GOP cowards continue to push Cruz to cave on Planned Parenthood funding

The selling of baby parts has been going on for a long time, but only recently have we been able to see how despicable and graphic Planned Parenthood is through undercover videos. Even though we know how evil the practice is, Congress would rather allow it to continue than force a government shutdown. RINOs will do anything to protect the government. ~ ML, 9/18/15

These cowardly Republicans act as if they have no power at all. When in fact, they could change every damn rule in Congress to sway this and many other issues their way, while maintaining the constitutional authority to do so. I've never seen such vigor in gutlessness to prevent a nation from turning away from evil, towards a better course of national healing...

CBS: As Congress prepares a vote to defund Planned Parenthood that could set off a government shutdown, one prominent Republican has some questions for the man leading the charge, GOP presidential hopeful and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

"Given the challenges and threats we face at home and abroad, I oppose risking a government shutdown, particularly when it appears there is no chance of achieving a successful result," Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, wrote to Cruz in a letter first obtained by local television station WMUR. "Nevertheless, as I understand it, you have been circulating a letter to our colleagues asking them to oppose any government funding bill that continues to authorize funding for Planned Parenthood."

The New Hampshire senator is no supporter of Planned Parenthood. She voted last month to defund the women's health organization, on a bill that only received 53 votes in the Senate -- far short of the 60 votes needed to break the Senate Democrats' filibuster.

"How do we get 60 votes?" Ayotte asked Cruz. "And if for some reason there were 60 votes, how do we get 67 votes in the Senate to overcome a Presidential veto?"

The fight over Planned Parenthood was elevated on the national debate stage Wednesday, when GOP presidential candidates like Cruz attacked the organization for its abortion practices.

The Texas senator charged fellow Republicans with "preemptively surrendering" to Obama in their opposition to a federal shutdown.

"You know, Obama's committed to his principles," Cruz said late Wednesday. "Republicans surrender. We need to stop surrendering and start standing for our principles."

Here's some questions for Sen. Ayotte (and Gov. Kasich, as well as others):

Where's your vision in political maneuvering? Where's your fight at all political cost for a first liberty, Life? Neither are practiced in maintaining a filibuster rule that was previously suspended and used against you when Reid controlled the Senate. And anyone can cast a 'yay' in a choreographed show vote set to fail.

Why the HELL fear a government shutdown when it produced historic WINS for Republicans the last time, despite the Democratic bought-and-paid-for media? This one illustrates RINOs incessant attachment to minority status in Washington. Any bit of power over principle. And how many times must the American people fall for this charade of a minute percent of the government actually 'shutting down'? All cylinders still fire; the radio's just turned off for a few days!

Where's your sense of principle, and why do you maintain a party that can't seem to find it? Why side with Democrats and Obama over Sen. Cruz?! Because far too many Republicans have detached themselves from principle, conservatism and the Constitution. In other words, they stand for nothing but themselves...much like Democrats. They truly are the Washington cartel. And that's what Cruz is out to dismantle. Shut it down!

Cruz LIGHTS UP HeritageAction 'Take Back America' presidential forum

Oh, look...and LISTEN! Heritage Action for America held a 'Take Back America' presidential forum today that was more informative than any of these so-called 'debates' on the cable news networks. Here's where we're finally allowed to forgo the media stiflers and actual hear Ted Cruz speak!

"Last I checked, Barack Obama doesn't spend a whole lot of time spooning with congressional Republicans. If we're gonna turn this around, we can't nominate or elect a Republican president who will simply manage the decline of this country. Just once, Republicans should nominate a candidate as committed to conservative principles as Barack Obama is to liberal principles!"

"I'm gonna suggest to you the difference between me and the other very fine men and women who are running for president is when push comes to shove, when it comes to the moment to make the decision, whether it is really taking on Obamacare, whether it is standing up to amnesty, whether it is actually defunding Planned Parenthood, or whether it is standing up and putting a principled conservative jurist on the Supreme Court, the difference between me and the other candidates is that I'm gonna do what I told you I would do!"

