Abortion

What This Planned Parenthood Scandal Really Doesn't Need Right Now Is Judicial Censorship

Judge temporarily prohibits one meeting interview to be released.

|

This has become the week where telling a dead baby joke could get you fired.
CMP

There has been a bit of a "kill the messenger" response in some corners directed toward the Center for Medical Progress, the group that filmed the secret videos showing how Planned Parenthood treats fetal tissue it gathers from the abortions it provides. California Attorney General Kamala Harris has promised to look into whether the organization broke state law. California is a "two-party" state requiring both sides to agree to be recorded.

This is a stupid idea on Harris' part that would backfire if she actually attempts to pursue charges against Center for Medical Progress (my prediction is that she won't and that this is just for show for Democratic votes for her Senate run).

Now a judge has weighed in and has granted a narrow restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress to keep them from releasing certain videos or materials. It is not a complete ban, as we can see from the release of a fourth video today. The injunction is focused on a broker service named StemExpress who works with Planned Parenthood and has filed a civil suit this week against the Center for Medical Progress. StemExpress accuses the Center for Medical Progress of all sorts of fraudulent behavior in order to obtain the videos and information they've released.

StemExpress asked for an injunction from a judge to stop the group from releasing the information they have gathered. The judge has agreed to temporarily forbid the group from releasing the recording of a secret meeting.

Ken White and Adam Steinbaugh at Popehat note that the judge didn't actually rubber stamp this request. He narrowed it down much further than StemExpress asked for. The company wanted to prevent the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any of the documents they had obtained from StemExpress and force them to remove any documents they had already posted online. The judge declined a request that broad.

But even so, the judge's order is obviously a version of prior restraint, judicially preventing something from being published. The First Amendment takes a dim view of such actions. White explains:

Prior restraint of publication is generally unconstitutional and highly disfavored. That generally means that courts may punish you for a wrongful publication, but they will only very rarely prohibit you from making it in advance. The Supreme Court has said that Prior restraint is "the essence of censorship" and that the "chief purpose" of the First Amendment "is to prevent previous restraints upon publication." Here at Popehat we've written about numerous foolish and unsuccessful efforts to invoke prior restraint, brought by angry scientists and developers. We've also talked about cases of courts imposing clearly unlawful prior restraint, as in the case of Alabama blogger Roger Shuler.

Under this doctrine, if you try to get a court to prohibit a publication in advance — or order it taken down — on the grounds that it's defamatory, you'll almost certainly fail. The remedy is to seek damages afterwards. But StemExpress' complaint isn't about defamation. It's about illegal recording and about violation of a nondisclosure agreement — an agreement that CMP operatives signed, attached to StemExpress' complaint as an exhibit.

Recordings made secretly in violation of California Penal Code section 632(a) are inadmissible — you can't illegally record someone and then use that recording as evidence against them in a case. But I see no authority suggesting that the general rule against prior restraint is relaxed when the communication in question is an illegal recording under California law. Courts have generally declined to create broad exceptions to the prior restraint doctrine for illegally recorded materials, particularly in a "investigative reporting" context. The recordings — and maybe even the publications of them — can be punished, but there's not strong authority for them being prevented in advance. So: to the extent this TRO purports to rely upon the fact that the recording was illegal, it is of very dubious constitutionality.

Read more of their argument here.

Read Elizabeth Nolan Brown's lengthy analysis of efforts to defund Planned Parenthood here

NEXT: Court temporarily bars publishing allegedly illegally recorded conversation about transactions in aborted fetus body parts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is getting crunchy.

    1. boooooooo…..

    2. “well if it didn’t have any BONES in it, it wouldn’t be CRUNCHY, now, would it??!”

      /crunchy frogs

      1. What about cockroach cluster and anthrax ripple? Do they reside under the term crunchy?

  2. That’s the Progessive way: silence all dissent. Lucky for them they have a lot of allies in the government to help them.

  3. It’s funny, I was just thinking to myself… with everything going on in the country right now, what we really need is an abortion controversy.

    1. A lion was aborted recently in Africa by a murder-death-kill dentist teathuglican. I think Donald Trump sponsored the event.

      Did you hear?

