Planned Parenthood's desperate lie, pathetic video: Stupak Amendment "would end private insurance coverage for abortion"

Here's amazing news. Did you know the Stupak Amendment in the House's healthcare bill actually bans private insurance companies from covering abortion?

planned parenthood, stupak, abortion, insurance coverage.pngThat's what Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards claimed in an email today:

Now that Congressional leaders and the White House are pushing for a final vote on health care reform, Congressman Bart Stupak and his allies - including the National Conference of Catholic Bishops - are threatening to bring down the entire bill unless it eliminates private health insurance coverage for abortion.

Richards doesn't like the Senate's Nelson Amendment either but says she'll tolerate it for now, just pass the bill in the House... additional corroboration not to:

It's time for Congress to put an end to this anti-choice push and focus on what matters most: extending health care coverage to the millions of Americans who are cut out of our current system. Tell Congress: Pass health care reform. Say no to any anti-choice side deals with Bart Stupak, and fix the Nelson amendment. Say no to any new restrictions on abortion.

Richards linked in her email to a disturbing video....

Tiffany Campbell is not new to the pro-abortion scene. She 1st told her story when opposing SD's abortion ban in 2006 - while still on bedrest pregnant with the baby she did not abort. Her situation was indeed tragic. Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome is very serious.

Campbell's doctor won't speak with the press, so we don't know if he recommended a procedure to try to save both babies and the Campbells declined. But the "selective reduction" abortion option they chose is so rare it isn't even offered in their home state of SD. They had to fly to Cincinnati to have it committed.

But for Campbell to say, as she did in the video, emphasis hers, "Now, some in Congress want to end all health insurance for abortion," is simply ridiculous and false. Congressional pro-lifers simply seek to ensure that no public funds go directly or indirectly for abortion.

tiffany campbell, abortion, planned parenthood.jpgIn fact, it would be considered unconstitutional for Congress to ban private insurance companies from covering abortion. That Planned Parenthood is ratcheting up its false rhetoric shows desperation.

I also think it's creepy and certainly holds the potential to psychologically damage the children the Campbells didn't kill, particularly surviving twin Brady, to showcase them in an ad promoting abortion. Imagine what he has to think through when he grows up.

Had he been the weaker twin, he wouldn't be here.

[Photo via NPR]


This was debunked ages ago and PP knows it. I am so sick of them getting away with blatant lies!

Posted by: Kelsey at March 16, 2010 10:26 PM

Planned Barrenhood is not needed. This lady did not go to Banned Parenthood for her care, she went to an actual hospital with real doctors. Banned Parenthod does nothing but promote sexual experimentation and sexual activity amongst minors so they can mutilate them, protect the predator that preys on them and charge them $500 a pop to kill the baby. It is absurd that they have NO track record of reporting pedophiles. They should be prosecuted and banned as an organization.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 16, 2010 10:31 PM

Remember when Planned Parenthood spouted "abortion is a private decision between her and her doctor?" I haven't heard that message lately except from pro-abort lawmakers. Do pro-aborts REALLY think that even if the government pays for a woman's abortion, they're not going to get involved in that decision?

When has the government EVER given money for something without ever getting their hands involved?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 16, 2010 10:34 PM

Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama--birds of a feather fly together. Liars all.

Posted by: Jerry at March 16, 2010 10:54 PM

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Re 21:7-8

Lord, have mercy.

Posted by: Ed at March 16, 2010 10:58 PM

Tiffany Campbell is a liar. She is at it again, siding up with the baby killers, desperately trying to justify her execution of her son. I hope she gets some real help soon; as it is, she is a pain in the butt.

Posted by: Amy 1 at March 16, 2010 11:09 PM

There are several treatments for twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome that do not involve purposely murdering the weaker baby. She did not choose any of those, but opted just to kill one of her sons. And she sees this somehow as a mandate to abate her conscience by promoting mothers killing their children, too. She needs to repent.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 16, 2010 11:51 PM

Stupak is not who you think he is. He will support the bill. He loves the idea that government will control your health. Please understand this. I am more pro-life than my priest. He will cave. The healthcare reform bill is nothing but a sick death bill. They are using our fight to pass a death bill.

Posted by: Jen Kuznicki at March 16, 2010 11:56 PM

Jen, what denomination are you?

Posted by: truthseeker at March 17, 2010 12:15 AM

I understand what you are saying that congressman Stupak wants this health care bill to pass. He has said so himself and I take him at his word. But he also said he would not vote for this unless the more restrictive abortion language was put into the bill. Are you saying that you think Stupak will cave because you are more pro-life then your priest? I don't get the connection....

