In the Market for Fetal Body Parts, a Baby’s Brain Sells for $3,340
Reported by Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness / April 20, 2016

The U.S. House Select Panel on Infant Lives releases detailed transactions on the sale and purchase of fetal tissue from aborted babies. (Photo: Kelsey Lucas/Visualsey/The Daily Signal)
Republicans on the special House panel investigating the transfer of fetal tissue from aborted babies will present evidence in a hearing today that breaks down the price per body part. With release of this evidence, Republicans say, they have enough documentation to show that several abortion clinics and middleman procurement businesses may have violated federal law.
“It is just horrifying,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who leads the House’s investigation of the fetal tissue industry, told The Daily Signal. “They are putting a dollar value on these organs from these children—unborn children that have been aborted. It is just beyond belief.”
According to Republicans involved in the investigation, a researcher paid a middleman procurement company $3,340 for a fetal brain, $595 for a “baby skull matched to upper and lower limbs,” and $890 for “upper and lower limbs with hands and feet.”
Middleman procurement businesses are companies that obtain tissue and other body parts from aborted babies and provide them to institutions or other organizations for research. Under federal law, the transportation of fetal tissue is based on a nonprofit model.
The committee’s documents, which will be used today in a House hearing on the pricing of fetal tissue, include payments made from a middleman procurement company to an abortion clinic on a monthly basis. Those dollar amounts range from $6,010 to $11,365.
Over the span of a year, one research institution paid a middleman company $42,535 to obtain 38 fetal brains, 12 fetal hearts, three fetal upper/lower limbs, five fetal livers, and 12 fetal pancreases, according to the select House panel’s documents.
The Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, as it is formally known, was created on Oct. 7, 2015, when the House passed a resolution calling for a full and complete investigation regarding the medical practices of abortion service providers and the business practices of the procurement organizations that sell fetal tissue.
In the most recent documents being released, the panel did not publicly identify companies or individuals involved in the transactions “out of an abundance of caution,” Blackburn told The Daily Signal in a phone interview prior to the hearing.
Because the documents were highly redacted, The Daily Signal was unable to independently confirm the prices of each body part.
However, the panel announced earlier this year that it was issuing subpoenas to companies and organizations that refused to cooperate with the investigation. Those groups included StemExpress, Ganogen, Biomedical Research Institute of America, the University of New Mexico, and Southwestern Women’s Options.
Democrats on the select panel have called the investigation a “witch hunt” by Blackburn and other Republicans who oppose abortion.
As The Daily Signal has previously reported, Democrats have condemned the panel’s investigators for requesting the names of doctors, medical students, researchers, and others involved in the abortion and fetal tissue procurement industries, arguing that obtaining those names could make the panel “complicit in physical assaults or murders of these people.”
But with the imminent release of the next round of evidence, Blackburn said she is hopeful Democrats “will recognize that we are taking every possible precaution and doing our best to fulfill the requirement that Congress has made of us.”
The 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act prohibits profiting from the sale of any fetal tissue. However, it is legal to provide and accept payment to cover reasonable costs for “transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”
Among documents uncovered in the investigation is an image of a procurement company marketing itself to abortion clinics as “financially profitable.” The name of that company also was redacted.
Questions about whether abortion clinics and middleman procurement companies profit from transactions involving body parts and other fetal tissue from aborted babies were raised after a series of videos published last year. The hidden-camera videos showed officials at Planned Parenthood affiliates discussing the buying and selling of fetal tissue with a middleman company, StemExpress.
Cate Dyer, founder of StemExpress, told The New York Times in July that her company “obtained fetal tissue in accordance with the rules made by ethics boards at the institutions buying it.”
In that article, Dyer also was quoted as saying the process of obtaining fetal cells is “hard,” “expensive,” and takes “millions of dollars of equipment.”
Planned Parenthood Federation of America consistently has denied any wrongdoing and was cleared in multiple state investigations. In October, after facing questions about its fetal tissue donation practices, Planned Parenthood announced it would no longer accept any reimbursement as part of its tissue donation program.
During today’s hearing, called “The Pricing of Fetal Tissue,” Republicans were expected to call Brian Patrick Lennon, a former assistant U.S. attorney from Michigan, to testify as a witness.
In his written testimony, released in advance, Lennon argues that based on the evidence, an “ethical federal prosecutor could establish probable cause that both the abortion clinics and the procurement business violated the [federal] statute (42 U.S.C. § 289g-2), aided and abetted one another in violating the statute (18 U.S.C. § 2), and likely conspired together to violate the statute (18 U.S.C. § 371).”
Republicans also were scheduled to hear testimony from Michael Norton, a former U.S. attorney for the state of Colorado; Catherine Glenn Foster, associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute and CEO and general counsel at Sound Legal; and Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., who is pro-life, among others.
Democrats were slated to bring in Fay Clayton, a lawyer who formerly represented the Anatomical Gift Foundation, a nonprofit corporation that provided donated tissue to medical researchers.
In her prepared statement, Clayton criticizes Republicans for “using [the panel’s] subpoena power to compel testimony from health care providers and medical researchers” and for failing to subpoena David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, the pro-life group behind the string of undercover videos targeting Planned Parenthood.
“The fact that the select panel has been using its subpoena power to compel testimony from health care providers and medical researchers—who have better things to do with their time than Mr. Daleiden does—suggests the panel is not genuinely interested in public policy at all,” Clayton says in the written statement.
Democrats also were set to hear from Robert Raben, president and founder of the Raben Group, a progressive policy group, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., a pro-choice lawmaker.
Witnesses likely will be asked to respond to Blackburn and other panel members who, the chairman said, “believe that it is more than likely that payments to the abortion clinics and to the procurement businesses have exceeded reasonable cost.”



















