[guest post by Dana]

It’s funny when the DNC Chair can’t come up with an answer.

“What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D., Fla.).

“Uh,” Wasserman-Schultz responded.

“I used to think there was a big difference,” Matthews said. “What do you think?”

“The difference between—the real question is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican,” Wasserman-Schultz said.

Matthews didn’t let her off easily.

“Yeah but what’s the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist?” Matthews said. “You’re the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.”

“The relevant debate that we’ll be having over the course of this campaign is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican,” Wasserman-Schultz repeated.

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

Consider this a warning:

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

Since PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in its 2nd trimester procedures, any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law (1 USC 8).

They are harvesting organs from live births.

Further, the discussion of the illegality of their business is discussed:

Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.

When the buyers ask Ginde if “compensation could be specific to the specimen?” Ginde agrees, “Okay.” Later on in the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing,” Ginde remarks. “If you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”

Ginde implies that PPRM’s lawyer, Kevin Paul, is helping the affiliate skirt the fetal tissue law: “He’s got it figured out that he knows that even if, because we talked to him in the beginning, you know, we were like, ‘We don’t want to get called on,’ you know, ‘selling fetal parts across states.’” The buyers ask, “And you feel confident that they’re building those layers?” to which Ginde replies, “I’m confident that our Legal will make sure we’re not put in that situation.”

And lastly, while examining fetal remains:

GINDE: Here’s a —

MEDICAL ASSISTANT 1: Wow.

GINDE: — stomach, and heart, and the kidney and adrenal. I don’t know what else is in there. Arms.

MEDICAL ASSISTANT 2: I don’t see the legs. Did you see the legs? Another boy!

Meanwhile, the White House addressed the videos today claiming they were made by “extremists on the right” as Josh Earnest parroted Planned Parenthood talking points:

“There’s ample reason to think that this is merely the tried and true tactic that we have seen from some extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release an edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. “And Planned Parenthood has indicated that’s what has occurred here.”

Further, on Monday the Senate will vote to defund Planned Parenthood. Given that 60 votes are needed for it to pass and Democrats are staunchly against it, there is little hope of success. However, conservative Republicans intend to demand the defunding plan be folded into a spending bill needed to avoid a government shutdown this fall.

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

Just one week ago, Hillary Clinton went on record and condemned the “attack against women’s rights to choose” after the release of the second Planned Parenthood video:

“I don’t have all the facts but Planned Parenthood has apologized for the insensitivity of the employee who was taped and they will continue to answer questions for Congress and others, but for more than a century Planned Parenthood has provided essential services for women,” Clinton declared Thursday. “Not just reproductive health services, including access to affordable family planning, but cancer screenings, for example and other health checkup.”

The Democratic presidential candidate also called it “unfortunate” that the taxpayer-funded organization has endured such “concerted attacks” for its abortion practices.

“I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood had been the object of such a concerted attacks for so many years and it’s really an attack against women’s rights to choose, to make the most personal, difficult decisions that any women would face based on her faith and her medical advice that she is given,” Clinton explained. “So I am hoping that this situation will not further undermine the very important services that Planned Parenthood provides.”

Now, for some mysterious reason, Clinton called the videos “disturbing” during an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader:

“I have seen pictures from them and I obviously find them disturbing,” the Democratic presidential hopeful said during a sit-down interview Tuesday with the New Hampshire Union Leader.

“Planned Parenthood is answering questions and will continue to answer questions. I think there are two points to make,” Clinton said. “One, Planned Parenthood for more than a century has done a lot of really good work for women: cancer screenings, family planning, all kinds of health services. And this raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country.”

“And if there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one part of it,” she said.

Clinton did not watch the released videos and yet up until yesterday’s interview, she staunchly supported Planned Parenthood and condemned the “attacks” on the organization. Now she is disturbed by the pictures she has seen and barely offers Planned Parenthood any cover. How to explain the shift? It’s not as if Planned Parenthood has all of a sudden started doing anything different from their ordinary routine of barbarity. Their mission statement has not changed. Their philosophy of empowering women with uh, quality healthcare has not changed. Something has to explain Clinton’s change of mind. Well, given that Clinton wants the presidency more than anything and is willing to do anything to secure it, I think she has become aware of some internal polling data that suggests her primary supporters have seen the videos and as a result, their view of Planned Parenthood has changed to some degree. That, of course, means that Clinton’s view of Planned Parenthood must change. Looking around, I see I am not alone in this assessment:

Hillary Clinton does only what the polling tells her to do. And since her target demographic is women, that must mean that somewhere, some messaging data has turned up a shift even among Hillary’s hardcore liberals.

–Dana