Planned Parenthood vid indictments

[kmccune]

Alls ,fair when the investigators do it . the whole legal system is a sham ,but its the only ballgame in town .
I really havent been following this ,by this time can fetal tissue be cloned ? (or the stem cells ) or have the conservatives kept cloning from the mainstream ?

Used to listen to Rush ,I'm better now .

[Fafhrd]

It strikes me that this is yet another argument in which each side is using half-truths to "prove" their case.

[Econoline]

liberty - yes, they were Planned Parenthood personnel. No, they did not "offer to sell body parts" The people who made the video offered to buy body parts--which is clearly illegal. When Planned Parenthood or any other organization collects fetal tissue (via voluntary donations, from women undergoing abortions or miscarriages) they are allowed to allowed to pass along these donations to another legitimate organization and they are also allowed to pass along the legitimate costs of storing and transporting the tissue involved. (AFAIK, this also applies to all other donations of human tissue and organs.) By insisting on discussing these legitimate costs right after offering to buy fetal tissue, the "Center for Medical Progress" people were able to edit the video to make it appear as if they were discussing the cost of the tissue.

wes - even the "unedited" videos have been shown to have been edited, as shown by discontinuities in the video and audio components, as well as the time and date stamps on the raw video.

And I've said this before (twice; this makes three times now):

I've said it before: as someone working in the courier service industry, the costs attributed by PP to storage and transport of human tissue seem quite reasonable--low, even--and it's perfectly legal and entirely appropriate that the recipient (rather than the donor or the middleman) should be the one who pays these fees. (I don't know for sure about the storage, but the transportation undoubtedly would have been done by some specialty courier service, a commercial entity that no one would expect to provide free services.)

The Planned Parenthood personnel explained this quite clearly (though they shouldn't have had to...any legitimate entity seeking to obtain fetal tissue for any legitimate purpose should have known this already); the "Center for Medical Progress" edited it out of the video.

[Bicycle Bill]

liberty - yes, they were Planned Parenthood personnel. No, they did not "offer to sell body parts" The people who made the video offered to buy body parts--which is clearly illegal. When Planned Parenthood or any other organization collects fetal tissue (via voluntary donations, from women undergoing abortions or miscarriages) they are allowed to allowed to pass along these donations to another legitimate organization and they are also allowed to pass along the legitimate costs of storing and transporting the tissue involved. (AFAIK, this also applies to all other donations of human tissue and organs.) By insisting on discussing these legitimate costs right after offering to buy fetal tissue, the "Center for Medical Progress" people were able to edit the video to make it appear as if they were discussing the cost of the tissue.

wes - even the "unedited" videos have been shown to have been edited, as shown by discontinuities in the video and audio components, as well as the time and date stamps on the raw video.

And I've said this before (twice; this makes three times now):

I've said it before: as someone working in the courier service industry, the costs attributed by PP to storage and transport of human tissue seem quite reasonable--low, even--and it's perfectly legal and entirely appropriate that the recipient (rather than the donor or the middleman) should be the one who pays these fees. (I don't know for sure about the storage, but the transportation undoubtedly would have been done by some specialty courier service, a commercial entity that no one would expect to provide free services.)

The Planned Parenthood personnel explained this quite clearly (though they shouldn't have had to...any legitimate entity seeking to obtain fetal tissue for any legitimate purpose should have known this already); the "Center for Medical Progress" edited it out of the video.

E'line, as a 20-gallon blood donor to the Red Cross I can vouch for the truth of your words.  The Red Cross, anyway, does not "sell" the blood they collect from volunteer donors.  They do collect a fee commensurate with the costs involved in obtaining the blood, typing and storing it, and screening it for nasties like hepatitis or HIV before making it available to the hospitals and what-have-you.  These entities probably also add their own fees for storage, cross-matching, and the transfusion of said blood into your veins to the bill you receive for their services.  But as far as a charge of $XX for "blood, human donor, one pint" — it just doesn't work that way.

