You would think Planned Parenthood understood how this works by now. ¬† Live Action uses undercover video to catch them doing something appalling; Planned Parenthood insists it was misbehavior by an isolated rogue element; Live Action slowly rolls out more videos proving the outrage is happening nationwide.
No surprise, then, to see the second video in Live Action’s “Gendercide in America‚?Ě series on sex-selection abortions, this time filmed at a New York City clinic, charmingly named after noted eugenics enthusiast Margaret Sanger.
Once again, we see the same casual whatever-floats-your-boat non-judgmentalism toward the horrifying idea of aborting a child simply because she’s the wrong sex. ¬† The new wrinkle is that Planned Parenthood staffer Randi Coun advises the Live Action undercover reporter to have a CVS test to determine the sex of her baby earlier in her pregnancy. ¬† According to a report at Life News, Chorionic Villus Sampling tests “have a risk of miscarriage of about 1 in 100, which Coun did not mention, and are typically done to test for genetic disorders in a pregnancy.‚?Ě
The Live Action reporter is assured that if she doesn’t want to go the CVS route, she can safely dispose of an unwanted girl at any point up to 24 weeks.
Live Action president Lila Rose said, “Planned Parenthood has built their abortion empire on their belief that any abortion is a good abortion, even if it is motivated by the very discrimination against women that they claim to abhor. ¬† Planned Parenthood’s abortion-first mentality leads them to defend targeting ¬†baby girls for extermination. ¬†When any of Planned Parenthood’s other ideological commitments comes ¬†into conflict with their abortion-first mentality, it’s clear that abortion always takes priority.‚?Ě
The House happens to be debating a bill to ban sex-selection abortions, with a vote scheduled for Thursday. ¬† Speaking in support of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said, “The people of this country are overwhelmingly for this bill, and liberals are going to have to make up their mind whether they are so committed to abortion on demand that they think that includes killing little girls because they are little girls.‚?Ě
On the other side of the aisle, Fox News reports that House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer said “he doesn’t know anybody who supports abortion based on gender, ‘period.’‚?Ě
Steny Hoyer, I’d like you to meet Cecile Richards and Barack Hussein Obama, who are the chief executives of Planned Parenthood and the United States of America, respectively. ¬† Richards muttered the usual tepid ritual opposition sex-selection abortions, but is strongly opposed to any measure that would make them more difficult to obtain from her clinics, because “it would intrude on the critical nature of the doctor/patient relationship and interfere with a doctor’s ability to provide nonjudgmental, high-quality care for women.‚?Ě ¬† Wow, just like ObamaCare!
Also, Richards said PRENDA is no good because it “does nothing to advance protections against discrimination, and instead will have the result of further shaming and stigmatizing women.‚?Ě ¬† There is no logical way to square that sentence with “we oppose sex-selection abortion,‚?Ě because you can’t oppose something if you think efforts to prevent it “shame and stigmatize‚?Ě the people who want to do it.
In case you’re wondering what that “protections against discrimination‚?Ě claptrap is about – since we’re discussing a bill that would prevent discrimination against girls from leading to their deaths – she’s insinuating that the bill would be especially rough on doctors serving minority communities. ¬†Also, some opponents claim it might disproportionately inconvenience Asian-Americans, who are presumably more inclined to abort their daughters because they really wanted sons. ¬† Somehow the people who hold that opinion of Asian-Americans are not supposed to be seen as racists.
Barack Obama is also fine with gendercide, since he was willing to blatantly lie about PRENDA while sending his press secretary out to oppose it: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision. ¬† ¬† The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.‚?Ě
PRENDA does nothing of the kind. ¬† It directly states that “nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that a healthcare provider has an affirmative duty to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion, absent the healthcare provider having knowledge or information that the abortion is being sought based on the sex or gender of the child.‚?Ě ¬† It asserts penalties if a doctor knowingly performs sex-selection abortions, but only if the information has been volunteered to the doctor.
In other words, it will prove highly inconvenient for the Planned Parenthood abortion mills if they get caught doing what Live Action has been catching them doing, as it could strip them of the millions of dollars in taxpayer money they currently receive.
It’s amazing any of these people think simply reciting the words “I oppose sex-selection abortions,‚?Ě with a huge “BUT‚?¶‚?Ě at the end, relieves them of moral responsibility. ¬† President Obama seems considerably less uncomfortable with sex-selection abortions than he is with private equity investments. ¬† No one “opposes‚?Ě a moral horror if they won’t take even the most timid steps toward preventing it, and in fact are dedicated to the proposition that the perpetrators shouldn’t even feel bad about what they’re doing.
Update: The Democrats were able to defeat PRENDA in the House on Thursday afternoon. ¬†It needed a two-thirds majority, but failed on a largely party-line 246-168 vote. ¬†Only 7 Republicans voted against it, while only 20 Democrats voted for it.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter