baby parts – USA Gov Policy

On April 20, a Congressional Select Investigative Panel chaired by Rep, Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) conducted a hearing on the sale of fetal tissue. The hearing was not about the practice of abortion. It was about the sale of human body parts for profit.

The evidence reveals that abortion clinics and middleman procurement businesses may have violated federal law by the payments they collected from the sale of baby body parts. Title 42 USC § 289g-2 prohibits the transfer of any human fetal tissue for profit. However, it is estimated that baby parts sales businesses had a net gain of 300 to 400 percent.

Documents presented at the hearing noted that videos released in 2015 raised the question of whether abortion clinics and the middleman tissue procurement business were profiting from the sale of baby body parts, organs and tissues. The orders are very specific, (eyes, liver, tongue, scalp, etc.) Procurers worked with abortion clinics to procure fetal tissue, which are shipped to customers. A fee per tissue is paid, which is in excess of the expenses of the process.

Evidence produced demonstrated that, in blatant violated of federal law, brochures headlined their offer to clinics as an “Easy to implement” way to obtain “financial profits.”

100 clinics cut deals with procurers, and plans had been made to expand that number to 250.

According to documents presented at the hearing, the process works in this manner:

1)First thing in the morning the tissue tech, who works for the procurer, not the clinc, gets orders for certain baby body parts and the gestation period. Now she knows what she needs to harvest that day.

2) Then she checks in with the Abortion Clinic Assistant Manager and informs the staff what she will be procuring that day.

3) Then the procurement tech reviews the private medical files of the patients for that day to learn their names and the gestation time of their baby. She records the gestations on the gestation tracking log.
The intercourse will be successful with the long and tedious cialis tadalafil online paperwork you will need to complete before getting the cash to your hand. We lose sight of the bigger picture and lead our lives from our ancestral patterning with massive physiological consequences. cialis prices And you have purchasing viagra online heard it very right. There are a number of medicinal treatments that must be administered orally to the patients to continue with intercourse https://regencygrandenursing.com/product6012.html vardenafil 20mg tab as long as they want.
4) Next the procurement tech approaches the patients waiting to be prepped for their abortion. She doesn’t have much time so she must match her orders for the day with patients who are at the right gestation time. She asks for the patients by name. Then she convinces them to consent to donate saying that her donation is all about cures of Diabetes and Parkinson’s and Heart Disease.

5) After the abortion the procurement tech collects the baby’s remains and procures the body parts she needs. She carries all of her supplies with her.

6) The tissue tech then arranges for delivery.

7) She gets an hourly wage and a bonus for each tissue.

According to research reported by Mollie Hemingway in the Federalist “Democratic members of the panel, such as Rep. Diana DeGette, (D-Planned Parenthood) attempted to keep the evidence of fetal organ markets from being discussed. Evidence revealed that they are working with procurement businesses attorneys to fight the investigation.

“The strenuous Democratic efforts to fight the evidence, to help those in the industry thwart investigation, and to question the very investigation into fetal organ markets were difficult to ignore.Democratic members’ strategy appeared to be 1) fight discussion of evidence; 2) say the investigation is too expensive; 3) issue Planned Parenthood talking points against The Center for Medical Progress videos (which were not a topic of discussion at this hearing); and 4) claim that the evidence of fetal organ markets didn’t show fetal organ markets. When shown the drop-down order menu for fetal scalps, for instance, DeGette said it wasn’t evidence of fetal organ markets.”

Planned Parenthood has come under attack for its role. Cecile Richards, CEO/President of the organization, claiming that anti-abortion activists are exposing the sale of baby tissue to “shame” her organization.

The primary argument of those endorsing the use of abortion-related tissue is that the gleaned parts can be used for valid medical purposes. However, the presence of a profit motive—and substantial profits, at that—raises a ghoulish element. In China, profiting from human organs has led to massive scandals in which unnecessary surgeries from helpless victims have been conducted to reap financial rewards.

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]