The “patient” is dead, so does s/he have any privacy rights? Don’t think so.
Planned Parenthood and “pro-choice” people don’t believe that fetus IS a person, so how can s/he be a patient with any rights whatsoever, especially having already been denied the right to LIFE?
How ironic that they use the term “FOOTage” in their letter. Yes, I did see at least one foot in that pie plate, age undetermined. I’ll never look at pie in the same way again.
These people are sick and morally corrupt. They have the gall to cite laws, when they themselves arguably broke laws, notably the one that states that fees for “tissue” must be related to actual expenses incurred providing the “specimens”. Obviously, when the doctor is trying to maximize “profit”, there’s no relationship at all with actual costs.
They’re simply trying to do anything they can to continue to be not transparent about what really goes on in their abortion mills, because they know that when taxpayers SEE those mutilated babies for themselves, they may rethink providing half a billion dollars a year to these horrible people.
Furthermore, when they claim that the process of picking through the remains is medically necessary to ensure that the mother doesn’t get an infection (which sounds plausible), all they do is PROVE that there’s no ADDITIONAL EXPENSE involved in separating the tissue by type.
What they’re trying to ensure is that every bit of the baby came out. While doing so, they’re sorting the “specimens” for the PROCUREMENT SPECIALISTS (procurement is a wonderfully apt term; pimps) so there’s no additional expense for the “not for profit” involved. Thus, there should be no fee charged.
If they’re allowing the third-party procurement specialists to do part of THEIR “medically necessary” work, then arguably the tissue mining company ought to be paid by Planned Parenthood for the service they provide in ensuring that Planned Parenthood’s patients don’t get infections.
The “patient” is dead, so does s/he have any privacy rights? Don’t think so.I'm sure they consider the mother the "patient". But, regardless, HIPAA requires privacy maintained long after a person's death (50 years, IIRC), so they shouldn't be divulging any private information of either the mother or child to the video makers.
The fact that they are willing to implicitly admit that they violated HIPAA privacy rules in order to attempt to smear the video makers shows how desperate they are.