      1. He thought the lion was a Mexican.

        1. He thought the lion was gay.

          1. And was going to get married.

            1. With a bouquet of pot.

              1. The dentist, he did squat.

            2. With a bouquet of pot.

              1. His bow string he pulled taught.

            3. With a bouquet of pot.

              1. The lion, he got shot.

      2. If the Koch brothers aren’t involved, why would I care?

      3. Trump’s sons have hunted big game. Therefore, Donald Trump is even worse than the killer dentist. Pass it on…

        1. Trump’s sons have hunted big game.

          More like they went into a pen where big animals were kept and shot them.

      4. ‘i will tell you what I think about that after I’m elected ‘ – Hillary Clinton

        1. “Before we elect you, Ms. Clinton, I want to see some evidence that you do, in fact, think.”

          -No mainstream media ‘journalist’, ever.

      5. It’s easier to tow a dead lion than a live one.

    2. Paul, it’s what KULTUR WAR is for. Debt? Spying? Police brutality? Who cares about that shit? No, fighting over fringe shit is vastly, vastly more important.

      Amazing how well that works out for the politicians, isn’t it?

      1. Well,there is the matter of the 500 million PP gets from taxpayers every year.

        1. Yep, that’s worth getting worked up about. Never mind the $650 billion going to the military, or the trillions going to welfare entitlements. There’s a retarded hill to die on!

          1. It is a shame that you can’t oppose military spending and PP AND welfare entitlements. You only get to oppose two.

          2. The $650 billion military spending is bipartisan. No traction on that.

          3. You can argue about the total cost, but the military is a legitimate function of the federal government, funding PP is not.

            1. Except, you know, the perpetual undeclared wars that have been going on since about 1948 or so….

              1. I’ve heard only the navy was supposed to be permanent and armies only raised during times of war. I don’t know if that is true. Also can we stop calling it the Department of defense? We seem to do an awful lot of offense.

                1. Seriously, we should just drop the pretense. Go full Orwellian and call it the Ministry of Love

                  1. I love you so much…
                    *shoots W-o-M in front panel*

                  2. Sapphire bullets…

              2. That means we spend too much on the military not that we shouldn’t spend money on it at all.

              3. Any “undeclared wars” is an example of a failure of Congress to exercise it’s Constitutional role. One thing Congress hasn’t failed to do is fund the military.

              4. That is still an argument about the extent of a legitimate function of government.

                I also notice there is not much complaint overall about “undeclared wars” since Obama decided he could commit the military to action against Libya sans even an authorization of force.

                1. I also notice there is not much complaint overall about “undeclared wars” since Obama decided he could commit the military to action against Libya sans even an authorization of force.

                  Well the media are complete hypocrites on this, but it is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

                  1. I don’t disagree, but it shows that the difference between authorizingng force and declaration of war was never a real issue except to the most hardcore anti-war and constitutional advocates who really are quite few.

          4. That is retarded Hugh. By that logic we should never worry about any problem as long as someone can point one out that is worse. So fucking what that we spend too much money on defense. You know what is worse than that? Spending too much money on defense and spending it on PP.

            1. Isn’t that exactly what you were saying about gay marriage the other day?

              1. No. I was saying it was a piss ant civil rights issue that didn’t warrant the attention it got. I didn’t say it wasn’t worthy of some attention, just not the decade long cluster fuck crusade it got. If this turns into a decade long cluster fuck crusade, then my point about gay marriage applies. But until then, not so much.

            2. “That” = that we should be talking about more important things.

          5. Yeah, Hugh.

            Lets not complain about anything the feds spend on anything until the defense budget and welfare entitlements are cut.

            I do have one question:

            How much of a cut is enough, before we are allowed to talk about anything else?

      2. Who determines what is “fringe shit”?

        You have have an organization that is heavily funded by the government apparently skirting the law in a macabre trade of highly questionable ethics.

        And then there is that Reason has been rather happy to engage in the culture wars when the issue suits.

      3. “fringe shit”

        If the unborn don’t matter, then why is the debt a problem – it’s the unborn who will have to pay it, they should be grateful we don’t kill them before presenting the bill.

  4. However, if CMP already provided the video to someone else independent of them, that person has the right to publish the video, and almost certainly can’t be subject to prior restraint. The Supreme Court has made it very difficult to prevent the media from publishing illegally-obtained materials of public interest when the media in question wasn’t complicit in getting those materials.

