Archive for Cost

Cost of fetal liver from Stem Express who procures babies from Planned Parenthood

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 29, 2015 by saynsumthn

Besides the invaluable cost of a human life, aborted babies are being harvested for their organs. One of the most valued parts if the liver, so I decided to see what a fetal liver actually costs.

After news that Stem Express was in the baby parts industry with Planned Parenthood, I started looking around to see what I could find.

Stem Express financial benefit Planned Parenthood 1

I have already written a little about them here and here if you’d care to read those posts.

After a little digging online, I happened upon a Stem Express catalog that has been removed.

But, a cached version still exists. For that reason, the screen grabs will look a little distorted than if the actual PDF was available.

What the document contains may explain Planned Parenthood’s desire for the livers of the babies they abort:

Standards Stem Express

In the 2013-2014 Stem Express Catalog, owner Cate Dyer, CEO brags that they are the largest provider of fetal tissue globally:

Cate Fyer of Stem Express fetal body parts

    The addition of new products is not the only area of growth we have experienced. Relocating our main headquarters into a new state-of-the-art facility added 17,000sqft to our workspace. The team has grown by 30%, recruiting people from companies such as Genentech and Telik. We added an on-site procurement center specializing in the collection of leukapheresis and bone marrow. Continuing to be an industry leader in procurement, we realized exponential growth with regard to human tissues such as cadaverous tissue, umbilical cord blood, diseased tissue and tumors. Finally, StemExpress is now the largest provider of maternal blood and fetal tissue globally

Strem Express Catalogue

The document goes on to say:

    StemExpress is a global biotechnology company that was founded in May of 2010. We have the largest variety of raw materials available in the industry. Combined with our access to raw material, StemExpress is also your one stop location for fresh, fixed and cryopreserved human primary cells. Our human tissue products range from fetal to adult tissues and healthy to diseased samples.

    StemExpress procures specimens from various hospitals and clinics throughout the United States. We are licensed and/or certified in accordance with local, state and federal requirements. Our IRB approved protocols and consents protect you as well as our donor’s privacy in accordance with HIPAA guidelines. The StemExpress team takes pride in being researcher oriented and our goal is to build strong, responsive, and long-lasting relationships with our clients. By partnering with StemExpress, we can reduce the time your team spends isolating cells or collecting raw materials. Let us take your research to the next level.

And:

    Stemexpress has the largest variety of raw materials available in the industry Human tissues range from human fetal, adult, cadaverous, diseased samples and bone marrow. No other biotechnology company offers the vast variety of tissue types that we procure. All tissues are collected by StemExpress trained Procurement Technicians which allows us to quality control the procurement of the sample from beginning to end.

Center-for-medical-progress-planned-parenthood-_4074235482570710431_n

In the Center for Medical Progress videos exposing the Planned Parenthood / Stem Express aborted baby parts harvesting scheme, the need for fetal livers came up over and over again.

Planned Parenthood intact-livers

In the first video released, Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola id heard telling what she thought was buyers of a Biotech company, “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is the calvarium, the head is basically the biggest part. Most of the other stuff can come out intact. It’s very rare to have a patient that doesn’t have enough dilation to evacuate all the other parts intact.”

planned-parenthood-video-crush-b

Nucatola went on to say how she would crush the unborn baby above and below the desired organ,” Exactly. So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush
below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can
evacuate an intact calvarium at the end. So I mean there are certainly steps that can be taken to try to ensure—

She goes onto to say that the abortionist can “change the presentation” to breech in what some think was describing an illegal Partial Birth Abortion.

Stem Express Fetal Liver COsts

Stem Express Fetal LIver cost 2

Stem Express Fetal Liver Costs 3

Stem Express Fetal Liver Costs 4

A look at the outdated StemExpress catalog shows that livers can run $500 to over $2000.00.

Stem Express Fetal Liver

STemExpress Fetal Liver

A current (2015) screen grab of the Stem Express fetal liver order page shows the much higher prices:

Stem Express Fetal Liver costs 2015

Below are screen grands from more parts of the Stem Express catalogue:

Capture

Human Tissue STemExpress

Standards Stem Express

StemExpress Lead Time tissue

StemExpress Ordering and Delivery

More on owner Cate Dyer and the Stem Express beginnings from Sacramento State University:

    The company initially operated out of Dyer’s home in rural El Dorado County. Her initial investment was $9,000. Her first month’s income was $800 –and then the business took off, earning several hundred thousand dollars within 18 months. Dyer predicts that this year the company will double its 2013 revenue. StemExpress, with its sparkling cell-isolation laboratory and cutting-edge blood and bone marrow donation center, is headquartered in a sleek, 19,000-square-foot building in downtown Placerville. Dyer still maintains close ties to her alma mater. Seventy-five percent of her laboratory staff –including cell biologists, microbiologists and a geneticist –are Sacramento State alumni. And she hires Sac State students for summer internships. They are paid and receive college credit for their work.

    Among StemExpress’ clients are Yale, Harvard and Stanford universities and such companies as Genentech and Pfizer.

    “I got really comfortable with tissue and organs, and I loved the human body, loved all of it. I saw organ transplant teams come into the ER when a donor had died. The hospital needed someone to assist in organ collection, and I was good at procurement, so they tagged me to assist with the organ transplant teams. That’s when I got exposed to organ and tissue collection. That was the first ‘light bulb’ for me to start this company.”

    Dyer was employed by a small Bay Area company that specialized in collecting tissue for medical research. “I came in contact with researchers who said they waited six to eight months for adult liver tissue. I couldn’t believe it,” she says. “I asked, ‘Why don’t you get it from the transplant banks if they can’t use it?’ The thing is, the banks spend a lot of money doing that type of collection, and they’re not about to hand it over to a researcher for $500 or $1,000. Transplantable corneas are worth about $24,000 to eye banks, for example. So I became passionate trying to figure out how to change those things. I didn’t know where it would lead. I just saw it as a problem and wanted to fix it.”

Stem Express is now a multi-million dollar company that provides human blood and tissues for researchers all around the world.

Dyer said that samples can get as specific as age, gender and ethnicity, she told a local news outlet.

White House lied about Gruber’s role in ObamaCare

Posted in Abortion and Crime, Gruber, ObamaCare, ObamaCare and abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 23, 2015 by saynsumthn

Back in December of 2014, I took a look at the White House visitor logs and noticed that the ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber was a busy man.

Jonathan Gruber CSPAN Hearings Dec 9 2014

The MIT economist professor was involved in the construction of ObamaCare visiting the White House on several occasions and has also made several controversial statements linking abortion to eugenics, the reduction of welfare, crime, and black births.

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs Large

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs

( Details on Subject Titles here)

Another interesting visitor was Donald Berwick who visited the White House numerous times. Berwick once acknowledged that ObamaCare was a redistribution of wealth which would ration health care.

See Berwick’s email logs here.

Now, 20,0000 new e-mails show that Gruber who espoused abortion as eugenics had a larger role in drafting ObamaCare than previously thought.

Gruber white house lied

This contradicts reports from top officials including Obama who claimed Gruber’s role was minimal after he embarrassed the administration for calling the American people stupid.

Nancy Pelosi, the House Majority leader at the time ObamaCare passed, who told the American people that they would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it, also claimed that she didn’t know who Gruber was even though she had touted his work years earlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/c/embed/2642df8c-6b6b-11e4-bafd-6598192a448d

The Obama administration initially downplayed Gruber’s role in the Affordable Care Act as evidenced in the video below during a 2012 press conference at the G20 Summit in Brisbane, Australia:

Now, thousands of previously unreleased emails provided by the House Oversight Committee to The Wall Street Journal showed that Gruber played a much larger role in drafting ObamaCare and was in touch with key Obama advisers during the ObamaCare process.

A July 2009 email even indicates Gruber was invited to meet with the President, “to talk about cost control.”

A report from the Washington Examiner reveals more:

    Shortly after last fall’s election, tapes surfaced of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber smugly describing how deception, “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter” had been “critical” in allowing Democrats who controlled Congress to ram Obamacare through in 2010.

