September 18, 2015
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life."
--Abraham Lincoln
Last week, I began what I hope to be a thorough examination of the facts in the case of Planned Parenthood, and the scandal now engulfing the nation’s largest abortion provider.
Today I would like to briefly review the video evidence against Planned Parenthood, evidence brought to light thanks to whistleblowers and journalists working with a pro-life organization called the Center for Medical Progress.
The first video was posted July 14th, and showed a lunch meeting between CMP investigators, posing as corporate buyers of fetal organs, and Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director of Medical Services.
In the course of this “business” lunch, we learn from this senior Planned Parenthood official’s own words:
These revelations all by themselves shock the conscience. But they were only the beginning.
In the Center for Medical Progress’s second video, released July 21st, we witness another undercover “business” lunch with investigators again posing as corporate organ buyers – this time, with the President of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Directors Council.
What we see in this video, contrary to Planned Parenthood’s protestations, is without question a financial negotiation about the price of baby organs.
In another video released August 4th, the Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains is seen not only discussing exactly this kind of market pricing, but the need to conceal such transactions through message discipline.
Here we learn that Planned Parenthood physicians do indeed alter their surgical procedures “in a way that they get the best specimens.”
That is: not to serve their patients, but to maximize their sales numbers, because – as this vice-president boasts - “[M]y department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization.”
Subsequent videos have only corroborated the allegations. They also contain horrifying behind-the-scenes images at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, where the exploitation, butchering, and violence are worse than you can imagine.
The images and stories will pierce the heart of anyone who has children… or has ever loved a child.
But that’s exactly why we must watch them. For those who don’t already know what abortion clinics are like and what they do, these videos must be seen to be believed.
To watch the full video CLICK HERE
What happens when the President of the United States disagrees with a majority in the United States Senate about whether an international agreement should be considered a treaty or merely an executive agreement? How can the Senate assert its rightful constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs and diplomacy when the president acts unilaterally without seeking its advice and consent?
These are the most important questions for members of Congress to consider as we reflect on the past several months of debate over the flawed Iran deal and as we prepare for President Obama’s next big diplomatic endeavor: a major international climate change agreement, which will be negotiated later this year.
This is what will be known as the Paris Protocol, and it will likely create a new set of international greenhouse gas emission standards for the United Sates to follow, costing American taxpayers billions in administrative costs and payouts to developing countries.
The agreement would require a significant expansion of the already-broad powers of our federal regulatory regime, further empowering unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to seize even more control over the American energy sector and insert themselves ever deeper into the everyday lives of the American people.
On account of its expected size, scope, and effect on the American economy, the Paris Protocol undoubtedly fits the criteria to be considered a treaty and, therefore, submitted to the Senate for ratification.
But for these same reasons, the Paris Protocol will likely be wildly unpopular with the American people and their elected representatives in Congress. Which is exactly why the Obama administration has indicated it has no intention of sending it to the Senate for ratification.
Earlier this year White House Spokesman, Josh Earnest, said it was “hard to take seriously” Member of Congress who hold a different view on climate change.
The question is: how will the Senate respond to such provocations from the White House? What did we learn from the experience with the Iran deal and how will that inform our strategy regarding the Paris Protocol?
One answer is to look into adopting a set of standards to determine whether an international agreement should be classified as a treaty, using a method similar the State Department’s “Circular 175 Procedure.” The State Department uses eight criteria in Circular 175 to help it determine if an international agreement should be negotiated as a treaty and therefore submitted to the Senate for approval.
Regardless of how we answer these questions, there’s no doubt that we must ask them.
Now is the time to make clear – to ourselves, to the White House, and to the American people – that the Senate understands, and plans to defend, the centrality of the treaty-making process to the negotiation of international commitments, and the full and rightful role of the Senate in that process.