    According to White there is a good chance this judge is pissing in the wind. If this video shows up on Youtube or the web site of some anti abortion group outside of this judge’s jurisdiction, there will be no way to establish how it got there. CMP could just say, we have no idea how or when they got ahold of it and without the ability to subpoena the party that leaked it, there would be no way to prove otherwise.

  5. So I played my NPR game this morning, where I switch to it for ten seconds to see if they’re still not disappointing…

    Some segment with a woman named Hanna Rosin, who wrote a book titled The End of Men, and The Rise of Women, talking about some New Yorker cover with dourly dressed women sitting in a circle and one empty chair.

    She was commenting on what the empty chair symbolized for women.

    Keep being you, NPR.

    1. A game of old maid?

    2. I thought that New Yorker cover was the 38 women allegedly groped and/or raped by Cosby since the 70s with an empty chair for Lisa Bonet.

      1. That’s New York magazine. And they’re both weeklies, so they have a lot of covers.

      2. I think it was, but NPR wasn’t satisfied by that. They apparently wanted a more nuanced interpretation.

  6. Just imagine if some prog group had done a sting on the Koch brothers and had them admitting to anything that might be embarrassing. I bet the media wouldn’t be to worried about the ethics of undercover stings.

    1. Of course not. That would be called ‘good journalism’. Hard-hitting.

    2. Bravo might even give Michael Moore a show where he did just that. Imagine.

    3. They’ve been trying to get pics of their orphans in the coal mines for years.The Kochs are to smrat for them.

      1. They moved the orphans to the pollution factory.

    4. Not quite a sting on the Koch brothers, but this douche called Scott Walker pretending to be a Koch and the media was fine with it. Don’t remember any courts getting involved either.

      1. maybe it was Walker but I can’t remember. Wasn’t there a bunch of hacked emails that some Prog publication used its readers to crowd source going through them?

        1. You might be thinking of the forger Peter Gleick, who using false pretenses duped a secretary into thinking an email address he set up belonged to a member of the Heartland Institute’s board of directors.

          After getting his hands on a packet for an upcoming board meeting, and seeing that there was no smoking gun, he forged a strategy document.

          As far as I know the shitheel never suffered any censure.

    5. Of course. See, e.g., every Michael Moore film ever made

    6. I have a hard time imagining progs concerned with gathering hard proof for any of their hare-brained theories. It would have to be heavily edited footage. For example, one of the Koch brothers bent over in his garden pruning some bushes with the shears and plants just out of the frame. Then cut to some decapitated baby bunny carcasses. Kochs are sadistic nature killers!! Confirmed!

      1. btw, hare-brained….baby bunny decapitation…I’ll be here all night

      2. I can just imagine a clip of Koch speaking: “I hate [obvious cut, Koch now in different setting] poor [another cut back to original frame] people [another cut] and all [a woman’s voice dubbed over] blacks.”

        SEE THATS PROOF!!!!

  7. StemExpress

    It’s like something out of Futurama.

  8. Good, succinct headline, Shackford. Gets the point across.

    You get an ‘A’. …this time.

  9. California is a “two-party” state requiring both sides to agree to be recorded.

    Enacted at the behest of police unions?

    1. How ironic that a state where only one party can get elected is “two party”.

      1. Funny that; I was thinking the same thing.

      2. I gather there is an exception in CA law for “recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person. . . .”

        There may be a good defense here that they were recording for purposes of discovering whether bribery or other crimes were being committed.

  10. Center for Medical Progress

    Oh, I forgot to comment on this… nice turnabout.

  11. Can’t they just have someone else release it?

  12. is this about hard questions with responses posted to youtube?

  13. Have these latest videos made the mainstream news at all? I remember seeing a lot of people on the left dismissing the first one by saying it was misleading due to how it’d been edited. But I haven’t seen any mention of the subsequent ones. The fact they’re not trying to defend this and appear to be sweeping it under the rug makes their position look very weak. I don’t like the idea of abortion, but I’m still pro-choice and would rather see the resulting tissue used for research (where it might help someone) rather than being thrown in the trash (where it won’t).

