Second video shows Planned Parenthood clinic advising on how to get a sex-selective abortion; Update: WH opposes sex-selective abortion ban bill

posted at 11:21 am on May 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this week, Planned Parenthood responded to an undercover video showing a staffer in its Austin, Texas clinic providing assistance for a sex-selective abortion by firing the staffer, requiring retraining for the entire clinic, and insisting that they do not support gender-based abortions.  Looks like they’ll need to break out the pink slips again.  Live Action released another undercover video this morning that shows a New York City clinic not only advising on how to determine the gender of a pregnancy, but the best way to make the determination in time to get an abortion — complete with referral to a practitioner to assist in the service:

Despite PP’s protestations this week, the staffer in the Margaret Sanger clinic in New York City says, “I can tell  you that, you know, here at Planned Parenthood we believe that it’s not up to us to decide what is a good or bad reason for somebody to decide to terminate a pregnancy.”  The video does include PP’s insistence that “Gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for … Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias.”  Looks like the staffers haven’t gotten that memo from corporate yet, huh?

Let’s muse on Planned Parenthood’s statement just a bit, though.  They condemn “sex selection motivated by gender bias.”  On what other basis would “sex selection” take place other than gender bias?  Why would two girls be so much less desirable than a boy and a girl that one has to take the drastic step of an abortion unless one is applying a gender bias?  What other possible explanation could there be?  And let’s face it — while the selection cuts both ways on occasion, the cultural biases in play would tend to greatly disfavor girls rather than boys in this equation, which is what we see worldwide when abortion is used in sex selection.

I’d guess that Planned Parenthood will stop short of firing another staffer, especially since Live Action hints that they have a few more of these videos on the way.

Update: I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this, especially from a President that once opposed a version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois:

The White House got back to me this evening to say the president opposes the bill.

White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith says in a statement: “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.”

LifeNews explains the vote taking place today in the House on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA):

The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of the following four things: (1) perform an abortion, at any time in pregnancy, “knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child”; (2) use “force or threat of force. . . for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion”; (3) solicit or accept funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose. However, “A woman upon whom a sex-selection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation . . .”

The bill also specifically states, “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.”

Unbelievable.  This is the same administration that’s spent the last few months crying about a “war on women,” right?  Well, here’s a fight in which females are taking real casualties, and … nothing.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Planned Parenthood employes evil people who are engaged in “legal” crimes against humanity.

And their white house aiders and abetters are every bit as vile.

NoDonkey on May 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM

If you think this administration is going to back ANY kind of ban on abortion, you can forget about it right now.

MelonCollie on May 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Unbelievable. This is the same administration that’s spent the last few months crying about a “war on women,” right? Well, here’s a fight in which females are taking real casualties, and … nothing.

I hope Romney takes the fight to Obama on this. And while he’s at it, bring up the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Why the GOP isn’t pushing this 24/7 is beyond me. McCain waited til the 3rd debate to mention it and Newt harped on it at what must’ve been the 32nd GOP debate in the primary.

Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion politician I think I’ve ever seen. This election is about the economy first and foremost, but informing the electorate about his extremist(and frankly subhuman) views on abortion will put a serious dent in the “nice guy” image he’s cultivated.

Doughboy on May 31, 2012 at 11:25 AM

This is the same Democrat party that fought a war to keep slavery legal.

Is anybody really surprised?

tetriskid on May 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

…it’s just a rouge outlet…this doesn’t go on anywhere else

KOOLAID2 on May 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms

Except for those ending in death.

rbj on May 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

This is the administration that wants the Catholic Church to subsidize abortion and perform them in Catholic hospitals – what do you expect.

BKennedy on May 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

1st sign on the wall in the clinic states in bold “WOMEN COUNT”

apparently, they are bragging about the body count….?

ted c on May 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Over to Romney. Here’s your opportunity to unequivocally state that as president, you will work to stop public funding of this criminal enterprise.

CliffHanger on May 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith says in a statement: “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.

However, the intrusion into your healthcare and religious institutions in no way constitutes a “private family matter.” Those fall under the jurisdiction of the government. Obama has spoken!

