Planned Parenthood and the Racket of “Non-Profit”

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

Unless you get your news strictly from mainstream news sources, you’ve probably caught wind of the undercover video in which a top Planned Parenthood doctor discusses harvesting human organs from aborted babies while munching on lunch and drinking red wine.  It’s pretty gruesome stuff, including the pro tip of using ultrasound to ensure that the doctor’s forceps don’t “crush” valuable organs that clients have selected from the menu.  (That’s a word Dr. Deborah Nucatola actually uses, but in context, she might mean a menu of affiliates around the country that will harvest the organs for the trafficking company.)

For the most part, the mainstream media appears to be waiting to report the story until it can be spun in a pro-Planned Parenthood, anti-conservative/GOP way, but online defenders of the abortion provider have characterized it as an almost altruistic activity of a bunch of non-profits using medical waste to develop medical breakthroughs.  Of course, to the pro-lifer, that doesn’t make the practice any less disturbing, and other parts of Dr. Nucatola’s dialogue raise questions about legality (such as using partial-birth techniques for a better harvest).

Watching the full footage of the interview used for the report, it becomes clear that the defenders’ focus isn’t on the practice, but on a different way of talking about business.  The Planned Parenthood affiliates, Nucatola says, just want “to break even” or, if they can “do a little better than break even,” then they can put that money back into the practice.  But “break even” means paying everybody’s salary.  It means expanding.

Putting the money back into the practice means increasing the amount of activity, which is a salable point for donors and grant-givers.  Moreover, Planned Parenthood is engaged in political activity.  If the sale of baby body parts can contribute resources to expenses that the non-profit and activist wings share, then the activists can use their dedicated resources for other things.  Money is fungible, and the ways in which large organizations can move it around are plentiful.

A very telling part of the discussion comes at around minute 8 of the full footage, when the ostensible buyers initially ask about pricing.  Nucatola doesn’t describe it as a process of calculating expenses to make sure that no profit is made.  Rather, she talks about setting a price that would be defensible if the abortionist were audited.  In other words, this isn’t a moral distinction.  The restrictions on profiting from the killing of unborn children are just a regulatory consideration in setting the market price for organs.

The “non-profit” aspect may provide legal cover for an immoral activity, but motivation is separate.  The fact that no shareholders draw a direct profit from investments isn’t much of a distinction.



  • Warrington Faust

    Planned Parenthood has a very interesting history. Listening to/reading Margaret Sanger’s speeches makes it very clear that she was a racist and a proponent of “Eugenics”. It is hardly an under text of her speeches that she wished to reduce the number of black babies. Prior to establishing their own “race laws”, the Nazis came to the U.S. to review our Eugenics laws which Sanger had influenced. The upside is that the “discovery” of DNA owes much to the work done in Eugenics labs in the United States, particularly one sponsored, or named after, Margaret Sanger.

    Eugenics and “human perfection” were very much hot topics with the “Progressives” of the era.

    Anyway, that is where Planned Parenthood came from. For images, Google “Margaret Sanger KKK”

    • msteven

      Planned Parenthood lost all credibility for me when there was a local event years ago where one of their clients had an ultrasound and as a result changed her mind. The leader wrote an editorial complaining something like the ultrasound wasn’t medically-necessary and sugggested maybe changing laws about ultrasounds.

      As for this, I think it happpens all the time as in companies – regardless of profit status – sell stuff at a profit and pocket the money. My rub is can you imagine the media outcry if a church was selling crosses for a profit to help support their activities? But this …. it will be ignored or manipulated by MSM because nothing they can do no wrong.

  • ShannonEntropy

    The “non-profit” aspect may provide legal cover for an immoral activity, but motivation is separate.

    NON-PROFIT is prolly the most deceptive term in our society

    At Brown University, the CEO of their ‘non-profit’ Lifespan™ Hospital System earns $3 MILLION a year … more than 5 times what Brown Prez Christina Paxon makes

    Bill Gates could have made MicroSoft® a non-profit … if he stiffed the company’s stock·holders and paid himself $5 Billion a year

    p.s. The underlying theme of this thread — the cutting up of un·born babies for their organs — is too sad & tragic for me to comment on

  • guest

    Why doesn’t the profit motive trump all of your other dogma? It’s not often that you have objections to any private organization taking the opportunity to maximize their bottom line. Where do you draw the line?

    • Warrington Faust

      Where do you draw the line?

      Not sure, but certainly the line is somewhere above body parts from unwilling donors. I believe this is known as “harvesting”. How agrarian. Doesn’t it suggest “crops”?

      • msteven

        I think guest has a reasonable question. Is this only about Planned Parenthood making money (via this disgusting way) and their agenda? Or is this about a ‘not-for-profit’ selling items at a profit to further their agenda. Sounds to me like the objection is primarily their agenda. And I agree wit that objection.

    • ShannonEntropy

      Most of our ‘Lines’ would be human life

      You, guest, are prolly a Vegan … so you prolly draw it at *any* animal’s life or products they produce, like milk or eggs or leather

      My half-brother Dahmer believes that even fruits & vegetables & nuts have a soul … so he lives on gravel & water

      Needless to say, Dahmer is so skinny he would make a liberal’s thought processes seem heavy by comparison

  • Warrington Faust

    Back to Racket of “Non-Profit”. Normally, I do not object to the “tax free” status of “not for profit” operations. As with many, I do wonder about salaries paid. For instance, Michelle Obama receiving a $375,000 annual salary as a “diversity coordinator” for a Chicago hospital. Hospital salaries are rarely low, but this has the appearance of being a bribe. Extraordinary salaries, and “Cattle futures” winnings give the appearance of “getting a finger” on the politician husband. I have noticed “Savers” stores cropping up everywhere in rather expensive locations. While I do appreciate the $5.00 jeans for yard work, etc, I began to wonder. It seems they are “non profit” having partnered with Big Brother, Big Sister”.

  • Warrington Faust

    I had to post this, what you may not know about Google:

    http://fredoneverything.org/

    Googled, Gobbled, and Throttled: The Road to Samizdat

    • Gullible Guy

      Thanks. I get all of my “facts” from Fred Reed. That is when I’m not watching Fox News.

      • Mike678

        You have to have balance. It is good you watch Fox and hear some truth to balance Fred’s fiction.

Quantcast