    This was important because the law Gruber helped write restructured nearly a fifth of the national economy and upended many people’s healthcare arrangements. The Obama administration paid him some $400,000 for his efforts, and he also managed to snag millions more dollars for consulting gigs with various state Obamacare exchanges.

    When Gruber’s comments surfaced, no one ran away from him as quickly as President Obama, who dismissed him as “some adviser who never worked on our staff.” The president and his officials pretended that Gruber had been a bit player in the passage of the law.

    It turns out, however, that this was as wildly inaccurate as Obama’s promise that his reforms would allow people to keep their health plans if they wanted to.

Now that the e-mails have surfaced disproving the President’s claim that Gruber’s role in ObamaCare was minimal, pundits are accusing the White House of lying.

GRUBER’S EUGENICS IDEAS:

While apologizing for his insulting statements to the American people Gruber was also grilled on controversial eugenics like statements he made on abortion, referring to the poor as “marginal children” and calling for “positive selection.”

Grubers abortion paper creepy eugenics

In Gruber’s 1998 paper, “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child,” he concludes that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments.

Gruber ab saves billions

In 2006, Gruber authored another paper with Phillip B. Levine, Elizabeth Oltmans Ananat, and Douglas Staiger called, Abortion and Selection, where they again use terms like “marginal child” and “positive selection through abortion.”

Abortion and Selection Jonathan Gruber

Two earlier papers investigated the implications of such positive selection through abortion for the quality of cohorts born after abortion legalization. Gruber, Levine and Staiger (GLS, 1999) found that the legalization of abortion led to significant improvements in the circumstances of children born into cohorts where abortion was legal. Such cohorts of children lived in households with lower rates of single motherhood, welfare receipt and poverty, and experienced lower infant mortality than nearby cohorts of children. Donohue and Levitt (DL, 2001) focused on a relevant outcome for children at older ages and young adults, crime.1 They found that increased use of abortion in the 1970s resulted in lower crime rates among the cohorts born in that era when those cohorts were in their late teens and early 20s,” the paper reads.

Abortions decrease birth rates in Non-White women:

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; (both co-authors with Gruber on his paper) along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

The group also concluded that there was an important connection between the fall of birth rates in states where abortion was accessible vs. states where it was not, “The results indicate that travel between states to obtain abortions was important. Births in repeal states fell by almost 11% relative to births in nonrepeal states more than 750 miles away but only by 4.5% relative to births in states less than 250 miles away and those in states between 250 and 750 miles away,” the authors write.

Effect of abortion birth rates distance

Interestingly, the paper thanks Jonathan Gruber for providing research assistance, “We thank Jonathan Gruber for comments and Eileen Aguila, David Autor, and Tara Gustafson for outstanding research assistance.”

Abortion decreases welfare

Back to his paper, Abortion and Selection, Gruber repeats the oft heard eugenics reason for abortion, that it reduces welfare.

Gruber and his fellow authors sandwiched their analysis this way, “We found consistent evidence that changes in cohort composition that occurred in the 1970s that can be attributed to greater abortion access led to improved cohort outcomes, particularly in the form of higher rates of college graduation, lower rates of single motherhood, and lower rates of welfare receipt.”

Abortion reduces crime

Gruber and the other authors also conclude among other things that the there is a link between increased abortion access and a reduction of crime.

That theory was perpetuated by John J. Donahue and and Steven D. Levitt in a paper they wrote entitled, “The impact of legalized abortion on crime.

Levitt went on to co-author the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics, in which he reiterated his thesis that the legalization of abortion is responsible for half of the recent drop in violent crime.

freakonomics

Gruber and the others acknowledged Levitt and Donahue’s findings, “Finally, we reconsidered the analysis of abortion and crime originally conducted by Donohue and Levitt to incorporate our updated methodological framework. The results of this analysis support the association between abortion and crime, but suggest that it is difficult to associate their finding with selection as opposed to the direct effect of cohort size.”

