What we learned in the Center for Medical Progress’s fifth and worst video yet

Tuesday morning, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released their fifth undercover video. It is the most visually graphic and disturbing yet, and it is also the most damning to Planned Parenthood.

In this post, I’m going to summarize the most important parts of the video, because it’s important that we don’t miss any of this. Rather than putting them in the order they appear in the video, I’m organizing them based on the type of evidence they provide.

I’d encourage you to watch the video for yourself, even though, again, it is very graphic.

Intact Fetuses "Just a Matter of Line Items" for Planned Parenthood TX Mega-Center

Evidence of Planned Parenthood Changing Abortion Procedures to Harvest Baby Parts

The two main legal critiques of Planned Parenthood since the CMP videos started coming out are:

1. That they change abortion procedures to procure baby parts against their consent-agreement with the children’s mothers;

2. That they are financially profiting from selling, not merely donating baby parts.

In addition to the evidence from the previous videos, we have these new statements:

Later, one of the investigators posing as a buyer asks Farrell:

They are perfectly willing to change procedures if that will help them get the baby parts they want.

Financial Benefit, NOT Just Compensation for the Costs of Donating

Planned Parenthood (and their many apologists) have been insisting with every video that they do not get any financial benefit from their “donations” of baby parts. But in the most recent video, you can see Farrell of Planned Parenthood nodding along in agreement while the buyer talks about the financial benefits to them getting the “right specimen.”

Selling “Intact” Babies

CMP President David Daleiden said in a recent CNN interview that they have video of StemExpress higher ups admitting they receive intact “specimens.” A restraining order is currently against them releasing the video itself, but given Daleiden’s description of it, this is an additional charge against Planned Parenthood that we should pay attention to. The video they released today showed evidence that Planned Parenthood is willing to give the buyers intact “specimens.” Here are three relevant portions:

As Daleiden explained in another interview with CNN Tuesday morning:

If Planned Parenthood is killing babies outside the womb, I don’t think that’s any more evil than killing them inside the womb. However, it is still relevant because there are reasons Planned Parenthood doesn’t advertise that (including severe legal implications).

And Now All Three Problems Combined…

There are two sections of the most recent video that provide evidence of all three of these charges at once. In the first one, most of the action is on the part of the buyer explaining her perspective on what they’re doing while Farrell nods along the whole time and affirms what she is saying:

Then you have an agreement that the compensation should be higher for specific specimens (which doesn’t make sense if Planned Parenthood’s “compensation for donation” story is true), and a discussion of how to justify it so they can deny they are selling baby parts. Farrell suggests they can justify charging more because they would have to change the procedure to get the parts.

In conclusion, I would like to pose a question to anyone that is still defending Planned Parenthood: There are at least half a dozen videos still coming. Is there hypothetically ANYTHING that could be in these videos that could persuade you that you shouldn’t support Planned Parenthood anymore? Is there anything a Planned Parenthood executive could say that would persuade you that the organization is corrupt? Is there any evidence that could convince you that they are financially profiting from selling baby parts, or doing something else illegal?

If the answer is yes, I’d be really interested to know what would do it for you.

If the answer is no, then it should disturb you that you are that closed-minded. Blind support for any organization is unconscionable.

(Editor’s Note: Original post written by Timothy Brahm was published at the Equal Rights Institute Blog and is reprinted here with permission.)