The recently released Planned Parenthood videos have been making the rounds and rousing ire. When the first one was released, I wanted to really dig in and go into detail about how shady Planned Parenthood was being. In the first video however, with Dr. Deborah Nucotela, the only accurate allegation I saw when I watched the unedited version was that Dr. Nucotela really does provide a chipper explanation of how she chooses carefully where to crush the living unborn baby in order to get organs out undamaged. The allegations that she uses partial-birth abortion and that she was observed trying to help her organization to profiteer from fetal tissue harvesting, on the other hand, fell flat. You can find my analysis in these posts:
The Full Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Video provides the unedited video of the entire lunch meeting with Dr. Deborah Nucolela, along with a timeline indicating what is discussed at what points in the video. This enables the reader to verify what I am asserting.
The Shameful Edit of the Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Video examines the allegation that Dr. Nucotela uses partial-birth abortions to harvest the organs and tissues of aborted babies. I compare the edited video, which makes Dr. Nucotela look guilty, with the unedited video, which reveals that she said nothing that can honestly be construed as an admission of perpetrating partial-birth abortions.
Did She Really Say Planned Parenthood Sells Aborted Baby Parts does the same with the allegation that Dr. Nucotela admitted that Planned Parenthood profiteers from the tissues and organs of aborted babies.
Planned Parenthood Derangement Syndrome examines the prolife community's knee-jerk willingness to believe any allegations of evil committed by Planned Parenthood, and the tendency to cling to those allegations of evil even in the light of evidence to the contrary.
In a more recent post I moved on to the second video, recording a lunch meeting with Dr. Mary Gatter, President of the Medical Directions' Council of Planned Parenthood, and Laurel Felczer, Senior Director of Medical Services of Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley. You can refer to the full, unedited video of that meeting and the transcript of that meeting. The first thing I looked at was the allegation that Dr. Gatter was openly haggling and looking to maximize profits from the sale of fetal tissue. Though I found Dr. Gatter to be callous and off-putting, I didn't see any evidence of profiteering as a goal.
Today I'm going to look at the second allegation: That Planned Parenthood is willing to change how they do abortions in order to obtain usable fetal tissue. On this issue, Dr. Gatter expresses a willingness, only shying away from a commitment until she consults with their abortionist.
Here is the video:
The change being proposed isn't a major change, but it still is a change and can carry different risks to the patient. And, as Dr. Gatter points out, changing the technique just to get better fetal tissue is illegal. The image below, which you can click to enlarge, is the relevant section of the transcript of the Gatter video.
Dr. Gatter points out that the usual method is suction, which uses a suction machine similar to what a dentist uses to remove extra fluid from your mouth during dental work.
Dr. Gatter suggests that they might use an abortion method she called IPAS.
IPAS is actually an organization, the International Pregnancy Advisory Services. IPAS promotes an abortion method first popularized in the 1960s by a colorful and rather shady character named Harvey Karman. The method is actually called MVA, for manual vacuum aspiration.
As the name implies, manual vacuum aspiration uses manually-generated suction rather than machine-generated suction, and thus does less damage to the fetus.
Dr. Gatter recognizes that using MVA rather than a standard suction abortion for donation patients would be illegal, since MVA is considered a different technique. She even says that the buyer is talkign to her about taking money to do something that's not right. Nevertheless, she indicates a willingness to discuss the possibility of using MVA on donation patients when she talks to Ian, the facility's abortion practitioner.
While this video does not verify that Planned Parenthood as an organization does or would actually change an abortion technique in order to harvest fetal tissue, it does clearly demonstrate that Dr. Mary Gatter personally would have no problem with it. She tells the prospective buyers that she'll talk to Ian about using a "less crunchy" technique.
If a Planned Parenthood doctor wanted to give the patient a choice between a standard aspiration abortion and a manual vacuum aspiration abortion, somehow I doubt that MVA would be described to the patient as "less crunchy." And you can bet your bottom dollar that none of the current consent forms characterize a suction abortion as "crunchy."