Posted by: truthseeker at March 17, 2010 12:44 AM

That is a humorous ad PP has there Jill..."Say no to anti-choice side deals". It made me lol to see that even Obama's most ardent supporters are complaining about the plethora of closed door deals that we are calling Obamacare.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 17, 2010 3:30 AM

So folks on the right are shocked over ads like this while carrying their "death panel" banners, "socialist" banners, and "this bill will raise the debt trillions".

It's like Michael Jackson yelling at people for abusing children.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at March 17, 2010 6:34 AM

This might be a small point, but there is no such thing as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

They are called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's. USCCB for short.

Posted by: Andrew at March 17, 2010 7:27 AM

I am the Tiffany Campbell in the video.
Jacqueline, you wrote,
"There are several treatments for twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome that do not involve purposely murdering the weaker baby. She did not choose any of those, but opted just to kill one of her sons."
The laser surgery which is performed with the hopes of saving both twins was not an option for us. Our case was too severe, in fact we were intially told to abort both babies. Brendan, the passing twin wouldn't have made it through the surgery, he was too weak, he had also had a stroke in-utero. Also, the positioning of my uterus did not make us good candidates. The doctors would have had to cut my entire abdomen open and pull out my uterus in order to get to the blood vessels. That procedure could have killed me, and I certainly didn't want to leave my two children motherless.
Jacqueline, trust me when I say that had I been able to save both babies, I would have. I would love nothing more than to be the mother of 4 living children than the mother of 3 living children.
And Jill, selective reduction is performed in SD, but we travelled to Cincinnati in the hopes of having the laser procedure to save both twins. After two days of testing the doctors said the TTTS was progressing far more rapidly than they expected. We did not have time to get back to SD. We had the selective termination 12 hours after meeting with the doctor.

Posted by: Tiffany Campbell at March 17, 2010 8:15 AM

Any comments from the armchair physicians now?

The patient has spoken, and she is correct. Shame on you for claiming that she takes pride in 'executing' one of her fetuses. She and her doctor made a very calculated, necessary decision to save three lives.

Tiffany, thank you for your courage to post a comment to the crazies here.

Posted by: Dhalgren at March 17, 2010 8:37 AM


I would like to believe you. But the mere fact that you have since dedicated yourself to supporting the elective killing of babies rather than mourning the loss of one of your sons as a horrible, Sophie's Choice-like tragedy really overshadows your credibility. Instead of a "we saved what life we could" perspective, you've somehow turned your very rare scenario into a battle cry for abortion on demand. Your articles and commercials championing abortion for women (for ANY reason) does not ring true as someone who believes the death of one of her sons was necessary but heartwrenching. You know that in less than 1% of cases, abortion is about health. And your choosing to exploit your situation and you dead son to support tax-payer funded murder of the other 99% of babies or oppose a ban that you claim would have killed your surviving son knowing the ban would save countless other children that would be dismembered solely because that's the mother's desire. Of course, this falls on deaf ears considering that you are totally fine with a mother choosing abortion for any reason.

The bottom line is that you are pro-abortion and as such, killing one of your kids was not that big a deal and a *perfect* opportunity to propagandize to people that actually believe in saving lives. You hope in SD was that people would see your story and vote against the total abortion ban, allowing not for abortions in your tragic circumstance, but abortion on demand. Don't lie. If your abortion was about saving life, your surviving son's and your own, then surely you wouldn't be supporting abortion-on-demand on RH Reality Check and Planned Parenthood.

Again, you need to repent.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 17, 2010 8:39 AM


"Shame on you for claiming that she takes pride in 'executing' one of her fetuses."

She's exploiting her tragedy to promote elective execution of babies. She's not demoaning the situation that claimed one of her children as a rare circumstance, but as an example of why child-killing should remain unfettered and paid for by tax-payers.

She and her doctor made a very calculated, necessary decision to save three lives.

Three lives? Who is the third person? And if I recall, her life was not in danger. So really, she chose one child over the other.

And I'm tempted to vomit at the fact that you, Dhalgren, want to turn this around to "saving lives" when you have no regard for the lives of the unborn. You support killing them on any whim. So she saved a life? REALLY? Do you really want to acknowledge an unborn child as a life because that means you support the snuffing out of life all the time.

Case in point: This is a clever deception to make abortion (which is the taking of life simply because that life is not wanted by the mother at that time) into a "life-saving" scenario to court those that actually care about life and deceive them into supporting elective death (as in, voting against SD Prop 6). Sadly, I'm sure some people bought it. Nice work, Satan. You have your minions out there in full force.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 17, 2010 8:49 AM

"This was debunked ages ago and PP knows it. I am so sick of them getting away with blatant lies!"
Posted by: Kelsey at March 16, 2010 10:26 PM

Argh! This. So. Hard. The pro-abortion lobby's strategy seems to entail cooking up a decent-sounding lie, putting it out agressively, and when it gets debunked, telling the same lie even harder. It's like they think that if they just shout loud enough, everyone will stop thinking for themselves.

