Financial aspects
The Center for Medical Progress presents the videos as evidence of Planned Parenthood engaging in the illegal sale of fetal tissue and organs.[1] Planned Parenthood said that they may donate fetal tissue at the request of a patient, but that such tissue is never sold.[1][2] At one point, Nucatola said "nobody should be 'selling' tissue," and "that's just not the goal here."[3] The fourth video shows Savita Ginde, vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, worrying that what she and the undercover activists are doing will be perceived as "selling fetal parts across states."[4]
Federal law prohibits making a profit from the organs and tissue, but is silent on how much can be charged for processing and shipping.[5] In the abortion facilities where they work together, staff from Advanced BioScience Resources, an outside middleman, are usually right outside the door and take possession of the fetus immediately after it is aborted.[6] According to Daleiden, who rejected the notion that Planned Parenthood is looking to recoup their costs, “literally the only thing the clinic is doing is carrying the fetus from the operation to the [non-Planned Parenthood] tech."[7] Daleiden told Congress that because ABR “handles all dissection, packaging, and shipping of fetal organs and tissues, ...it is unclear for what [Planned Parenthood] could be receiving ‘reimbursement.’”[6]
Much of the second video showed Mary Gatter, the Planned Parenthood medical director in Southern California, spoking with actors posing as potential buyers of intact fetal specimens about how much money the buyers should pay.[8] She said she was worried about giving a "lowball" figure for the organs and tissue, saying that "in negotiations the person who throws out the figure first is at a loss."[9] She later says that the price may go up after checking to see what other affiliates get and adds that "we're not in this for the money."[9]
VanDerhei said that independent abortion facilities "generate a fair amount of income" from selling fetal tissue and organs to procurement companies, and that it was "really helpful" for the facilities that had small "margins."[10] She added that abortion providers as an industry are trying to determine how to "manage remuneration" for the fetal organs they provide.[10] Another official is quoted as saying that Biomax "wants to give our organization money for the tissue. I think that that’s a valid exchange and that that’s OK."[10]
Robert P. George, a conservative law professor at Princeton University, believes that Planned Parenthood overcharges for the shipping and processing of the fetail tissues and organs as an "end run" around the law, so as to be "selling while pretending not to sell.”[11] Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s biorepository told FactCheck.org that "there’s no way there’s a profit at that price," saying that "$30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee."[3] Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance said this was "a modest price tag for cost recovery."[3]
Financial incentives
A flier from the company states that abortion facilities who partner with StemExpress, as Planned Parenthood did, "will also be contributing to the fiscal growth of your own clinic."[5] Cate Dyer, CEO of StemExpress, told the buyers that she gained business for her company by explaining that their rival did not pay for the fetal organs and tissue, but that StemExpress would.[12] Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director, and now a pro-life activist, appeared in a video saying the sale of fetal tissue and organs made her branch about $120,000 a month.[13][nb 1]
Dyer also spoke about her company's relationship with Planned Parenthood, which she says is the largest single provider of fetal tissue for research.[15] “Planned Parenthood has volume, because they’re a volume institution,” Dyer says.[15] Farrell also told the buyers that "everyone realizes... [that] my department [research] contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization."[16]
Holly O'Donnell, a former StemExpress employee, claimed in the third video that some body parts were worth more than others.[17] A document in the video with her shows the rate of pay technicians would receive, as well as a bonus structure for various organs and tissues.[18][19][20] She stated an "incentive to try and get the hard stuff ‘cause you’re going to get more money."[17] O'Donnell added that her employer received a percentage of the fees Planned Parenthood collected from the organs and tissues.[17]
In a statement accompanying the eighth video, the Center for Medical Progress called StemExpress the "weakest link" and that they "readily admit the profit motive."[21] The video showed clips from StemExpress' website that boasted of its ability to help abortion facilities become financially profitable by giving tissue from aborted fetuses.[22]