    1. Social media means they can’t bury stories like they used to. And Hillary walked away from defending them today.

      This must be polling very poorly.

      1. Yes, I suspect the only reason Hillary suggested investigating PP is due to the public’s reaction over this. Her supporters know she never will but some people in the middle might believe her.

        1. It’s what her husband did when he got caught – claim that he’s the innocent victim of a systemic problem, and demand a committee to recommend reforms.

    2. They’ve all been on CNN.

      1. For some reason, my company blocks CNN. And I have no cable or internet at home. But the silence has deafening on left-wing sites like Slate and Huffington Post. They must be worried if they’re not evening addressing it.

  14. I got kicked out of a hippy engagement party for stepping on a cockroach.

    1. is this a metaphor for that lion? b/c i’m so jaded that i get it.

  15. Moronic clickbait assertion with article hidden behind paywall

    Anyone who thinks defunding #PlannedParenthood would change abortion stats is right: the rate would go up: http://econ.st/1LTrT4X

    1. So PP is doing everything it can to prevent abortions? I wonder if the pro choice people defending them know about this.

      Even if it were true, who cares? I don’t want to subsidize some organization to get fewer abortions anymore than I want to subsidize an organization that creates more of them.

      1. This is some kind of “we’re so clever at sticking it to our enemies that we don’t have to worry about whether what we say makes any sense, much less whether it’s accurate.”

  16. $500M? No way. Taxpayers give PP $500M? Straight up grant them $500M? Per year or is that over the past 20 years?

    1. That figure has to be per year. It’s eugenics framed as personal freedom.

    2. The figure includes all Medicaid spending that goes to PP.

    3. Every year I think. They get money from all over the government. For example,

      Planned Parenthood lobbied the Department of State many times during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there and received tens of millions of dollars from foreign policy agencies over the past few years, according to a new report.

      As secretary of state, Clinton attacked the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funding of abortion overseas. Her husband revoked the policy during his administration and President Obama lifted the ban upon taking office in 2009. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which is tied to the State Department, steered more than $100 million in funding to Planned Parenthood and its international affiliates between 2010 and 2012, according to the Government Accountability Office?about 20 percent of the nearly $500 million pro-abortion organizations received from taxpayers during that time frame.
      – See more at: http://freebeacon.com/politics…..rv3IY.dpuf

      That is $30 million a year from USAID alone. That is separate from all of the money they get from HHS and other government agencies.

  17. Actually this has to be a disaster. It’s easy for me when abortion is some abstract thing. I mean hey hey my body my choice, cool. When I watch these videos and actually hear these people speak so coldly about dissecting unwanted humans I feel sick to my stomach. Regardless of whether PP is breaking any laws these videos really illuminate the causal horror and frequency of these actions.

    1. How do you think doctors talk about wanted humans?

      1. Most people, including me, aren’t exposed to this on a daily basis. I am not a doctor and to be honest watching people handle fetus parts freaks me out. It makes me reconsider my personal morality regarding abortion. I can imagine this having the same effect on others.

        1. I can too, but only because they’re emotional retards who don’t realize doctors aren’t all puppies and rainbows.

          1. Yep. You got me I’m emotionally stunted because I think the thought of killing my unborn child sickens me and it took an undercover video to give me pause. I don’t really think cutting PP funding is the right choice and I don’t want to restrict other people’s choices. I am just commenting on the effectiveness of the video tactic.

          2. I think you’re selling it a bit short, Nikki. For me, it’s a combination of the callousness and a clear undercutting of the “clump of cells” talking point. The very reason these organs have value is they are inherently human, not some amorphous blob of protoplasm.

            1. This is exactly how researcher and surgeons talk about transplant tissue, cadaver parts for research, transformed cell lines…

              It doesn’t mean you don’t have respect for human dignity…. this is how people who are doing a job day in and day out speak. If you are collecting tissue for an experiment that will someday lead to a cure for arthritis, you talk about collecting tissue. You don’t interrupt your conversation to cry about the poor guy who had to have reconstructive surgery on his knee thereby allowing you to get your hands on some connective tissue from his knee. You talk about harvesting the tissue you need for your work.

