A new undercover video shows a top physician at a Planned Parenthood affiliate discussing how her organization routinely circumvents federal law regulating certain late-term abortions.

In the latest hidden-camera video from the Center for Medical Progress, Dr. Suzie Prabhakaran, vice president of medical affairs for Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, talks about using a “checkbox” to get around the 2003 law banning partial-birth abortion.

In the video, released Thursday as the Senate again debates defunding the nation’s largest abortion provider, Prabhakaran speaks with investigators from the pro-life group posing as buyers of fetal tissue from a biotech company.

Prabhakaran is seen explaining that to circumvent federal law against partial-birth abortions—in which the unborn baby is extracted partway and then killed—Planned Parenthood doctors document their intent either to perform a dismemberment abortion or to use a feticide such as digoxin, which kills the baby beforehand.

“Every time you do a procedure, that’s how you document,” Prabhakaran says at 4:02 on the video. “So, like, there’s like a checkbox … So before the procedure, you do your evaluation, you write: ‘I intend to utilize dismemberment techniques for this procedure.’”

The video was shot at a Planned Parenthood conference in Orlando, Florida, according to the Center for Medical Progress, a nonprofit that has released a series of undercover videos targeting the organization’s ethics and morality in the past two years.

In it, Prabhakaran explains that her affiliate is merging with a Planned Parenthood clinic in Orlando that performs abortions up to 22 weeks and six days into a pregnancy. She says the clinic does a high volume of procedures, with “18 abortions at 18 weeks and above scheduled for the next week,” according to a Center for Medical Progress press release.

By marking a box showing intent to perform a dismemberment abortion, in which the baby is removed in pieces, and not use the deadly digoxin, Parabhakaran says at 5:52 in the video, “I’m not doing digoxin, and we’re just gonna document and there’s never been a problem.”

In a clip from an earlier video, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is seen saying at 3:12 that “laws are up to interpretation.”

“So there are some people who interpret [the partial-birth abortion ban] as, it’s intent,” Nucatola says. “So if I say on Day One I do not intend to do this, what ultimately happens doesn’t matter.”

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which issued a press release attacking Republicans’ “skinny repeal” of Obamacare, did not respond to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment on the video.

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., tweeted:

Disturbing: New vid reveals @PPFA exec discussing dismembering children and how to skirt partial-birth abortion ban. https://t.co/S7f3yRUUaE

— Rep. Trent Franks (@RepTrentFranks) July 27, 2017

David Daleiden, head of the Center for Medical Progress, said in a press release that “the fact that Planned Parenthood has a ‘dismemberment checkbox’ on their abortion forms should tell the public and policymakers everything they need to know about this barbaric abortion business.”

In response to the group’s latest hidden-camera video, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said in a press release that the nation’s “forced complicity in this atrocity must end.”

Dannenfelser added:

We urge our pro-life allies in the Senate to watch this video today and refresh their resolve to ensure that any health care reform legislation includes provisions to redirect Planned Parenthood’s tax dollars to community health centers and also rolls back Obamacare’s abortion expansion.

Abortion is not health care, and pro-life grassroots elected a pro-life House, Senate, and White House in 2016 expecting these victories. Congress must send a bill defunding Planned Parenthood and undoing the damage of Obamacare to President Trump’s desk for his signature.

(For more from the author of “In Video, Planned Parenthood Medical Chief Tells How to Get Around Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

. . .Mirroring a 2015 California law, Hawaii’s edict forces locally funded pregnancy centers to post and distribute to each client a notification that the state offers free abortions, as well as a website link on where and how to schedule a taxpayer-funded abortion.

The mandated signage and disclaimer form must include the following verbiage:

This clinic does not provide abortion services or abortion referrals. Only ultrasounds performed by qualified healthcare professionals and read by licensed clinicians should be considered medically accurate.

Hawaii has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services including all FDA-approved methods of contraception, prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women.

To apply for medical insurance coverage that will cover the full range of family planning and prenatal care services, apply on-line at mybenefits.hawaii.gov.

(Read more from “State to Force Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers to Advertise Free Abortions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The abortion pill has been around for years and has become a highly common form of abortion.

Now, it appears an antidote medication has arrived, and it is already saving hundreds of babies.

The abortion pill (mifepristone, more commonly known as RU-486) has been shown in a new systematic review of literature to be effective at killing an embryo if given in doses ranging from 200 milligrams to 600 milligrams.