And the way he wraps up his time on stage addressing the enemies of America...phenomenal! #CRUZ2016

Related links: Ted Cruz Ignored; Won’t Play Along
WATCH LIVE: THE HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL FORUM
Ted Cruz ‘open to considering’ refundable tax credit in Obamacare replacement
Mark Davis: Why Ted Cruz has a better shot than you think
Cruz is positioned well even in midst of Trump frenzy

Dems, Flake filibuster amendment requiring US hostage release, Israel recognition for Iran deal

As if this amendment was anywhere near the heights of what the actual nuke deal does! Regardless, while everyone was talking debate today, Dems sided against America once more, with some RINO support no less...

HotAir: Filibuster in haste, repent at leisure. Senate Democrats blocked an amendment from a floor vote that would have required Iran to release all Americans detained in their country and a formal recognition of Israel’s right to exist before Barack Obama’s nuclear deal could go into effect. Republicans only got 53 votes to move forward to a floor vote, setting up a potential fight over the future of the filibuster itself.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) stuck with the GOP on the procedural vote, but announced that he would oppose the amendment if it came to a floor vote. Flake argued that the conditions are not serious enough to make a prerequisite for entering into a deal.

Both parties in this case made errors. Mitch McConnell would have done better to restrict the amendment to the fate of US hostages, whose disregard in these talks is indefensible. Recognition of Israel by the mullahs not only is a poison pill, but who’d believe them if they actually complied? Its inclusion allowed Democrats a political out for blocking it.

Strategically, though, the filibuster of this bill will be a disaster for Democrats. Why not have a floor vote? Obama would veto the bill, and Democrats have more than enough votes in both chambers to sustain it. Instead, they made themselves look weak and craven for no difference in outcome in protection of a President whose name is already all over this deal. It’s an incredibly dumb move, one that some Democrats will regret when they stand for re-election.

So, this leaves us with the big question: Does McConnell go nuclear on the filibuster in order to hold a floor vote that won’t prevent Iran from going nuclear in the end?

McConnell finally doing what we've suggested since the GOP regained Senate leadership? Don't count on it. That would require a smidge of courage. Something Flake has evidently found, albeit on the wrong side of the aisle once again.

Related link: GOP senator breaks with McConnell strategy

Eisenhower, Reagan agreed that it's time to abandon the hyphens

Preceding last night's MSM Show w/GOP guests, Levin discussed an interesting WeeklyStandard piece 'given the context of where we are as a nation today and the balkanization based on race and ethnicity'...

THIS would have been a GREAT topic to explore last night, but the lib media definitely doesn't want to wade into this one, much less allow GOP candidates of diverse descent to intelligently discuss and debate a substantive issue among one another before a captivated citizenry...

A Timely Reminder from Eisenhower and Reagan

A half-forgotten exchange of letters between two titans of the Republican party, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, contains an urgent lesson for the presidential candidates who will debate at the Reagan Library on Wednesday: Tell the country that you will be the president of all Americans, and will represent no one group in particular.

This message-in-a-bottle from Ike and the Gipper comes straight from the 1960s, but it holds important lessons for our own time. ...

At the time of the Eisenhower-Reagan exchange, today’s noxious mix of identity politics, adversarial multiculturalism, and political correctness was only in its infancy. It was just then coming into fashion on campuses and in the circles of the New Left run by cultural Marxists like Herbert Marcuse.

Building on the theories of Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, the New Left argued that─even more than class─America was divided along racial, ethnic, and gender lines into a dominant group (white males) and “marginalized” groups (ethnic, racial, linguistic, and sexual minorities). The goal of politics should be first to “de-legitimize” the ideas of the American system and second, to transfer power from the dominant group to the “oppressed” groups, they argued.

Today, this perverse form of Balkanization, which places Americans into various identity group boxes in employment, education, law, and culture pervades the academy, government, media, and political life. It is even codified in the official U.S. Census.

Yet almost 50 years ago, Eisenhower and Reagan immediately and instinctively knew that this embryonic identity politics was a direct challenge to the universalism that America stands for. Beneath their smiles and Midwestern amiability, Ike and the Gipper revealed a deep understanding and sophistication of what political philosophers would call “regime maintenance.” That is, the ideas and values are necessary to sustain the American way of life.

