After dodging consequences from several allegedly criminal acts, the law may be catching up on former DHS student and Davis resident David Daleiden, who now faces 15 felony charges in the state of California, along with co-conspirator Sandra Merritt, in the Planned Parenthood case that drew national attention back in 2015.
The California AG’s office alleged the two “used manufactured identities and a fictitious bioresearch company to meet women’s healthcare providers and covertly record the private discussions they initiated.”
“The right to privacy is a cornerstone of California’s Constitution, and a right that is foundational in a free democratic society,” said Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “We will not tolerate the criminal recording of confidential conversations.”
Tom Brejcha, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Society, representing Mr. Daleiden’s legal defense team, stated, “When it comes to felony charges against our client, David Daleiden, history is on our side. When David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were falsely charged in Texas, after they mounted a vigorous defense, the charges were abruptly dropped. We expect that the same will prove true in California.”
Mr. Brejcha stated, “The world knows that Planned Parenthood’s business partners, DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, have been sued by Orange County, California. The lawsuit alleges that they illegally profited from the sale of human baby body parts from abortions. This confirms the truth of what has been depicted in Daleiden’s videos.
“David Daleiden and his co-defendant, Sandra Merritt, will be vindicated,” he continued. “They will assert robust defenses to these charges. Their efforts led to numerous criminal referrals by both Senate and House investigative committees. Their efforts were furtherance of First Amendment values and are clothed with the same Constitutional protection that all investigative journalists deserve and must enjoy. Undercover journalism has been a vital tool in our politics and self-governance.“
In the summer of 2015, a hidden-camera video was released. It claimed to show that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling tissues from aborted fetuses. The video’s release went viral, leading politicians and anti-abortion activists to seize the initiative.
The video shows Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, discussing the collection of fetal tissue in a lunch meeting with two people posing as potential tissue buyers. In fact, the full video of the lunch meeting is over two hours long. It shows a very different picture than critics claims.
Mr. Daleiden is a 2007 Davis High School graduate. According to the Planned Parenthood attorney, “Over the last eight years, Mr. Daleiden has participated in at least 10 separate attacks on Planned Parenthood involving gaining access to our health centers and offices under false pretenses, taping staff (and sometimes patients) without their knowledge on at least 65 occasions (not counting this latest fraud), and misleading the public with heavily edited tapes and flat-out false charges.”
Daleiden allegedly “created what we now know to be a phony company called Biomax Procurement Services, which held itself out as a legitimate tissue procurement organization. Biomax then embarked on a campaign of corporate espionage with Planned Parenthood and its affiliates as its target.”
The letter from Planned Parenthood counsel continues, “The sham company used the false pretense of seeking tissue for research purposes to gain access to our facilities and staff. These fraudulent efforts appear to have been meticulously planned.” To cite one example, “Biomax set up exhibits at our National Medical Conference and our National Conference over the last couple of years.”
Mr. Daleiden engaged in secretly recording Planned Parenthood staff and patients at least 65 times over the last eight years, potentially yielding thousands of hours of recordings.
Mr. Daleiden faces 14 charges in violations of California PC section 632(a), in that they “each did intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of an electronic amplifying and recording device, 27 eavesdrop and record the confidential communication between themselves and (probably Dr. Nucatola).”
The defendants are also charged with a conspiracy, PC section 182(a)(1), with the DA alleging they “did willfully and unlawfully conspire together to commit the crime of Recording a Confidential Communications, 632(a) of the California Penal Code, a felony, pursuant to and for the purpose of carrying out the objects and purposes of the aforesaid conspiracy.”
Here they allege that on October 1, 2013, David Daleiden “accessed and took documents from Stem Express email system using a password from a terminated Stem Express employee.” On October 11, he filed “Biomax Procurement Services, LLC, as a Business Entity in the State of California, with the Agent of process as Philip Cronin and CEO as Susan Tennenbaum.”
Between November 27, 2013 and March 27, 2014, “individuals who represented themselves as Biomax employees corresponded with employees of the National Abortion Federation (NAP) using the email addressofbiomaxprocurementservices@gmail.com and susan@biomax.com, to apply for exhibit space at the San Francisco NAF conference as Brianna Allen and Susan Tennenbaum.”
