Second Republican Debate

[deadheadskier]

I'd imagine that when you have an abortion you sign paperwork giving up your right to the fetus. I do not think HIPPA laws would apply. I do not know about laws protecting the dead. I'm all for stem research and realize it's kind of like making sausage (bad analogy), but don't these videos prove PP was selling the fetuses for profit? They should be prosecuted.

HIPPA laws most certainly apply.

The aborting mother has complete control of the fetus when it leaves her body. It's her choice whether it's destroyed or donated. Some women choose to have a funeral and bury the remains. The fetus is 100% the "property" of the parents. None of those videos could happen legally without parental consent.


And yes, if PP is selling tissue for profit, they should be prosecuted.

[freeski]

Fair enough, I was speculating on the HIPPA laws. On a side note... The HIPPA laws have been effective at protecting privacy and from what I understand are strictly enforced.

[Mister Moose]

Fiorina lied because she challenged the president and Clinton to watch the video of a kicking fetus with it's heart beating, on the table, while the doctor said they need to keep it alive to extract the brain. That video does not exist yet. period.

What you provided tonight didn't show that full sequence happening. The authenticity of it doesn't matter because it's incomplete of what she claimed. I find it a bit hypocritical that you challenge me on the word "surgery" and being inaccurate like the media, yet you can't produce a video that's true to her words and pass off a production product with a 5 second snippet as "proof" in her defense. I really don't want to see it, but if this group that's trying to take down Planned Parenthood is to have any credibility at all, they'd release the whole tape inclusive of that physicians dialogue and heck the actual brain extraction itself. They would do more than release 5 horrific seconds and build a narrative around it with some girl giving the play by play. They'd leave nothing to interpretation.

Show me the whole thing and I'll admit being wrong and likely support a defunding of PP. This despite the fact that I think the essential services they provide outside of abortion are critical to millions of women around the country and the loss of PP would create massive problems unless they're replaced by other means that are equally affordable and accessible.

Yes, I am requiring you to be accurate in your statements. And I agree with your above statement on the portion of Fiorina's statement on "keep it alive so we can harvest its brain". Not only do I agree with you, I said it already way back on page 1, 10th post of this thread:

The one characterization by Fiorina I never remember hearing on the tapes is " We have to keep it alive so we can harvest it's brain". While that was never said on the tapes (by my memory), it's pretty close to what was portrayed. I think those that support Planned Parenthood's abortion practices would do well not to shine too bright a light on Fiorina vs the tapes, because what the tapes do contain is pretty damning, and not that far off from what she said. Unless you can impugn the witness.

So here's the difference:
"While that was never said on the tapes (by my memory), it's pretty close to what was portrayed¹." is not the same as

"The reason the Embassy was attacked was because of an anti-Muslim video" or words to that effect, uttered repeatedly by Clinton and much of the administration.

The former is a summary of events that did happen, just not segment by segment on the video referenced. The latter never happened at all. When I read more in detail on Planned Parenthood, I do not feel I was mislead on the big picture by Fiorina. When I read about Benghazi, I do feel I was mislead by Clinton. Isn't that a tangible difference?

We'll see if Fiorina continues to assert the unsupported summation portion statement. I'm guessing she's sharp enough not to ever say it again, and dwell on what the video does portray with careful accuracy. That's why she didn't back down, she fully expects to discuss it again many times.

I also agree that Planned Parenthood provides a lot of important services. That doesn't get you a pass on these videos. Enlarge other existing organizations to do the same thing. Conduct a prompt and full investigation. Then, if the charges are true, shrink Planned Parenthood. Fire all those responsible or that took part.


¹The video does contain a fully intact fetus, in a stainless tray, legs moving. In a separate sequence the video shows doctors explaining the need for an intact fetus [head] in order to produce an intact brain. Fiorina's [summation] characterization, while not on the video, is supported by the video.

[XtremeJibber2001]

This despite the fact that I think the essential services they provide outside of abortion are critical to millions of women around the country and the loss of PP would create massive problems unless they're replaced by other means that are equally affordable and accessible.

Oh boy, you mean, people might have to, gulp, be responsible? THE HORROR! I suspect, outside of abortions, women can obtain services they need through the ACA. I could not imagine ending the life of a child before he/she is born, but I support a woman's right to chose. I also exercise my right in wanting no part, through taxes or otherwise, in subsidizing someone's abortion.