"The patient has spoken, and she is correct."
Posted by: Dhalgren at March 17, 2010 8:37 AM

You are a hypocrite. You are a walking double-standard. You have no sense of your own self. You wander around this blog with your supposed facts, talking about how post-abortive men and women do and do not feel. But when you are directly contradicted by Carla and others, telling you that your lines are lies, you don't stop telling them. You don't even reply to these women. It's like regretful post-abortive mothers are beneath your notice or something. You roll merrily along your way not even bothering to notice the trail of disaster your lies have left behind. And then you dare to try and shame us?

I would say shame on you, but it's clear that you have none.

Posted by: Keli Hu at March 17, 2010 9:15 AM

Tiffany, I'm very sorry for your loss. We also lost one of our twins during my first pregnancy (though not due to t/t transfusion) and I know the hole that will always exist in our family.

You do seem sincere about your grief, which makes me wonder if you aren't being exploited by the abortion lobby. No pro-lifer objects to the situation as you describe it. It sounds as though everything possible was done to save all of you, but ultimately it wasn't possible and the doctors had to do what was necessary to save you and your surviving twin.

Pro-lifers mourn these tragic situations for all involved, but have never done a thing to suggest that we would somehow make them illegal. If a woman needs to deliver her child early (even too early for him to survive) we accept that sometimes not all life can be saved.

What we don't accept, and never will, is women killing their children outright and for no medical reason. That is an entirely different situation. It seems as if you have conflated the two and are now working as a champion of the latter. Perhaps you can spend a bit of time around here and understand exactly what pro-lifers believe in cases like yours. I think you'd be suprised at the lies you were told by Planned Parenthood about us.

Posted by: Lauren at March 17, 2010 9:32 AM

I am sorry for your loss of one of your twins and I hope you find the healing you need. But can't you see that you are being used? Planned Barrenhood doesn't even offer the services women in our position need. Their agenda is killing healthy babies thousands of times a day. And there is NOTHING in the Stupak amendment that would make it illegal for any woman to obtain private "abortion services" if they so desire. It just means that I won't have to subsidize abortion period!

Posted by: truthseeker at March 17, 2010 9:50 AM

Tiffany: You are brave to share your story. Thank you.

Posted by: amy at March 17, 2010 10:18 AM

I think it's sad that anyone would attack Tiffany Moore Campbell for the choices she made. She is a hero for speaking out and protecting other women's choices. We need more like her.

It's also sad that so many people have lost the ability to empathize with others. You've made this issue black and white, condemning the actions of women who had difficult choices to make. Yet, what are you doing to make it easier for women to bring children into the world?

I have heard that if healthcare were reasonably priced and available to all, that many abortions wouldn't take place. So, rather than attack people for the choices they have made, why don't we all work on solutions, like supporting affordable healthcare?

Again, my thanks to Tiffany Moore Campbell. You are my hero! Thanks for sharing your story. Thanks for supporting women's right to choose!

Posted by: Luanne Smith at March 17, 2010 10:22 AM

Posted by: Tiffany Campbell at March 17, 2010 8:15 AM

Tiffany - I'm sorry for the loss your family suffered.

And thank you for clarifying some aspects of your circumstances. Almost all can sympathize with the unfortunate situation your family underwent.

There's a few aspects of your story I find disconcerting, and it may simply be miscommunication/misinterpretation.

Medically, I believe there are cases where termination is not elective as the word is generally used. The moral principle of double effect says when lives are imminently endangered it is better to save as many lives as you can, and the side effects, no matter how tragic, were not deliberate.

Such hard medical cases have never been outlawed, and as technological advances make it possible, more lives will be saved.

However, there's a huge difference between what is 'accidental'/unpredictable and cases where there is no medical life-endangerment basis for the termination. Given your circumstances, one could reasonably assess it as being life endangering (if not you directly, most definitely your son.)

But that doesn't speak to the larger scope of abortion, which is the point of the video, and why most commenters here feel the way they do. Could you please answer some questions for us to clarify?

Where precisely do you stand on the issue of abortion?

Do you believe it is a woman's choice regardless of life endangerment?

At what point in gestation does termination make you uncomfortable - where do you draw the line?

In an induced labor abortion, do you believe the termination of the pregnancy should also include the termination of the child's life?

I'm asking you these questions because you have a genuine real-life experience which is valuable for evaluating these issues, however, to be fair to you, as well as other readers of this blog, we'd like to know your broader perspective on abortion.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 17, 2010 10:54 AM

"It's also sad that so many people have lost the ability to empathize with others. You've made this issue black and white, condemning the actions of women who had difficult choices to make. Yet, what are you doing to make it easier for women to bring children into the world?"
Posted by: Luanne Smith at March 17, 2010 10:22

(bolding mine)

I hear a lot of people saying this as if it means something on either of the two levels it addresses. It's an utterly pointless argument, though, on both of those levels.