Then on February 5, 2014, both Daleiden and Ms. Merritt “signed an Exhibitor Agreement listing Susan Tennenbaum as CEO of BioMax, Robert Sarkis as Vice President, and a $3235 registration fee paid using Philip Cronin’s VISA card.”
Next, between April 5, 2014, and April 8, 2014, they “posed as BioMax employees to gain access to the NAF conference in San Francisco, where they secretly video recorded conference speakers, vendors and attendees.”
Finally, between July 25, 2014, and October 3, 2015, they posed “as BioMax employees, set up and secretly video recorded private meetings with health care professionals in Century City (Los Angeles), Pasadena (Los Angeles), EI Dorado (EI Dorado), and San Francisco.”
In the warrant, the following is a summary of probable cause:
On December 2, 2015, the CA DOJ received a request to investigate whether David DALEIDEN, his organization, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), and any co-conspirators, broke California laws regarding the surreptitious audio/video recordings of healthcare and biomedical services employees in California. DALEIDEN alleged publicly and to law enforcement that the employees were transferring aborted fetal tissue for profit in violation of California law. Special Agents from BI initiated an investigation into DALEIDEN and his co-conspirators.
During the course of this investigation, agents from BI learned that DALEIDEN created a phony fetal tissue procurement company, BioMax Procurement Services (BioMax), for the sole purpose of gaining access to various conferences hosted by Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) and others affiliated with women’s healthcare services. DALEIDEN created a website, www.biomaxps.com. misrepresenting the company as a legitimate biomedical research service. He, and at least two others, used fraudulently created California driver’s licenses (CDLs) in the name of Robert Sarkis (DALEIDEN), Susan Tennenbaum (Sandra MERRITT) and Briana Allen (Briana BAXTER) to obtain a BioMax vendor booth at the NAF conference in San Francisco, California, April 5 through April 8, 2014. While at the San Francisco conference, DALEIDEN, posing as Robert Sarkis, and MERRITT, posing as Susan Tennenbaum, used covert video/audio equipment to secretly record conversations they initiated with eight conference attendees.
From July 2014, through September 2015, DALEIDEN and MERRITT exploited the vetting procedures and connections they made as BioMax representatives to induce meetings with six individual healthcare and biomedical research providers in Los Angeles, California, and EI Dorado, California. DALEIDEN and MERRITT, while wearing concealed audio/video digital recording devices, secretly recorded the meetings they initiated under false pretenses. Several of the secretly filmed video segments were edited and subsequently released for public viewing via CMP’s website in July of 2015. Immediately afterward, several of the healthcare providers who had been named and identified in the edited videos, began receiving personal death threats.
The relevant identifying information for the 14 victims is contained in the “Confidential Attachment” incorporated herein. Declarant requests that the “Confidential Attachment” be ordered sealed pursuant to California Rule of Court 243.1 (d) in order to protect the confidential personal information of the individuals.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
My quick take: I know he has the presumption of innocence and I know his attorney points out correctly that he has beaten charges elsewhere. But the problem that he has here is that California is a two-party consent state, which means that if there is an expectation of privacy and he secretly recorded the conversation, that’s a crime and I don’t see how he is going to avoid that. This is different from the types of charges he faced elsewhere. This is the Al Capone found guilty of tax evasion.
Please, if these two had secretly taped let’s say an oil executive or republican politicians I think California liberals would be calling them heroes.
From what I’ve gathered secretly recorded conversation cases like this are rarely if ever tried in California. Why this one now? I think everyone knows why, it’s a biased political witch hunt.
Two- party consent is required for recording in California. Hero/ goat, the law is the law
So are you also going to advocate following the law when it comes to illegal immigration? After all “the law is the law”. Or only the laws that fit liberal world views?
Do you start every morning trying to figure out how to accuse liberals of being hypocrites? This went way beyond secretly taping the individuals. Selective editing and then a full media onslaught of false charges based on false evidence, intended to discredit individuals and the organization. The behavior was indefensible except to ideologues for whom the end justified the means.
Not usually. I wake up, make coffee and then read articles and comments in the Vanguard where I can’t help but see the hypocrisy.
No, usually you have to make it up, as with your situational hypocrisy accusations such as trying to guess how David would respond to secret taping of oil industry executives. And, of course, the usual conservative obsession about illegal immigration, which has nothing to do with this issue.
