that Snopes attempts to make in defense of Planned Parenthood.
The numbers clearly show that for pregnant women, abortion is Planned Parenthood’s No. 1 service by a huge margin. According to its most recent annual report, Planned Parenthood did 323,999 abortions and provided 17,419 prenatal services.
Previous analyses of Planned Parenthood reports found at least 90 percent of its services to pregnant women in recent years have been abortions (contrasted with prenatal services and adoption referrals).
Snopes seems to go out of its way to defend the abortion group. But it’s clear from the recently scrubbed websites, the statements by Planned Parenthood leaders through the years and the abortion group’s own annual reports that it deceived the American people about its prenatal services.
Originally from here - http://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/22/snopes-defends-planned-parenthood-falsely-claims-abortion-biz-offers-prenatal-care/
Dangerous times, very dangerous times indeed.
Scientists are Making Human-Pig Hybrids for Organ Transplants That Could Develop Into “Monsters”
Micaiah Bilger Feb 22, 2017 | 12:38PM Washington, DC
The recent creation of animal-human hybrids is stirring up ethical questions about the value and definition of human life.
In January, scientists announced that they successfully created the first human-pig hybrid, a living pig embryo injected with human cells.
National Geographic reports researchers at Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California said they implanted the living pig-human embryos, or chimeras, in adult pigs’ wombs and allowed them to grow between three and four weeks. Later, the scientists said they removed the creatures, which then died, and studied them. Reports say the chimeras were pigs but had some human characteristics.
The researchers’ goal is to use chimeras to grown human organs for transplant using the patient’s own cells. They said this process could grow organs quickly and reduce the chance of the patient’s body rejecting the organ because it is grown using their own cells.
The research team said they have a long way to go before this becomes a reality, but their experiment already is raising many ethical concerns.
Kevin LeRoy, deputy solicitor general for Wisconsin, wrote a column for The Federalist this week questioning whether creating and killing a living creature with human characteristics is OK.
Jun Wu, a lead study author, told National Geographic that the researchers created 186 later-stage pig-human embryos that survived until removed from the womb.
“… we estimate [each had] about one in 100,000 human cells,” Wu said.
But at what point is the hybrid creature human, and is it ok to kill such a being? LeRoy pondered.
[O]ur researcher friends seem to have given short shrift to preliminary question. Imagine, instead of announcing they have created a mostly pig chimera, our researchers had announced the creation of a chimera comprising a single pig cell in an otherwise all-human-cell body. They then detailed their plan to gestate this mostly human chimera for nine months, mature it for 18 years, and then to promptly harvest its organs.
Such an announcement would not be warmly received. Indeed, I expect we would respond with condemnation. If this expectation were true, then it seems we should have answered the following question before we traveled down the chimera rabbit hole: how much of a human can a creature be before it is a human?
LeRoy argued that the number of cells alone should not determine a human-hybrid’s worth, writing:
Yet to draw this line, we cannot simply rely on the number of human cells in the chimera—as in, the more human cells the creature has, the more human it is. In other circumstances the mere number of cells in a creature doesn’t make it more or less of what it is. A fertilized human egg is an individual human, despite the fact that this human is, for a short time, only one cell.
LeRoy said he does not have the answers, but he argued that these ethical puzzles should be examined more thoroughly before experimenting continues, not after.
“When we are faced with such a grave question—’When exactly is the object of our manipulation a beast and when is it a brother?’—acting before answering is not the correct response, even when the benefits are extraordinary,” LeRoy wrote.
Project leader Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte basically admitted to having similar concerns in a statement in the India Times:
Concerns have been expressed over the ethics of this experiment and anxiety over what animals with human brains mean to society. Belmonte said, “The idea of having an animal being born composing of human cells creates some feelings that need to be addressed. Not everything that science can do we should do. We are not living in a niche lab, we live with other people – and society needs to decide what can be done. Our next challenge is to improve efficiency and guide the human cells into forming a particular organ in pigs.”
