A Just Rage

I don’t usually take a strong stand on any controversial subject in my writing. I have a self-imposed, wait-a-week policy when polarizing news breaks. My nuanced perspective doesn’t mean I’m right about anything, of course, it just means that I don’t often make a big fuss either way. “Rage” describes very little, if any, of my writing.

So when the video was released of a Planned Parenthood doctor munching on a salad, sipping red wine, and talking about avoiding crushing a “thorax” during a “case” so that the “vital organs” would be “harvested” more effectively, I did not post a blog.

When I watched the video and she talked about “crushing above” the chest and “crushing below” the chest and when she admitted that her team would “huddle” at the beginning of the day to make a plan at how they could get their clients “what they wanted” (read: the appropriate body parts), I did not post a blog.

And when the NY Times posted an editorial where they completely ignored the fact that the video talked about how the partial birth abortion ban, like all laws, “is open to interpretation” and they completely ignored the fact that these organ-harvesting expeditions are (many times) essentially partial birth abortions being interpreted as something else (something more noble?), I did not write a blog.

I waited. I thoughtfully read both sides. I waited more than one week. I asked myself if it was worth the hate mail.

1083186_G

You have to understand, bloggers ask for it. Every time I press “post,” I lose control on how my words will be received. I once was accused of being a spiritual abuser just for sharing my take on a song from a cartoon, so controversial stuff like this is more than ripe for critique. But then I saw that woman–who is a real person who God loves, and I don’t hate her either–stabbing at the lettuce in her bowl with her fork while complaining about traffic in one breath and then talking about how rare it was to harvest an un-crushed skeleton in the next. That’s when I decided I’d waited long enough and it was worth the hate mail and I pressed “post” on this blog entry. There can be a just rage that is warranted at times.

This is one of them.

Planned Parenthood may do some good things, but aborting, dismembering, and selling of infant body parts is beyond controversial and rises to the level of despicable, humiliating, immoral, and disgusting. It’s just foul.

The New York Times defended Planned Parenthood’s public response, communicating:

“The Planned Parenthood Federation of America condemned what it called the video’s false accusations, which it said had been leveled for years by abortion opponents seeking to close the organization’s clinics.”

Gee…you think? Why else did you think two people went through the trouble of posing as potential buyers, choking down appetizers while listening to horrific details regarding harvesting dead baby’s organs, and then releasing their hidden video on the internet? It wasn’t to make friends. This was strategic. It had one goal–to make you look bad. You didn’t need much help, either. They just pressed “record” and asked questions.

Yet the New York Times insists that PPFA has done nothing wrong.

“The full video of the lunch meeting, over two hours long and released by the Center for Medical Progress after complaints by Planned Parenthood, shows something very different from what these critics claim. Clearly, the shorter version was edited to eliminate statements by Dr. Nucatola explaining that Planned Parenthood does not profit from tissue donation, which requires the clear consent of the patient. Planned Parenthood affiliates only accept money — between $30 and $100 per specimen, according to Dr. Nucatola — to cover costs associated with collecting and transporting the tissue.”

Okay, so Planned Parenthood doesn’t profit from “tissue donation.” They only seek donations which cover the costs of transporting and storing organs and limbs of aborted babies.

Thanks, New York Times. Listen, I don’t think you are the devil’s newspaper like some more conservative do, but that is one of the more ridiculous paragraphs I’ve ever read. To assert that profit and loss are the issue to be debated here demonstrates just how out of touch you are. Most of the knuckle-dragging pro-lifers you take on in your defense of PPFA can actually think a layer deeper than that. This isn’t about illegally profiting.

Jonathan Merritt, a writer who is much more widely read than I (and probably a couple dozen IQ points higher as well) reacted to the whole thing recently in his own thoughtful (but still strongly worded) piece:

“The central matter for pro-life Americans is not whether Planned Parenthood’s practices are legal, but whether they are just. There is often a difference. Many pro-life advocates, myself included, agree with the Times that “tissue donations” are “potentially lifesaving.” We are not opposed to organ donations outright. Our major objection is that the process by which these organs and tissues are collected and sold is unethical.” (emphasis mine)

Merritt continues, and I whole-heartedly agree:

 

“Society is going off the rails on this issue. And while much of America is trying to repair the tracks, The New York Times editorial board is seated in the dining car sipping flutes of Veuve Clicquot.”

Or munching on their salads. Whichever.

Remain pro-choice if you must, but defending Planned Parenthood on this issue calls into question not only your ability to reason, but also your ability to feel. Try and explain away their practices and we can stop arguing about whether or not the fetus is human. Keep defending this behavior and we’ll have to start calling into question whether or not you are.

_______________________________

I’m a pastor full-time and an Executive Director and writer the rest of the time. Give me a follow on Twitter. Also, here’s a great video from our church on this subject including a great story of God’s faithfulness in the life of someone who had an abortion.

3 comments

  1. I’ve been trying to state a version of your last paragraph to some on Facebook, and the concept that we should at least be able to agree that this stuff is wrong. Apparently, we can’t. Do you think there’s any point in trying to have a dialogue when that is the case?

    1. If the PP doctor seen in the video was able to discuss, without even flinching, the details of performing an abortion in order to obtain intact organs and show no remorse while dining and sipping, the doctor who also has most likely performed hundreds of abortions and seen a very-formed baby be killed at the hands of choice and by her own hands, the doctor whose heart is dead and conscience is seared, I’m not sure dialogue will convince a pro-choicer that this practice is wrong. This is a matter for prayer and fasting, for constantly seeking the Lord to soften these hardened hearts, and to ask Him to use this evil for His glory.

    2. You would think it’d be a pretty easy sell, wouldn’t you? Perhaps in the context of a deeper friendship you could have that conversation without it descending into a fruitless argument. Passions are just too tense on either side of the issue, I think.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s