Blacksoda on May 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

I like how selective libs seem to be regarding that whole gov’t intrusion thing. Beyond that, it’s about another life…someone going out and killing their child or sibling isn’t excused as a private family matter, so why should this be?

changer1701 on May 31, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Not that it will ever get through the Senate but I’d love to see him veto it.

Cindy Munford on May 31, 2012 at 11:29 AM

How is it that Julia is to receive her free after school program, lunch subsidies, education, web design loans, and a gov’t provided apartment if she can’t survive her abortion???

square that circle for me libs.

ted c on May 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Cripe

cmsinaz on May 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM

When did we become China?

gophergirl on May 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Democrats are such Pu$$ies that they get the women to fight their real battles for them.

ted c on May 31, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Milbank: GOP’s war on sex-selective abortions will hurt them with Asian-Americans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2012/05/30/gJQAL4ml2U_story.html?hpid=z2

ninjapirate on May 31, 2012 at 11:31 AM

“The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

Wait… What?

vinceautmorire on May 31, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Three per cent!

/still sarc

The Schaef on May 31, 2012 at 11:32 AM

This is shocking. PP said it was an isolated incident!

John the Libertarian on May 31, 2012 at 11:32 AM

what if any of those girls would “self-identify” as an Indian and potentially have high-cheekbones?

would she get some protection then?

ted c on May 31, 2012 at 11:32 AM

PP shouldn’t have fired the staffer at all. If I go to a veggie shop and ask for carrots, I expect help to get my carrots. I just wonder when the full videos will get released.

mythicknight on May 31, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Drip. Drip. Drip.

Kudos to Live Action for taking a page from Breitbart’s book. This video makes Planned Non-Parenthood’s move to fire the Austin worker and cover up after the first video look positively foolish.

War.

Red Cloud on May 31, 2012 at 11:33 AM

if abortions are only 3% of PPs take, they’re really doing 11 million procedures a year for folks?

yah right./

ted c on May 31, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Can’t wait to hear Carney stutter his way through this one.

a capella on May 31, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Well, if the rationale is that it’s okay for a woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason including because she just feels like it, then it’s consistent to say it’s okay for a woman to terminate her pregnancy because she doesn’t feel like having a girl.

But hey, I’m in favor of whatever makes anti-lifers squirm. Studies have shown for years that most abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest or the health of the mother, and everything do with convenience. This just makes it obvious.

Laura Curtis on May 31, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Difficult video to watch for so many reasons, not the least of which because you know the woman on the video is about to get aborted.

Red Cloud on May 31, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Milbank: GOP’s war on sex-selective abortions will hurt them with Asian-Americans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2012/05/30/gJQAL4ml2U_story.html?hpid=z2

ninjapirate on May 31, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Wow.

Incredibly racist.

tetriskid on May 31, 2012 at 11:34 AM

this is taking a page from James O’Keefe’s book.

nice work, LA.

ted c on May 31, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Over to Romney. Here’s your opportunity to unequivocally state that as president, you will work to stop public funding of this criminal enterprise.

CliffHanger on May 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Agreed. With most recent polls showing a pro-life majority in the US, Romney should use the issue, but not over do it too.

JetBoy on May 31, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Just stop providing ultrasound scans to avoid the issue entirely.

ExPat on May 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM

“The sex of the… the sex of the… pregnancy?”

Anything at all to keep from calling it a baby or a child. That statement literally makes no fcuking sense at all.

Red Cloud on May 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM

So? If it’s legal, then it’s legal. Does killing babies cross the line when it’s sex selective?

This is just too funny:

When did we become China?

gophergirl on May 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Someone isn’t very familiar with our immigration policies. When you import the third world why are you surprised that they act like their from the third world?

DFCtomm on May 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

So says Jamie Smith of the WH Admin.

She must not be aware of Obamacare. Guess they all forgot about it.

Jabberwock on May 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Brietbart is here

bernverdnardo1 on May 31, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Why does Obama hate baby girls?

ButterflyDragon on May 31, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Agreed. With most recent polls showing a pro-life majority in the US, Romney should use the issue, but not over do it too.