Bioethicist Wesley Smith previously warned about experiments with human-animal hybrids and scientists who police themselves, because they sometimes throw ethics and a respect for human life out the window.
Original article found here - http://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/22/scientists-are-making-human-pig-hybrids-for-organ-transplants-that-could-develop-into-monsters/
Is it possible for a pregnant mother to be an abortionist? Apparently anything is possible in today’s world.
Planned Parenthood Abortion Doc is 7 Months Pregnant, But Kills Babies Up to 24 Weeks in Abortions
Randall O’Bannon, Ph.D. Feb 22, 2017 Washington, DC
This article is a follow-up to “Planned Parenthood Kills 323,999 Babies in Abortions, Provides Only 17,419 Moms Prenatal Care.”
Another video features Dr. Sierra Washington, identified as a “pregnant provider” in her seventh month, who says that “I love taking care of patients. I mean that’s why I’m a doctor.”
At Planned Parenthood’s Pacific Southwest affiliate (PPPSW) “taking care of patients” includes abortion, contraceptives, and hysterectomies, but not birthing or prenatal care. With clinics in San Diego and Riverside offering abortions at up to 24 weeks, there’s a good chance that Dr. Washington was aborting babies very close to the age of her own child.
Dr. Washington says that when a woman asks her if her child is a girl or a boy, “It’s an acknowledgment that as women, we have these complicated choices.” It is unclear what she means.
Is she saying that “complicated choices” lead to one unborn baby being allowed to live while the other, identical in its humanity, is sentenced to die? Or that it is complicated for her to abort a baby just as alive as the one growing inside her?
Another short film features “Adeline” (who we met in Part One), this time talking about the name she gave her son. Ultimately, she gave him the name “Gray,” explaining that “In my experience it’s possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life. Life isn’t always as simple as black or white.”
Maybe life isn’t, but there is still a huge difference between being alive or aborted. There’s no “gray” area there.
(And how would you like growing up knowing that your mom immortalized in your name the idea that she wasn’t sure whether you should have been born or not?)
When the undercover videos from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) came out in the summer of 2015, Planned Parenthood complained that footage clearly showing its executives haggling with actors portraying tissue brokers over reimbursement rates for fetal tissue from aborted babies was “heavily edited” to remove scenes where these same executives supposedly showed that profit was not their motive.
This complaint completely and conveniently ignored (or intentionally shifted the focus away from) the cruel things Planned Parenthood did to babies they aborted and the callous way they talked about harvesting the parts of healthy children that had only hours before been growing safely in their mother’s wombs.
Talk about “heavy editing.” How about what is on display in these short films and commercials?
In these films, Planned Parenthood tries to present its employees as self-sacrificing patriots, offering a wide variety of health services, to patients of a diverse spectrum of men, women, races, religions. It even tries to argue that one can be pro-life and still support Planned Parenthood’s mission to kill some 330,000 unborn babies each year.
Reality says otherwise.
Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion performer and promoter. Abortion is not some benign “choice” but the killing of innocent human beings. There is no “gray” area.
Contrary to the commercials, the ones who make the ultimate sacrifice at Planned Parenthood are not the abortionists or the clinicians, but the unborn children whose very lives are sacrificed for the twisted abomination of “freedom” to abort.
Planned Parenthood talks about being an “exceptional health care provider” and giving women a full range or “choices.” But beyond birth control, testing for STDs, some limited cancer screening, and pregnancy tests, they don’t offer a lot. Rarely, if ever, does Planned Parenthood offer women prenatal care (none currently listed at PPPSW) and certainly no birthing services, no matter what their commercial implies.
Planned Parenthood exploits teens and poor minorities, telling them PPFA’s “services” offer them hope and “opportunity.” But the country is still looking for any community “revitalized” by the presence of an abortion clinic.
