The leader of the Center for Medical Progress, the organisation exposing Planned Parenthood, told CNN “New Day” this morning that a biomedical company is trying to silence CMP because they are “very scared” of footage coming out that will prove babies were born alive before being “aborted” and having tissue and organs harvested.
California based StemExpress, a company closely allied with Planned Parenthood that provides fetal tissue to researchers, has managed to convince a Superior Court judge to issue a temporary restraining order against CMP.
The order bars the undercover journalists from releasing any more footage of StemExpress officials.
David Daleiden explained why he believes StemExpress is taking such hefty action:
Daleiden noted that the footage shows “a meeting with their top leadership where their leadership admitted that they sometimes get fully intact fetuses shipped to their laboratory from the abortion clinics they work with, and that could be prima facie evidence of born alive infants.”
Babies born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion are protected under the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, enacted in 2002. The legislation defines a “Born alive infant” as “Person, human being, Child, Individual.”
“And so that’s why they’re trying to suppress that videotape and they’re very scared of it.” Daleiden added.
If this is revealed to be true, it raises the bar on the Planned Parenthood scandal to a whole new level – a Kermit Gosnell level.
He also stated “We’ve got anywhere from 8 to 10 more videos — the exact number could vary, but I predict a dozen give or take when everything is said and done.”
The restraining order will remain in effect until a hearing scheduled for August 19th.
Daleiden previously stated that StemExpress was using “meritless litigation” to cover up an “illegal baby parts trade.”
Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
Has anyone else noticed that most professors of ethics aren’t exactly…ummm….ethical? At least the ones who get quoted, anyway.
A professor at the highly esteemed Princeton University doesn’t want his Obamacare premiums to increase because of caring for severely disabled babies. Dr. Pete Singer, who teaches ethics (but perhaps needs a little refresher on what the word “ethics” means) argued during a radio interview on Sunday that America should be more accepting of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”
Ethics: that branch of philosophy dealingwith values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightnessand wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness ofthe motives and ends of such actions.
In the famous words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Singer, a longtime mouthpiece for eugenicists everywhere, has previously drawn fire for his belief that the right to life is directly related to a person’s intelligence and ability to feel pleasure and pain, is back in the spotlight. In 1993, wrote a treatise called “Practical Ethics: Taking Life: Humans.”
Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”
For Singer, the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and human. Instead, Singer argued it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference.” (source)
He clearly hasn’t changed his mind. During the interview he argued that it was “quite reasonable” to ration healthcare for disabled infants:
I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes.
I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicade.”
And I think it will be reasonable for insurance companies also to say, “You know, we won’t insure you for this or we won’t insure you for this unless you are prepared to pay an extra premium, or perhaps they have a fund with lower premiums for people who don’t want to insure against that.”
Because I think most people, when they think about that, would say that’s quite reasonable. You know, I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments. (source)
Is anyone else chilled by the fact that people like Singer are the ones teaching the next generations about ethical behavior?