JetBoy on May 31, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Agreed. Much as I accuse Romney of being wishy-washy (with good reason) he should try to take advantage of this issue but be very careful. If he mishandles it and the whole thing blows up in his face, it could torpedo his election chances.

MelonCollie on May 31, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Red Cloud on May 31, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Yep. It demonstrates the original crime and then exposes the coveup. I can just imagine the PP brass coming to work each morning with teeth gritted,…. wondering, “What comes out today?”

a capella on May 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I oppose the bill too but because there is no constitutional basis for its passage. This is within the states purview to regulate.

Charlemagne on May 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Using abortion for sex selection is a hideous act, but how is this enforceable?:

The bill also specifically states, “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.”

And why does the woman get off the hook for choosing to engage in gender selection but not the “healthcare provider” (assuming the motives of either party can be proven)?

Buy Danish on May 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM

certainly that lady was just there to get a breast exam and a mammogram. She just happened to stumble upon a gender selective abortion. it’s kind of like the choice you make to ‘super size’ your order at McDonalds. You want the quarter pounder with cheese meal and for a nickel more you can get the xlg coke and biggie fries. NBD/

ted c on May 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM

How many times can the MSM use the word “edited”. Extra points for “heavily edited”.

Cindy Munford on May 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM

When did we become China?

gophergirl on May 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM

January 20, 2009

nico on May 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Well, if the rationale is that it’s okay for a woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason including because she just feels like it, then it’s consistent to say it’s okay for a woman to terminate her pregnancy because she doesn’t feel like having a girl.

Laura Curtis on May 31, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Yes I’ll concede that PP is acting consistently here — you want a non-judgemental abortion, you got it, no questions asked as long as you’ve got the money.

jwolf on May 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM

With this news from bho/team and the doma court ruling today, I wonder what the Friday dump will be? It should be dandy to try and top these two events today?
L

letget on May 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM

what if any of those girls would “self-identify” as an Indian and potentially have high-cheekbones?

would she get some protection then?

ted c on May 31, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Or gay. Gotta save the gay ones so they can get married to the other gay ones that survive the decision. These scumbags are morally bankrupt. They make me sick to my stomach.

VegasRick on May 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act is on of the savviest things I’ve seen in a while. Whomever crafted that really knows what they are doing.

And, of course, the White House is intentionally lying about its content. It’s the only option for them:

White House stooge: “…subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision.”

Reality: “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…”

Besides Biden’s gaffes, is the Regime ever not lying?

forest on May 31, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Isolated incident… number 3,624.

mankai on May 31, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Again I say, its not a war on women. Its a skirmish against itty bitty baby girls. That’s a fair fight for a liberal democrat.

DanMan on May 31, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Milbank: GOP’s war on sex-selective abortions will hurt them with Asian-Americans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2012/05/30/gJQAL4ml2U_story.html?hpid=z2

ninjapirate on May 31, 2012 at 11:31 AM

If this isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve read all year, it’s pretty damn close.

Red Cloud on May 31, 2012 at 11:42 AM

…it’s just a rouge outlet…this doesn’t go on anywhere else

KOOLAID2 on May 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

No clue what their style of makeup has to do with anything…

Of course, that will always be the liberal answer; “You found an outlier, an improperly trained staffer, this is not policy…”. And yet, one has to ask how many local clinics Live Action had to visit to get this take.

What is ONE, Alex.

Freelancer on May 31, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Is the US or China?

RDE2010 on May 31, 2012 at 11:43 AM

*this

RDE2010 on May 31, 2012 at 11:43 AM

“When the left doesn’t want to make abortion the issue, they say you’re being against minorities.”

Yup.

Trying to save the lives of little girls (of any race) is somehow racist? Twisted leftists.

mankai on May 31, 2012 at 11:44 AM

We need to abort Obama’s political career in the first term.

NoDonkey on May 31, 2012 at 11:44 AM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

We prefer the publish your medical records on the internet, death panel way.

kringeesmom on May 31, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Wow, that is one lame-ass law they’ve proposed.