Without using sociological terminology, Eisenhower and Reagan knew that an emphasis on one’s race, ethnicity, and gender group highlighted his “ascribed status,” i.e. what a person was born into, rather than the “achieved status” that an American earns as an individual. They knew that there was something “old world” and frankly un-American about emphasizing birth status and dividing our citizens into competing ethnic, racial, and gender groups.

In other words, five decades ago, they understood identity politics for what it was: an attempt to de-legitimize American constitutional democracy.

As George Washington told his fellow countrymen in his Farewell Address, before any other political identity, they should first and foremost consider themselves Americans. It's time to abandon the hyphens.

We need to reverse the myths and lies coming from the Obama administration and both parties when it comes to illegal immigration. We’re tired of hearing the same platitudes over and over again about immigrants coming to America to love: high incarceration rates and violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants beg to differ. This is why RINOs aren’t resonating with Conservatives: they refuse to take a hard stance on illegal immigration and continue to destroy us from within. ~ ML, 9/16/15

This is about zero tolerance and 'see something, say something', not 'Islamophobia'

Refrain from the hasttag outrage for a moment to get the full picture...

LegalInsurrection: Yesterday a Texas teenager, who happens to be a Muslim, brought a homemade clock to school and was arrested because the clock was mistaken for a bomb. Some people are blaming racism but zero tolerance policies are the real problem.

This Associated Press video report provides more background:



Because the teenager in the story is a Muslim, the left has rushed to blame the story on racism, rather than the zero tolerance policies rampant in America’s public schools.

Legal Insurrection has covered zero tolerance insanity many times:

The zero-tolerance war on kindergarteners
Forecast: Cloudy, with a certainty of Zero Tolerance Insanity
Oklahoma teachers union seeks to keep zero tolerance rules banning imaginary guns
12-year old RI student suspended for small keychain “gun”
All your front yards are belong to school zero-tolerance policies
“Zero Tolerance For Drones”
Not a Pop Tart: 13-year old with “toy” AK-47 shot and killed by police
Here we go again: 10-year-old boy suspended for pointing finger like a gun

Enough said?

Well, not completely. Not only does this not look like a clock (have fun getting that through TSA!), but these instances continue to happen partially because of liberal school policies. However, in this specific instance, another policy may have taken precedence.

We've been told over and over again that 'if you see something, say something.' In fact, the government created an entire campaign out of that slogan! But suddenly that doesn't apply if it's a Muslim kid taking an improvised device in a briefcase to school? Sorry, America, you can't have it both ways.

Breitbart: This whole thing smells like a setup. With ISIS in America, and young moderate Muslims fleeing to Syria to join the terror group, the response of MacArthur High School officials was rational and reasonable. ...

This story is pure agitprop most fatal. “If you see something, say something” is now racism. And for destroying this simple principle of self-protection, young Ahmed Mohamed is a media star. Not only has Barack Obama invited him to the White House, but NASA has also invited Ahmed to meet with them, as has Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook. The whole thing has clearly been a setup, and its effect will be to make Americans less safe. If you ever see a Muslim with a suspicious object, remember the lesson of Ahmed Mohamed: to say something would be “racism.” That could end up being the epitaph of America and the free world.

As we've seen from the LegalInsurrection examples above, when this same series of events occur with an unhyphenated American, then no big deal. But because this kid (perhaps unbeknownst to him, perhaps taught) pulls the victim card, the top race hustler in the White House interjects and all social media explodes. Never mind the cops being murdered by thugs, or innocent citizens being ravaged by illegal criminals, or just commemorating the most significant terrorist atrocity committed on American soil in our lifetime. In the new era of racialization, apparently only certain victims matter, and it's all based on demographic politics, while disregarding what we know about America's enemies...

"So the point here is that the effort is being made to blame school officials and the cops for Islamophobia here, and that is not what is going on.  Zero-tolerance policies at schools, which are the direct result of previous incidents — the zero tolerance is out of control, such as pretending to shoot a gun with your finger (that gets you sent home) — is what’s responsible here.  It’s just the latest example, and it’s made to order for Obama, because here we have once again backlash against Muslims, you see?

