Admitting any wrong in the face of a doctored video legitimizes the video.

Ask ACORN.

They just stepped into the bear trap.

But, I believe, she made one here.

She's probably been on the phone with them non-stop since Tuesday.

mistake and any lawyer worth his/her salt would have told her that in no uncertain terms.

Did PP do anything wrong? I seriously doubt it. But I watched the full, unedited video.

And she is right. Dr. Nucatola comes off as very cavalier in her tone and comments. I was pretty shocked at her performance.

If I'm shocked, I can imagine how pro-lifers reacted to her words.

This is a huge PR issue, not a legal one. It needs to be addressed and Nucatola needs to be fired.

go away. Good advice.

I doubt her "talking to a lawyer" as opposed to your allegation would "make the RW-generated kerfluffle (sic) go away" either.

should be fired.

It's a public relations issue, not a legal issue.

using a couple of seconds of this video to make that point is damn near as bad as O'Keefe.

It was over two minutes of explanation of the good that PP does and blasting the O'Keefe propaganda with about 5 seconds acknowledging that one person quoted, and who is being pointed out by the opposition, may have been out of line. Using that 5 seconds of defusing to to trash the entire statement is out of line.

the fact she qualified it will be ignored.
All you will hear now from the right are louder claims that PP has to be shut down because they have admitted they are an organ farm.

Facts are not relevant to the right as you know, only emotion, and this gives them all they need to create hell on earth for PP until they are eliminated.

A doctor speaking in clinical terms should not be vilified.

And hopefully have trained new staff, including doctors, NEVER to have such conversations with outside groups coming in looking for all that information. This doctor used very poor judgment and didn't seem to have a sense when red flags would go up as the "interview" developed. It was obviously a set-up and probably started out benignly enough but soon got into very dicey territory talking vaguely about how much a fetal body part could be bought for against the law. It was clearly entrapment.

and this had no such connection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

element is that the individual would not do something without being enabled & prodded by the "entrappor". In this case, it appears that the only thing she was "trapped" into was revealing the practices. There is no reasonable inference that PP wouldn't undertake the activity as long as they judged it could be kept from being revealed. Regardless of how anyone here feels regarding the morality of selling fetal organs, the tape shows the PP Exec knowledge of the practice and a willingness to participate as long as it can be kept quiet.

From Planned Parenthood's PR perspective, I don't they they want the general public to link them to such sales or even donations.

As a population, we American's are clearly pro-choice overall. Support is strongest when the pregnancy will kill the mother or seriously degrade her health, in cases if rape or incest and when the fetus is judged to have no chance of life after birth. Support falls when respondents judge that the abortion is being elected for convenience, or because the baby will be the wrong gender or race. Imagine the controversy of science determines sexual orientation is related to a specific gene and abortions happen because the baby will be born gay, or not gay. What happens if we find out progressive or conservative leanings are less learned and more hard-wired?

Roe established the fundamental right; however, there will still be plenty of jobs for lawyers litigating all the "down in the weeds" issues.

PP centers will assist in fetal tissue donations. They only get paid for expenses accrued in doing so. They make no money as their work is nonprofit. It is against the law to sell human organs and if PP were doing such a thing it would be shut down and those involved prosecuted. What the affil exec said was the issue was fraught with lots of feelings and so they didn't talk about assisting with the donations. It is understandable. But if a woman wants to donate such material, PP will help her do so, thereby helping many others who suffer from diseases that research on these organs may some day help.

You can imagine all you want. At the end of the day this is a matter of privacy between patient and doctor. It is a woman's choice because women are moral agents and can make those decisions themselves.

regarding what their affiliates do:

"I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a non-profit, they just
don’t want to—they want to break even. And if they can do a little better
than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy
to do that." [Transcript page 4]

To get out of the storm, Planned Parenthood could establish policy that doing better than breaking even is not permitted because when that happens, it is profit.


This is the entire 60-page transcript: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf

I don't know what she is referring to but making a profit isn't it...they are a non-profit organization...

unemotional, while cautioning that these were inherently emotional issues. However, she implied that their affiliates were happy to skirt their non-profit status and make a buck here and there. The inference you have to draw is that Planned Parenthood "corporate headquarters" [my description] knows the affiliates will break the non-profit rules and that they (corporate) are careful to deliberately avoid making any policy to police the practice.

Taken as a whole, the conversation indicates that they know what really happens and condone it by inaction.

interpretation. That was the point in the first place.

Others have concluded it was not that way. The film is so heavily doctored that it is evident that it is NOT a straightforward case as you have interpreted it to be.

