It’s “no different from the way lawyers might talk to each other about a case or detectives about a crime”

By Dave Andrusko

Dr-Nucatola-week-after-img   Thanks to those kind readers who wrote back to respond to “Five Takeaways from Cecile Richards interview with George Stephanopoulos.” As I tried to make clear, I could have pointed out five more examples of the attempt by the president of Planned Parenthood to skirt the serious questions raised by the Center for Medical Progress’s undercover videos.

We can also anticipate that new questions will arise as the CMP continues to release videos and as (we hope) PPFA officials are required to give briefings to congressional staffers. Which is simply to say that blanket denials by Richards may not prove to be a completely accurate portrait of what is actually taking place.

Stay tuned.

I’d like to briefly revisit something we’ve talked about yesterday: the moral equivalency pro-abortionists make between ordinary surgery and surgery that takes the life of an unborn baby.

All surgery is bloody and abortion is surgery. So, the Abortion Industry asks, if no one gets upset by removing a gall bladder, why get upset if an unborn baby is removed in parts—or intact?

I read a variation of this avoidance technique yesterday in an editorial that ran in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald. The headline tells you where the editorial is headed: “An alleged exposé of Planned Parenthood really shows how low its opponents will go.”

So avoidance technique #1. The videos don’t reveal anything negative about PPFA. It is the CMP who is at fault for (pardon me if you’ve heard this before) the “heavily edited” videos. Never mind that the first two videos had both a full transcript and the full videos available at the same time the shorter videos ran. (Not everyone is going to watch a 2 ½ hour video.)

But the following two paragraphs gave even someone like me–who reads tons of what pro-abortionists say–pause.

What we do see is a doctor talking about the human body and a medical procedure in the matter-of-fact way that professionals use when they talk about their work.

It may sound coarse and unfeeling, but its no different from the way lawyers might talk to each other about a case or detectives about a crime. A little professional detachment is not a sign of malice — its a necessary discipline that permits people to put aside their emotions and focus on their jobs, which, in this case, was helping advance medical research.

(And no, I did not make this up.)

Sure it may sound “course and unfeeling” but it’s all in the service of  “Professional detachment”; “Necessary discipline”; “Put[ting] aside  “emotions”; and ““Advan[cing] medical research.”

Having carefully (if that’s the right word) aborted the unborn child so as to have intact organs when the baby is dead, you subsequently manipulate women into “donating” their baby’s organs. And you do this all for
“helping advance medical research”?

Does anybody not working for PPFA or running interference for them in the public square possible believe this? Of course not.

Lesson? Defenders of abortion on demand are getting more and more desperate.