Does Doug MacEachern oppose abortion to save the life of the woman? I have concerns about that!

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

maceachern
I will not suffer a defective incubator to live!

Well, the modicum of goodwill Doug MacEachern had built up with me on Wednesday for acknowledging the allegations that Planned Parenthood sells fetus parts are spurious was demolished on Thursday, when he walked that back and proceeded to insinuate that something sinister is going on after all. And also lets you know that the Planned Parenthood rep “enjoyed a sumptuous lunch” (which is what we’re calling “salad” these days, I guess).

I argued in an earlier column that it is not exactly clear from Nucatola’s lunchtime performance that she is describing “products” that are for sale, which is against federal law, albeit an ambiguous federal law.

I’m less sure now. Oddly enough, Planned Parenthood — which is clearly in a public-relations panic over this video — is contributing to its critics’ arguments. The abortion provider hired a PR firm that is contradicting Nucatola’s own description of payments, which she says go to “shipping” and to account for the fact that “somebody gonna have to take it out..”

According to Planned Parenthood’s new line of defense “Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive (emphasis added) after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure.”

That just is not what she said. The Planned Parenthood official said nothing, explicitly or implied, about any “reimbursements” going to patients. She describes, more than once, that payments are constructed so that Planned Parenthood affiliates can “do a little better than break even.”

Plenty of people are convinced that Nucatola is describing a body-parts market.

Plenty of people are also idiots. But this renewed scrutiny of Planned Parenthood is not the main thrust of MacEachern’s column. That, he saves for the last sentence.

That is the most disturbing message from Nucatola’s performance. That partial-birth abortion of well-developed fetuses is far more widespread — and perhaps far more lucrative — than we’ve been led to believe.

This is a perfect illustration of the disturbing willingness of many people to believe the absolute worst of women, in many areas but especially where abortion is concerned. What might MacEachern be imagining here? Does he think women are deliberately getting pregnant and waiting to abort until such time as they have Grade A fetal tissue to provide to the eager peddlers of such at Planned Parenthood? Sure seems so!

And I’m going to take the worst assumptions about Doug MacEachern and those of the people he seems to agree with further – because MacEachern is being such a stickler for exactly what was or was not stipulated to by Dr. Nucatola in the Planned Parenthood video – to note how he made his unfounded claim of “widespread partial birth abortion” without even mentioning the possibility of women needing abortions late in pregnancy to save their lives! Since MacEachern didn’t spell that out in his column, then isn’t it entirely possible that he, in fact, does not believe pregnant women on the brink of death should be allowed lifesaving terminations? Wow, that would be pretty ghoulish of him.

9 responses to “Does Doug MacEachern oppose abortion to save the life of the woman? I have concerns about that!

  1. It is unreasonable to me that ANYONE would object to an abortion where the health of the Mother was in jeopady, regardless of what point in the pregnancy the health is threatened.

    • well…they do.

      • I know some people do, but it is wrong of them to do so. The health and life of the Mother should ALWAYS be of primary concern. When my Wife was bearing children, had she faced a crisis where carrying a child to full term was a threat to her health and/or life, I would have asked her not to risk herself. In the end, she would have decided what she was going to do, and I would have supported her, but had she died, it would have broken my heart, as it did when she passed away from cancer eight years ago. Her health and life were ALWAYS of prime concern. That is why I find it so hard to imagine that anyone, but particularly a Father, could ever place the health of a woman secondary in a dangerous pregnancy.

        • So sorry to hear about the loss of your wife, Steve. You understand what many do not.

          • Thank you! That is very kind of you. My daughter tells me that, after eight years, I should be past the broken heart. I just tell her how silly she is for not understanding what her Mom and I had. Like you, my Wife saw me leave to dangerous places on many occasions and she kept the family running like a champ, and I never had to worry and could concentrate on the mission. I missed her a lot, but she was always strong for me. Military wives are a special, wonderful group…

  2. The mere fact that men think they should weigh in on this at all…makes my blood boil!

    http://www.salon.com/2015/07/16/what_the_planned_parenthood_hoax_really_proves_right_wing_extremists_have_no_qualms_about_destroying_peoples_lives/

    As we’ve seen with similar “gotcha!” videos, this one completely misrepresents what Nucatola was discussing, and numerous sites have almost too-easily debunked just about every claim. (Full debunkery here, here, here and here.) It turns out, Nucatola wasn’t discussing the illegal black market sale of fetal organs, but instead the perfectly legal donation of the organs to biomedical research laboratories that use the organs to help save lives. The price range of the organs described by Nucatola is, in reality, the reimbursed expenses accrued in the delivery of the specimens. (Which makes sense: $30 to $100 is hilariously below the going rate for human organs.) Furthermore, the video was produced by an anti-choice pop-up outfit called the Center for Medical Progress, which not only claimed that this one video required three years of research, but which also has ties to known video fraudster James O’Keefe.

    Yet as rapidly as the video was resoundingly debunked as a fraud, it wasn’t fast enough to catch up with the zealous haste of the lies.

    All they have is lies. And the people that believe them.

    • Cheri, if you are discussing “men” in the general sense, then I agree with you. Men really don’t have much of a leg to stand on when ot comes to women and their reproductive rights. But if you are talking a specific “man”, as in the father, then I would disagree somewhat. The ultimate decision still rests with the woman, but the father should have some say in what happens to his child. I know that some fathers abuse that privilege, but I don’t think the vast majority do, and it seems wrong to me to strip of father of his input.

      • I’m going to say this as clearly and respectfully as I possibly can. It is not solely the female’s responsibility to make sure that all precautions are taken to insure to a reasonable measure, that an unwanted pregnancy doesn’t happen. Ever. If they (including the sperm donor…I will not call him a dad..that takes care , love and responsibility!) impregnate a woman and she doesn’t want/isn’t able/ can’t afford…whatever HER REASON IS…he needs to take a seat and let her make her choice. End of conversation. If he was so “concerned” then he should have been responsible BEFORE the sex!! Woman’s body/woman’s choice…men don’t get a debate! When abstinence only education is even tolerated and birth control gets to be taken away, made difficult to get etc….this is what happens. Sex education, easy access to birth control are the reasons abortion rates go down…when male law makers take these away or put up roadblocks to access, is where we begin to have issues.

  3. You have concerns about what maccrackhead thinks. really?