It strains credulity that this organization would risk their entire reputation by doing what you suggest. That they would risk exposure, thereby risking the government closing them down and prosecuting all involved...for what? It would bring total ruin to its existence. Ask yourself that question honestly. Ask yourself why this piece was so heavily edited and why so pointedly meant to stimulate RW "invesigation" in Congress and further harassment, leading up to PP's destruction. The anti choicers would at last deal a heavy blow to Roe v. Wade.

I think if you are on this board you should question why. It seems you are in the wrong place.

and nuances that are derived from word usage.

In this respect, the message is that you can work with our affiliates to get this done, and if they make a profit, they are happy to accommodate you. However, it's important that people don't find out because that's not the corporate image we can tolerate.

I'm precisely in the right place because integrity is the most important commodity we have, Lose it and we are marginalized to the point our credibility is shot.

to misinterpret what was being said (pieced together), then oh so conveniently, RWingers in Congress putting together an investigation...Benghazi anyone?

read the entire 60-page transcript. I'm no Sheldon Cooper, but am reasonably bright and can certainly wade through those pages - and infer what was being said, nuance and all.

Have a good one.

Watch the video, it's very clear, don't need The Hill to tell me what is in it or the point being made.

Maybe a headline like "PP rebuttal of video includes apology for tone"

but it sounded cold

it is a fetus, an early form of a baby. even as a prochoicer, it sounded grisly to me. imagine how it sounds to prolife advocates.

just because something is legal doesn't mean it isn't bad form. they should have known better.

single organization in this country.

std's etc. but that doesn't tend to be highlighted.

getting high quality contraception to women who might not otherwise have such a service available at such a low cost to them. And you are right, part of that overall care is the testing and prevention of cancers.

is all the more catastrophic. for them and the women they help

I was shocked that she didn't seem to know that these people were phonies...couldn't PP train their directors better in this? Really...

"The engine is fried but I can probably get $300 for the transmission."

Speaking as someone who is pro-choice, this was not our best day.

She only apologized for the "tone" and not the substance of the video. The tone was indeed cavalier.

By saying nothing, planned parenthood would have seemed cavalier about a very emotional issue as well.

the less said, the better. But the hardest thing to ever do is get a client not say something.

killed over a million people, was based on lies propagated by the media, including the NY Times and other such "respectable" publications.

It is ironic isn't the the false moral outrage, and yet hardly a word when the governor of Wisconsin wants to deny food stamps to its most needy, or an entire political party trying to prevent healthcare for all Americans, and actually having the gall to push the theme that going to war is a "good" solution in dealing with Iran.

The hypocrisy of our country bursts at its seams.

I just want them to PAY for it.
The bills are still coming in, and Republicans have walked away from stepping up and taking responsibility for the actions they brought forth.

If people haven't seen it.

They do about 40%. The percentage of abortions they do versus other healthcare they give? 3%. Only 3% of their work is abortions. They prevent far more unwanted pregnancies than they end. 97% of what PP does is women's healthcare - cancer screenings, STD screenings, treatment, and pregnancy prevention.

Cecile Richards criticized Nucatola's tone. Nucatola is a doctor, thinking she is speaking to another doctor. Of course the great unwashed masses are upset - they're never in a clinical setting with other doctors talking shop. This is how doctors talk with each other.

Ms. Richards should have stood strong and unapologetic and focused on the work PP does to prevent unwanted pregnancies that never end in abortion. And she should have mentioned that abortions have been declining.

Medical entities donate tissue for research all the freaking time - even Mitt Romney's company. It's a very common thing, and they don't do it for a profit; they do it for scientific research.

She played into the "IT'S A BABY" hysteria. To me, that's where the damage lies. She's too smart for this. She really should have planned her response better. You can't apologize or try to appease these people.

This issue is difficult for many.. including pro-choice folks. Everyone needs think what is being discussed here and give the necessary respect and consideration... imho.

in the first place and to be respectful of their private decisions if faced with an unplanned pregnancy. We need to respect women as full moral agents and that moral agency cannot be taken from them.

lay·man


/ˈlāmən/
noun
plural noun: laymen
1. a nonordained member of a church.

2. a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject.

... to loosen the tongue.

I, of course, would never fall for that. It would take beer.

All I can say is that this interview will not affect my normal annual donation to PP. I still like the group more than that pink organization, though they both do good work.

They will do anything, and I mean anything, to destroy PP.

It's their symbol of all that's evil in the world.

This is not Cecile Richards' issue nor her mistake.

The mistake is the lack of will in all women to rise up and take back their power and their freedom.