But an updated case series, soon to be published, will highlight the success rate of a little-known therapy called the “abortion pill reversal.” This therapy has a 60 to 70 percent success rate in reversing the effects of the abortion pill after it has been taken.

The therapy has already led to healthy births in 250 cases after mothers had taken the abortion pill, and there are currently 100 more pregnant women on this regimen after having taken the abortion pill and changed their minds.

U.S. medication abortions have been on the rise since 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone under President Bill Clinton.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, medication abortions have increased from 6 percent of all abortions in 2001 to 31 percent in 2014, despite the overall decline in the number of abortions in the U.S. during that same period.

In addition, medication abortions account for nearly half (45 percent) of all abortions committed prior to nine weeks gestation.

In 2016, the FDA under President Barack Obama expanded the timeframe for the use of mifepristone to 10 weeks gestation. That move put women’s health and safety at further risk, since the abortion pill regimen is less effective the further along the woman is and carries a higher risk of major adverse events.

With the increase in state pro-life laws placing limits on abortion, and with fewer abortionists now in the medical field, medication abortion has become a convenient alternative to surgical abortions for the abortion industry.

The industry is intent on making medication abortions more widely available. Just in 2014, medication abortions were available at 87 percent of all non-hospital abortion providers.

The Procedure

Medication abortions involve two drugs in order to fully abort the baby—mifepristone and misoprostol.

The first drug, mifepristone, acts to block progesterone, a hormone that not only allows the embryo to implant but also stimulates the delivery of essential nutrients to the growing baby within the mother’s uterus. Without progesterone, the baby starves to death and the placenta separates.

Misoprostol is then taken about 36 to 72 hours after taking the mifepristone, causing contractions that are meant to expel the dead baby.

This process may take a few hours or up to a few days. The mother delivers the dead baby at home without the supervision of a doctor.

In order to work, the abortion pill reversal technique must be started generally within the first 24 to 72 hours of taking mifepristone and before taking misoprostol.

This innovative procedure was discovered by Dr. Matt Harrison in 2006. He realized that if he gave women extra progesterone, it competed with the effects of mifepristone and could save the baby’s life by allowing nutrients to once again reach the growing baby.

Since 2009, Dr. George Delgado has also been involved in the abortion pill reversal. Delgado and others established the Abortion Pill Reversal hotline in 2012. Now, there are more than 350 providers nationwide who are equipped to do the abortion pill reversal technique.

A Growing Movement

The women who have undergone successful reversal therapy are amazing testaments to the efficacy of the procedure.

Take for example Rebekah Buell, who at 18 years old realized she had made a mistake soon after taking mifepristone in the spring of 2013.

The new option of a reversal allowed Buell to save and give birth to her healthy son Zechariah, who is now a precocious 3-year-old.

Andrea Minichini experienced a similar miraculous reversal. Minichini, then 21 years old, desperately searched for a way to save her preborn son from the moment she swallowed the first abortion pill under pressure from her doctor and her boyfriend.

Although she underwent the abortion pill reversal at approximately 48 hours after taking mifepristone, the progesterone therapy was successful, and she too gave birth to her healthy son Gabriel, a thriving 2-and-a-half-year-old today.

Thanks to courageous mothers and the ingenuity of doctors who are using medicine for good, 250 babies have been miraculously saved from the grip of abortion and have been born healthy. And as mentioned, there are 100 more pregnant women currently undergoing the abortion pill reversal technique.

The abortion pill reversal truly gives moms a second chance at choice and their babies a chance at life. (For more from the author of “This Medication Could Reverse a Third of Abortions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lawyers for Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden released a new video on Thursday that exposed horrifying statements from leaders within the abortion industry. The video footage was obtained at National Abortion Federation conventions that took place in California in 2014 and 2015.

The National Abortion Federation describes itself as “the professional association of abortion providers.” It “exhibits and presents at numerous conferences … about topics related to abortion care.”

The video notes that “Planned Parenthood makes up about 50 percent of [the National Abortion Federation’s] members and leadership.”

The video opens with a Planned Parenthood medical director speaking on a panel about “heads that get stuck” and the “hemorrhages that we manage.”

She is later seen telling a panel: “Given that we might actually both agree that there’s violence in here, ask me why I come to work every day. Let’s just give them all the violence, it’s a person, it’s killing, let’s just give them all that.”

A Planned Parenthood abortionist then complains about how an unborn child “is a tough little object” and is “very difficult” to take apart.

A lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union is heard remarking, “When the skull is broken, that’s really sharp!” as the crowd laughs about the difficulty of “getting that skull out.”

Another Planned Parenthood official is seen speaking on a panel recalling that an “eyeball just fell down into my lap, and that is gross!” as the crowd laughs.

A procurement manager from StemExpress is seen commenting that there are “a lot of clinics that we work with that, I mean, it helps them out significantly.”

A Planned Parenthood official later says that “[t]he truth is that some might want to do it … to increase their revenues. And we can’t stop them.”

One would think the state of California would be concerned about what was said at these conferences.

But instead of looking into potential illegal profits from the transfer of fetal tissue, California is charging Center for Medical Progress journalists with 15 felonies for bringing these troubling questions to light in the first place.

California argues that the Center for Medical Progress unlawfully recorded the subjects of undercover videos without their consent.

When the charges were announced, Casey Mattox, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal that even in two-party consent states like California, “It’s well understood as a matter of First Amendment law that people have a right to be able to record their own conversations.”

He added:

These were publicly recorded conversations, they were recorded in restaurants and other places where Planned Parenthood officials should not have expected they had any privacy at all. I find it fascinating that the state of California is apparently very concerned about the privacy of Planned Parenthood officials, and much less concerned about getting to the truth of Planned Parenthood actually engaging in violations of the law by selling baby body parts.

As this concerning case makes its way through court, Americans should remember that Planned Parenthood receives over half a billion dollars from taxpayers each year.

Today’s video once again demonstrates the urgent need for policymakers to end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, its affiliates, and other abortion providers once and for all.

Funding could instead be redirected to centers that provide health care for women without entanglement in on-demand abortion.

Congress has the opportunity to deny Planned Parenthood certain federal funds in the upcoming budget reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare by ensuring the language includes a provision (just as the 2015 version of the bill did) that would disqualify Planned Parenthood affiliates from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for one year after the enactment of the bill.

Ultimately, Congress should send the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which passed in the House of Representatives in January, to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature. (For more from the author of “Horrifying Video From Abortion Conference Shows Utter Disregard for Human Life” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A proposed law to stop a gruesome abortion procedure has made its way through the Texas state legislature, but it is running into some surprising opposition from an organization that bills itself as pro-life.

A provision to ban the performance of dismemberment (also known as D&E and D&X) abortions, except in the case of a “medical emergency,” passed the state senate back in March and the House on Friday.

However, some of the opposition to the bill’s passage might surprise anyone not familiar with abortion politics in the Lone Star State. While pushback from major pro-abortion groups is to be expected, one pro-life group has been actively campaigning against the measure. Texas Alliance for Life, and its executive director, Joe Pojman, spent months leading up to the final House vote, recommending that the legislature reject the ban on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

For reference, this is exactly what happens during a dismemberment abortion:

During one of these procedures, the preborn child is ripped apart in utero before being pulled out through the birth canal piece-by-piece.

But efforts to ban the practice have been thus far opposed by Pojman’s group, which sent out a letter to state legislators urging them to vote against the measure.

Furthermore, for an organization that is dedicated to “protect[ing] innocent human life from conception through natural death through peaceful, legal means,” Texas Alliance for Life stood alone in its opposition to the bill, as several other pro-life organizations lined up behind the legislation.

If the measure were to become law, the letter speculates to lawmakers, “it would not survive a federal court challenge” because of rulings in previous cases, even though the ruling would occur in the 5th Circuit (which is perhaps the most friendly court in the federal system because of its makeup).

Empower Texans, a conservative state-level grassroots organization, explains on its website that Texas Alliance for Life’s Joe Pojman testified on the bill before the committee in February, and recommended that the legislature not pass it, alongside activists from the National Abortion Rights Action League, better known as NARAL.

“Pojman’s remarks today plant dangerous land mines in the way of any legal strategy to defend SB 415 if it passes and is challenged in court,” said Tony McDonald, Empower Texans’ general counsel, at the time. “Abortion groups will use Pojman’s testimony as a ‘confession’ that SB 415 is so ‘extreme’ that even pro-life groups are opposing it.”

And that very thing happened at the 11th hour.

Prior to the vote on Friday, Jessica Farrar, a staunchly pro-abortion Democrat state representative, invoked Pojman’s testimony while speaking in against the provision, which was attached as an amendment to a larger legislative package, on the House floor.

“Are you aware that Texas Alliance for Life testified against this bill in the senate committee?” Farrar publicly asked of Republican Representative Stephanie Klick, contending that the measure was “unconstitutional.”

