This afternoon (12 August) the Center for Medical Progress released yet another video showing the abortion endpoint. In this case they come close to breaking a court order. Maybe they seek to shame the court into recognizing what viewers cannot fail to recognize: these videos show clear evidence of crimes. In this case, a former technician for StemExpress, LLC.  tells us: StemExpress, and Planned Parenthood, often take unborn babies and their remains for experiments. And they don’t ask whether the mother would allow it, or even tell her what will happen.

A grave charge

To be sure, the Center for Medical Progress make a grave charge. By law, whoever treats a patient in any way without first asking permission, assaults that patient. Only with clear and convincing evidence would the Center make such a charge. Or break a clear court order to release no more videos featuring StemExpress employees. Holly O’Donnell, the ex-tech in this video, no longer works for StemExpress. But she once did. And she talks about what she did while working for StemExpress, and indeed her job with that company. A job that had her working together closely with Planned Parenthood.

As a procurement tech, O’Donnell [worked to] identify pregnant patients matching the specifications of StemExpress customers and to harvest the fetal body parts from their abortions.

As Holly O’Donnell makes clear, StemExpress did not merely ask for what they wanted. They demanded it. The later the term of pregnancy, the more StemExpress pressed that demand.

They would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know.

Because they couldn’t know.

Samuel Smith of The Christian Post gives more detail from the ten-minute video. O’Donnell describes the Planned Parenthood staff as “cold” women.

They don’t care, they just wanted their money and they didn’t care that the girl was throwing up in the trashcan, crying.

Doctors removed this 10-week unborn child after the mother was found to have carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Photo: User “drsuparma” on flickr.com, CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic License

O’Donnell did care. She cared so much, in one case, for instance, that after getting consent for the abortion itself, she did not press the patient for consent for giving away the baby parts. That didn’t seem to matter to O’Donnell’s co-workers. One of them went into her room and still drew the blood and other fluids for baselines for taking baby parts. O’Donnell knew then: the co-workers would take them anyway.

O’Donnell describes other procedures that break every standard of professional conduct. Why did some technicians draw blood and other fluids, when they did not have a proper license to do this? Why did they often take baby parts without even pretending to get valid consent?

Then O’Donnell describes how one gynecologist, Ron Berman, performed the gruesome task of abortions. “He [worked] viciously fast,” she said. “If we didn’t watch him, we would lose our specimens.” But not because he hated doing an abortion and wanted it over. But because he took pleasure in it, maybe as much pleasure as the Marquis de Sade might have taken.

When I imagine, because I have seen abortions, I imagine him literally going into the room, lifting the covers, going in, grabbing and walking out.

What gives a doctor such an attitude? Does he treat all his patients that way? One can only wonder.

The abortion endpoint

Hippocrates of Cos wrote the first code of medical conduct in the history of Western civilization. He had his students swear to keep this code in their practices. Among other things, he had them swear to this point:

[I will never] give to any woman a pessary to cause abortion.

He also asked his students to swear to “give no deadly preparation to anyone, even if [they] asked, nor suggest such a course.” But young doctors today do not swear that original oath. They swear a watered-down oath that allows for abortion and even for euthanasia. (That last fancy Greek word means “a good way to die.”)

How would Hippocrates judge the way people practice medicine today? He would likely watch videos like this, and the five the CMP have released before this, and say, “But of course. What can you expect? When doctors break my oath, or will not even take it as I wrote it, of course they will do such things, and bring such harm.”

Now we know why StemExpress went to court to enjoin the CMP from releasing any more videos featuring their company or their staff. Because the CMP has a witness. In any civilized era, that witness would “turn State’s evidence.” She could easily convict StemExpress of racketeering. To repeat: whoever treats a patient in any way without first asking her to permit whatever one intends to do to her, commits a crime. Federal law specifically forbids such behavior. (Title 42, United States Code, Section 289g-1. Look it up.)

Yet the CMP might get into trouble for releasing this video. But any court that sanctions the CMP for this, commits a travesty of justice.

More to the point, the CMP once again shows the country the abortion endpoint. Or rather, gets closer to it. Robin Cook (Coma) and Larry Niven (Tales of Known Space) showed the real abortion endpoint in their work, whether they knew it or not. The state, or criminal gangs, might someday kill people of all ages for their organs. In fact, Niven ended one of his short stories with the scene of a demonstration. The demonstrators recoil in horror at another theoretical excess involving killing people to get their transplant organs. Several special policemen watch from an office window, listening to a rhythmic chant. At first they can’t make it out. Then one of them catches it:

Organleggers! Organleggers! Organleggers! Organleggers!

Has not the Center for Medical Progress disclosed equally disgusting and horrifying behavior?