To avoid liability, all the doctor would have to do is post a sign in his reception area saying: “Attention patients: if you wish to schedule an abortion because you do not want a baby of the gender you’re carrying, and you inform me of that fact, I will refuse to perform the abortion, as the law forbids me from knowingly providing an abortion for reasons of gender preference.”

I’m surprised the Obama administration didn’t jump on board this one. It’s exactly the kind of bill they normally would support: it’s basically meaningless, but it gives them cover to claim they strongly oppose gender-selection abortions. Somebody must not have read the proposed law before they issued their press statement.

AZCoyote on May 31, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Again I say, its not a war on women. Its a skirmish against itty bitty baby girls. That’s a fair fight for a liberal democrat.

DanMan on May 31, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Killing baby girls is a necessary part of any woman’s reproductive health program. It’s only fair.

a capella on May 31, 2012 at 11:46 AM

If this isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve read all year, it’s pretty damn close.

Red Cloud on May 31, 2012 at 11:42 AM

It’s the Washington Post. Be patient.

Eugene Robinson’s column will be released soon.

NoDonkey on May 31, 2012 at 11:47 AM

AZCoyote on May 31, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Yeah, chock full of loopholes.

a capella on May 31, 2012 at 11:47 AM

If this isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve read all year, it’s pretty damn close.

Red Cloud on May 31, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Wow, you can say that again. Democrats are in a position of defending gendercide while simultaneously insulting Asians, and this is supposed the be a political loser for Republicans?

Milbank and anyone else thinking this way needs a visit from Admiral Akbar.

forest on May 31, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

Why is elder care any different then? Why is Grandma told to take a pill if the government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters?

And why can some teenage girls get abortions with no parental consent if “the government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way”?

And why can the government hand out birth control to minors in schools without parental consent…?

And…?

Are Democrats illogical on purpose or does it just come with the territory of trying to control everything and everybody?

UnderstandingisPower on May 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Message from Democrats:
We support killing you and will do so at will and have you stupid broads convinced that it was ‘your choice.’ If those kids survive the 1st nine mos, we’ll tax the hell out of you, make you think we’re doing you a service at every stage of your life, demand your unfailing loyalty and devotion, and, if you happen to make it past your usefulness as a human, we’ll convince you that either suicide or euthanasia is a pretty damn good idea too.

You should be thanking us now.
this is your life, prole, get about to livin’ it. /

ted c on May 31, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Anyone that believes any staffer would be fired over this is incredibly naive. They will be given a few days off with pay, and sent to another PP location to do a similar job. That’s the way it was with ACORN, that’s the way it will be with PP.

slickwillie2001 on May 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

Is this not the same administration that ramrodded their version of what constitutes health care down our throats? Is this not the same administration that tells us what we can and cannot decied to eat for their perceived medical reasons?. The hypocrasy of this administration is stunning.

NOMOBO on May 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM

want to see what a nation under judgemwnt looks like?

tom daschle concerned on May 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM

The bill is a waste of time. Whether we like it or not (and I don’t), aborting a baby for reasons of convenience is legal. You can throw a baby away because it cramps your current lifestyle if you want. As disgusting as it is, selecting the sex is just an extension of that choice. I can’t imagine someone basing their decision on this, but most likely they will opt to keep their reasons to themselves.

underdog on May 31, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I have to admit that this Bill is just busy work for reelection outrage. No one will talk about gender in the doctor’s office. I wish I could find the clip of the Democrat congresswoman who said that everyone was against sex selection based on gender. It was beautiful.

Cindy Munford on May 31, 2012 at 11:55 AM

What if. . . just what if . . . you could tell in vitro that a child was going to be gay. And people were aborting based on that. Would Obama oppose or support a bill banning that?

kurtzz3 on May 31, 2012 at 11:56 AM

If this isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve read all year, it’s pretty damn close.