That’s what this really is.  So Obama will be able to make a speech about how dangerous this is, how unfortunate it is, how sorry it is. Innocent little 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed has a brilliant science project, a brilliant clock, a new way of doing a clock. (Yeah, one looks just like a bomb in a briefcase.) Obama gets to bring him to the White House, make a star out of him, make Obama’s star shine even brighter. And once again, the bottom line: Characterize the United States as a racist and bigoted country."

So now, there's apparently zero tolerance, ridicule and scorn for not factoring in political correctness when you 'see something, say something.' A new day, a new regressive rule.

Related links: Obama Invites Muslim Kid to White House Who Brought ‘Briefcase Clock’ to School That Looked Like Bomb
Eight-Year-Old Faced Expulsion For Drawing Gun, But Muslim Student Gets White House Invite After 'Hoax Bomb'
Todd Starnes: Imagine the scare if Ahmed Mohamed’s clock were made out of Pop-Tarts
Race-Grifters Unite: 14 Year-Old Ahmed Mohamed Arrested Over Suitcase Clock
Ahmed Mohamed And The ‘Islamophobia’ Clock
The Case of Ahmed’s Clock
The Left's New Zero Tolerance Policy

Another MSM debate with GOP contenders present

The debate process is supposed to be about the Republican party and the candidates, not the media making money from debate coverage. CNN and Fox News don’t own the debates and shouldn’t have copyright control. It’s imperative for the candidates to get their message out to as large of an audience as possible, but the RNC is doing them a disservice by allowing media outlets to limit who can broadcast the debates. ~ ML, 9/16/15

Agreed. And that's just one issue. Here's some very brief thoughts concerning the second GOP presidential debate hosted by CNN (pshhh) last night...

Fiorina trumped Trump, which is what all the lights were focused on. Accomplished. No doubt she was more substantive. Rubio also did well considering the little amount of time allotted, which wasn't necessarily planned out by the media, but kudos to the Senator. As for the so-called 'lower tier', Jindal was head & shoulders above the rest. IMO, he should be moved up to replace Kasich, who shouldn't even be there, then probably shed the castaways. BAM! One panel (and away with all this tier nonsense).

CNN's predictable antics lived up to the actual ads (one is pictured right) that illustrated their conduct; i.e., paint this as a spectacle, motivate candidates to bicker & distract from substance (even Christie spoke up about this), and then of course drive the new flavor of the month (Carly!). The moderation was divorced from any real policy issues until the final hour of a hellaciously long 3-hour event. And in eating up the prime time with family feuds, as with the first debate on Fox, it not only negates the notion of a meaningful, informative debate, but it also quite literally ignores the most conservative on the stage (Cruz, Paul, Walker) by design. As mentioned earlier, Rubio managed to break through this (as did Jindal in the first debate of the evening), but Carson wasn't nearly as vibrant considering his #2 polling status going in. Unfortunately, the three-ring atmosphere contrived by the media is detrimental to where a crippled party and country need to be heading.

So, even after this second debate, I find myself still wanting less theatrics, less soapy-ness, less reality tv/pop culture-esque BS, and longing for more substance in policy discussions from the get-go.

One final thought...these games transpiring remind me of something the late comedian Bill Hicks used to mockingly exclaim in one of his bits: "Go back to bed, America; your government is in control." These debates, thus far, interject one revision to that statement...

"Go back to bed, America; your MEDIA is in control."

Related links: CNN's Jake Tapper stages a food fight
Ted Cruz Ignored; Won’t Play Along
Bobby Jindal Wins the First Debate
Bobby Jindal and the Maladjusted
Rubio and Fiorina Win
Carly Is Only Going Up
GOP Debate Wrap-Up: Fiorina cleans up at the big kids’ table
Winners and Losers from the CNN/Salem Debate
My scorecard for this debate.
Video: GOP Debate, the trash talk reel
Debate number 2: CNN’s missed opportunity
Poll: The debates’ losers?
GOP debate got better once Trump shut up

ADDENDUM: via Levin...

On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show: The Republican National Committee needs to stop turning over the Republican debates to the media. CNN’s debate format was one big effort to instigate fights between candidates to drive up the ratings. We’ve had enough of TV hosts and anchors using their power as moderator to inject their personal bias into the debates. The entire process needs to be fixed, starting with the whole “2 debates” format. Polls today will have no consequence a year from now, which is why it’s unfair to decide who gets to speak in primetime.