Pojman responded to Empower Texans’ claims, calling them inaccurate and saying that his testimony was “on” the bill and that he did not take a side (before diving into his reasons for not supporting the bill).

Texas Right to Life Legislative Director John Seago disputes the assertions, however, saying that they are based on what he calls a “fundamental flaw their assessment of the policy” that runs parallel to many pro-abortion criticism of the legislation.

Counter to such judicial concerns, the prevailing reasoning among many pro-life advocates in favor of outlawing the procedure argues that – since the legislation bans a procedure outright – it would fall in line with the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling that upheld the 2003 national partial-birth abortion ban, off of which Seago says the current language in Austin is based.

“[Opponents] have read the bill and understand the bill to be prohibiting all D+E abortions,” Seago told Conservative Review. “That is a gross mischaracterization of the bill, just like the partial birth abortion ban doesn’t prohibit all late abortions; it prohibits one specific procedure.”

“Some pro-lifers are worried about going to court,” he says, admitting that any such litigation is a gamble on some level. “But we understand, the pro-life movement lives in the shadow of Roe v. Wade and the only way we’re going to take down this legal edifice is by working in the courts,” like it did with the partial-birth ban.

“That doesn’t worry us,” Seago said. “That’s how the movement has to move forward.”

“I can’t understand TAL’s objections to a dismemberment ban — I don’t get it at all,” says JoAnn Fleming, executive director of Grassroots America, who has been a conservative activist in Texas for over 20 years.

“I’ve seen the objection about how the court will unravel it and this, that and the other, that and the other,” she adds, but “If we have to fight for life in the courts, then we simply take the fight to the courts. We don’t withdraw from that fight just because we might have to do battle in court.”

To Pojman’s assertions that the current legislation will not save any lives in effect, Seago points to similar criticisms made about the partial birth debate and of pain-capable bills, which have both proven to decrease abortion rates.

However, critics say aren’t surprised by TAL’s opposition to the ban, as they say the group has previously fought to either dilute or otherwise obfuscate pro-life legislation in the state. Republican Representative and Texas Freedom Caucus member Matt Rinaldi claims that the group has sought to water down other legislation before, such as the original version of a 2011 sonogram bill.

“They’ll pick bills [to support] that don’t really accomplish much,” explains Rinaldi. “They act as a cover group for leadership in killing pro-life reforms.”

Rinaldi tells Conservative Review that he views Texas Alliance’s efforts to weaken or oppose stronger pro-life bills as “disgusting,” mainly because they are supported by funds from pro-life donors.

“Their donors and supports don’t realize that they’re being had,” Rinaldi said. “I think it’s despicable.”

Responding to Rinaldi’s statements, Pojman put forward TAL’s list of legislative priorities this session, calling the agenda both “aggressive and substantive.”

“Our goal is to protect unborn children from abortions throughout pregnancy,” reads an emailed statement from Pojman to Conservative Review. “However, we do not recommend that the Legislature pass the dismemberment ban this session because it will not sustain an inevitable court challenge. There are not sufficient votes on the US Supreme Court to uphold it.”

Meanwhile, the group’s critics say, the organization also provides cover for establishment Republicans who would rather not take the heat for voting in favor of stronger pro-life legislation, but still want to don a pro-life mantle come election time.

Chronicling documented financial exchange between House leadership and TAL, Empower Texans’ executive director Michael Q. Sullivan wrote in a 2015 op-ed at Breitbart News that the group’s rhetoric about the pro-life bona fides of certain members of the legislative leadership – most notably state Speaker Joe Straus – did an “about face” following a large influx of cash to the nonprofit’s political action committee. Pojman responded to Sullivan, calling the assertions “misinformation.”

Disagreements over how to best protect the unborn, however, are not specific to a few policy groups in the Lone Star State nor a single dismemberment bill, Seago told CR. Rather, they are endemic of a tactical split in the pro-life movement as a whole.

Whereas some pro-life organizations develop their political priorities based on where the movement needs to go, he says, “Unfortunately, all I’ve seen some pro-life groups in Texas and other states do is show up and see what the politicians give them” and then tout those items as priorities.

“You can’t just give [elected officials] cover,” Seago says against this approach. “The pro-life movement really has to objectively determine where we need to go and then hold our politicians accountable.” (For more from the author of “Faux Life? Why a Texas ‘Pro-Life’ Org Fought a Dismemberment Ban” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.