Dead Lion Causes More Outrage Than Planned Parenthood

If you’ve kept up with media hysteria, you’ve seen an overabundance of stories detailing the unfortunate demise of Cecil The Lion.  Yes, lions are cool, but is the death of an animal more important than the illegal sale of fetal organs?  

You can click herehereherehereherehere, here and over here for news coverage on Cecil The Lion.  Doctor Walton Palmer caused the unnecessary death of an innocent life, and the general public has responded with outrage.

Sounds eerily familiar to a government funded organization that condones the same act, and gets away with doing it for profit.

As we cry over dead lions, more Planned Parenthood news is being leaked.  In the video posted above, Holly O’Donnel, an ex phlebotomist for StemExpress, (who work closely with Planned Parenthood) – said she unsuspectingly took a job as a “procurement technician”.

However, instead of simply drawing blood, O’Donnel was expected to dissect freshly aborted fetuses.

Of course, Planned Parenthood has repeatedly denied their role in the sale of baby parts for profit.  However, Holly O’Donnel revealed – “For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated”.  The outrage over this?  Virtually non-existent.

More footage revealed a Planned Parenthood doctor discussing the intricate details of selling baby parts while simultaneously evading the law, and disturbing video of doctors sorting through organs while making snide comments.  One of them even explained a sudden cracking noise as the result of cracking a baby’s skull.

The videos, which have been released weekly by the Center for Medical Progress, show indisputable proof that Planned Parenthood has been regularly breaking federal law.

In a recent interview, Republican Presidential candidate Rand Paul voiced his disapproval, “you know, I’m horrified by these videos, and everybody is. When I think of ultrasound, I think of the pictures of my kids before they were born and the happiness we had. To imagine that doctors are using ultrasound to manipulate the body around, turn the body around to take body parts from a baby, it just — it sickens me.

And so I’ve been fighting to defund Planned Parenthood, I don’t think they should get any taxpayer dollars.”  (source)

Whether you believe abortion is moral or not, one must wonder if the general public should be responsible for funding an organization that has fallen under such intense scrutiny.  Should we be forcing people to set aside their personal/religious beliefs to accommodate a criminal establishment?  If we are willing to cry on national television over a lion, I think we are more than capable of standing up against the illegal sale of fetal organs.

About the Author

Benjamin Knight
Benjamin Knight, the founder of We the Vigilant and host of The Maverick Podcast, was born in Engelwood, New Jersey. He is a Bible believing Christian, a right-wing Libertarian and a nationalist who is dedicated to fighting back against cultural Marxism and globalism. In his free time, Knight enjoys triggering leftists, shooting guns and being an American.
  • I am extremely inspired with your writing talents as well as with the structure for your blog.
    Is this a paid subject matter or did you customize it your self?
    Anyway stay up the nice quality writing, it’s uncommon to look a nice weblog like this one today..

  • I could not resist commenting. Well written!

  • Pingback: Is Donald Trump The Real Deal? | WE THE VIGILANT()

  • 92% of Planned Parenthood’s budget is spent on health care – not abortions. While PP does receive a hefty sum of government funding, most of that comes in the form of medicaid reimbursements for healthcare services. The remaining government funds are provided in the form of grants won by PP for specific uses.

    Most of PP’s services are provided to low income women, a group that has historically high abortion rates. By providing health screenings and contraception, PP helps to keep the abortion rate low. In fact, for every $1 taxpayers spend on contraception and family planning, they get $7 in future healthcare savings. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/MQ-Frost_1468-0009.12080.pdf

    So, in short – unlike killing a lion, PP is doing quite a bit of good in the community. Spreading heavily edited video’s to discredit their mission is irresponsible and disingenuous.

    -Adam

    • Hello contributor. I agree that Planned Parenthood does some good for women, however – I don’t believe there has been sufficient evidence to suggest that the Center for Medical Progress are “highly editing” their videos. If this was the case, why is government trying to ban the release of more videos? Full disclosure would resolve mass skepticism.