First off, it's an ad homeniem. Rather than addressing the point that the pro-life side is and has always been making (abortion kills living human beings and is therefore wrong barring a threat to the life othe mother), it just attacks pro-lifers for "not doing enough" to "make it easier to have children." And since you're doing abortion apologetics, you're not concerned at all about making it easier to bring children into the world. So even if this were a valid argument, rather than a personal attack, it would mean the pro-choice side is even worse for existing in the first place!

Second, it's not true. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are so numerous in the US that--if I am remembering my numbers correctly--they outnumber abortion clinics about four-and-a-half times over. They're almost all mostly volunteer organizations, and I've never heard of a single one that is a for-profit organization. Best of all, in nearly every case, the services they offer are free. And I'm not talking just about counselors who urge people to keep their babies. Free maternity clothes, free ultrasounds, free baby food, free adoption referrals (if someone wants them), and in some cases, free neonatal check-ups! It is possible, in the US right now, to go through an entire pregnancy without having to pay a single cent out-of-pocket due to the phenomenal outpouring of support from people like this. CPCs are literally the largest volunteer movement in history. Aside from which, check the 40 Days for Life blog. That link is the story they told of pro-life strangers who came together to help a woman keep her baby, just to spare one more person from an unnecessary abortion. I guarantee you there are more out there that haven't been told.

So, no. I don't accept your argument. On either level that it's supposed to address.

Posted by: Keli Hu at March 17, 2010 10:55 AM

So because of your heartbreaking situation Tiffany, abortion should be applauded, encouraged, and paid for by MY TAX DOLLARS?

Go look at a video of an abortion Tiffany. SHAME ON YOU! You as a mother could support THAT? What is wrong with you???? There is some serious moral disconnect in your conscience somewhere.

I personally don't know anyone with t/t transfusion but I have seen programs on discovery about it. In those situations they delivered the twins early to give BOTH babies a fighting chance. Why didn't you do that?

I know your intent was good, to save the life of at least ONE of your children but the truth doesn't change, that one of your sons was murdered. That he was a human being, a person, YOUR SON and he was KILLED. And now you want to use his death to champion the death of millions of other children just as precious as he was. You really astound me.

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 17, 2010 11:02 AM

I had never heard of the Campbells before today. If we are okay with allowing abortion to save the life of the mother, why not to save the life of a twin? It's sad and it's disgusting that any child should have to die, but it's not as though the Campbells (and by the way, I'm sure that the husband helped in this decision- it wasn't as though Mrs. Campbell said, "Yeah, whatever...") killed him and just dumped him off on the side of the road somewhere.

I'm sure that they know his name and that they think about him often. I'm sorry but this, "HOW SELFISH!" is cruel and unusual. They were trying to save both of their sons and I'm sure that if they could have saved both of them they would have. None of us know what happened but what we do know is that this is a family who, try as they might, lost a child. Children die even though they shouldn't, but the Campbells did not give their children the disease- there was nothing that they could have done to stop that from happening.

Let's just be compassionate and listen to what they have to say for once.

Posted by: Vannah at March 17, 2010 11:10 AM

Vannah--she is using her son's death as an excuse to advocate for the death of millions of other innocent children. You okay with that?

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 17, 2010 11:24 AM


If you are reading this, I would like to tell you that I am in medical school with an eye toward becoming a neonatal/prenatal surgeon. I would like to make a goal of mine to progress this field so that people like you will never have to make the choice you did--to kill one of your children to save the life of another.

That being said, may I be so bold as to ask you to invest yourself (time/money) in promoting research in this area (in much the way women do for breast cancer) so that no mother would have to make the choice you did--instead of investing yourself in a cause which promotes the killing of children even for no reason at all.

Please consider this. If you truly care about your lost son, make THIS your worthy goal. Otherwise, if you continue promoting PP, you really are just exploiting his death and his memory for the furtherance of more death and more misery.

Posted by: Scott at March 17, 2010 12:06 PM

Posted by: Scott at March 17, 2010 12:10 PM

Sydney - that doesn't seem to be her goal at all - I think the debate, for many, is most comfortable as a black/white issue. She exposes a shade of gray that must be considered.

I see it as no different than items like the breast cancer numbers. Is it central to the argument? No. Is it part of the argument? Certainly.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at March 17, 2010 4:55 PM

Great advice Scott. May God bless you on your mission.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 17, 2010 10:29 PM

Praying for USA!

Posted by: Alex Perrier at March 17, 2010 11:32 PM

Post a comment:

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "f" in the field below: