AG Paxton Commends 5th Circuit
Decision Regarding Exclusion of
Planned Parenthood from Medicaid
AUSTIN, TX – Attorney General Ken Paxton today commended the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit after it reversed the district court’s decision preventing Texas from eliminating Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program.
“The 5th Circuit’s ruling shows that the district court applied the wrong legal standard,” Attorney General Paxton said. “Planned Parenthood’s reprehensible conduct, captured in undercover videos, proves that it is not a ‘qualified’ provider under the Medicaid Act, so we are confident we will ultimately prevail.”
During oral argument, the attorney general’s legal team recounted raw, unedited footage from eight hours of undercover videos showing violations of medical and ethical standards by Texas Planned Parenthood officials. This footage was also described in the Fifth Circuit’s opinion.
In the videos, Planned Parenthood employees admit that some doctors performed abortions to obtain fetal tissue for their own research and would manipulate the timing and methods of abortions.
The Fifth Circuit included a picture of the fetal tissue Planned Parenthood was harvesting. Federal laws prohibit researchers from performing abortions to secure fetal tissue for their own research under such circumstances, and prohibits modifying abortion procedures to obtain tissue for research purposes.
In December 2016, the inspector general of Texas Health and Human Services removed Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program for the video footage of actions that “violate generally accepted medical standards,” and for making false statements to law enforcement.
Though Planned Parenthood is still under investigation, it receives around $3.1 million a year in Texas Medicaid funding.
Planned Parenthood Exposed for Alleged Horrible Treatment of Pregnant
This goes without saying, but Planned Parenthood is a deeply polarizing organization.
“The evidence suggests,” concludes a 2018 study published in the Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, “that [Planned Parenthood] has had a long-term inflationary effect on the incidence and prevalence of abortion in the U.S.”
Many conservatives and Christians feel that the “women’s health” organization cares about anything but that, and there’s certainly ample evidence to back that up.
Planned Parenthood aborts more than 300,000 babies a year, and abortion is an increasing part of the organization’s work.
Now we can add “raging hypocrites” to the ugly words associated with the group, according to a new New York Times report.
The Times reports that Planned Parenthood “has been accused of sidelining, ousting or otherwise handicapping pregnant employees, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees.”
An organization that paints itself as a champion for pregnant women across the world is treating its own pregnant employees terribly? That is truly hypocrisy at its worst.
Some of the stories that The Times reported on are truly horrific, made all the worse by Planned Parenthood’s portrayal of itself as a champion of women’s reproductive rights.
Take, for instance, Planned Parenthood medical assistant Ta’Lisa Hairston. One of her job functions is to tell pregnant women various ways in which to stay healthy, such as taking rest breaks, staying hydrated and eating regular meals.
Imagine Hairston’s dismay when she couldn’t even follow her own advice when she got pregnant.
It’s not that she didn’t want to follow her own advice. She couldn’t because of her superiors at Planned Parenthood.
Hairston told her human resources department that her high blood pressure was threatening her pregnancy. She was even able to obtain nurse’s notes recommending she take frequent breaks, for her health and that of her unborn child.
Planned Parenthood officials turned up their noses at Hairston’s predicament. She told The Times that she rarely had time to rest or take lunch breaks.
“I had to hold back tears talking to pregnant women, telling them to take care of their pregnancies when I couldn’t take care of mine,” Hairston said. “It made me jealous.”
Hairston was hardly the only case of Planned Parenthood ignoring a pregnant employee’s needs. Interviews and legal documents procured by The Times revealed other instances of managers ignoring doctor-recommended rest breaks.
Managers are also alleged to have taken pregnancy into consideration when hiring.
More subtly, Planned Parenthood was also accused of fostering an environment where pregnant employees were afraid to speak up out of fear of seeming like they were abandoning their coworkers.
Upper management was also accused of viewing the accommodation of pregnant employees as “expensive and inconvenient.”
Unreal. Planned Parenthood is a lot of things, depending on who you ask. But based on these Times reports, even the most ardent supporters will struggle to defend the organization against hypocrisy.
Planned Parenthood has become synonymous with “abortion” — and for very good reason.
Promoting and performing abortions is a huge part of what the organization does on a daily basis, and it’s hardly a secret.
Its new president, however, apparently wants to sweep that reputation under the rug.
During a recent appearance on ABC’s “The View,” Dr. Leana Wen tried to repeat a long-debunked statistic to make abortion look like a minor part of Planned Parenthood’s services … but one of the show’s co-hosts quickly shot her down.
The largest abortion provider in America really, really wants people to think that it’s just a positive women’s health group. Despite the fact that liberals constantly paint abortion as a great decision — even encouraging women to proudly “shout” their abortions — Planned Parenthood has also worked to downplay just how many of those life-ending procedures it conducts.
On Thursday, Wen used “The View” to declare that the organization she runs is “transparent” and abortions are only 3 percent of what the group does. She also insisted that Planned Parenthood isn’t political, a bizarre claim at best.