[Bubba]

I have not watched the videos nor do I intend to. However horrible it is that a baby is born or a premature fetus is removed from the womb in any manner and then left to die, it has been a fairly well known medical practice (albeit not generally discussed in public) for a long time when the doctors and nurses know that the fetus/baby cannot survive or that the baby is so terribly deformed as to make reasonable life impossible. That fetal tissue/organs are then removed and used for other purposes has also been known. I don't find it surprising though that people are horrified about the practice and that some are using it for political gain.

[Coydog]

So here's the difference:
"While that was never said on the tapes (by my memory), it's pretty close to what was portrayed¹." is not the same as

"The reason the Embassy was attacked was because of an anti-Muslim video" or words to that effect, uttered repeatedly by Clinton and much of the administration.

The former is a summary of events that did happen, just not segment by segment on the video referenced. The latter never happened at all. When I read more in detail on Planned Parenthood, I do not feel I was mislead on the big picture by Fiorina. When I read about Benghazi, I do feel I was mislead by Clinton. Isn't that a tangible difference?

I'm not gonna re-litigate Benghazi, but to my knowledge, here's what Clinton stated on the day of the attack:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Seems a stretch to interpret some have sought to justify as the reason the Embassy was attacked, but no doubt there was a lot of initial confusion by the administration and intelligence community about the reasons for the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi and whether they were linked. There were also reports that Libyans who knew the Benghazi attackers claimed it was in response to the video.

Here's what Clinton said on 9/21:

Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.

As for Fiorina, from Factcheck.org:

Fiorina on Planned Parenthood

Carly Fiorina spoke out against Planned Parenthood regarding the controversial videos released over the last few months. The scene she described, though, does not exist in any of the videos.

Fiorina: I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

We are aware of no video showing such a scene. The videos, released by the Center for Medical Progress beginning on July 14, have focused on fetal tissue being collected for research and have shown some aborted fetal tissue. As we wrote before, the use of donated fetal tissue has been important in several areas of scientific research.
Fiorina’s description matches up with one of the videos in a series the Center for Medical Progress has called “Human Capital” — but only with regard to how an interviewee describes her experience. Holly O’Donnell, an “ex-procurement technician” for StemExpress, a company that procures fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood clinics, relates a story of an intact fetus. She says that a Planned Parenthood doctor “taps the heart and it starts beating,” and then instructs her to remove its brain for collection.

The video does contain images of what appear to be intact fetuses, but they don’t fit Fiorina’s description. In one, where a fetus does appear to move, there is a caption saying that the footage is from the pro-life Grantham Collection and Center for Bio-Ethical Reform; there is no indication as to where the footage was shot. In the other, it was revealed after the video’s release that the image was of a stillborn baby, rather than an aborted fetus.

Though we cannot verify if part or all of O’Donnell’s story is true, the scene Fiorina "dares" others to watch is not present in any of the Planned Parenthood videos.

[boston_e]

I have not watched the videos nor do I intend to.

The video, is indeed created to be disturbing. It is fairly well produced but is clearly propaganda and as such is not convincing.

[Mister Moose]

So here's the difference:
"While that was never said on the tapes (by my memory), it's pretty close to what was portrayed¹." is not the same as

"The reason the Embassy was attacked was because of an anti-Muslim video" or words to that effect, uttered repeatedly by Clinton and much of the administration.

The former is a summary of events that did happen, just not segment by segment on the video referenced. The latter never happened at all. When I read more in detail on Planned Parenthood, I do not feel I was mislead on the big picture by Fiorina. When I read about Benghazi, I do feel I was mislead by Clinton. Isn't that a tangible difference?

I'm not gonna re-litigate Benghazi, but....

So, all those reports, including my own ears, are wrong? Hillary never said it (the attack on the embassy) was due to a video? Really? This is your point?

As for Fiorina, from Factcheck.org:

In one, where a fetus does appear to move,

I see it only "appeared" to move. There were puppet strings or stop action animation going on I guess. This statement makes me wonder about the true objectivity of the author.

The rest has all been asked and answered, you provide nothing new. You just might not agree with what I said, your perogative.