Daleiden has also alleged that "Planned Parenthood illegally uses partial-birth abortions 'to harvest higher quality fetal organs for sale.'"[13] Farrell said in one video that doctors can "get creative" and obtain more intact fetal organs and tissue in order to contribute to the "diversification of the revenue stream."[23] She adds that "if we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget."[24] In a statement, Planned Parenthood strongly denied the charges saying, "Planned Parenthood follows all laws -- period."[13] They have also said the video in which Farrell appears "doesn’t show Planned Parenthood staff engaged in any wrongdoing or agreeing to violate any legal or medical standards."[23]
Prices
In the unedited version of the first video, Nucatola repeatedly states that Planned Parenthood does not make money from tissue donations, and that the $30 to $100 charge only covers procurement costs.[1] Gatter and the buyers, however, discuss price points for the tissues and organs from the aborted fetuses without any discussion of the actual costs involved in procurement.[25] According to Richards, her organization receives about $50 per specimen.[26]
The ninth video shows that Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABS), a tissue procurement company that works with Planned Parenthood, was willing to pay $550 for an intact fetus.[26] In 2013, a price sheet from ABS said it would pay up to $300 for a specimen from a second trimester fetus, and $515 for a first trimester fetus.[5] The eighth video also showed that Planned Parenthood received up to $75 from StemExpress per body part from the aborted fetuses.[22] Tissue brokering middlemen often mark up the price, sometimes by 10 times.[27][5]
- References
[3]
[2]
[1]
[10]
[11]
[4]
[6]
[5]
[7]
[9]
[8]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[19]
[17]
[24]
[25]
[18]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[26]
[27]
References
Blakeslee, Nate (February 2010). "The Convert". Texas Monthly. Retrieved August 13, 2015.
Gallicho, Grant (August 26, 2015). "Stung (UPDATED)". Commonweal. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
I see multiple problems here
Just looking at the "Financial Aspects" section:
- Everything in the second paragraph of the "financial aspects" section should be struck - it places undue weight on Daleiden/CMP's opinions, and on the coverage of a openly partisan source. The assumption that because BioScience reps receive the tissue immediately, there is little cost to PP is dubious; either it's Daleiden/CMP's opinion (in which case including it is probably undue weight) or it's OR. The cited article doesn't make that connection.
- In the third paragraph, in that same section, if we're going to include Gatter's statements about "price" and "lowball" figures, then we should also include her clear statement (from the very same source), that “we’re not in this for the money,” and the source (the Washington Post's) comment that she "repeatedly says profit is not the motive. 'The money is not important,' she says at one point." We could also include Art Caplan's statement that if CMP wants to show that Planned Parenthood "sell baby parts," he's "not sure you get this from this tape.” Again, from the same source. In general, the information presented in that paragraph is cherry-picked to reflect negatively on PP, this needs to be fixed before being included in the article.
- The fourth paragraph should be completely removed - VanDerhei's comment is about other abortion providers (who aren't PP), and general comments about this area of law/service. The last quote is taken out of context to suggest a profit motive where there's no evidence that one exists, it's been misleadingly used here.
- The fifth paragraph of that section looks ok, but we should not Robert George's reputation for pro-life and conservative activism there, it's important context.
In general, it seems like quotes/examples have been cherry picked here, I oppose including this in the article as written, but with the changes outlined above I might support it. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- These are some valid concerns, Fyddlestix, and I tried updating the text to reflect them. With regard to the second paragraph, it has sources from The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Washington Times. Remember that while we have to be NPOV, sources can be WP:BIASED. Indeed, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Additionally, every claim Daleiden makes is clearly attributable to him, and it is not in WP's voice. Per WP:YESPOV, we are supposed to describe the disputes. CMP is making this claim, and it isn't undue to include it.
- I included the additional quotation from Gatter, and added that George is a conservative. The VanDerhei quotation is clearly applicable as it is setting a context for their discussion. With regard to the last quotation, how do you know no profit motive exists? We don't need proof one way or the other to include it. Again, we are here to describe the controversy, not engage in it.
- Finally, I'm a little surprised by your wanting to include Caplan, since you earlier said that you thought his inclusion here was excessive. Given the number of other videos that have come out since then, I'm not sure that quote is appropriate anymore, but I'm not opposed to an outside voice in a RS defending PP. Good thoughts, though, and thanks for them. --BoruBrian (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Then, in the "Financial Incentives" section:
- The lead sentence doesn't necessarily/exclusively apply to PP. It should be removed.