Numbers tell the real story
In her video profile, Yulinda, the young Hispanic “spiritual” Catholic woman offers what is obviously meant to be the theme of the series. At Planned Parenthood, she notes, “It’s not all about abortion. That’s not all they do.”
That is true, to a point. Planned Parenthood does offer other services, and its outreach to men shows they are attempting to expand their clientele to increase revenues.
But abortion is the huge moneymaker.
PPPSW’s latest annual report says that they performed 16,079 abortions in 2016, out of 277,847 total patient visits. This represents 5.8% of its total services (which puts a birth control patch or pills on par with a surgical abortion costing many times more).
Note, this is already nearly twice the “3%” figure the national office usually claims as abortion’s percentage of services across the country. However, like that painfully contrived 3% number, this is extremely misleading.
The 16,079 abortions, if paid for at the going national rate for first trimester surgical abortions, would represent more than $7.5 million. That alone would represent nearly 13% of PPPSW entire revenues ($58.9M) for Fiscal Year 2016.
This likely is an underestimation. Generally more expensive chemical abortions represent about 44% of PPPSW’s abortion business and we know that PPPSW advertises and presumably performs considerably more expensive late abortions up to 24 weeks.
In any case, this is no minor product sideline for Planned Parenthood.
It is certainly more profitable than the money that they earned from the 320 “permanent birth control procedures” (vasectomies) they performed – the only surgical procedure they offered men.
With the state of California in some way responsible for up to 67% of PPPSW’s revenues (24% through Medi-Cal and Managed Medi-Cal, 43% through Family PACT), young, poor Californians are particularly susceptible to image and advertising, which PPPSW is happy to deliver.
PPPSW is especially anxious that teens and the YouTube generation get the message. In fact, PPSWP goes as far as to point out that “Under California law, minors can access reproductive health care, obtain birth control, and receive abortion services without parental notification or parental consent.”
There are more Planned Parenthood clinics in California than in any other state in the U.S. Small wonder, then, that there are more abortions performed there and that it has one of the highest abortion rates in the country.
These videos are supposed to help Planned Parenthood maintain and grow that market.
LifeNews.com Note: Randall O’Bannon, Ph.D., is the director of education and research for the National Right to Life Committee. This column originally appeared at NRL News Today.
Most ignorant claims of the century and I have read/heard some clinically insane ones! Secondly, if you don’t want to have any kids, do NOT partake in an activity known to create life. Wait I know now, she has to convince herself that being selfish was “acceptable.”
Woman Defends Aborting Two Babies: “I Talked to the Babies and I Felt the Babies Understood”
Sarah Terzo Feb 22, 2017 Washington, DC
A woman talking about her 2nd abortion said :
“But I really feel good that I made the decision, not to have the baby. Again, I pretty much had made my decision, talked to myself, you know, constantly, talked to my sister, talked to the baby. ‘Cause I definitely believe that when you get pregnant, I don’t care if it is just a little … little form there… It feels, picks up on the vibes. I really do believe that. So it was important for me to let the baby know that. It just wasn’t a good idea to have another baby right now. Not this time in my life. That it was time for me to get on to other things that I have to do for me. Both times I felt that the baby understood that wasn’t the right time for it to come.”
Did her babies really “understand” and accept the fact that they was going to be torn limb from limb in an abortion?
If the baby could think and perceive [as the woman believed], do you really think he or she would understand and accept their fate?
From Sumi Hoshiko, Our Choices: Women’s Personal Decisions about Abortion (New York: Harrington Park Press, 1993), p. 89.
LifeNews.com Note: Sarah Terzo is a pro-life liberal who runs ClinicQuotes.com, a web site devoted to exposing the abortion industry. She is a member of the pro-life groups Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians and Secular Pro-Life.
Article from here - http://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/22/woman-defends-aborting-two-babies-i-talked-to-the-babies-and-i-felt-the-babies-understood/