He said he was told he’d have to wait for delivery.


































Lussier said Wellesley’s schools are open to those discussions, but that a talent show wasn’t the right forum in which to raise the issues, especially 











Hillary Clinton: “Abortion Goes to Who We are as Women, Our Rights and Our Autonomy”
New Documents Make It Clear: Obama Wants to Force Christians to Pay for Abortions
This Catholic University Betrays Its Mission Having Pro-Abortion Bill Clinton Give Commencement









Woman Has Her 9th Abortion: “I’ve Done It 8 Times Before and Have No Regrets”
Aborted Baby Parts
College Student Suffocated Her Newborn Baby to Death After Giving Birth in Her Dorm Bathroom
Right”
Abortion Clinic Killed This Woman in a Botched Abortion, Then Her Organs Were Harvested







The University is










I just have to ask, what American president would make it a goal to destroy an entire American industry?


Planned Parenthood Bashes Ted Cruz: “He is the Biggest Threat We Face”
Florida senator and former presidential candidate stopped just short of endorsing his pro-life colleague from Texas.
Woman Has Abortion So She Won’t Have to Stop Drinking and Partying
Click to Read at LifeNews.com
as a Person and Ban Abortions
A flood of Muslim refugees from Syria, an average of 358 per week to be exact, is expected to arrive in the United States between now and the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The Obama administration has decided to implement a 





















Loury’s Facebook page does show the teenager holding up a gun in one photo, and he did have a tattoo on his neck that said ‘RMG’ while frequently referring to the ‘Reese Money Gang.’