[steamboat1]

I have not watched the videos nor do I intend to. However horrible it is that a baby is born or a premature fetus is removed from the womb in any manner and then left to die, it has been a fairly well known medical practice (albeit not generally discussed in public) for a long time when the doctors and nurses know that the fetus/baby cannot survive or that the baby is so terribly deformed as to make reasonable life impossible. That fetal tissue/organs are then removed and used for other purposes has also been known. I don't find it surprising though that people are horrified about the practice and that some are using it for political gain.

This is not what the videos are about. It's not about a fetus that can't survive, deformed fetuses or premature fetuses. These are normal healthy fetuses kept alive so that body parts can be sold.

[deadheadskier]

This statement makes me wonder about the true objectivity of the author.

But you don't wonder about the objectivity of the Center for Medical Progress?

You seem very willing to accept a Hollywood quality produced film with 5 seconds of gruesome footage and a woman's testimony surrounding what events supposedly occurred.

Answer me this, would the video you shared stand up in the Supreme Court as evidence of what actually happened?

Where's the rest of the tape that Fiorina challenges the president to watch?

This all could be ended swiftly with a ruling supporting CMPs claims if they provide enough evidence.

Due process.....PP hasn't gotten it yet. Come back to me when they have.

[Coydog]

The rest has all been asked and answered, you provide nothing new. You just might not agree with what I said, your perogative.

You ascribe comments to Clinton you cannot verify and then steadfastly claim she lied.

Fiorina dares us to watch a video that doesn’t exist and you tortuously parse her words in order claim she didn’t lie.

But like you said, that’s your prerogative.

[Mister Moose]

This statement makes me wonder about the true objectivity of the author.

But you don't wonder about the objectivity of the Center for Medical Progress?

You seem very willing to accept a Hollywood quality produced film with 5 seconds of gruesome footage and a woman's testimony surrounding what events supposedly occurred.

Answer me this, would the video you shared stand up in the Supreme Court as evidence of what actually happened?

Where's the rest of the tape that Fiorina challenges the president to watch?

This all could be ended swiftly with a ruling supporting CMPs claims if they provide enough evidence.

Due process.....PP hasn't gotten it yet. Come back to me when they have.

Again, when you shift your question to the accuracy of the CMP videos, I agree they should be vetted. Hold a congressional hearing prior to congressional funding. I will point out that 12 hours of multiple people, who are identified as PP executives and employees discussing the sale of human organs is compelling. But by all means, due process.

The Supreme court does not hear new evidence as far I know, it evaluates rulings admitted in lower courts. However, assuming the people who shot and edited the 12 hours of video testify to the source and accuracy of those videos, yes, they are extremely admissible and they would stand up.

Fiorina made a sloppy statement, one that summed up separate aspects of the tape she viewed. That doesn't make it a lie, that doesn't make it untrue, When asked again, she said the images exist, which they do.

I'll let this op-ed in the LA Times restate what I already have:

The exact scene, exactly as Fiorina describes it, is not on the videos. But anybody who has watched the videos would find Fiorina's account pretty accurate...

...eyewitness descriptions accompanied by borrowed footage of a fetus dying in a metal bowl, its leg kicking, to illustrate the witness' recollection of seeing precisely that in another case. That sort of juxtaposition might not fly on the nightly news, but it's the sort of dramatic device used in documentaries all the time. It's akin to a documentary maker interviewing a witness to Cecil the Lion getting shot, and using footage of another lion getting shot as an illustration.

But what is amazing is the way Fiorina's critics have suddenly become Jesuitical nitpickers. The clear goal is to conceal the fact that late-term abortions offend the conscience when discussed or displayed with anything like journalistic accuracy. That's probably why we get so little of it. Many of the media outlets that even bother to cover the videos have referred to the transferring of "fetal tissue," not "organs" — the correct term for livers, hearts and brains. ("Tissue" is less suggestive of a human being than, say, "heart.")

We're also often informed that the videos weren't merely "edited" but "highly edited." Left out of such caveats is that the news reports passing along these descriptions come via highly edited newspapers, radio and TV programs

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... olumn.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This statement is at the essence of our discussion:

But anybody who has watched the videos would find Fiorina's account pretty accurate...

If you agree Fiorina was "pretty accurate" you don't see the need to recant it. If you don't see it as "pretty accurate" you might want a correction. Because it is Ds vs Rs this gets highly charged and sides are taken up with vigor. The amount of misleading garbage I've seen on Facebook is indicative of the low level of discourse going on.