Unwanted children are disadvantaged

Gruber’s group finally concludes that “unwanted children” will grow up “disadvantaged” writing, “Most importantly, taken together with earlier results (Gruber, et al., 1999), our findings suggest that the improved living circumstances experienced by the average child born after the legalization of abortion had a lasting impact on the lifelong prospects of these children. Children who were “born unwanted” prior to the legalization of abortion not only grew up in more disadvantaged households, but they also grew up to be more disadvantaged as adults…Overall, our results provide further evidence that abortion is associated with differential selection and its impact is persistent.”

So, if Gruber and his friends can conclude that the fertility rates among “Non-White” women drop substantially when abortion is legal and then claim that a reduction in crime also follows legalized abortion- what subtle messages are they implying?

Since it’s inception, we know that abortion has been a tool for the eugenics movement and we also know clearly – just who- that movement seeks to target.

I may not be an MIT economist, but, I can do the math here – and so can you.

In fact, so did Justice Department when they discovered that members of the the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) joked about how Black abortions reduce crime:

Our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control,” the report reads.

ABortion Crime Ferguson

A May 2011 email stated: “An African – American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from.The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers,’” the report states.

abortion_is_black_genocide_10_sticker_rectangle

The idea that Black abortions contribute to a reduction of crime dates all the way back to eugenics of which advocates like, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a part of.

The Ferguson police officer eventually resigned.

Did the authors of Freakonomics channel Planned Parenthood?

Posted in Freakonomics, Planned Parenthood and Crime Rates with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 11, 2014 by saynsumthn

freakonomicsIn the book Freakonomics, authors University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and Stanford University professor John J. Donohue III basically claim legalizing abortion reduced crime.

Levitt claimed legalizing abortion led to a major drop in murder and other violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. He theorized that the babies who were victimized by abortion would have been more likely to commit crimes. His theory was later debunked by a 2008 study.

According to researcher, Brian Clowes, in Harvard University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics, the authors concluded that “Legalized abortion contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. … Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.” The authors noted, “Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization,” and that the social benefit of this decrease in crime is about $30 billion annually.

Donohue and Levitt wrote that, since 1991 ― 18 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion ― murder rates have fallen faster than at any time since the end of Prohibition in 1933. They added that the five states that legalized abortion earlier than 1973 [New York, California, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska] also experienced earlier declines in crime. Finally, they found that states with especially high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s had equally dramatic crime reductions in the 1990s.3

As Clowes points out in his editorial published by Life News, prominent pro‑abortion groups and leaders seized on the results of the Donohue‑Levitt study and used them as justification for promoting and funding the practice of abortion. For example, Canadian abortionist Henry Morgentaler, in an op‑ed piece heartlessly entitled “It’s Better for Us that They Died,” declared moral vindication and grumbled that he had been saying for decades that abortion would reduce crime. You can read Clowes’ full analysis here at Life News

But ideas by Donohue‑Levitt are nothing new.

In 1954, a speaker at a Planned Parenthood Federation regional conference claimed that Planned Parenthood was the answer to overcrowded prisons, because most in prison grew up as “delinquent children.”

PP Prison 1954

PP Mary Calderone 1954

Did Donohue‑Levitt channel Planned Parenthood?

The idea that abortion may reduce the crime rate brings back past ideologies when eugenicists wanted to increase “good families” and decrease the “bad” ones. Studies later revealed that the majority of those targeted for eugenics “solutions” like forced sterilization were Black. Planned Parenthood has also been tied to these eugenics ideas as documented very well in the film by Life Dynamics called Maafa21 – watch it here http://www.maaf21.com

Except- those ideas are still around today:

NolanFinley
In 2012, The Detroit News published a call to add contraceptives to the water supply, a dangerous and repugnant proposal for gross state power over life and death– all in the name of fighting the “breeding poverty” of the welfare class. Editorial page editor Nolan Finley writes: “Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.“

HMMMMMM.

Follow Jesus at ANY cost

Posted in Church, persecution with tags , , , , , , , on August 19, 2010 by saynsumthn

AP- Details: Polls show health care support dwindling, One dissenter, “Basically I see our taxes going up!”

