Fox Nation, right-wing blogs seize on heavily edited anti-abortion video to smear Planned Parenthood
Right-wing blogs have seized on yet another heavily edited undercover video to attack a progressive organization, this time Planned Parenthood. However, the activists behind the video criticized Planned Parenthood employees for referring to a 10-week-old fetus as a "fetus" and for saying that abortion at that stage of pregnancy is safer than giving birth -- both of which are accurate statements.
Right-wing blogs seize on undercover smear video
Conservative activists release undercover video purporting to show "evidence of counseling abuse at Planned Parenthood." On December 9, Live Action -- an anti-abortion activist group headed by Lila Rose -- released a heavily edited video that the group claimed showed, among other things, Planned Parenthood employees "encouraging the one who is pregnant to obtain an abortion because 'women die having babies.' " A Live Action press release adds:
The counselor then says, "A fetus is what's in the uterus right now. That is not a baby." Dr. Prohaska, the abortion doctor, insists, "It's not a baby at this stage or anything like that." Prohaska also states that having an abortion will be "much safer than having a baby," warning, "You know, women die having babies."
Malkin: "The government-subsidized abortion racket is at it again." In a December 9 blog post, Michelle Malkin linked to the anti-abortion activists' video and wrote: "The government-subsidized abortion racket is at it again -- and undercover journalist Lila Rose and her Live Action team are exposing the Planned Parenthood predators in full effect." Malkin claimed that "[t]he latest investigative video shows doctors and nurses in Appleton, WI advising a young girl that having an abortion is 'much safer than having a baby.' " Malkin added that "[i]f Demcare passes, expect untold millions more of your tax dollars to be shoveled into this kind of abortion-first 'counseling,' " and went on to reprint most of Live Action's press release.
Hot Air: Video "aims to expose manipulation by Planned Parenthood counselors intended to pressure women into having abortions." In a December 9 blog post, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey linked to the video and wrote: "Live Action has a new series of videos that launches today called the Rosa Acuna Project. Their new effort aims to expose manipulation by Planned Parenthood counselors intended to pressure women into having abortions, or at the very least, provide dishonest information to support false rationalizations for the procedure." Morrissey also re-printed portions of Live Action's press release on the video.
Fox Nation: "Planned Parenthood: 'That's Not a Baby Growing Inside of You.' " Fox Nation linked to Morrissey's December 9 blog post with the same headline:
Video is heavily edited and provides little context to employees' remarks
Live Action did not release full video of the visit, and context of the staffers' remarks is impossible to determine. The video shows two women visiting a Wisconsin Planned Parenthood clinic, one of whom says she is 10 weeks pregnant. The video is heavily edited and because of this provides little context to remarks made during the counseling sessions the women have with Planned Parenthood clinic staffers. Further, the video does not make clear what pretext the woman gave for seeking Planned Parenthood's services. Live Action did not release a full video, nor did the group release a full transcript of the visit.
"Fetus" is the medically accurate term for a 10-week old fetus
Planned Parenthood staffers' repeatedly described 10-week-old fetus as a "fetus." Live Action, followed by several right-wing bloggers, have highlighted and criticized the Planned Parenthood staffers' repeated description of a 10-week old fetus as a "fetus." From Live Action's December 9 video:
WOMAN: What's fetal?
COUNSELOR: Fetal is a fetus. That's what's in your uterus right now is a fetus.
WOMAN: What's a fetus?
COUNSELOR: A fetus is what's in the uterus right now. That is not a baby. A baby is what's born at 40 weeks. A fetus is what's in your uterus right now.
WOMAN: Oh, OK.
COUNSELOR: If you're pregnant.
WOMAN: Oh, OK. So when does it become a baby?
COUNSELOR: Birth.
[...]
WOMAN: Like, what comes out? Is it --
DOCTOR: The pregnancy is going to be removed.
WOMAN: OK.
DOCTOR: The placenta and the fetus.
WOMAN: What's a fetus?
DOCTOR: The fetus is the develop -- is the embryo that's developing inside.
WOMAN: OK. What's an embryo?
DOCTOR: Well, that's the pregnancy. That's -- you know, there's something growing inside your uterus and it's called a fetus.
WOMAN: OK.
DOCTOR: OK?
WOMAN: OK.
DOCTOR: It's not a baby at this stage or anything like that.
WOMAN: Oh. When does it become a baby?