-"BB"-

[liberty]

liberty - yes, they were Planned Parenthood personnel. No, they did not "offer to sell body parts" The people who made the video offered to buy body parts--which is clearly illegal. When Planned Parenthood or any other organization collects fetal tissue (via voluntary donations, from women undergoing abortions or miscarriages) they are allowed to allowed to pass along these donations to another legitimate organization and they are also allowed to pass along the legitimate costs of storing and transporting the tissue involved. (AFAIK, this also applies to all other donations of human tissue and organs.) By insisting on discussing these legitimate costs right after offering to buy fetal tissue, the "Center for Medical Progress" people were able to edit the video to make it appear as if they were discussing the cost of the tissue.

wes - even the "unedited" videos have been shown to have been edited, as shown by discontinuities in the video and audio components, as well as the time and date stamps on the raw video.

And I've said this before (twice; this makes three times now):

I've said it before: as someone working in the courier service industry, the costs attributed by PP to storage and transport of human tissue seem quite reasonable--low, even--and it's perfectly legal and entirely appropriate that the recipient (rather than the donor or the middleman) should be the one who pays these fees. (I don't know for sure about the storage, but the transportation undoubtedly would have been done by some specialty courier service, a commercial entity that no one would expect to provide free services.)

The Planned Parenthood personnel explained this quite clearly (though they shouldn't have had to...any legitimate entity seeking to obtain fetal tissue for any legitimate purpose should have known this already); the "Center for Medical Progress" edited it out of the video.

I trust you Econo; I believe you to be an honest man and most likely more informed than me while I am working. So I am inclined to believe that the individuals in the video committed no crime.


But there is the possibility that the leadership of PP may be inflating expenses so they can skim money off for other uses, just a thought.

[rubato]

"...

I trust you Econo; I believe you to be an honest man and most likely more informed than me while I am working. So I am inclined to believe that the individuals in the video committed no crime.


But there is the possibility that the leadership of PP may be inflating expenses so they can skim money off for other uses, just a thought.

Not at those prices.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

I trust you Econo; I believe you to be an honest man and most likely more informed than me while I am working....But there is the possibility that the leadership of PP may be inflating expenses so they can skim money off for other uses, just a thought.

Econo is most likely more informed than either of us, working or otherwise.

It's also possible the leadership of PP are axe-wielding homicidal maniacs. So?

[Lord Jim]

I'm curious about something here...(and, this is whole bruhaha is not a big issue for me, but just from a logical standpoint...)

If this is true:

even the "unedited" videos have been shown to have been edited, as shown by discontinuities in the video and audio components, as well as the time and date stamps on the raw video.

Then how can this:

The Planned Parenthood personnel explained this quite clearly (though they shouldn't have had to...any legitimate entity seeking to obtain fetal tissue for any legitimate purpose should have known this already); the "Center for Medical Progress" edited it out of the video.

be asserted as a fact?

How can one logically claim as a fact that something has been "edited out" while simultaneously stating that no "unedited" version exists?

It seems to me that from a strictly logical standpoint, one must have at least one "unedited" version to use as the basis for that claim...

Unless the claim is made based on just taking their word for it...

Which would make it something less than a "fact"...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Lord, I thought I picked nits but

[Lord Jim]

That's not "nit picking"...

How can one logically claim that something has been "edited out" if simultaneously you are claiming that no "unedited" version exists?

What is the standard for comparison?

To illustrate this, permit me to construct a hypothetical analogy:

There's a video that purports to show rubato fooling around with Mrs. Meade...

Surely, there would be at least one unedited video version that disproves this...

(At least one would hope... )

[Scooter]

Not intending to speak for Econoline, but it seemed fairly clear to me. There is the version that was edited for public consumption, that includes none of the discussion to which Econo refers, about the costs quoted being for shipping. There is then a version in which those explanations do appear, but even that version is not unedited, because there are discontinuities in the time stamps. And that there is no version that can be shown to completely unedited, as shown by completely continuous time stamps.

[MajGenl.Meade]

(Unlike Scooter, I at least understood your point)

Oh, not a very good analogy. It is more like

Someone produces a video (carrying signs of having been edited) of LJ saying "I have taste in music and television comedy"

LJ claims that they edited out the word "no" that should (obvs) appear between 'have' and 'taste'

[dales]

[rubato]

Christ ...