              Do you suppose that the mortician at your local funeral home talks the same way with you when you are planning a relative’s funeral as he does when he is talking with the various sales reps who come around? Or with his coworkers in the back when nobody from the public is around?

              This whole argument is stupid. Either we are talking about taking a human life, or we are not. These stupid “it is icky” arguments might have a lot of emotional appeal, but that is only because people are profoundly ignorant. The “partial birth abortion” talking point was the same way. Methodology makes no difference to the fundamental point of the conflict. Just because something can be made “icky” is no reason to ban it. (just as being able to sanitize the language shouldn’t make it acceptable)

        2. You’re definitely not alone. Many in the pro-choice community who weren’t involved enough to know the nitty-gritty details are unpleasantly surprised by the fact that abortions are taking place when you can differentiate between organs and limbs. It’s a shock to the system when the rhetoric of a “clump of cells” is blown so wide open.

          I remember what gave me the initial jolt to the pro-life side. I was in some museum that had a bunch of fetuses in glorified pickle jars representing each week of development. There was a little label on the 24 weeks jar (IIRC) saying that it was the earliest that the fetus was viable. I remember looking down the line and thinking to myself how I probably wouldn’t have drawn my line at 24 weeks if I were dictator for a day… it probably would have been closer to 32 weeks.

          1. The viability line is drawn based on actual medical history: at what age do preemies have a legitimate shot at surviving in a NICU.

            I seem to remember seeing that 22 weeks is not completely out of bounds, but is very marginal. I think 24 weeks is very standard, and probably getting conservative as we get better at saving preemies.

            1. Interestingly, 24 weeks is a 50% viability according to Wikipedia

            2. Yao viability is based on access to medicine? It depends on where you are, and what resources are available?

              1. As is your viability as an adult human being.

                Try surviving in the North Atlantic without a boat, or in the Mojave desert without water, clothing and shelter.

          2. It was at the Chicago MSI

            That means it was 6th grade, 1999.

    2. I think these videos will eventually result in some bs sanction against PP (government funding wise), but i think their real legacy will be the FedGov addressing 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. Whether or not that’s a good thing, i think that will be the end game of this, sometime in 2017.

    3. I’ve been saying something like this…the hard-core people on each side like me and ENB won’t change our minds, but the “middle ground” people are going to be like, “wait, abortion means *that*? Ick!”

      1. It’s easy to ignore the protesters with the garish dead baby pictures because they are “other” to me. It’s harder to watch professionals actual handle the “specimens”.

        1. The protests I take part in rarely have the dead-baby photos, because that makes people turn away and we’re trying to persuade the women to consider alternatives. They don’t want to hear “this is bad,” because they’ve already assimiliated that; they want to hear, “here’s something else you can do about your situation, and we can help you,” so that’s our focus.

          1. In a lot of cases, the women are aware (either explicitly or at some level) that this is a bad thing, but they believe (or have been induced to believe) that they have no choice, that they’re alone and with no support.

            That’s why PP wants to close down the prolife pregnancy centers, because they send a clear message to the women that they’re *not* alone, that they have options besides abortion. Planned Parenthood gets lots of its revenue like the anguished girl with the angry boyfriend who yelled at me, “some of us don’t *have* a choice!”

          2. Yeah, we’ve got some abortion protestors that we periodically have to deal with.

            They take the soft-sell approach, and they get takers occasionally.

            1. You’re at a hospital, right?

              1. Yeah, but this is around some other property that we have.

                We actually don’t do abortions in the hospital except to save the life of the mother.

                1. I see.

  18. I’m firmly in camp “Anything goes because I don’t care” on abortion, and CfMP definitely has an agenda different from that, but I kind of want to cheer them on.

    I mean here’s this small group of activists, armed with just a camera, and they’re completely derailing the news cycle, putting an org a 100x their size on the defensive.

    If they weren’t guilty of badthink and this was an expose on any big business, liberals all over the country would be calling this a David vs. Goliath story, and there’d be a shitty Hollywood movie made about them.

    1. A small group of activists armed with nothing but a camera taking down an national organization with a budget in the hundreds of millions the majority of which is forcibly taken from taxpayers. It is the kind of thing you would think Libertarians would respect.

      1. I do respect them. I disagree with their end goal (although their more immediate de-funding goal seems reasonable to me), but that’s the case with most humans anyway.

