According to whom? The PP person? Media Matters?
And where do they say this "is our standard process?"
You didn't answer the question above or meet the challenge.
Do you mean A or B?
a) They change their procedures for all patients. In which case you haven't supported the claim since your quote is only referring to abortions under which organs are harvested.
b) They change their procedures just for those cases where organs are being harvested. In which case I would argue you haven't really supported the claim well given that the quote references changing the procedure based on what type (liver vs neural) of tissue is being asked for.
If A, please support the claim that this is for all abortions.
If B, please support that altering the procedure for abortions where organs are to be harvested falls within the scope of the law. IE:
B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?
Additionally, you ignored my request for support, so
Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"
You also seem to be ceding the argument that they were charging per body part obtained. Is that correct?
You also didn't respond to this request for support, so
Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?
Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.