Put it this way Keith – as a reporter this is a law I’m very mindful of because California has such strict laws. I’m not advocating for stricter enforcement but he’s not going to avoid this one either.
Sounds like California Law-and-Order types have a problem with enforcing the law when they perceive the victims as liberals and the perpetrators as supporting conservative causes.
Keith
What you have wrong here is that if the information that was gathered was an accurate reflection of the meeting oil executives or Republicans, I would have no problem with disclosure of the contents if they were obtained legally. There are two problems with what Daleiden and co. did.
1. It would appear that the information was not obtained legally under California law. As a frequently self professed “law and order” guy, one would think that you would not approve of law breaking.
2. They knowingly and falsely edited the multiple interviews so as to distort the comments made by Planned Parenthood personnel as I had documented thoroughly by going through each of their tapes minute by minute in previous articles at some points even documenting that what they had presented as continuous footage actually occurred at different times in different venues. I am sure that this is all in the archives for anyone who is interested in the truth rather than just their own political stance.
Keith has been consistent in one respect – he was in favor of information coming out that was illegally obtained through WikiLeaks during the election as well.
Yes, it was so juicy showing Democrat corruption. The truth hurts. It’s called good investigating.
Good investigating is done within the confines of the law. Otherwise you’re just violating peoples rights and that is not good investigating
If a parent sets up a secret camera in a daycare in California and catches a provider saying ugly things to a toddler is that not good investigating?
Keith… your 10:12 post…
Using hidden cam in your own home, where daycare provider comes in to your home, YES! [no expectation of privacy as to the worker]
Planting hidden cam in an off-site provider, HELL NO! (and why the **** would you place that device (or you child!) in a place you can’t trust… ?)[unless you were looking for a ‘gotcha’ where you could actually/threaten to sue, and get $$$$]
Unless you believe every parent should plant a cam/recording device in every school room their child is in during the day… if so, suggest you consider home schooling… or, not reproducing.
And folk accuse me of being inane…
Howard: Another guy who often can’t make a point, without adding an insult (or taking “offense”, when someone gets tired of it).
Ron… made no insult… except, perhaps in the ‘eye of the beholder’ thing…
Was actually complimenting you for the attempt to be all things to all people… very valuable on a contentious (polarized) topic. Sorry if it was worded awkwardly…
Howard your 10:27 post
I’ll go against my better judgement as I usually don’t respond to you.
I was just using an example of where someone might illegally record someone without their permission when they feel the greater good is at stake, for instance a child being abused. For some reason you chose to miss the bigger picture and try and poke holes in my scenario when the scenario wasn’t the point, it was about the process.
David, I’ve noticed you haven’t responded.
They also released the full tapes of every interview for all to see. So there was no hiding anything.
“If a parent sets up a secret camera in a daycare in California and catches a provider saying ugly things to a toddler is that not good investigating?”
The question is legality and the law depends on expectation of privacy.
You might be interested to know: “Parents who live in the states of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania or Washington must inform their nanny before making an audio recording.”
Regarding Planned Parenthood (of which I am a strong supporter), perhaps federal funding is not needed (given the strong opposition by some, to abortion). Or, at least stop federal funding of abortions, in particular?
Seems to me that plenty of others might step up at that point, to help fund abortion clinics (assuming it remains legal, of course). Is funding really an issue, even if the federal government cuts of funds for abortions? (Might there be a large and ongoing, private fund-raising effort at that point?)
Why continue to force federal funding of abortions, which some (not me) find abhorrent?
Ron, once again you are behind the times. There has not been federal Medicaid funding for abortion services since 1976, with the passage of the Hyde Amendment (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment). In 1994 three extremely narrow exceptions were passed that made limited federal Medicaid funding available (A)when continuing the pregnancy will endanger the woman’s life, or (B) when the pregnancy results from rape or incest). This means federal funds cannot cover abortion even when a woman’s health is at risk and her doctor recommends she get an abortion.
Actually, Matt, truth be told, there are a great number of credible accounts where medical providers have “creatively coded” many medical services, including abortions (‘cyst removal’?), to skirt Federal rules for Medicare, Medicaid, etc., and indeed federal funds have been used for ‘forbidden’ services.
It is not pervasive (large %-ages), but is also not “rare” or “unknown of”… that stuff happens… ask anyone in the healthcare field who has dealt with those issues…
Planned Parenthood, as an organization does not condone, nor support that approach, to my knowledge, but am willing to place a big bet that some individuals in the ‘franchise’ have done the “creative coding”.
And, getting lost in the discussion, is not abortion, per se, but the ‘marketing’ of the aborted “products of conception”, for financial gain, which to me is far more heinous…
Howard, I think you are right on both counts. There no doubt are examples of cases where medical providers have creatively coded, and that the percentages are very small. Having spent a 25-year career in and around medical coding (I was at one point in time the Patient Accounting Manager for a Philadelphia university hospital), I have copious first-hand experience with the ins and outs of coding. My personal belief is that the kind of activities you are describing would not happen at Planned Parenthood, or any other high profile provider, because they know that they are always under greatly heightened scrutiny, and the downside risk, if caught, is massive. That is even more so the case for Planned Parenthood because they have significant private funding sources available to pay for the services. For them the risk/reward equation makes the kind of creative coding you are describing massively irrational.
With respect to your “products of conception” concerns, how would creative coding and/or federal funding apply to those activities?
For the very reasons you cite re: abortion procedures coding, suspect transactions re: “products” sales are not ‘coded’ and are kept “off the books”, in the rare situations that occurs…
Not convinced it (coding abortions as somewhat different) “never” happens but you make clear why it would be irrational to do so…
You have just qualified for “Dance With the Stars”!
I don’t mean to be a stickler for detail (obnoxious). It just comes naturally.
Well thank you for being a stickler for details, because when it comes to violation of the law whether it is the intent or letter, and to prove it in court, it comes down to details.
Matt:
Thanks for the clarification. Could have done without the “insult”, but I realize that you can’t respond to me without doing so, at this point. It’s not an issue that I’ve paid much attention to, since it’s beyond local control.
Also, some have objected to the existing level of federal funding for abortions that you’ve described.
Doing some quick research, it appears that things are generally different in California:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/us/california-expands-availability-of-abortions.html
Also – would like to clarify that even I’m not entirely comfortable with late-term abortions, for what that’s worth.
Reading is fundamental Ron. The New York Times article you have provided the link to has nothing to do with funding. The California law Governor Brown signed in October 2013 pertains to access to services, not payment for services.
Did I say that it had anything to do with funding? (However, I can see/understand why you thought I was making that connection.) In any case, you seem to constantly be trying to undermine arguments, by attacking me personally.
There does appear to be information on the Internet, regarding state funding for abortions. (I’ll leave it up to you, if you’d care to post such information.)
Ron said . . . “There does appear to be information on the Internet, regarding state funding for abortions.”
There has definitely been an upsurge of state attention to abortion funding since Trump became a viable candidate, and even more so after he was elected. The reason is Trump’s clearly-stated preference for having abortion decision-making happen at the State level, not the Federal level. The legislators of many states (on both sides of the issue) are trying to get an early jump on the time when (if it ever happens) Trump gets his way.
Because you are so wholeheartedly committed to advocacy and propaganda, you don’t see Paul Harvey’s “The rest of the story” as the simple supplementation/augmentation that it is. You live in a world of either/or. I live in a world of both/and. it is no surprise that you misread my both/and comments so consistently.
The thing that’s important to know is that you never know. You’re always sort of feeling your way.
Ron, if you call that an “insult”… well, have nothing to say except “?????????????”
A “tweak”, or “jab”, maybe…
Of course your repeated references to me as a “troll” were not meant as an “insult”… yeah, right… just an ‘accurate description’…
Let’s just keep this on-topic.
‘Abortion on demand’ is currently how courts are interpreting the “law of the land”… I cannot support “pro-abortion” views, but I believe (perhaps naively) that pro-life and pro-choice folk can find common ground… it will be difficult, but a true pro-life proponent should support a ‘therapeutic abortion’ if the fetus is essentially ‘doomed’ and/or the mother’s life is compromised… a pro-choice proponent should consider the “choice” of those who cannot yet speak for themselves (being in uteral).
My daughter is in the neo-natal field… she is pro-life, yet supports decisions made to stop needless suffering (including an abortion where there can be no ‘good’ outcome)… as do I… there are difficult gray areas… I believe we should try to approach consensus away from the extremes.