      Nobody on WTV is calling for an outright authoritarian Mike Huckabee-esque ban on abortion. However, the leaked footage clearly proves that reform is needed. That CMP’s videos are heavily edited to paint a certain narrative seems to be an unlikely conspiracy theory and the only argument I’ve seen from the far left on this issue.

      Remember, it is possible to serve women while not chopping up babies and breaking federal law.

      WTV welcomes opinions from all sides. Enjoy your day.

      • Whether the videos were edited or not was never under debate – every media outlet reporting on them is clear to say that they are “edited videos.” The debate only centers around whether the edits change the truth of the situation.

        While selling fetal body parts is illegal, donating the tissue for research and getting reimbursed for the procedure is not. So the reform would have to be specific to whether PP made a profit – something easy enough to check on. But, the calls by detractors are not to reform PP. The video’s have essentially caused the debate to be Pro-PP or Anti-PP. Within a week, there was a motion in the senate to de-fund PP. How is that good for society, when we know that PP serves a frighteningly underserved community of women ?

        The extent to which the Center for Medical Progress went to illegally record abortion providers is frightening:
        http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0802-court-order-20150802-story.html#page=1

        They were not an independent investigator trying to find the truth. They were trying to gather incendiary video so they could publicly assault PP. What they did was to sell their ideas using outrage. Because, like sex in advertising, it doesn’t require fact or reason – only gut reaction. The truth of the matter is that PP provides an essential service. It is not possible to provide women with health services if you close down the providers of that health service using lazy logic.

      • Hello contributor,

        I don’t believe a judge with strong ties to Obama provides much of an argument in this case. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/08/01/obama-appointed-judge-and-reported-bundler-for-president-halts-release-of-planned-parenthood-videos-231535 .

        I disagree that during the editing process, a conscious effort was made to paint a certain narrative. CMP used many resources to record their footage, no question. However, PP defenders are regularly discrediting the footage, no matter how it was collected, based on a presumption. The ethics of recording a private conversation don’t matter if the private conversation revealed illegal and immoral acts made by a publicly funded organization.

        Furthermore, CMP’s footage also includes abortion doctors communicating among themselves – and an interview with a defector. They clearly point towards PP making a profit from fetal sales. Audible and visual evidence from video footage is extremely hard to disprove and can have lasting consequences, just ask Mitt Romney.

        While it is easy to dismiss inconvenient fact as fiction due to the ethics of data collection or the editing of video footage – we at WTV believe CMP’s footage is as conclusive as possible.

        Defunding PP would be part of the reformation process. It can either survive through other means, or state governments can formulate a new method for providing help for women in their individual states. That discussion will undoubtedly occur if PP ceases to exist.

      • I am not sure what the judge’s relationship to Obama has to do with PP? Perhaps you can enlighten me.

        If you first come up with a bias, then go to prove that bias – your editing and reporting will be biased. The Center for Medical Progress did not try to be an independent judge of PP’s wrongdoing. They went to prove their own bias. That’s what makes their methods unethical, and unreliable. A good investigative journalist is unbiased towards the story. They want to show the facts and let them speak for themselves.

        Context matters, and the way in which the video’s were edited did not provide the proper context needed for a viewer to understand the situation. The video’s were produced not to tell the truth, but to evoke a gut reaction in the viewer.

        Planned Parenthood receives federal funding in two ways: 1) Through medicare reimbursements (THey get paid to provide medical services, just as any insurance carrier would pay). 2) Through grants for specific services (providing contraception to the needy, inexpensive STD screenings, and so on). They don’t receive a blank check from the Federal government. So “eliminating federal funding” is just another way of saying “eliminate PP” since there is really no way to prevent PP from applying for grants (and winning them if they are the best suited candidate) or requesting reimbursement for legally provided care through medicaid.

        This view point is informed by emotion, but not by the facts. This is not a left or right issue – it is an issue of poor journalism on the part of the Center for Medical Progress, and the danger it poses to it’s victim (PP and it’s cadre of under served women).