- Ditto the second sentence. Where is the evidence that she's referring to Planned Parenthood? Where is the evidence that them paying means that PP profits? That is what is being implied, but I see no evidence to support that.
- Last sentence of first paragraph: Abby Johnson is a pro-life activist and must be identified as such in-text any time she is quoted. Anything she says/implies need to be clearly attributed and her bias noted. This was in the text before, I can't imagine why anyone would think it was a good idea to take it out unless they were deliberately trying to support an anti-PP POV.
- Third paragraph: Holly O'Donnell's comments are pretty dodgy in my opinion - she only worked for SE for a short time and multiple RS have cast doubt on her comments. Personally I question whether she should be quoted at all, but if she is, then the sources/information that cast doubt on the reality/reliability of her assertions also need to be mentioned & cited clearly.
- Fourth paragraph: Undue weight for CMP's un-verified assertions, should be scrapped. This article is not CMP's soapbox, there's no need to directly quote them this much.
- Fourth paragraph, second sentence: again, no evidence that PP is what is being referred to, or that this implies profit/sale of parts on PP's part. Not relevant, should be removed.
- Fifth paragraph, first sentence: again, directly quoting Daleiden's allegation (which we have no evidence is true) - this is undue weight. At the very least, this should be coupled with the many denials of this that PP has made, and with the multiple RS that have cast doubt on the claim, and on Daleiden's reliability. Farrell's comments need to be similarly contextualized - a lot of RS have cast doubt on the allegation that her comments imply alteration of procedures/sale of parts. That should be noted.
Finally, I don't really seem the point of the "prices" section at all - it seems to be using SYNTH (discussion of what is often charged/payed by various parties for fetal parts) in order to imply that PP makes a profit, when - again - we have no actual evidence that that's true.
Overall, this draft seems to have been written to support a POV using cherry-picked quotes, selective use of sources, and misleading lack of context. It also places undue weight on CMP/Daleiden's statements and opinions. For all of these reasons I oppose using any of this unless it is substantially altered to comply with NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Interjected) Again, good thoughts, Fyddlestix. Thank you. I have made some edits to the text to try to address your concerns. Again, I will say though that we are here to describe the controversy. We do not, and cannot, prove anything one way or the other. Much of what you objecting to is including claims that PP did something wrong. We provide the information, and let readers come to their own conclusions. If we don't include something because it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then we aren't doing our job. Likewise, if CMP makes a claim, and PP has evidence to refute it, and we don't include that, we aren't doing our job either. I have tried to make some changes to address your concerns. Do you want to add the information casting doubt on O'Donnell, or putting Farrell's comments into context? I just reread the source for Farrell's quotation and didn't see anything that cast doubt on the implication that her comments imply alteration of procedures/sale of parts, aside from a statement from PP. As a gesture of good faith, I've added that as well. --BoruBrian (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would oppose inclusion of these sections into the article at all. The text is incredibly POV and, having read through the relevant sources, what is written above has been very cherry-picked from the sources to support the authors obvious POV. This is mislea eveding to readers and I'm notn convinced of its importance to the article itself. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 15:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree. A more helpful approach would be to edit what is already in the article. If there are new events, new sources, and new wordings, discuss them here and we can tweak the existing content, and do it in much smaller samples. The consequences and implications of total content replacement is simply too hard to analyze. The analyses above are still quite good and are generally legitimate objections. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to add a comment about AGF. Brian is a careful and good editor, and I don't think that he has deliberately tried to slant things against PP. This is natural and the reason why we edit collaboratively. The best content is created through collaboration between editors who hold opposing POV. We balance each other and end up with more NPOV content. We can't do it alone. We all have unconscious biases which influence how we see things and edit. It's normal, and even the most experienced editors do it. This is also why creating a draft by oneself and trying to then substitute it in toto generally doesn't work. This needs to be done in much smaller portions on the talk page with other editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, BullRangifer. I'll point out that everything in this proposed text was added in small sections. People simply chose not to edit the draft as we went along. I can't help that. However, that isn't a good reason not to move forward. Fyddlestix had some very good, very specific concerns. Those can be addressed. More general "I don't like this" type comments don't help move the ball forward at all. --BoruBrian (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)