“marketing” fetal ‘residue’ from abortion, for profit (research driven to find out and ‘fix’ what went wrong with with a “pregnancy gone wrong” is OK in my book), is non-negotiable to me… it is abhorrent. Inhuman.
Uh, huh. Did you actually find my comments to be that way, regarding this article? If so, I’m not sure why.
You often present one side of a set of “facts”, which (if followed without question) would only lead to one logical “conclusion”. Worse still, you feign “objectivity”, and apparently view yourself as some sort of knowledgeable, always-impartial analyst. (All under the guise of “pseudo-intellectualism”.) And, when someone posts an article or information which contradicts your advocacy (e.g., for more development), you then start personally attacking that person.
Nice.
Your either/or perspective regularly sees “sides” within a discussion. I work hard to avoid “sides” and follow a more-is-more approach … throwing as much information as possible out on the table and then let everyone sort it out for themselves. You see advocacy on my part where there is none. Simply an attempt to ramp up the amount and educational value of the dialogue. For example, you labeled David’s article earlier this week as advocacy for development. If you go through that article and count the statements he provided both pro- and anti- development, the number of anti- statements exceeded the pro-statements. Bottom-line, David was putting the issue out on the table for discussion. You have been very clear that you do not want that discussion to happen. You have been very clear that dialogue should be censored until UCD completes the LRDP process. You have tried to censor Don Shor. You have tried to censor Mark West. You have tried to censor David. The list goes on and on. That is very clearly the way you roll.
Matt:
You’re simply full of pseudo-intellectual “hot air”.
I’ve made no attempt to “censor” anyone.
The Vanguard (including David and Don) are advocating for more development (and have done so repeatedly, day-after-day). And, so are you (under the guise of “objectivity”).
Surely, no insult intended there… and completely on-topic… as was
I say on-topic, as abortion has everything to do with ‘development’… development from 2 cells, to a human being…
Thank you for setting a new standard for civility/”no insults”, and for staying on-topic… much appreciated…
Well, Howard. I guess you’d have to look at the comments which preceded that, as well. Unless you also have no interest in “objectivity”.
Ron, I do not believe you can find a single statement of mine “advocating” for more development. I’ll be interested to see what you come up with.
Matt:
Again, you’re more subtle than that. For example, only presenting one side of a set of “facts”, and attacking other “facts” which you’d apparently rather avoid/dispute (and ultimately, other commenters).
To some degree, you engaged in these practices in the other article today, regarding the lack of a built-in financial incentive to conserve water and electricity at developments such as West Village and Sterling. You, Don (and even Howard) did everything possible to deflect, confuse, and undermine that fact.
Your approach can also be seen regarding issues such as road conditions and pensions administered by CALPERS. Your analyses and graphs suggest that these are entirely local concerns, which might be “conveniently” solved by the development projects that the Vanguard simultaneously pushes (and that the committee that you’re on ultimately analyzes). When I’ve posted information which shows that these are statewide concerns (which will ultimately require system-wide solutions, such as the increase in gas tax which is actively being considered), you’ve stated that this is irresponsible.
By the way, I think it’s time for Don to step in, as a moderator.
Agreed… or, some could “self-moderate”… even better…
The moderator was off doing his weekly radio show. Please stick to the issues, which are Daleiden, abortion, Planned Parenthood, etc. Seems like that would be enough to work with.
Also, it would be really great if everyone would stop insulting each other.
Update: off topic comments removed. Please stay on topic.
Wow, their recording is more under attack than sickos selling baby parts. Wtf is wrong with the world we live in. Disgusting.
Here, Claire, I heartily agree!
I agree Claire. I’m a conservative but I’m not anti-abortion unless it’s late term. But the selling of body parts is disgusting, even if they only recouped their costs during the sales.
Claire, PP is not a bunch of “sicko’s”. Please do a little more research, as I did before I agreed with you on another subject. I agreed with you on another subject, even tho I have never met you. I worked closely with an organization that also worked with PP. I only ask that you plz research further before you call very dedicated, empathetic, compassionate women “sicko’s”. Peace.
I think Claire meant individuals who may (likely) have done that… to say it was PP policy, or officially condoned, I don’t think that is what any reasonable person is asserting… am not authorized to speak for Claire… nor for PP.