Posted in Health Care, Obama with tags , , , , , , , on November 18, 2009 by saynsumthn

AP Poll: Americans fret over health overhaul costs

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and TREVOR TOMPSON (AP) – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON — It’s the cost, Mr. President. Americans are worried about hidden costs in the fine print of health care overhaul legislation, an Associated Press poll says. That’s creating new challenges for President Barack Obama as he tries to close the deal with a handful of Democratic doubters in the Senate.

Although Americans share a conviction that major health care changes are needed, Democratic bills that extend coverage to the uninsured and try to hold down medical costs get no better than a lukewarm reception.

The poll found that 43 percent oppose the health care plans being discussed in Congress, while 41 percent are in support. An additional 15 percent remain neutral or undecided.

Well, for one, I know nobody wants to pay taxes for anybody else to go to the doctor — I don’t,” said Kate Kuhn, 20, of Acworth, Ga. “I don’t want to pay for somebody to use my money that I could be using for myself.

There’s been little change in broad public sentiment about the overhaul plan from a 40-40 split in an AP poll last month, but not everyone’s opinion is at the same intensity. Opponents have stronger feelings than do supporters. Seniors remain more skeptical than younger generations.

The latest survey was conducted by Stanford University with the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

When poll questions were framed broadly, the answers seemed to indicate ample support for Obama’s goals. When required trade-offs were brought into the equation, opinions shifted — sometimes dramatically.

In one striking finding, the poll indicated that public support for banning insurance practices that discriminate against those in poor health may not be as solid as it seems.

A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems has been one of the most popular consumer protections in the health care debate. Some 82 percent said they favored the ban, according to a Pew Research Center poll in October.

In the AP poll, when told that such a ban would probably cause most people to pay more for health insurance, 43 percent said they would still support doing away with pre-existing condition denials, but 31 percent said they would oppose it.

Costs for those with coverage could go up because people in poor health who’d been shut out of the insurance pool would now be included, and they would get medical care they could not access before.

“I’m thinking we’d probably pay more because we would probably be paying for those that are not paying. So they got to get the money from somewhere. ,” said Antoinette Gates, 57, of Atlanta.

The health care debate is full of such trade-offs. For example, limiting the premiums that insurance companies can charge 50-year-olds means that 20-year-olds have to pay more for coverage.

These trade-offs really matter,” says Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who follows opinion trends. “The legislation contains a number of features that polls have shown to be popular, but support for the overall legislation is less than might be expected because people are worried there are details about these bills that could raise their families’ costs.”

If the added costs — spread over tens of millions of people — turn out to be small, it may not make much difference, Blendon said. But if they’re significant, Obama could be on shaky ground in the final stretch of his drive to deliver access to health insurance to most Americans.

More than 4 in 5 Americans now have health insurance, and their perceptions about costs are key as Obama tries to rally his party’s congressional majority. In the House, Democrats came together to pass their bill. In the Senate, Democratic liberals and a smaller group of moderates disagree on core questions even as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., prepares to take legislation to the floor.

The poll suggests the public is becoming more attuned to the fact that in health care, details can make all the difference.

For example, asked if everyone should be required to have at least some health insurance, 67 percent agreed and 27 percent said no.

The responses flipped when people were asked about requiring everybody to carry insurance or face a federal penalty: 64 percent said they would be opposed, while 28 percent favored that.

Both the House and Senate bills would require all Americans to get health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own coverage. Subsidies would be provided for low-income people, as well as many middle-class households.

And there would also be a stick — a tax penalty to enforce the coverage mandate.

I think it’s crazy. I think it infringes on our rights as a citizen, forcing us to do these things,” said Eli Fuchs, 26, of Marietta, Ga.

Among Democrats, only 12 percent oppose the broad goal of requiring insurance. But 50 percent oppose fines to enforce it.

The poll found a similar opinion shift on employer requirements: 73 percent agreed that all companies should be required to give their employees at least some health insurance.

Yet when asked if fines should be used to enforce such a requirement on medium and large companies, support dropped to 52 percent. Uninsured workers are concentrated in small companies.

The poll was based on land line and cell phone interviews with 1,502 adults from Oct. 29 to Nov. 8. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The interviews were conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. Stanford University’s participation was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that conducts research on the health care system.