DOCTOR: When you're like seven months pregnant or so. Six, seven months pregnant.
"Fetus" is the medically accurate term for a 10-week-old fetus. The Merriam-Webster medical dictionary -- available through the website of the National Institutes of Health -- defines "fetus" in terms of human fetal development as follows: "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth."
Doctor's comments about safety of abortions are accurate
Doctor counseled that abortions at that stage are safer than childbirth. In the video, the woman questions the doctor about how far along in her pregnancy she could have an abortion. The doctor advises her that in Wisconsin "you can have an abortion up to maybe 22 weeks or so. But you don't want to do that" because obtaining an abortion in "the stage you're at now is very, very safe. Safer than having a baby actually." From the video:
DOCTOR: But you don't want to wait because the sooner you do an abortion, the easier it is and the quicker it is.
WOMAN: OK. What's the farthest I can do it?
DOCTOR: Here? Thirteen weeks.
WOMAN: Thirteen?
DOCTOR: But in the state here, you can have an abortion up to maybe 22 weeks or so. But you don't want to do that.
WOMAN: Why?
DOCTOR: Well, because it's a lot harder for you. It's more expensive, a lot more difficult.
WOMAN: OK.
DOCTOR: This is very safe. The stage you're at right now is very, very safe. Safer than having a baby, actually.
WOMAN: Really?
DOCTOR: Mmm-hmm. Much safer than having a baby. You know, women die having babies.
WOMAN: Mmm-hmm. Do women die with abortions?
DOCTOR: Yes, but it's never happened to me. And I've been doing them for 40 years. That's a lot of abortions.
WOMAN: Yeah, I trust you.
CDC data show maternal mortality rate from abortions is much lower than from live birth. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated in November 2008 that in 2004, "839,226 legal induced abortions" were reported to CDC. The CDC further reported: "In 2004 (the most recent years for which data are available), seven women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion." Therefore, the mortality rate for women who died "as a result of complications from known" abortions was less than 1 out of 100,000 legally induced abortions. By contrast, the CDC reported that in 2004, the maternal mortality rate was 11.3 (age-adjusted) or 13.1 (crude or non-age adjusted) per 100,000 live births. This figure includes 540 maternal deaths, 32 of which the CDC identified as a result of pregnancies "with [an] abortive outcome."
Fine, let Planned Parenthood and their defenders, like MMfA, just say it is what it is. And defend it on that truth and those grounds, stop running from it, instead of trying to heavily edit what Planned Parenthood readily advocates.
I was merely commenting on why MMfA and Planned Parenthood appear to try and distance themselves publicly for what they openly advocate privately to those seeking their advice and counsel. For if that is counseling on safe reproductive health care, saying women die during reproduction is a little like throwing in the towel.
NOT saying it would be lying by omission. He was very honest with that woman by telling her that pregnancy carries risks. He was also honest about the fact that abortion does too.
He was also very accurate in his description of what is in that woman's uterus - it is a ball of cells with the potential to become a baby, it is not yet a baby though.
Because it doesn't sync with right ON's narrow-minded view of the world.
But, going by what I read here, I see nothing wrong with what the doctor tells the woman. I get the impression he is telling her that if she is going to have an abortion, then she needs to make that decision sooner rather than later. He also seems to do a great job of making sure she is following what he is saying (since she is either clearly playing an imbecile or is actually an imbecile).
If she is wanting to have an abortion, she does want to do it sooner rather than later. The longer she waits, the more complicated and dangerous everything gets. And reassuring her that there is very little danger this early in her pregnancy is perfectly acceptable to me. I think the doctor is doing his job well.
And not only is that info on the video itself, but is also in the quoted commentary above! How could anyone who can read (and you SHOULD read the commentary of every article before you start commentating and especially in this case before you start telling people how bad PP is) not know this?
Oh, yeah, it's RightON. That explains it.
From the commentary above....
"In the video, the woman questions the doctor about how far along in her pregnancy she could have an abortion."
So yeah, they were in fact talking about early abortions versus later abortions. SMH.
WOMAN: OK. What's an embryo?
I know there alot of dumb people out there, but this woman is either really dumb or she's doing this on purpose a la the ACORN pimp.
I'm generally pro-choice, but I could be talked into mandatory abortions for somebody who's pregnant and doesn't know what a fetus is. The PP employee should have just scheduled it.
