Featured

Court rules anti-abortion group that targeted Planned Parenthood must turn over secret videos

This Friday on the heels of House Republicans voting to defund Planned Parenthood, a U.S. District Court in California rules that the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress must turn over evidence it planned to withhold, The Hill reported.

This Friday on the heels of House Republicans voting to defund Planned Parenthood, a U.S. District Court in California ruled that the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress must turn over evidence it planned to withhold, The Hill reported.

The ruling comes after a 2-week fight over the group’s secret videos which CMP founder David Daleiden has been withholding, saying he planned to plead the 5th in order to protect his organization from self-incrimination.

Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress made headlines earlier this year after releasing 10 undercover videos which claim to show Planned Parenthood employees illegally selling fetal tissue. The videos have come under intense scrutiny, with Planned Parenthood and pro-choice groups alleging that they are heavily edited, taking PP employees’ words out of context.

The CMP gained access to PP employees by posing as buyers for a medical research company, a tactic which Planned Parenthood and its supporters claim is illegal.

 

“It’s telling that the defendants have been very vocal in the media saying that they have nothing to hide, yet in Federal court they want to plead the Fifth,” Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, said about the ruling. “We are pleased with the results of today’s hearing, and are eager to move forward with the discovery process.”

“Our priority is the safety and security of our members, their staff, their patients, and their families,” she addd. “Moving forward with discovery will help us take steps to ensure our members’ safety during this period of escalating hate speech, threats, and criminal activity.”

The Center for Medical Progress maintains that it acted legally while filming the undercover videos.

Featured image via YouTube

Facebook Comment
23 Comments

23 Comments

  1. Michael W.

    September 20, 2015 at 12:52 am

    This should be good

  2. Charles Richard Brown

    September 20, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    I consider it a criminal act to manipulate a video and publish it as a factual representation of a company or person… it seems it should fall under libel laws.

  3. Allonzo

    September 20, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    Well let’s just hope the research benefits mankind in the end.

  4. Brian Morris

    September 20, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    When supposed gods people use lies to promote the law of God ….. Serious questions about them people. If you don’t question them you must be one of …. Them!

    Not Gods people!

    Just look for truth …. Expose the lies!

  5. L.J. Roberts

    September 20, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    “…they acted legally while filming the undercover videos.”??? It is ILLEGAL in California (where they were shot), to film someone without their permission.

  6. Rick Prusha

    September 21, 2015 at 2:53 am

    like romney?

  7. Tami

    September 21, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    There’s nothing wrong with what they are doing, it’s called research. The aborted tissue is already dead, why would anyone prefer to just throw it away with medical waste, instead of utilizing it to possibly come up cures?

  8. Brenda Prim

    September 21, 2015 at 10:24 pm

    I totally agree that this illegal. A antiabortion physician in Charleston, WV was found to have altered a chart to prove his point in a drug addicted patient. Lies never prove anything except that you lied

  9. Jacob O'Neill

    September 21, 2015 at 10:48 pm

    Entrapment and libel!

  10. Dion Draper

    September 21, 2015 at 11:16 pm

    if they acted legally then they won`t mind turning over the videos.

  11. T. Stone

    September 21, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    Complete sentences of the topic at hand have not been altered. I would assume that it has been edited for video time. I’m sure the courts will see the pure unedited version. At least I hope they do.

  12. Jack Stillwell

    September 22, 2015 at 12:01 am

    sadly, the prominent person exception created by the Supreme Court exempts such people or organizations unless one can prove ‘actual malice’ which is very very difficult.

  13. Anon

    September 22, 2015 at 12:09 am

    The Fifth Amendment only affects their testimony, not the discovery of evidence. They don’t have to testify but they do have to turn over the tapes. If they refuse, it can be considered obstruction of justice, which is criminal not civil. Just ask Martha Stewart
    .

  14. Andrea Worthing

    September 22, 2015 at 11:30 am

    I fully agree.

  15. Linda S.

    September 22, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    Except, libel is not a criminal act; but civil negligence if proven.

  16. Bill Petersen

    September 23, 2015 at 1:55 am

    Absolutely. If you must distort a video to support your position you are doing nothing but lying.

  17. katherine norton malek

    September 23, 2015 at 2:05 am

    Completely agree. It’s underhanded, designed to inflame based on lies. They should be prosecuted & serve jail time.

  18. Pattie Romano

    September 24, 2015 at 2:43 am

    what they are saying is.. The tapes were gained under false pretense. NOT manipulated. There is a big difference.

  19. Hugh

    September 25, 2015 at 4:56 pm

    uh, no. Not if filmed in a public place…………..such as a resturant.

    Duh, much?

  20. Hugh

    September 25, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    “based on lies”?

    Like the ones the Planned Parenthoodlums give us?

  21. Phil Andrews

    October 2, 2015 at 11:25 pm

    The person that took the Romney video didn’t alter it.

  22. Pingback: My Homepage

  23. JSppkxCCmxySrJ

    June 12, 2017 at 4:54 am

    312855 692882But wanna comment that you have a very nice internet site , I love the style and design it really stands out. 695627

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

To Top