Red Cloud on May 31, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Didya see his article on liming the ocean, painting the clouds white, and laying foil across the desert to combat global warming/climate change? I thought that was the dumbest (and most funny) article I have ever read.

kringeesmom on May 31, 2012 at 11:57 AM

“The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

But Obamacare is OK

Bevan on May 31, 2012 at 11:57 AM

What if. . . just what if . . . you could tell in vitro that a child was going to be gay. And people were aborting based on that. Would Obama oppose or support a bill banning that?

kurtzz3 on May 31, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Oppose, duh. And not just because the queer brigade would rip him stem to stern if he supported it.

MelonCollie on May 31, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Wow, that is one lame-ass law they’ve proposed.

To avoid liability, all the doctor would have to do is post a sign in his reception area saying: “Attention patients: if you wish to schedule an abortion because you do not want a baby of the gender you’re carrying, and you inform me of that fact, I will refuse to perform the abortion, as the law forbids me from knowingly providing an abortion for reasons of gender preference.”

I’m surprised the Obama administration didn’t jump on board this one. It’s exactly the kind of bill they normally would support: it’s basically meaningless, but it gives them cover to claim they strongly oppose gender-selection abortions. Somebody must not have read the proposed law before they issued their press statement.

AZCoyote on May 31, 2012 at 11:45 AM

How many women seeking an abortion would admit to gender selection in the first place? If you can abort for any reason, there’s zero need for specifics.

nico on May 31, 2012 at 11:59 AM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

But the government should have the right to dictate what specific medical coverages each U.S. citizen must purchase from their health insurer, and the government should also have the right to dictate which coverages the insurance companies must provide to customers without any deductible or co-pay, regardless of whether or not the insured customer wants or needs those coverages, and regardless of whether or not the insured customer can afford the increased premiums that will inevitably result from the mandated “free” coverages.

The Obama administration certainly is consistent in its inconsistencies, isn’t it?

AZCoyote on May 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM

We shouldn’t be punishing people for their private thoughts and opinions! People who support this law should be arrested for committing a hate crime!

/

mankai on May 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I don’t understand why we’re not hearing from uppereastside and all the other smug trolls.

John the Libertarian on May 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Here are the facts:

-
According to the CDC 91.4% of abortions are performed before the 13th week
, long before sex can be determined.

-The U.S. gender ratio is completely in line with the rest of the world, there is no “scourge on girls.”

This is another manufactured outrage involving a few rare isolated incidents that do not accord with Planned Parenthood’s policies.

libfreeordie on May 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I can think of one reason that a couple might consider abortion based on sex that has some medical reasoning behind it. Some genetic disorders have sex-linked characteristics. If a man with hemophilia has kids, it would be best for his offspring to be female as they would be just carriers of the disease since it takes a gene on both X chromosomes for a female to develop hemophilia. Inheriting just one gene on the Y chromosome means a male would have the disease. In a world where AIDS has killed a wide swathe of the hemophiliac population, that might be a situation to give this some thought.

Otherwise, this is a fairly gruesome practice to undertake for strictly emotional elective reasons.

Jill1066 on May 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM

The self-destructive Left. It’s who they are, it’s what they do. Everything they touch dies. Not a coincidence. And they’re currently running the country. Gee, look what’s happening to our culture, society, and economy. Four more years! (That’s all we’ve got.)

RobertMN on May 31, 2012 at 12:02 PM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

They’re perfectly willing to tell you to ban you from buying a Big Gulp but banning something as offensive as gender-selective abortion? Well that is just far too instrusive! Honestly, I keep looking around for the bearded Spock.

Happy Nomad on May 31, 2012 at 12:02 PM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way

Other ways, sure… but not this way.

mankai on May 31, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I’m totally supportive of what Live Action is doing, but I do not understand why this is a federal matter.

Ending federal taxpayer dollars for planned parenthood, absolutely! But making abortion practices into federal criminal laws, I don’t see it. It’s a state issue.

Further, how do conservatives argue Roe should be overturned – as it should be – and sent back to the states and then support this federal bill?

Uncledave on May 31, 2012 at 12:03 PM

One of the great mysteries of our time is: How could so many, normal, law-abiding Germans have followed Hitler? And here you see the answer. Everything that happened in Germany was legal–they legalized it first. Then you bring the populace in by degrees.