What we have in this case are videos which are more edited (those released by the liars to persuade Repuglicans) and those which are less edited. We can tell one from the other because the less edited versions have material not in the more edited versions.

When the less edited versions are compared to the more edited versions it is apparent that they (the video editors) are lying by excluding recordings which show that the PP representatives are not selling human tissue but recouping a fraction of the costs.

Now it is not impossible that there is even more footage which the originators have lost or thrown away which reverses once again our understanding of events but it is logically impossible that they (who originated all of the video) excluded information favorable to their case.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Okay, maybe I'm not explaining this as well as I might....(ETA: I'm addressing this response to Scooter and Meade... rube and I cross posted, and I'm not going to bother with him)

I'll give it a third shot...

The Planned Parenthood personnel explained this quite clearly (though they shouldn't have had to...any legitimate entity seeking to obtain fetal tissue for any legitimate purpose should have known this already); the "Center for Medical Progress" edited it out of the video.

How can you prove that someone "edited out" something from a video, unless you have an unedited version of the video?

And you certainly can't do it if you assert that no honestly unedited version of the video exists:

even the "unedited" videos have been shown to have been edited

What you can say is this:

"I don't trust the people who made the video, so the video is irrelevant, regardless of what it purports to show.

Even though they don't have an independent video record of the exchange, the PP folks maintain they said XY and Z, and that their comments were taken out of context and edited in a way to give a dishonest portrayal of what was said, so it's their word against the word of the video makers, and I prefer to believe them..."

That's a perfectly defensible position to take, but that's the position one needs to take when one can't back up editing claims with no "unedited" standard to compare it to...

[Econoline]

Scooter and rubato pretty much nailed it.

To go into a little bit more detail: in the "unedited" video (but not in the originally released video), the PP official, Deborah Nucatola, says “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.” Nucatola also says, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point, she says, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.” The full video shows that after Nucatola mentions the $30 to $100, she describes how those amounts would be reimbursement for expenses related to handling and transportation of the tissues. Nucatola talks about “space issues” and whether shipping would be involved. (source)

Also from that same source:

Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit.”

Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” ‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”

Here's some info (from Planned Parenthood, follow the link to see more) about the edited "unedited" video:

Forensic experts have found that “full footage” videos and transcripts released by CMP are also heavily edited:

• “Professional analysis revealed that the full footage videos contained numerous intentional post-production edits.”

• Experts identify numerous “cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle” throughout the “full footage” videos.

• “Analysis reveals that approximately 30 minutes of the meeting are missing from the video shortly after the eighth minute of recording. The clock superimposed on the video skips from 07:46:47 to 08:15:15 from one frame to the next.”

• “The manipulation of the videos does mean they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries…”

And here's a link to that independent forensic examination (PDF) of the videos mentioned and quoted above.

[rubato]

The video isn't irrelevant it shows that PP was doing the right thing all along and the Repuglican leadership repeated the lies for months after they were proven to be lies.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

(Once again, I'm just going to ignore the ignorant stupidity posted above...)

in the "unedited" video (but not in the originally released video), the PP official, Deborah Nucatola, says “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.” Nucatola also says, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point, she says, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.” The full video shows that after Nucatola mentions the $30 to $100, she describes how those amounts would be reimbursement for expenses related to handling and transportation of the tissues. Nucatola talks about “space issues” and whether shipping would be involved.

Okay, so the contention is, that there is in fact an "unedited" video version that backs up the PP version of the conversation...

Wonderful... do you have a link for that?

[BoSoxGal]

The edited video with clearly missing portions and timestamps that prove it has as much evidentiary value as is assigned to it by a fact finder - jury or judge - and so does the affidavit of PP officials as to what was said in the time period that is edited out from the video.

I'm not sure why that concept is difficult for anyone here to grasp; video is not, in fact, inherently more reliable if proven (as in this case) to have been subject to alteration/manipulation.

[oldr_n_wsr]

LordJim
At some point, there was the original, unedited video. I assume, those who filmed it still have it. So far all released videos have been edited to varying extents. I know of no "unedited" version.