PP is a valuable resource, as Tia and others have pointed out, repeatedly, for women’s health issues (particularly the poor/uninsured)… I strongly agree with that mission… where some of us may differ is to the details of abortion services that they may provide… yet, PP is NOT an “abortion mill”… that is not their “raison d’etre”.
Yet, practices of anyone, even under the ‘umbrella’ of PP, to sell fetal parts for profit (and am pretty sure it has happened, without PP’s ‘cachet’) is an affront to human decency… yeah anyone who does, is indeed a “sicko” in my mind.
Try not to go to the extremes of the bell curve… I don’t “live there”, and suspect Claire doesn’t, either…
Delia I appreciate your polite suggestion that I research the topic a bit. I will when time allows.
That said even if I weren’t reasonably pro-life (I understand some people choosing abortions in underage pregnancies, rapes, incest, high likelihood of serious defects… even though I’d probably never choose that route for myself).
… even if I weren’t pro-life; I’d still be deeply disturbed by the calloused trafficking of fetal body parts for profit. As I have actually researched how many large corporations benefit and profit from these discarded… “fetuses” I truly believe there is an undeniable conflict of interest when it comes to the propaganda women have been sponged about what constitutes a life.
3/4 of my own pregnancies were wholly inconvenient. Life altering, “catastrophic” accidents in the eyes of people who can regard an unborn child this way. (I can’t). Each time I halfheartedly considered abortions… (knowing I’d never do it). Do you know when women express interest in abortions, they’re discouraged from having ultrasounds done? Do you know what a 6 week fetus looks like? (Which is no earlier than the majority of abortions). It looks like a tiny baby. I think the heart beats at 30 days. I felt the lives of all my children, apart from my own within a few days of conception, nice instantly. I could just FEEL that someone else was “there.”
i don’t dare try to convince a bunch of very educated Davisites to be pro-life but just consider the FACT that the largest most powerful corporations in the world are improving their skin products, foods (“natural flavor” was developed from fetus research), and everything else. No one needs animal testing when most the women in the world eagerly subscribe to the convenient perspective that a lesser developed or unborn child is just some cellular waste.
so just consider that maybe what women are being led to believe about sexual empowerment and the freedom COULD just be a well crafted deception.
We underestimate our power as mothers. That’s among our greatest strengths as women. so just consider that maybe the real battle women should be fighting is for MOTHERS to be protected and respected and valued. Not for motherhood to be easily escapable when the timing doesn’t seem right.
but even if the above is too much to consider, just know that there’s a lot of people bankrolling womens abortions. These videos just make itnlore obvious (although you can easily get the information elsewhere). And it’s bad. Women are being exploited. And in the meantime our real battles aren’t being fought because too many of us are asleep.
I’ve thought a lot about the entire issue and have never quite understood how people opposed to abortion can regard their position as exclusively correct. My concept of human includes the development of human consciousness in an individual. It is a process that develops without question upon being born into the world of faces and language. It is not clear to me that a fetus or unborn child has developed human consciousness before that time. Look at how we as a species love to anthropomorphize animals into human-like beings when it ain’t so. I am willing to compromise on a societal standard and allow for the concept of a cut off in time for abortion whether it’s 16 or 20 weeks to serve as a legal guideline of some sort. However, that doesn’t imply criminality to me if the arbitrary time limit is exceeded. This is a decision that should always be in the hands of the woman in consultation with a doctor. It should not be the basis for shaming after the fact or assigning some kind of guilt. Anti-abortion believers make no compromise of any kind and see it in black and white terms.
So, back to the article. Our hometown boy made recordings, without the consent or knowledge of representatives of an organization that he wants to destroy because of what he believes. He doesn’t care that the bulk of PP’s work is general health care for women like cancer screenings or that only a minor percentage of their work is abortion or abortion related or that they do provide fetal tissue of legally aborted fetuses for research at cost (that means not for profit) in the same way you or I may donate our body organs for research. No, he just wants to destroy PP because it conflicts with his flat earth moral code.
It surely does appear that he broke the law intentionally and is proud of it. He is not sorry. He is not interested in restorative justice. I’m proud that our state AG’s office did not let this crime die away and hope that he serves time in state prison as a good example.