[Mister Moose]

You ascribe comments to Clinton you cannot verify and then steadfastly claim she lied.

Fiorina dares us to watch a video that doesn’t exist and you tortuously parse her words in order claim she didn’t lie.

But like you said, that’s your prerogative.

Here's the first one I found in 3 minutes of googling. I'm guessing there's much more documentation.



"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests..."

[Coydog]

"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests..."

Yes, protests. The protests that were happening all over the Middle East. So we still have no statement from Clinton claiming the video was the reason for the Libyan Embassy attack. Now Susan Rice, that's a different matter to which I call your attention to this summary of the Republican led HIC report:

G.O.P.-Led Benghazi Panel Bolsters Administration

WASHINGTON — A report released late Friday about the fatal 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, left Republicans in the same position they have been in for two years: with little evidence to support their most damning critiques of how the Obama administration, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, responded to the attacks.

Similar to five other government reports, the one released by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday said that the administration had not intentionally misled the public about what occurred during the attacks in talking points it created for officials to use in television appearances that turned out to be inaccurate.

The CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a Republican-controlled House committee has found. Its report concluded that there was no wrongdoing by Obama administration officials.

…

Republican lawmakers have said that the administration, fearing political fallout from the attacks — which occurred on Sept. 11, 2012, less than two months before the presidential elections — tried to mislead the public.

In particular, the Republicans have said that Susan E. Rice, who was the ambassador to the United Nations at the time, lied on several Sunday television talk shows when she said the attacks were set off by a protest over an anti-Muslim video. They claimed that she glossed over whether the fatalities were the result of “terrorist” attacks by Al Qaeda because that would have undermined the administration’s narrative that it had all but defeated the group.

The panel found that in the days after the attacks, there was contradictory intelligence about what precipitated them and who was behind them. Ultimately, Ms. Rice’s assertions were wrong, the committee said, but there was no evidence that the administration was attempting to misconstrue the facts.

If no government official intentionally misled the American people, how can one reasonably conclude Clinton or Rice or anyone in the administration lied?

Of course that doesn't mean you did not personally feel misled - just like I feel misled every time Fiorina talks about a Planned Parenthood video that doesn't exist or speaks glowingly of her disastrous tenure at HP. Disastrous for employees and shareholders, turns out she did quite well financially.

[madhatter]

"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests..."

Yes, protests. The protests that were happening all over the Middle East. So we still have no statement from Clinton claiming the video was the reason for the Libyan Embassy attack. Now Susan Rice, that's a different matter to which I call your attention to this summary of the Republican led HIC report:Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

G.O.P.-Led Benghazi Panel Bolsters Administration

WASHINGTON — A report released late Friday about the fatal 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, left Republicans in the same position they have been in for two years: with little evidence to support their most damning critiques of how the Obama administration, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, responded to the attacks.

Similar to five other government reports, the one released by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday said that the administration had not intentionally misled the public about what occurred during the attacks in talking points it created for officials to use in television appearances that turned out to be inaccurate.

The CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a Republican-controlled House committee has found. Its report concluded that there was no wrongdoing by Obama administration officials.

…

Republican lawmakers have said that the administration, fearing political fallout from the attacks — which occurred on Sept. 11, 2012, less than two months before the presidential elections — tried to mislead the public.

In particular, the Republicans have said that Susan E. Rice, who was the ambassador to the United Nations at the time, lied on several Sunday television talk shows when she said the attacks were set off by a protest over an anti-Muslim video. They claimed that she glossed over whether the fatalities were the result of “terrorist” attacks by Al Qaeda because that would have undermined the administration’s narrative that it had all but defeated the group.

The panel found that in the days after the attacks, there was contradictory intelligence about what precipitated them and who was behind them. Ultimately, Ms. Rice’s assertions were wrong, the committee said, but there was no evidence that the administration was attempting to misconstrue the facts.

If no government official intentionally misled the American people, how can one reasonably conclude Clinton or Rice or anyone in the administration lied?

Of course that doesn't mean you did not personally feel misled - just like I feel misled every time Fiorina talks about a Planned Parenthood video that doesn't exist or speaks glowingly of her disastrous tenure at HP. Disastrous for employees and shareholders, turns out she did quite well financially.

guess it all depends on what the meaning of is , is...or something like that...