Early Abortion is overall safer than childbirth. But I still chose to give birth all five times the option presented itself. That's because for me, the benefit was worth the risk. But it is not my place to make that decision for any woman other than myself.
Fine, then I wonder why Planned Parenthood doesn't make that their official motto instead of safe and healthy reproductive health care? Do you know why?
It would be like Burger King using " Cheese 50 cents extra" instead of "Have it Your Way".
I'm surprised you couldn't figure that out yourself.
See, the only way to argue against providing a legal service to women that might end in an abortion of a fetus (not a baby) is to be dishonest.
And the only way to derail a thread is to make troll posts like this one where he argues a stupid talking point until it's time for him to quit for the day.
You may fool your liberal loyalists around here with that deflection tactic, but you don't fool me. I've seen you do it for years, under more screen names than I can remember, and it is as impotent now as it was when you posted under "Sue".
And your assertion, as is usual for you, is 100% wrong.
I bring up the derailing of a topic when a topic is being derailed! Others here did a great job of debunking your 'argument' - I put 'argument' in quotes because it wasn't really an argument at all.
I only bring up the derailing of an article's point by troll posts when it happens. I'm sure that tees you off - it has irked people who make troll posts for the past decade, so why should now be any different?
And here again, you're trying to derail the side topic from being about your troll posts to a personal attack against me. That's because you can't defend your post against the accurate portrayal I made! You can't show how your troll posts about your irritation at Planned Parenthood have anything to do with the offensive smear of PP using an edited video! That makes your posts derailing troll posts by definition!
And as I am sure I've told you before, when I need your advice, I will be sure to ask you for it. Or when I'm ready to look to you for judgments about how I should rate the strengths and weaknesses of my arguments, for that too I'll be sure to let you know. Until then, I'll wear your allegation that my arguments are impotent as a badge of honor, knowing that you're full of it when you make that allegation.
I have more credentials than you can imagine, and I see the judgment of the posters at this site, and until you regain some credibility here, you ain't got nothin' on me. I don't have any friends here, nor loyalists. I don't come here to make friends. It's the freakin' Internet, for cripes sake. I'm smarter than that. Too bad for you that you're not smart enough to derail a thread without being caught at it.
There's a lot of things in this world that he's unable to figure out for himself.
Good credit counselling involves discussions of the risks and benefits of the various options.
"Safe and Healthy Reproductive Care" involves discussions of the risks and benefits of the various options to women who find they are pregnant and who are not sure they want to continue with that option. It involves discussions of the risks, benefits and costs of the variety of ways to prevent pregnancy with women who are not yet pregnant. It involves discussion of the risks of STD's and the costs to one's health from an STD, including the inability to cure some of them and the risk of death from some, which will affect a woman's ability to reproduce!
Your allegations here are simply a smokescreen because you wanted to derail the thread from a discussion about how assinine it was for these groups to use a heavily-edited anti-abortion video to falsely and baselessly smear PP. You can't defend those actions, and so you try to distract us with a weak and baseless attack on PP. That's like the Republicans distracting us from George W Bush's extremely poor military record and John Kerry's extremely good military record by attacking Kerry's military career! They had nothing, and so they invented things. You invented a problem with PP's way of addressing an issue!
Instead of telling me that women die having babies and how many numerous abortions he or she has performed in 40 years and that abortions are much safer than birth.
And so, just like if you went into a credit counselling location asking about how to arrange a bankruptcy, they wouldn't tell you about how to save more money and invest it - they'd tell you about the risks and benefits of bankruptcy.
This is not rocket science.
But this IS an attempted continuation of a derailing the topic scheme.
The early term vs late term comparison makes more sense.
You're a f.uckin d.umbass
All that is perfectly fine, why they present a far different public image than abortion advocacy is puzzling.
At no point did he say, "you should have an abortion because it's safer than childbirth".
He told her a fact. I don't understand why that's a bad thing. Would it be better for the counselee to not have that information?
Abortions provide for only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's health services.
No, that doctor is simply, as they ought to, telling the patient all of the facts, which you need to know in order to make an informed medical decision. Because people do get leukemia as a result of exposure to radiation.
It also baffles me that you think Planned Parenthood should make "abortion advocacy" their public image when, as I pointed out, abortion makes up only 3 percent of the services they provide.