Ironic that a Christian country founded on notions of liberty is now perverted into a Satanic country that requires the constant sacrifice of children to the Great God Choice. Or Moloch. Whatever.

Herald of Woe on May 31, 2012 at 12:03 PM

This is another manufactured outrage involving a few rare isolated incidents that do not accord with Planned Parenthood’s policies.

libfreeordie on May 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Yes, just a few bad apples murdering an insignificant few hundred or maybe dozen girls, for the sin of being female.

Nothing to see here. No let’s talk about Donald Trump and how he believes our worthless idiot of a president may not have been born in the U.S.

NoDonkey on May 31, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Planned Parenthood makes a lot of money on sex selective abortions in India and other countries. Here’s a link to their India operation:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/international-program/india-country-program-19007.htm

How many girls have been selectively aborted? Well, we’re short 163 million. Sounds pretty profitable for PP:

http://liveaction.org/blog/163-million-girls-victims-of-sex-selective-abortion/

Of course they’re against restricting it.

theCork on May 31, 2012 at 12:03 PM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.

Hahahahahahaha, that has to get the coveted Ironic WH Comment of the Year award!

KS Rex on May 31, 2012 at 12:03 PM

This is another manufactured outrage involving a few rare isolated incidents that do not accord with Planned Parenthood’s policies.

libfreeordie on May 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM

What an unthinking tool you are. There’s no atrocity, no matter how great the scale, that you won’t defend and promote as long as it’s “progressive”.

theCork on May 31, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Unbelievable? What do you expect from people who refuse to acknowledge that they are killing babies? How can a ‘clump of cells’ have gender?

ProfessorMiao on May 31, 2012 at 12:07 PM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

You may kill a baby in New York because of their gender but don’t you dare supersize your slurpee!

Vince on May 31, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Notice how the PP staffer can’t say “sex of the baby” but says “sex of the pregnancy“…

Just how soulless do you have to be to work for this hideous outfit?

Common Sense Floridian on May 31, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I’m totally supportive of what Live Action is doing, but I do not understand why this is a federal matter.

Ending federal taxpayer dollars for planned parenthood, absolutely! But making abortion practices into federal criminal laws, I don’t see it. It’s a state issue.

Further, how do conservatives argue Roe should be overturned – as it should be – and sent back to the states and then support this federal bill?

Uncledave on May 31, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Because it doesn’t matter how it gets banned, murder is murder.

Bluray on May 31, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Honor Killings from the inception.

Jabberwock on May 31, 2012 at 12:10 PM

This is another manufactured outrage involving a few rare isolated incidents that do not accord with Planned Parenthood’s policies.

libfreeordie on May 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Ah! There one is! Straight from the who-you-gonna-believe-me-or-your-lying-eyes playbook.

John the Libertarian on May 31, 2012 at 12:10 PM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

She BLINDED ME with IRONY.

RSbrewer on May 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM

What if. . . just what if . . . you could tell in vitro that a child was going to be gay. And people were aborting based on that. Would Obama oppose or support a bill banning that?

kurtzz3 on May 31, 2012 at 11:56 AM

That day is fast approaching, along with a remedy for homosexuality in utero, and there’s not a couple in the World that would not choose that remedy if the test was positive.

Homosexuality will go the way of the Shakers.

slickwillie2001 on May 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Is PP going to fire more staffers today?
If they (PP) had the brains commiserate with their skill at killing, they would just not comment.
I think the videos are excellent and do quite a bit for the idiots in the squishy middle, but the staunch pro abortion crowd knows this goes on.
For goodness sake, our POTUS supports killing a live baby so as not to burden the mother. Why is gender selection surprising?
WTH are the pro abortion people this morning?

ORconservative on May 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM

A PREGNANCY does not have a gender.

A BABY has a gender.

Also…

I wonder how many PP staffers are sweating it out after advising a woman on how to get an abortion for gender selection?

Grace_is_sufficient on May 31, 2012 at 12:14 PM

based on the sex or gender of the child

in this context, how does “or gender” clarify ???

williampeck1958 on May 31, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3