Posted on 07/29/2015 7:06:26 AM PDT by NYer
Today’s New York Times report on the sale of fetal tissue is the journalistic equivalent of a diet pill: a “news” story designed not to satisfy, but to suppress, the reader’s appetite for information.
Let’s start with the photo at the top, because although it is not part of the story, it sets the tone. It’s a shot of a woman, standing alone in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic, saying the Rosary. But wait; she couldn’t be alone, because the caption says she is a participant in an “anti-abortion rally.” So we know the photo was taken to catch her in isolation.
Read the caption:
Mary Roy of Potosi, Mo., at an anti-abortion rally last week outside a Planned Parenthood building in St. Louis. Planned Parenthood's procedures for providing fetal tissue to researchers have drawn the attention of Congress.
Notice anything funny about that caption? The first sentence has nothing to do with the second sentence. But then, the photo has nothing to do with the news story, either. Mary Roy is not part of this story, nor is the rally she attended. This story is about Planned Parenthood, and the sale of fetal tissue.
So why run that photo? Because it sends a subliminal message. These are the people Planned Parenthood is up against: people who don’t notice that they’re isolated (by the camera’s lens); people with grim faces and rosary beads in their hands. So different from the chic, perky representatives of Planned Parenthood!
There’s another illustration for the story: a picture of human fetal tissue under a microscope. It looks like… nothing. Or maybe like a canvas painted by an abstract expressionist. But it definitely does not look like a baby. A photo of a newly dismembered fetus, ready to be harvested for vital organs, would have sent a very different message.
The main message of the Times piece is that the harvesting of fetal tissues promotes medical research. Scientists “say it is an invaluable tool for certain types of research, including the study of eye diseases, diabetes and muscular dystrophy.” Moreover, researchers have been using fetal tissue “for decades,” the Times reminds us.
What’s missing from this report is a list of the medical breakthroughs that have been achieved by the use of fetal tissue. That’s because there have been no breakthroughs. After “decades” of research, supported by millions of government dollars, we’re still waiting for the first major cure.
Eye tissue from fetuses has played a crucial role in studies aimed at finding treatments for degenerative diseases of the retina that are a major cause of vision loss in people as they age, …
See? There it is again. Fetal tissue plays a role in research aimed at finding treatments. Where are those treatments? How many more unborn children must be dissected before we can expect results?
Of course, even if there were medical breakthroughs, the harvesting of organs from unborn children would be morally repugnant. But the Times story is building a case for the practice, signaling readers that it is important, for the benefit of mankind, to continue the trade.
Needless to say, this Times report appears today only because the undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress have caused a furor, exposing the ghoulish profiteering by Planned Parenthood clinics. Even the Times concedes that the sale of fetal tissues takes place “in a gray zone, legally.”
Federal law says they cannot profit from the tissue itself, but the law does not specify how much they can charge for processing and shipping.
If this were a story about any other industry, the Times would observe that the law is toothless, and call for reform. But since the story involves the abortion industry, the reporters are tame. They report that some companies buy fetal tissues from Planned Parenthood:
Those companies pay small fees, usually $100 or less a specimen, to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, who say they charge only what they need to cover their expenses.
Remember that this story was written in response to the undercover videos, in which Planned Parenthood official haggled over the prices for fetal organs, and said quite openly that they wanted to be paid more than their expenses. The most recent video shows a price list—with quite a few items listed for well over $100. This information was all readily available, yet the Times reporters ignored it.
The Times piece becomes nearly comical when it introduces Cate Dyer, the founder of Stem Express, the tissue-procurement company that was the focus of today’s undercover video release.
She agreed to be interviewed on the condition that she not be asked about the congressional investigation into her company’s partnership with Planned Parenthood. Her lawyer and a crisis communication expert were present on the telephone interview.
Neither the lawyer not the “crisis communication expert” could have been displeased with the bland paragraphs that follow, describing the work of Stem Express. The crucial point has already been made, and passed over lightly: a key player refused to discuss the controversy that prompted the news report. The Times did not press the issue.
And what about the Center for Medical Progress, the folks who broke the story? The Times story contains not a word from them. Did they refuse to talk without a lawyer present? Were they unavailable for comment? It’s standard journalistic practice, when a subject declines an interview, to mention that fact in the story. But the Times reporters do not say that they were unsuccessful in obtaining an interview with the Center for Medical Progress. It makes you wonder whether they tried.
Catholic ping!
In an essay in his 1976 collection, “Mortal Lessons,” the physician, Richard Selzer, describes a strange suburban scene. People go outside in the morning in his neighborhood, after the garbage trucks have passed, and find “a foreignness upon the pavement,” a softness underfoot.
Looking down, Dr Selzer first thinks he sees oversize baby birds, then rubber baby dolls, until the realization comes that the street is littered with the tiny, naked, all-too-human bodies of aborted fetuses.
Later, the local hospital director speaks to Dr Selzer, trying to impose order on the grisly scene. It was an accident, ofcourse: The tiny corpses were accidentally “mixed up with the other debris” instead of being incinerated or interred. “It is not an everyday occurrence. Once in a lifetime, he says.”
And Dr Selzer tries to nod along: “Now you see. It is orderly. It is sensible. The world is not mad. This is still a civilized society."
“But just this once, you know it isn’t. You saw, and you know.”
But the reluctance to look closely doesn’t change the truth of what there is to see. Those were dead human beings on Richard Selzer’s street 40 years ago, and these are dead human beings being discussed on video today:
Human beings that the nice, idealistic medical personnel at Planned Parenthood have spent their careers crushing, evacuating, and carving up for parts. (Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ....
The left will willingly distort the truth to please militant fangtooth feminazis.