Pro-Life Rally Will Call for Kamala Harris’ Resignation After She Raids David Daleiden’s Home
“It’s Incredibly Important”
Missouri Senate Passes Bill to De-Fund Planned Parenthood After It Sells Aborted Baby Parts
Planned Parenthood Rallies Supporters to Back Aborting Babies With Down Syndrome
Missouri House Passes Bill to Define Unborn Baby as a Person and Ban Abortions




Follow Trent Baker on Twitter


Court Dismisses ACLU Lawsuit Attempting to Force Catholic Hospital to Do Abortions
Telling Us What to Do”
Planned Parenthood President Says “Lives Are at Stake This Election”
Planned Parenthood Aborts
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf Threatens to Veto Bill to Ban Dismemberment Abortions
My Son Was Conceived in Rape, But That Doesn’t Negate His Value or Humanity

Liberal governors and mayors signed travel bans to North Carolina and Mississippi, CEOs of major corporations pledged boycotts and relocations, and Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams have canceled scheduled concerts in those states.
At issue are a Mississippi law that narrowly and carefully protects the rights of religious charities, small businesses, and select public servants and a North Carolina law that reasonably protects privacy and safety in public restrooms, while leaving private institutions free to set their own bathroom policies. These laws, apparently, are now unacceptable to some voices on the left.
But are they really? The hypocrisy in their opposition suggests otherwise.
Liberals decry the influence of big business and big money in politics. They denounce, as a direct threat to democracy, the ability of corporations to engage in issue advocacy. They argue that politicians must answer to the people, not the highest corporate bidder.
Or at least that’s what they used to say. Liberals are now cheering Apple, PayPal, Salesforce, and countless other giant corporations threatening legislators and governors with boycotts if they pass popular laws that the left disapproves of. These corporate elites didn’t win an argument about good public policy. Instead, they threatened to boycott and transfer jobs out of states if the politicians didn’t do as they insisted.
This economic coercion is a form of cronyism—cultural cronyism. Big businesses use their outsized market share to pressure government to do their bidding at the expense of the will of the people and the common good. And, hypocritically, the left cheers it on.
Many of us think that what these corporate giants are doing is bad for representative democracy and self-government. But they have a right to do it. And yet, they want to deny the rights of bakers, florists, photographers, adoption agencies, and marriage counselors who only want the same liberty to follow their conscience.
Big business is using its market freedom to deny small businesses and charities their religious freedom. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Take the cases of Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams. They said their consciences require them to deny their artistic gifts and talents to citizens of states that have enacted policy they disagreed with. And, of course, they have that right.
He’s wrong about the laws—they don’t deny anyone civil rights. Instead, they protect civil rights. They protect religious freedom, which, as the liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) once acknowledged, is a civil liberty.
So Springsteen and Adams are exercising their freedom of conscience by boycotting states that sought to protect the consciences of adoption agencies, religious schools, bakers, and florists. Do they not see the hypocrisy?
Finally, if these boycotts are really a matter of principle—and not just grandstanding—then why do so many of these same companies do business in foreign countries with terrible records on human rights in general, and for LGBT people in particular?
The governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, pointed out this hypocrisy. After New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a travel ban for state employees to North Carolina, Gov. McCrory asked how it was consistent with Gov. Cuomo’s trip to Cuba—with state business leaders—to promote trade with that country.
Is Cuba better on human rights than North Carolina? Or is Cuomo being a bit hypocritical?
Others have pointed out the hypocrisy of PayPal. The CEO of PayPal announced that the company wouldn’t expand in North Carolina because of “PayPal’s deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect.”
Really?
Then PayPal might want to explain why its international headquarters are in Singapore, where people engaged in private consensual same-sex acts can face two years in jail. It might also want to explain why it announced in 2012 that it would open offices in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While North Carolina placed some commonsense limits on public bathrooms, the UAE reportedly jails gay and transgender people.
What’s Next?
The left knows it can’t win on the merits in the debate about religious freedom and bathroom privacy. These bills enjoy strong public support—that’s why elected representatives are voting to pass them. And it’s why corporate elites have to target governors to veto them.
Missouri is likely the next state to move a religious freedom bill, and we can expect the same cast of characters to come out in opposition. But this time, the left and big business are entering the debate with one big disadvantage—they’ve been beaten. Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi and Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina have stood up to the bullies and shattered their aura of invincibility.
Commentary By
Ryan T. Anderson/ @ryantand
Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. He’s the author of the just-released book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty.” Read his research.