More evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood has surfaced in this week’s undercover video release. The video – a second installment in the bombshell series from the Center for Medical Progress– captures yet another Planned Parenthood abortionist nonchalantly talking about the bodies of the babies aborted at her hands. Much more serious than her discussion of the babies she kills, in fact, is her concern for the compensation she is to potentially receive in exchange for procuring intact fetal organs.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MjCs_gvImyw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The abortionist, Mary Gatter, broaches the subject of payment very early on in the conversation, explaining that in her past collaboration with tissue procurement companies, “there was compensation for this,” as she looks over at the buyers to ensure they acknowledge her words. The discussion of payment for fetal body parts escalates later, and Gatter approaches the conversation as a serious negotiation.
Buyer: What would you expect for intact tissue? What sort of compensation?
Gatter: Well, why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying.
Buyer: Okay. I don’t think so. I’d like to hear, I would like to know, what would make you happy. What would work for you?
Gatter: Well, you know in negotiations the person who throws out the figure first is at a loss, right?
Eventually Gatter is appeased by the offer of $100 per specimen, but only if the figure is confirmed to be as high or higher than what other Planned Parenthood affiliates charge. After all, as she infamously joked: “I want a Lamborghini.”
But compensation is not the only troubling aspect of the conversation. Gatter also admits that changing the technique the abortionist uses – something abortionists are explicitly barred from doing – would probably not be a problem. “The patient,” Gatter reasons, would not “care one iota.” The patient, however, is the one person of the two involved in an abortion about whom Planned Parenthood is actually required by law to care. But Gatter’s conversation suggests that even the woman can be overlooked when there is a new avenue of profit on the horizon.
Gatter explains that suction aspiration is the normal method of abortion at her facility. But this method shreds the bodies of preborn children, leaving little identifiable, intact tissue at the disposal of the procurement agents who hover in anticipation of intact organs and body parts. There is a “less crunchy” abortion method called IPAS, or manual vacuum aspiration of the preborn child from the mother’s womb, Gatter explains, which could be used to avoid this problem and produce more intact samples:
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 or something with less suction, and 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 of 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 age 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.
This is not a “concern” for Gatter because she has any ethical objection to actually committing an abortion procedure to which the patient did not consent. This is only a concern because of the ramifications of having a signed document from the woman detailing that agreement in legal terms. Once again, the people at the top of Planned Parenthood prove their utter disregard for anything but profit.