        If I disrespected from anyone who I disagreed with, I’d be Donald Trump. DRINK!

  19. I’m all for defunding Planned Parenthood because fuck them, but I don’t get the outrage here. If abortion is murder, then selling organs is trivial compared to the monstrosity of murdering an infant. If abortion is okay, then there’s no point in wasting perfectly good organs. Is it the selling part that’s so outrageous?

    1. It’s the “people are pussies” part.

    2. Because a large part of the “support” for abortion is on a shallow and abstract level…”yeah, choice, sounds good, now can I stop thinking about it?”

      Such folks are genuinely grossed out when they have to look at actual, specific details of what abortion involves.

      See waffles above for someone candidly grappling with this situation:

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..nt_5480246

      1. Yeah, I think it’s the visceral aspect. Sure it’s emotional, but there doesn’t really seem to be any part of the abortion debate that isn’t.

        1. I believe prolifers have reason on our side, but some people close themselves off to the evidence of their reason.

          That’s why people who were previously indifferent to slavery, or rationalized it away as a “domestic institution” of no concern, wept bitter tears seeing a novel (then a play) about a slave girl and her child running across the ice to escape her captors.

          Just because someone is emotionally affected by Eliza’s escape doesn’t mean they’re irrational. It means they may have simply had a mental block preventing them seeing the slavery situation in its full ramifications.

          And here we’re not dealing with a novel (albeit a reality-based novel), but with actual footage about selling baby parts.

          If someone finds this disgusting, it’s not because they’re just hopelessly emotional, but because it brings them down to the plane of reality where they can consider abortion in its true colors.

          1. Here’s the image which created more opponents of slavery than any number of tracts and speeches:

            http://www.1st-art-gallery.com…..reedom.jpg

            Could these videos be the non-fiction counterpart in the abortion debate?

    3. Because the weird cultural compromise that’s evolved in this country is “It’s legal (more permissive than even in most of Europe), but we have to treat it as a grave matter and icky”.

      The outcry is over the fact that the people actually involved in doing the work don’t treat it with gravitas people usually give it. What a surprise, has anyone polled slaughterhouse workers on how they feel about wringing turkey necks all day?

      It’s silly, but this internal contradiction gives a lot of leverage to groups willing to use it to shift public opinion. I don’t blame them for using it.

    4. If abortion is murder, then selling organs is trivial compared to the monstrosity of murdering an infant.

      Absolutely. I think that this is the average pro-lifer’s “i told you so” moment when it comes to PP and abortion. It’s the flippant nature of these people on the video talking about parting out fetuses that they abhor, and they know the average “clump of cells” pro-choicer isn’t prepared to refute. It’s a combination of true righteous indignation combined with seizing an opportunity for marketing.

      If abortion is okay, then there’s no point in wasting perfectly good organs.

      The true pro-choice base should be thinking that this is no big deal, because it’s better to part out the fetus than let it rot in the trash. The problem is that a lot of the pro-choice movement is made up of lukewarm supporters and/or uninformed supporters who believed that your average abortion comprised scraping some slime off the walls of a uterus.

      Is it the selling part that’s so outrageous?

      Not at all, but it paints PP as profiteers on abortion, which is a tough issue in the first place. A lot of pro-choicers are in the “you’re providing women a service in a dark time of their life” camp, and “abortion as business” scares them.

      1. Trshmnstr said most of what I’m thinking much better than I did.

        1. Yes.

      2. The true pro-choice base should be thinking that this is no big deal, because it’s better to part out the fetus than let it rot in the trash

        I believe that was ENB’s first article on this.

        What this does, as noted, is force people to understand that what is being aborted is sufficiently developed to have functioning organs that can be transplanted. This isn’t a pile of goo, or one of those weird early stage alien-looking fetuses with gills and shit. This can be something that looks a lot like a baby, and even could be delivered and go on to have a life as an actual human being.

        Google (cautiously) “24 week fetus” for some pics, including some taken of babies delivered at that stage and in their NICU cr?che.

        I, personally, believe that SCOTUS got one thing right: that we should be free to ban abortions of viable fetuses.