Just happened to see this, while skimming the Internet. Thought it was somewhat “topical” and timely, no other comment.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pence-breaks-tie-allowing-senate-to-revoke-obama-order-on-abortion-provider-funding/ar-BBz4S1n?li=BBnb7Kz
Thanks for the link, Ron. It is a perfect example of how the right wing has staked its ideological boundaries out to exclude women’s interests. The minority vice president had to cast the tie-breaking vote to damage Planned Parenthood coverage because the only two Republican senators who are women were against their own party’s wrong-headed agenda. The Republican Party hates women. There’s just no other interpretation available.
No wonder David Deleiden feels at home with these kind of people and empowered to break the law. He’s protected by those in power nationally.
Wrong. I think from their standpoint they hate killing unborn children which by the way would be 50% women if they were allowed to live.
Wrong, Keith. First of all, it’s none of your business what a woman decides to do about her own health care or pregnancy. Second, if you bothered to know anything about Planned Parenthood, abortions are a small percentage of medical services. This is about restricting federal funds for the entire organization and thereby lessen its ability to provide non abortion medical services that are largely available to women, though not exclusively. Why do you think the two Republican Senators who are women voted against this? Do they love “killing unborn children” as you like to put it?
If you bothered to know anything about PP you would know that PP counts minor visits to their clinics (such as getting birth control pills or handing out a condom) the same as an abortion. So the claim that only 3% of their services are abortions is bogus. That would be like a car dealership counting an oil change the same as selling a full size truck. Also PP is the largest abortion provider in the U.S.
Except for the fact that he did the recordings (broke the law) when Obama was in power nationally. So did he feel “empowered” by Obama?
Hard not to agree with this:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/03/new-crime-in-california-performing-undercover-video-journalism-while-not-a-democrat/
I can easily disagree with your quoted text. The purpose of surreptitiously recording people from Planned Parenthood was not to uncover the “truth”, but to smear the entire organization by creating a frame to imply unethical or illegal activity that did not actually exist. It was not about the facts in totality. Example: I really hate Wells Fargo Bank for their unethical and illegal activity. If someone were to have done the same illegal recording and then publicized it without heavy editing, I might agree with prosecution under the letter of the law with a one dollar fine. That is justice.
Forgive the long semi-irrelevant post.
Pro-life or not; it’s sad to me that their catching these people on camera violating laws on profiting from human body parts, is being weighed more heavily by the law than… the trafficking of human body parts
It was already sad enough to me to see how many of my own friends jumped to defend… abortion (?) rather than to at least acknowledge how unethical this (selling “fetuses”, not necessarily abortion) is. Like, what is happening to women??? Where is the balance we are supposed to provide in this world?
if a woman can regard these videos and facts with such detachment… then it’s no real wonder we, human beings, have the problems we have.
I hate generalizing into liberals and conservatives because like religion, both sides are a mixed bag imho.
still… I’m going to make a politically incorrect generalization…
men aren’t really built to have a strong pro-life conviction. According to nature, that life conscious wiring was given solely to women… (otherwise known as pregnancy).
so as much as we like to say men are deciding on abortion rights for women (which I agree seems silly)… I think the deeper root of the problem is that industries are programming (or more accurately alienating) women to betray what nature has programmed us to do.
Im not condemning women who opt for abortions. I’m saying that abortion is a symbolic “false idol”. By that I mean it distracts us from TRULY self affirming decisions and freedoms.
we are the most creative spiritually tough sex – period. If abortion weren’t on the table as our hyped up solution; I wholeheartedly believe we’d find and fight for other ways to live quality lives without sacrificing our kids.
Whatever the case what SOME PP officials are doing is surely more deserving of harsh consequences than the clever truth seekers who exposed them, RIGHT? That’s my problem with this…
also, if you watched the videos; is it going over your heads that the guilty PP individuals (at least one of them for sure) is LOADED on some sort of drugs. Likely some sort of opiates? I could tell within seconds of watching her face…
and that’s another problem that relates to THIS issue and many others in our country (maybe even world). People are cracked out of their minds. Powerful leaders are no more sober than your most recent headline tweaker. They’ve just got a prescription and a fancy job title… and they’re dealing laws, policies, propaganda etc etc
thats pretty darn scary imho!