Related link: Mark Levin BLASTS CNN for holding a ‘FOOD FIGHT’ debate

About our Constitution...on Constitution Day!

“I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” ~ James Wilson read on behalf of the ailing Benjamin Franklin at the conclusion of the Constitution Convention in Philadelphia, September 17, 1787.

As the broadcast static from the second GOP debate wanes (and I'll get to that later, perhaps), I find myself approaching the morning after in similar fashion as the close of the first: reflecting on the disarray of our union, ponderance on its future and its inherent generations, and if America, Americans, are capable of diverting from catastrophe, rediscovering our exceptional lot in the world. And quite appropriately, today happens to be Constitution Day! Alongside my reading of Levin's Plunder and Deceit, specifically, Chapter 10 On the Constitution, I've happen upon another excellent authority on our Constitution and what's become of its treatment...

Edwin Meese III: In 1878, William Gladstone described the U.S. Constitution as “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” Gladstone was right.

Today marks the 228th anniversary of the signing of that wonderful work, a document still admired by people around the world, still revered by millions here at home. Increasingly, however, the Constitution is being ignored or flouted—not by “We the People,” but by our ruling elite.

One key theme permeating the great document is the concept of checks and balances. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 51, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

By diffusing power—horizontally among the three separate branches of the federal government and vertically between the central government and the states—the Constitution’s Framers structured government to ensure the nation’s future strength and prosperity without sufficient power to threaten the liberty of the people.

Dividing sovereignty between two different levels—the nation and the states—was intended to prevent an unhealthy concentration of power in a single government. In the space left by a limited central government, the people could rule themselves by their own moral and social values and call on local political institutions to assist them. Where the people, through the Constitution, did consent for the central government to have a role, that role would similarly be guided by the people’s sense of what was valuable and good as articulated through the political institutions of the central government.

These safeguards on our liberty have been eroding slowly for decades. The corrosive agents are politicians who recognize no limits on their power, their activist allies in the judiciary who invent new rights, and elites in the media and academy who believe they know what is best for all Americans.

These individuals claim to focus more on “concepts of human dignity” they infer from the Constitution rather than on the actual text of the document. This subverts the Constitution’s very carefully drawn limits and leads to regrettable decisions by the Supreme Court. It has, for example, birthed reprehensible rulings such as those in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, which helped bring on the Civil War and then cement the Jim Crow era. More recently, it has yielded Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring that the Constitution mandates what are simply policy preferences (about abortion-on-demand and marriage, respectively) shared by a bare majority of the Justices.

The judiciary is not alone to blame. No one momentous event has pushed us onto this path to tyranny. Rather, we have been slowly led by a long series of small steps mapped out by the courts, the executive branch, and Congress. Dubious legal decisions, regulations, and legislative enactments have gradually diminished our liberty and freedom, and steadily increased the power of government over our lives.

From a president who unilaterally changed laws affecting millions of illegal aliens present in the United States, to members of Congress who fail even to read the bills they pass, to states that willingly accept strings-attached deals like the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, our government today blurs the delineation of power so carefully devised by the Framers.

As citizens, we have a responsibility to demand that our government respect the limits the Constitution places on it. The continued success and viability of our democratic republic depends upon our fidelity to, and the faithful exposition and interpretation of, this Constitution, our great charter of liberty.

We still hold the power in our own hands, with each and every vote, to coalesce around those who uphold the fidelity and virtues of liberty. Knowing this, and reflecting on what we've become, I'd be deceiving if I ignored the large amount of manning up we've got to do in a relatively short amount of time. We can do this, though. After all, we are Americans. Though we are chipped away from within daily, America continues to represent the last bastion of freedom. And our Constitution written by its Enlightened Framers still remains the standard-bearer of exceptionalism and excellence in a world where tyranny is the norm. It's time we restore, re-adhere and rededicate to its text as originally intented.

Related link: The Heritage Guide to The Constitution

Audit reveals what we already knew about Healthcare.gov failure

Government oversight fails? That's no surprise. What is, though, is the same government, albeit a separate division, admitting it. Of course, their admission is framed in the past tense of what 'went' wrong, but don't fool yourself into believing there's an expiration date on this incompetency...