      3. but it paints PP as profiteers on abortion,

        Good propaganda, but hardly the truth based on the numbers bandied about in the clips. I doubt they are fully covering their costs at those prices. Just the growth media and plasticware would come close to that price.

    5. No, it’s about having your face shoved beyond the abstracts of “choice” and “life” and actually having to think WHEN you consider abortion murder and WHEN you consider it okay.

      Personally, I’ve been struggling for a while now with how I can reconcile the NAP with the ability of a fetus to experience pain in the procedure. Maybe I kept myself willfully blind and needed a bunch of ghoulish commentary juxtaposed with identifiable humans to get my brain out of that neutrality and face an uncomfortable issue again.

    6. Because most of pro-choice think they are supporting a tragic decision, while PP sees it as a carcass to be butchered for parts. Most people cannot callously objectify something that looks recognizably human the way you can.

      Also, remember, many of thesr people are the same ones who are wailing and gnashong their teeth over the death of Cecil the lion.

      1. the truth is abortion at least in the late term are infanticide. These films show it for what it is and that makes it harder for people to lie to themselves.

    7. Libertarians are pretty much alone in not especially viewing the profit motive negatively. Most other groups tend to view a person acting in service of money less favorably than one acting in service of ideals.

      PP likes to portray itself, and its allies in media like to portray it, as a crusader for women, like the plucky gang of anti-establishment protagonists you would find in a Hollywood movie, but these videos instead make it look like a corporation you would find in a typical Hollywood movie.

  20. I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone on this board not named Tony cares if Planned Parenthood goes bankrupt. The thing started as a eugenics organization. That alone should make its death worth celebrating.

    I really don’t get Hugh and Nikki and Sugar Free seem so upset by this. If nothing else, you should enjoy seeing an organization that sucks hundreds of millions from the public tit and uses that money for lavish top exec salaries and to help fund the Progressive Movement finally get what is coming to it.

    WTF is wrong with you guys? What possible downside could their be to this story?

    1. I’m not them, but, from the perspective of a pro-choice libertarian, I can see a downside in the risk of overshooting/collateral damage.

      Maybe they defund PP, and then they pass some federal level extra regulations on private providers because they’ve got momentum.

      Maybe they don’t manage to defund PP, but they do pass such laws as a consolation prize.

      Now I don’t think that’s very likely, since the videos put the spotlight directly on PP as an organization, but it’s a risk.

      1. That is pretty thin gruel. Extra regulations for the most unregulated medical procedure known the man. Oh noes!!

        Worst case is they stop paying for abortions with tax money.

        1. “stop paying for abortions with tax money”

          Not long ago a number of people here claimed that Abortions should be paid for with Medicaid

          (*because its ‘cheaper’ by some arbitrary calculus that suggests every abortion = 1 less poor person)

        2. Extra regulations for the most unregulated medical procedure known the man.

          That’s a reason to deregulate other medical procedures, of course.

      2. And the US already has the most liberal fucking abortion laws in the free world. What are you afraid of, that 14 year old girls might have to tell their parents or rat out their over age boyfriends?

        1. I’m against pretty much every regulatory measure that isn’t. And you and I both know how stuff creeps in over time.

          I can respect the position of pro-lifers, but the tactic some have taken of using “health regulations” to stop something they dislike, but can’t ban outright because of the courts, is something right out of the progressive playbook, and I very much dislike it.

          1. ^that isn’t absolutely required to stop societal collapse.

    2. John’s take shows how KULTUR WAR blinds people.

      Defunding PP won’t affect the legality of abortions one bit.

      PP is virtually the lab example of what libertarians should oppose: (1) a taxpayer funded organization that (2) uses that tax money to advance a political agenda and support candidates that are hostile to freedom generally, even if they do have one position (pro-choice) that you like.

      Fuck that. How any libertarian could oppose defunding them and forcing them to live off of voluntary donations and earned fees is a mystery to me.

      1. I suspect that at some point PP will have to step aside in favor of abortionists with less…baggage. That would actually be in the interests of the choicers.

        But of course PP isn’t going to just take one for the team, acknowledge that its activities have become a liability, and go out of business, transferring its staff and assets to other, less radioactive organizations.

        No, they have too much self-interest at stake.

        And so long as PP insists on putting itself forward as the face of the choicer movement, then prolifers should focus on publicizing everything that’s wrong with the group.