The doctor was discussing how safe having an early term abortion is. In that discussion, he made the statement that an early term abortion is so safe that it is safer, even, than actual childbirth.
At no point did he say, or even imply, that the patient should have an abortion because of how safe it is.
Also, you make the mistake of conflating what an individual doctor said to an individual patient with PP as a whole. You wrote,
For an organization that lauds safe healthy reproductive advice to simply state women die having babies seems a little like saying they aren't very adept at doling out such advice themselves
Umm.... the organization did not state anything of the sort. A doctor speaking to a patient said something to reassure the patient. It is not "a little like saying that they aren't very adept at doling out such advice themselves", it is more like saying "this particular doctor may not have a good bedside manner". I've been in the hospital twice for serious surgical procedures; the first time the doctor was great, informative, friendly and reassuring. The second time, a different doctor, while he performed the surgery excellently, was kind of standoffish and unfriendly. Doctors are all different, and this particular one may not have an effective bedside manner. That is very different than Planned Parenthood not being effective at giving out advice. You need to realize that this distinction, the doctor vs. the organization, is real and important.
That is precisely how I read it as well. Again, I hate having these debates about these edited videos without seeing the unedited versions. Very suspisciout.
Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see the doctor advocating for abortion. He is telling her the relevant facts. She seems to be telling the doctor that she wants to have an abortion, but thinks it may be dangerous. He seems to be reassuring her that an abortion at an early stage is actually safer than giving birth, so that should not be the deciding factor in her decision.
I see no issue with it at all. I also think the doctor does a wonderful job of explaining the obvious to a woman of very limited intelligence without becoming condescending.
Also, right ON, I notice you did not respond to my point that the doctor is seperate than Planned Parenthood as a whole. Do you still think that PP is "advocating" for abortion based on the statements of this one doctor?
Seeing how there is no third option for the woman, and she expressed concern over the safety of #1 then it's therefore completely relevant to mention that #2 is less safe than #1.
If that is the mission of PP to compare the safety histories of giving birth vs abortions, fine.
For women who discuss delaying an abortion to the Doctor, his medical obligation is to inform the potential patient that waiting is more dangerous, and that having a baby is more dangerous still, since early abortions are so safe! Comparing the safety of an early abortion to later abortions, which the patient might not be familiar with (since later abortions are pretty rare and often hidden from public view) and with pregnancy, which the patient is going to be much more familiar with, is his job!!!
Then why they counsel anyone in reproducing at all is a bit of a head scratcher, if their criteria for decision making is one is less safe than the other. Their counsel in this case obviously reflects that.
As I explained to you hours before you made this post, PP counsels different people in different ways, just like credit counsellors don
t tell every client the same thing every time!
And not all "reproductive health care advice" consists of helping someone "reproduce". That's yet another flaw in your thinking.
He's poisoning the debate - we can't talk about the real issue because we're too busy refuting what he is saying.
This is the whole purpose of MMFA, and why you posters don't get that trolls like RightON are doing that same thing that MMFA is trying to fight is beyond me.
As such, your attempt to paint this particular exchange as an attack on Planned Parenthood promoting abortion over childbirth is completely out of line.
This woman came in seeking information on getting an abortion. The doctor answered. And you're being disingenous in pretending like Planned Parenthood pressured her in ANY way.
But the main point the doctor made regarding childbirth is that women die from it, and the main point regarding abortion was that it was safe and he or she had been doing lots of abortions for 40 years with no deaths.
You decide which was being promoted.
I think that the term 'promoted' is the problem here. The doctor wasn't aware he was being filmed. He didn't turn to the camera and say, "Hey kids! You might die if you get pregnant. Come get an abortion with me today!" He was simply giving advice to a patient. That does not seem indicative to me of either the doctor or PP as an organization promoting abortion over childbirth. I think that most doctors assess cases such as these on a case-by-case basis. There is not a set rule that works across the board regarding abortion. Because of that, I do not think that it is valid to say that PP advocates for abortion. They certainly advocate for choice, but it just doesn't logically make sense to advocate for abortion over a pregnancy.
It's not an outlandish thing for him to have done.
It was simply RightON trying to derail a thread.
From http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview: "At every gestational age, elective abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term.
If Fox Snooze has it and will run with it on their TV shows then they better show the unedited video instead. Not smear a simple subject on women's rights.
By looking at the conversation this woman has got to be very dense.
She seems almost as dense as right ON......