============================================
The Clintons "forgot" to mention opening
the gates to the trafficking in baby body parts.
(1999 EXCERPT--WND.COM). Then-Pres Clinton is credited w/ opening up the market in fetal body parts. Since Clinton signed the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, “fetal-tissue research” has expanded into a federally subsidized multi-million dollar industry of selling human spare parts salvaged from abortions.
For example, the NIH budgeted $21 million in fiscal year 1999 for grants and awards for fetal tissue research. At the University of Washington, the NIH subsidizes the central laboratory for human embryology.
According to a lab notice obtained by WorldNetDaily, it “can supply tissue from normal or abnormal embryos and fetuses of desired gestational ages between 40 days to term. Specimens are obtained within minutes of passage, and tissues are aseptically identified, staged, and immediately processed according to the requirements of individual investigators.” The notice is signed by Alan G. Fantel of the department of pediatrics.
At the time, two organizations that profited from this growth industry were (the now defunct) Opening Lines, a business formerly located in West Frankfort, Illinois...... and Anatomic Gift Foundation, headquartered in Laurel, Maryland.
Opening Lines gives credit to President Clinton for opening up the lucrative business in fetal tissue trade.
According to Opening Lines, on January 22, 1993, Clinton lifted the moratorium on federal funding. “This action created a great demand for fetal tissue and has made possible the development of treatments for individuals afflicted with serious diseases and disorders,” says the sales brochure.
Both companies served as wholesalers for the marketing of baby body parts to researchers, drug companies, hospitals and universities. These groups harvest the parts from abortion clinics and ship them to their customers.
Opening Lines provides fetal tissue researchers with a “fee for service schedule,” which gives prices for each body part. For example, Opening Lines charged:
<><> $150 for a spinal column;
<><> $400 for an intact embryonic cadaver;
<><>$75 for 8-week-old baby's eyeballs (40% discount for a single eye);
<><>$150 for two arms or legs; and,
<><> $100 for the skin of a 12-week-old baby.
(Mmmmmm.... looks like they "forgot" to post the price of baby skin lampshades.)
=====================================================
Now, more then ever---it is imperative that we determine whether the companies trafficing in baby body parts, their principles, subsidiaries, tangenital companies, and so on......contributed to:
<><> the Clinton Foundation
<><> and/or The Clinton Foundation's multiple offshoots.
<><> Hillary Clinton's present campaign
<><> Hillary Clinton's previous campaigns
<><> Bill Clinton's campaigns.
AND whether the billionaire Clintons have a financial interest in companies selling baby body parts.
The fee schedule purports to estimate the reimbursable cost allocable to retrieving a particular body part, organ or tissue. If the laws against trafficking were being observed, the fees for providing the fetal parts ordered should essentially correspond to the wholesaler?s costs of $6,700 computed above.
According to logs detailing tissue shipments, 155 specimens were shipped in a representative month. These specimens included:
<><> 47 livers,
<><> 11 liver fragments,
<><>7 brains,
<><>21 eyes,
<><> 8 thymuses,
<><> 23 legs,
<><> 14 pancreases,
<><> 14 lungs,
<><> 6 arms,
<><> 1 kidney/adrenal gland, and,
<><> 3 intact specimens for purposes of securing the blood.
When priced out according to the “Fee for Service Schedule,” the shipment of parts for the month generated gross revenues of between $18,700 and $24,700, depending upon whether the parts were shipped fresh or frozen.
Some sample prices for individual body parts from the above-referenced schedule are as follows:
<><> liver $150,
<><> pancreas $100,
<>><>thymus $100,
<><> kidney $125,
<><> lungs and heart block $150,
<><> brain $999,
<><> spinal cord $325,
<><> bone morrow $350,
<><> eyes $75,
<><> gonads $550,
<><> intact cadaver $400,
<><> intact trunk with/without limbs $500,
<><> limbs (at least 2) $150.
(hat tip to FReeper MMICHAELS for doing the research on this.)
By that reasoning government should resume execution of criminals by burning at the stake in the cause of finding treatments for sunburns.
Great post. Shine a light on these purveyors of death.
If it’s just a “clump of cells” or a “fetus”, why is the protruding belly of a pregnant woman called a “baby bump”, rather than a “clump of cells bump” or a “fetus bump”?
If fetal tissue can help others, what about the BABY from whom it was taken? To accept that the ‘baby parts’ are nothing but a ‘clump of tissue’, you have to admit that you don’t care about the murder of a human being. Libs use the manipulation of words (and even the redefining of words) to confuse the masses. And they have had control of our Education system for so long that our country has certainly been dumbed-down enough for the ‘masses’ to accept the twisted ‘logic’ of the Lib manipulation.
So where’s Pope Francis on this? He had an opinion on climate change, shouldn’t he have an opinion on something which his own church is at the forefront of opposing?
Thank you for this post and for showing me what seems to be a Catholic Conservative website. I have bookmarked it to have a more in-debt look later. I haven’t found many.
Pay no attention to the butcher behind the bloody curtain.
Has anyone at the New York Times ever donated a kidney for the benefit of mankind, or even donated blood at the Red Cross?
If science can benefit from research on baby body parts, think how much more it could benefit if adults were encouraged to donate their healthy organs after death. No organization could be more influential in promoting such organ donation than the New York Times, yet it has never taken up this issue.
Yet all of a sudden today the Old Gray Lady is beside herself with enthusiasm about the humanitarian benefits of harvesting organs from aborted fetuses for money by Planned Parenthood, whose hundreds of clinics throughout the country have basically become butcher shops.
What’s next? If baby livers turn out to taste better than calves livers, would anyone be surprised if Planned Parenthood started selling them to restaurants?
He had an opinion about abortion in that same document, but a lot of people missed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