        1. But prolifers have to be careful to plan for the time that Planned Parenthood steps aside in favor of other abortionists. By personalizing the conflict exclusively in terms of PP, prolifers won’t be ready for when others fill the gap PP leaves.

  21. Disagree completely. The law is CA is a two party state. Those doing the recording are not remotely recognized as journalists to even try to claim 1st amendment trump card and nobody involved is a public official.

    The problem with recording laws is not that they protect private individuals but that they shelter public officials.

    1. That just means you have to pay if you publish it does not mean a judge can order you not to. You only get prior restraint if it is defamation which is not a alleged here.

    2. Those doing the recording are not remotely recognized as journalists to even try to claim 1st amendment trump card

      Whew, it’s a good thing the 1st Amendment only applies to “recognized” journalists! Just think if it applied to ordinary cunts like you and me. Chaos!

    3. WHAT?!

      Cal. Pen. Code section 632: “(c) The term “confidential communication”… but excludes a communication made… in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.”

      One may be overheard in public restaurants, obviously. Even if the recording is made in violation of the code, the code does not ban publication of the contents of the communication or publication of a recording, because they it would run afoul of both the Federal and California constitutions.

      Good news for you! The First Amendment protects YOU, even though you’re not a journalist from state actors – including judges – issuing orders enjoining you from engaging in First-Amendment-protected speech.

  22. The problem with these propaganda films is exactly the same as the problem with PETA propaganda films showing beef cattle being slaughtered, or male chicks being destroyed. Playing to the ignorance of people who never had to kill and clean their own meat can generate a nice shock value. But it is a callous appeal to emotion born of ignorance.

    These PP videos are the same thing. If you are opposed to abortion, it is the abortion that you should be opposed to. Using the tissues collected during the abortion for something positive is an unqualified good thing. Stopping the killing of unborn children is another thing altogether.

    Mirror check for everyone arguing this issue: if you have to check to see if you agree with the group before you take a position on their hidden camera reporting and the prior restraint of publication, you don’t have as tight a hold on your principles as you thought. Using the PETA folks as a gauge might help you decide if you are doing some motivated reasoning here.

    The proper libertarian position, as always, is that everyone else is wrong. The guys making the propaganda film are wrong. The judge who blocks publication is wrong. The idiots who think this proves their point about abortion are wrong. The people who think any opposition to abortion is born of misogyny are wrong.

    That’s what’s great about being libertarian. You pretty much always get to say “a pox on both your houses!”

    1. Why is making a film that embarrassing people on the other side wrong? The films are not deceptive. This is who these people are.

      You are such a prog toady you can’t bring yourself to admit the left is wrong without playing pox on both houses. This is why so many libertarians are pathetic

      1. You have looked into the mirror and seen….. nothing.

        BTW, the house I brought along to castigate was the proggie house. So epic fail on all counts. But that’s what happens when one confuses argument with contradiction.

  23. But even so, the judge’s order is obviously a version of prior restraint, judicially preventing something from being published. The First Amendment takes a dim view of such actions

    Even with so much obvious fraud?

    1. Fraud is an actionable offense once it’s actually taken place. Prior restraint prevents you from getting to that point by preventing publication before the (alleged) offense has been adjudicated. The law is kind of hard though. You just focus on your ongoing campaign to lose in 5th place for the position of county dog catcher so you can enlighten the libertarian movement writ large on how to achieve electoral success.

    2. You’re using the term “fraud” colloquially.

      Maybe you’re not aware, but it’s not illegal to go by a name other than the one your parents gave you.

      It’s not illegal to set up a corporation – the corporate entities involved in the case are all real.

      It’s not illegal to repeat what someone tells you, even if that person wishes for the conversation to remain between the parties.

      If you want what you say to remain confidential, you need a contract. Of course, if you get a contract to keep a conversation confidential so that you can conspire with another person to violate the law, those contracts are not enforceable.

      In California, the following is the law: “125320. (a) A person may not knowingly, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue for research purposes pursuant to this chapter.
      (b) For purposes of this section, “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payment for the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transplantation, or
      implantation of a part.
      (c) Embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue may be donated for
      research purposes pursuant to this chapter.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.