Jim Geraghty:


‘I Want a Lamborghini’

A week after the Center for Medical Progress’s video charging Planned Parenthood with trafficking in the remains of aborted children, CMP is out with a new video — and it’s equally hard to stomach. Via CMP:

Actors posing as buyers ask [Planned Parenthood official and president of the Medical Directors’ Council] Mary Gatter, “What would you expect for intact [fetal] tissue?”

“Well, why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying!” Gatter replies.

Gatter continues: “You know, in negotiations whoever throws out the figure first is at a loss, right?” She explains, “I just don’t want to lowball,” before suggesting, “$75 a specimen.”

Gatter twice recites Planned Parenthood messaging on fetal tissue collection, “We’re not in it for the money,” and “The money is not the important thing,” but she immediately qualifies each statement with, respectively, “But what were you thinking of?” and, “But it has to be big enough that it’s worthwhile for me.” . . .

Gatter concludes: “Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”

It will take quite a few liver-thymus pairs before Ms. Gatter can afford her Aventador, but it’s nice to see that she’s goal-oriented.

And in case that was not unpleasant enough, there’s this little gem:

Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] or something with less suction, in order to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, “We’re not doing anything different in our care for you.” Now, to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument, and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian — who’s our surgeon who does the cases — to use an IPAS at that gestational stage, in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen. But I do need to throw it out there as a concern, because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something that’s saying, “We’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because you agree to give tissue.”

When abortion opponents suggest that abortion creates perverse incentives that can lead physicians to mistreat or endanger women, this is what we’re talking about. It can’t possibly come as a surprise that people willing to traffic in the parts of aborted babies might also wobble on their contract obligations.

As I wrote last week, the rule of law cannot resolve this issue. This is a matter of national conscience. The willingness of abortion providers to deceive patients and break the law should make even clearer that trying to reconcile abortion with our foundational principles is a futile endeavor.