Race-based aborted baby-parts operations reminiscent of Kermit Gosnell scandal
By newseditors // 2021-08-16
Copy
 
Various abortion programs at the University of Pittsburgh have been getting the school slammed in recent days, with accusations it assembled a tissue bank holding hearts, legs and brains from unborn babies who were cut up and stored. (Article by Bob Unruh republished from WND.com) But one of the more horrific accusations has now come from the Centers for Medical Progress, which charged that the organs are removed from the unborn babies' bodies before they are dead. The CMP explained that the school has admitted that "ischemia time" that it cited in an application for federal tax money for its abortion program "refers to the time after the tissue collection procedure." The CMP explained, "Ischemia starts when the organ (the kidneys primarily in Pitt's GUDMAP project) is cut off from blood circulation. The NIH defines ischemia as 'lack of blood supply to a part of the body.' The university states the fetal organs do not undergo ischemia—lose their blood supply—until 'after the tissue collection procedure.' "This means the organs are still receiving blood supply from the fetal heartbeat during the 'tissue collection,'" CMP explained. "Pitt is now admitting to news media that the aborted babies are still alive at the time their kidneys are cut out for NIH grant money," explained CMP chief David Daleiden. "Pitt’s grant application for GUDMAP advertised this to the federal government and that labor induction abortions, where the baby is pushed out of the mother whole, would be 'used to obtain the tissue.' The plain meaning of the GUDMAP grant application, and the University of Pittsburgh’s statement today explaining it, is that Pitt and the Planned Parenthood abortion providers responsible for its ‘research’ abortions are allowing babies, some of the age of viability, to be delivered alive, and then killing them by cutting their kidneys out." Daleiden added, "If Bill Barr knew about this as attorney general and did nothing, he should be impeached and hauled before Congress to explain himself. Merrick Garland even promised the Senate Judiciary Committee he would make decisions about fetal trafficking prosecutions based on the facts and the law. The fact pattern here in Pittsburgh and elsewhere demands that this Kermit Gosnell-like activity be brought to justice under the law. Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose NIAID office funds nearly 60% of NIH-sponsored fetal experimentation, was recently grilled by Senator Rand Paul about unethical government-sponsored gain-of-function experiments. The Senate Judiciary Committee should call Barr, Garland, FBI Director Wray, NIH Director Collins, Fauci, and representatives of Pitt and Planned Parenthood to face the same imperative scrutiny for the enabling of partial-birth abortions and infanticide in the government-sponsored human trafficking of aborted infants." Gosnell is the abortionist serving his life in prison for the deaths of infants who survived his abortion procedures. CMP and Judicial Watch had revealed records from the NIH about the "government-sponsored fetal experimentation" at Pittsburgh. Daleiden explained the records "read[] like an episode of American Horror Story," with infants aborted alive and then "killed for organ harvesting." The records from NIH came in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by CMP a year ago, and a subsequent lawsuit by Judicial Watch. In the request for taxpayer money the university asked to be the "fetal tissue distribution hub" for the GenitoUrinary Developmental Molecular Anatomy Project. The school sought $3 million to "significantly ramp up" its collection of tissue from unborn babies. CMP reported, "Chillingly, Pitt announces under point number 5, 'Ischemia time is minimized': 'We record the warm ischemic time on our samples and take steps to keep it at a minimum to ensure the highest quality biological specimens. We get feedback from our users and utilize this feedback to tailor our collection processes on a case-by-case basis to maximize the needs of investigators.' (pg. 62). Later in the application, Pitt describes 'labor induction' as a 'procedure that will be used to obtain the tissue' (pg. 73)." "According to the NIH, warm ischemia time is 'the time a tissue, organ, or body part remains at body temperature after its blood supply has been reduced or cut off but before it is cooled or reconnected to a blood supply.' If the fetus’ heartbeat and blood circulation continue in a labor induction abortion for harvesting organs, it means the fetus is being delivered while still alive and the cause of death is the removal of the organs," the organization confirmed. Pitt also explained that there would be quotas for different races, and assured that a full 25% of the fetuses "harvested" would come from black women. Fox reported at least $2.7 million has been funneled into the school's projects. School officials have denied any wrongdoing. Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, said in a report in the Free Beacon that voters must hold their representatives accountable to ensure government funding goes nowhere near experiments on aborted fetuses. "This latest discovery that millions of taxpayer dollars have apparently been funding this same barbaric practice through NIH is nothing short of outrageous and should profoundly trouble the conscience of every American," Schilling said. "Congress should act to ensure that any future funding of NIH be explicitly barred from going toward such inhumane practices, and any lawmaker who opposes such action should be forced to answer for it to their voters." In years past, WND has documented statements from a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, Alisa LaPoit Snow, who responded to a lawmaker's question about a baby being born alive in a botched abortion. She said the life of that baby "should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician." Further, WND reported on the idea of "post-birth" abortion when a Princeton "bioethicist" announced he'd allow the killing of disabled babies after they were born if that was in the "best interests" of the family. Those comments came from Peter Singer, a controversial bioethics professor, who responded to a series of questions in the UK Independent several years ago. WND had reported Singer believes the next few decades will see a massive upheaval in the concept of life and rights, with only "a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists" still protecting life as sacrosanct. To the rest, it will be a commodity to be re-evaluated regularly for its worth. His newest sermon on his beliefs came in a question-and-answer interview the Independent set up with readers. Singer's response came to Dublin reader Karen Meade's question: "Would you kill a disabled baby?" "Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion," he said. Read more at: WND.com
Copy