TheVerge: According to a new audit, the government employees responsible for managing $600 million in contracts to build Healthcare.gov suffered from major lapses in training and leadership.

The audit, reported on today by Bloomberg, was conducted by the inspector general of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, which handles federal health care programs. The review focused on 20 contracts worth a combined $600 million, 70 percent of which has been allocated, and found some major missteps in the process, starting even before the website's well-publicized IT woes.

According to Bloomberg, the audit found that CMS skipped a required 96-hour training period for employees overseeing contracts worth more than $10 million. Despite not even having the training required to oversee a contract worth $25,000, the audit found, one employee was managing a contract worth $130 million for at least 15 months. Federal standards for training won't be met until October of next year.

And that's only 20 contracts! By next October, nothing will change.

Related link: Audit Details Lapses in CMS Oversight Prior to HealthCare.gov Launch

Democratic media steers GOP leaders towards battle with conservatives

Yelling 'SHUTDOWN!'  is the new 'FIRE!' That one little word will bend Boehner and McConnell parallel with the ground. Selective amnesia allows them to discount the historic wave election garnered the very next year!

This tactic is simply more tricks from a Democratic media, but GOP leaders will undoubtedly fall for it yet again. Boehner, McConnell and their lieutenants are preparing to fight against conservatives...to then cower in the shadow of Obama and Democrats! All to avoid Big Media's assured blame.

Is there really any doubt that these guys don't need to be leading anything, much less a political party?

WaPo: House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is bracing for what could be the toughest weeks of his speakership as several dozen conservatives in his party are threatening to topple him unless he is more ferocious with Democrats during the upcoming fiscal showdowns.

That internal Republican feud has increased the chances that Washington, for the second time in two years, could stumble into a shutdown of the federal government.

The speaker’s lieutenants are openly girding for battle with the small but influential bloc of anti-Boehner conservatives, who have signaled that if Boehner cuts any deal that they don’t like with Hill Democrats and President Obama, they could seek to remove him from the speaker’s post. It is a threat that Boehner and his allies are taking seriously.

The Republican leadership has so much more in their way than worrying about the media perception of a government shutdown (of which shuts down every weekend, btw). Their major obstacle is not conservatives; it's themselves in overcoming their now-routine capitulation to wrongheadedness over any remnant of principle.

Related links: With shutdown looming, Boehner finds himself stuck
THE HILL: KEVIN MCCARTHY FOR SPEAKER? CONSERVATIVES MAY BACK HIM OVER BOEHNER

Top PP Execs agree baby parts sales 'a valid exchange', some clinics 'generate a fair amount of income'

The butchers continue discussing about how to build the 'industry' in this 10th undercover video...

CMP: The fourth episode in a new documentary web series and 10th video by The Center for Medical Progress features several top-level Planned Parenthood executives discussing the organization’s secretive practices around aborted fetal parts harvesting. The video includes comments from Deborah VanDerhei, the National Director of the organization’s Consortium of Abortion Providers, describing the harvesting of fetal body parts as “donation for remuneration.”



The video highlights conversations with Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, Senior Medical Advisor for PPFA; Dr. Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for PPFA; and Deborah VanDerhei, National Director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers (CAPS) at PPFA.

“We’ve just been working with people who want particular tissues, like, you know, they want cardiac, or they want eyes, or they want neural,” says Dr. Westhoff to a prospective fetal organ buyer. “Certainly, everything we provide–oh, gonads! Oh my God, gonads. Everything we provide is fresh.” Westhoff continues, “Obviously, we would have the potential for a huge P.R. issue in doing this,” before offering to introduce the buyers to “national office abortion people” from Planned Parenthood.

Deborah VanDerhei is the National Director for CAPS, an influential committee within Planned Parenthood that drives abortion policy across the organization. VanDerhei refers to payments for fetal tissue as “donation for remuneration,” which carries the connotation of financial reward or benefit without regard for actual expenses. VanDerhei explains, “I have been talking to the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, we’re trying to figure this out as an industry, about how we’re going to manage remuneration, because the headlines would be a disaster.”

...and yet, Congress continues to not only allow but fund this private inhuman entity with your taxpayer dollars. Surreal.