“View” co-host Sunny Hostin wasn’t having it. She slammed Wen on the claim of transparency, and pointed out that the group’s oft-repeated “3 percent” claim is pretty dishonest.
“Planned Parenthood provides more abortions, the most abortions than any other health care provider in the United States,” Hostin said, noting that the organization provided 328,348 abortions during the 2015-2016 fiscal year.
She pointed to The Washington Post, which gave a “Three Pinocchios” dishonesty rating to the claim that only a single-digit percentage of Planned Parenthood’s activities were abortions.
That liberal newspaper found that abortion accounts for at least 12 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services, and pointed out that it could be much higher depending on how the data are presented.
Slate, another left-leaning news outlet, distanced itself from the abortion provider’s claims of transparency. It called the 3 percent claim the “most meaningless abortion statistic ever.”
Why are Planned Parenthood and its new president trying so hard to cover up just how involved it is in abortions? It’s probably because the organization is receiving over $500 million dollars in government subsidies and knows that this funding could disappear if people start asking too many questions.
“I hear all the time, I don’t want my taxpayer money going to fund an organization that provides abortions, whether or not the money is direct or indirect,” another of the more conservative “View” co-hosts, Abby Huntsman, said. “Do you understand why people have a hard time with it?”
Wen didn’t really answer, but deflected with another head-scratching claim.
“Health care shouldn’t be political,” she shot back.
Odd. Why, then, do so many liberals want government to control almost every aspect of health care?
It’s an extremely strange stance to rake in hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies and demand state-run medical and insurance programs but then declare that “health care shouldn’t be political” with a straight face.
Planned Parenthood’s new president seems to have mastered the art of deflection and deception. No wonder the increasingly scrutinized abortion promoter chose her.
Bombshell New Evidence Suggests
Planned Parenthood Lied to Congress
NOT IN MY WORLD!!!! is where WE THE PEOPLE first heard that Planned Parenthood was making $1,000,000 to $10,000,000 daily off illegal sales of illegal fetal tissue for highly illegal research, and the illegal sales of viable murdered Baby organs for highly illegal transplants.
When the pro-life group Center for Medical Progress, led by a man named David Daleiden, released a series of shockingly disturbing undercover videos featuring doctors and employees of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in 2015, those videos appeared to expose the abortion providers as being engaged in the unlawful harvesting and sale — for profit — of various internal organs and body parts of aborted babies.
Unsurprisingly, the pro-abortion left pushed back hard, launching an intense smear campaign against Daleiden and CMP to discredit them while the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, as well as a number of subsidiaries beneath them, filed a lawsuit against Daleiden and CMP to silence their voices and suppress their videos.
That effort to squash Daleiden and hide from the public what CMP had exposed may have backfired on Planned Parenthood, though, as Daleiden and CMP have refused to back down and instead are fighting the lawsuit in court, as evidenced by the recent filing of a motion to compel the release of certain records.
Incredibly, LifeNews has reported that the court motion may make public documents which will show that Planned Parenthood may have fabricated certain records to hide what they were doing, and not only that, but also lied about as much in sworn testimony before a Congressional panel.
In the motion to compel filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the defendants — CMP, Daleiden and others — argued a number of legal precedents against the plaintiffs — Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a number of PP subsidiaries and third-party Advanced Bioscience Resources, among others — which they viewed as supportive of their demand that Planned Parenthood and ABR turn over certain documents and records as part of the discovery process.
Specifically, the defendants called for any documents and records that would show five specific things: a scheme to profit from the sale of fetal tissue, modifications to abortion procedures to facilitate such a profit, violations of the federal ban on partial-birth abortions as part of that scheme, the procurement of tissue from born-alive infants as part of the profit-making scheme and the procurement and sale of fetal tissues without the donor’s consent … all of which are illegal.
CMP has been seeking such documents for some time, but the plaintiffs have resisted such requests and made a number of different arguments to the court as to why they shouldn’t have to do so, hence the filing of the motion to compel.
After citing a number of legal precedents that undermined each argument put forward by Planned Parenthood to avoid turning over the requested documents and records, the motion from the defendants got to the heart of the matter in that they alleged the production of the records they seek would show discrepancies with records that Planned Parenthood had previously turned over to Congress.
That allegation was based on the fact that ABR had already produced certain documents and records — such as invoices — in response to an earlier subpoena from CMP, prior to ABR joining with PPFA in refusing to produce any further documents after what CMP alleged was “troubling” “attorney meddling” had occurred between the various plaintiffs in the case.
The motion alleged that there were substantial differences in invoices provided by ABR and two PP subsidiaries, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte and Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest. Specifically, “The PPMM invoices produced match, but ABR and PPPSW produced different versions of the same invoice.” (Emphasis included in court filing.)
“Further, the revenue totals and procurement totals, when added up based on the invoices produced by ABR and Plaintiff PPPSW, do not match the totals that PPPSW reported to the Select Investigative Panel for fiscal year 2015,” the motion continued, noting that one of the totals produced was for $18,960.
“However the ABR fetal tissue invoices for July 2014 to December 2014 alone — half of fiscal year 2015 — show revenues of $21,120 from ABR for 352 fetal tissue donations,” the defendants revealed.
“It is unclear to Defendants why the invoices are not identical, or why the numbers do not add up, but it is perfectly possible that the invoices were subject to tampering and someone falsely reported information to Congress,” the motion argued. “Thus, it is critical that Defendants obtain access to third-party documents to verify that Plaintiffs are not producing fabricated evidence.”
As that motion to compel the release of the requested documents and records was just filed today — and is actually dated to take effect on November 29 — it could be some time before the judge rules one way or the other on this matter.
Daleiden told LifeNews, “This would not be the first time Planned Parenthood has apparently doctored critical evidence about their own wrongdoing.”
“Planned Parenthood has everything to lose if the full scope of their illicit trade in aborted baby body parts is revealed, and when the Congressional investigations made criminal referrals of Planned Parenthood and their business partners for selling baby parts, the House Select Panel had to refer Planned Parenthood partner StemExpress for evidence destruction.”
He added, “As the U.S. Department of Justice continues to follow up on the criminal referrals for Planned Parenthood and ABR, it is imperative for prosecutors to seize the original financial records from Planned Parenthood and their accomplices immediately, so these depraved enterprises cannot continue to cover up their criminal sale of baby body parts.”
New Mexico Attorney General wants to handle fatal Child Abuse cases
Attorney General Hector Balderas wants New Mexico lawmakers to expand his authority by allowing him to take over child abuse cases resulting in death without having to wait for a district attorney to decline to prosecute, dismiss the case or ask for his help.
Why? Balderas said in a phone interview Friday that his office is well equipped to handle such cases and he wants to be able to step in and help children whenever its resources are needed, “like the Navy SEALs.”
“When prosecutors have referred complex, tragic cases to us, we’ve had above-average success rates,” Balderas said.
Balderas said his office is uniquely equipped to handle complicated child abuse cases because his staff includes victim advocates, investigators, lawyers and appellate attorneys, meaning he could handle all aspects of a case without having to rely on other agencies to bring a case to trail.
“In every community, there are sometimes unhealthy tensions between law enforcement, child protective agencies and the DA’s Office,” Balderas said. “But we are one unit. We collaborate at every stage. We are always working together.”
Under current laws, Balderas said, he has to wait for the prosecutor in the judicial district where a case arises to either ask for his help, dismiss a case or decline to prosecute before the Attorney General’s Office can jump in.
“To me, that’s just not sound policy when we are in a child abuse crisis,” Balderas said. “Now is the time to make the attorney general an equal partner. I shouldn’t have to ask for permission. It shouldn’t be a failure in the system that triggers our ability to intervene.”
Balderas said district attorneys usually work well with his office but sometimes don’t agree on the best way to attack a case.
He pointed to a recent high-profile child abuse death in the Taos area in which authorities say a 3-year-old boy abducted by his father from the child’s mother’s home in Georgia was found dead after being denied medications and instead subjected to Islamic prayer rituals for healing. Balderas said that case is an example of one that could have benefited from his office’s expertise.
The attorney general said he offered 8th Judicial District Attorney Donald Gallegos his help at the outset of the Taos County case, but Gallegos didn’t consult with him until after a judge denied a motion to hold the defendants without bail while they await trial.
“I offered meaningful support and strategy so they could win and the community would get a timely and aggressive prosecution,” Balderas said. “I don’t believe it’s collaboration when you are only calling after a loss or setback.”
Gallegos did not return a call seeking comment for this story.
In other cases, Balderas said, the state Children, Youth and Families Department has made investigative missteps that affected the outcome.
CYFD Secretary Monique Jacobson said Friday she didn’t know enough about Balderas’ proposal to comment at length she welcomes the chance to partner with Balderas or any other law enforcement agency on improving front-end investigations to better protect the state’s children. Jacobson added that her agency might not be affected if the law were changed because CYFD doesn’t participate in criminal investigations.
A spokesman for Second Judicial District Attorney Raúl Torrez in Albuquerque referred questions to New Mexico District Attorney’s Association President Dianna Luce.
Luce, a prosecutor in southeastern New Mexico, said in an email that Balderas had not contacted her organization about proposed legislation and that she cannot comment in her capacity as association president until she knows more.
“As the elected district attorney in the Fifth Judicial District,” she wrote, “I’m opposed to giving blanket authority to another entity outside of my district. Our prosecutors have experience in prosecuting these types of cases and have successfully prosecuted child abuse resulting in death cases.”
In Santa Fe, First Judicial District Attorney Marco Serna said in an email Friday he also hadn’t seen the proposed law change and wanted a chance to discuss it with Balderas and the District Attorney’s Association to see what exactly the attorney general proposes.
“I can’t speak for all district attorneys in our state,” Serna wrote, “but I would anticipate opposition to the Attorney General’s position, considering each DA is elected to their respective districts.”
Serna added that he has a “great working relationship” with Balderas’ office and will continue to request assistance or pull resources from the Attorney General’s Office when needed.
Balderas said he is working to draft legislation and find a legislative sponsor.