March 29, 2017

"The two antiabortion activists who mounted a hidden-camera investigation against Planned Parenthood officials have been charged with 15 felony counts..."

"... of violating the privacy of health-care providers by recording confidential information without their consent. In announcing the charges against David Robert Daleiden and Sandra Merritt on Tuesday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the duo used manufactured identities and a fictitious bioresearch company to meet medical officials and covertly record the private discussions they initiated.... The secretly recorded conversations dropped during the politically tumultuous summer of 2015, amid a crowded field of Republican presidential contenders, and turned Daleiden into the biggest star of the antiabortion movement.... Daleiden’s lawyer, Steve Cooley, a former district attorney of Los Angeles, blamed the charges on Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), a former attorney general of California whose office initiated the investigation that produced Tuesday’s charges. He claims Harris corrupted the current attorney general’s office to 'pander to her constituents and her supporters.'"

Reports The Washington Post, which embeds the privacy-invading video.

113 comments:

David said...

I'd be looking for a change of venue to (say) Utah or The Vatican. So much for sly tricksters.

Achilles said...

The left cannot tolerate dissent or the truth.

David Begley said...

No expectation of privacy in those recordings; Ninth Circuit precedent. Lawfare.

Bob Ellison said...

That "privacy-invading video" reveals a mobster talking numbers to what she thinks is another mobster. "I'm gonna throw a number out there." Lady, you're trafficking. I like laws and fair process, but c'mon.

buwaya said...

This is what the celebrated left-wing muckrakers used to do, and they are heroes to the left.

Michael K said...

This "Lawfare" as practiced by the crooks who run California.

I hope those young folks get their legal defense paid for.

bagoh20 said...

" health-care providers"

Yes and no. Depends on who you talk to about the health care they were getting. Some patients could not be reached for comment despite being spread around multiple locations in tupperware.

Chuck said...

I saw Kamala Harris on tv last night. And I remember the days when the go-to line about her went something like this; Oh, yeah; Kamala Harris! She's that liberal Attorney General from California. She's going to get elected to something much bigger in the near future. She's so hot; Obama even said something about how hot she is..."

She's not hot. She's a slightly overweight woman in her fifties, with a crappy haircut and clothes like, well, an attorney general. And there are plenty of women who are hot, notwithstanding being in their fifties. Kamala Harris isn't one of them.

David Begley said...

Kamala Harris is the next President. Black and female and good looking per Barack.

David Begley said...

Harris would be historic. Break the glass ceiling. Well qualified. Accomplished. Experienced.

Inga said...

I think Kamela Harris is a very attractive woman and not in the least overweight. There not a thing wrong with her haircuts and the good brain under that hair, IMO. Her looks are not what's going to make or break her rise among liberals and democrats.

These two doofuses broke laws. Now they are being held to account.

Darrell said...

Yet, bomb throwers in Berkeley aren't even arrested. The Law is not only an ass now, it is the biggest one around.

GAHCindy said...

I knew patients had some kind of right to privacy, but since do professionals (not even the doctors here!) doing a job get one? I dunno a thing about law, so maybe that question makes my ignorance obvious. But under what law is this something that can be prosecuted? The article doesn't give the wording of any specific law that I can see. Maybe a wiretapping law? In most states, aren't recordings allowed as long as one party knows about it? This all sounds very bogus to me.

mockturtle said...

What about animal rights activists who covertly film chicken farms, etc.? Or environmental activists who film while illegally trespassing in a factory? Oh, I forgot. The leftist privacy-invaders are sacrosanct.

And don't tell me abortion isn't a business.

Inga said...

Here's the Criminal Complaint

Chuck said...

Inga said...
I think Kamela Harris is a very attractive woman and not in the least overweight. There not a thing wrong with her haircuts and the good brain under that hair, IMO. Her looks are not what's going to make or break her rise among liberals and democrats.

These two doofuses broke laws. Now they are being held to account.


I'm going way out on a limb here, to suggest that contrary to popular suspicions, Inga and Chuck are not the same person.

Inga said...

"I'm going way out on a limb here, to suggest that contrary to popular suspicions, Inga and Chuck are not the same person."

LOL!

robother said...

Hmmm. I wonder if any of those NBC secret recording ambushes of pedophiles were due in CA?

dreams said...

The crooked Dems kill the innocent and provide sanctuary for criminal illegal aliens.

Curious George said...

"GAHCindy said...
I knew patients had some kind of right to privacy, but since do professionals (not even the doctors here!) doing a job get one? I dunno a thing about law, so maybe that question makes my ignorance obvious. But under what law is this something that can be prosecuted? The article doesn't give the wording of any specific law that I can see. Maybe a wiretapping law? In most states, aren't recordings allowed as long as one party knows about it? This all sounds very bogus to me."

California is a two party consent state....but as has been stated above their is direct precedent that states there is no expectation of privacy...from a NBC undercover of mammograms.

Curious George said...

I'm sure the ACLU will step in soon to help.

LarsPorsena said...

"....These two doofuses broke laws. Now they are being held to account....."

Right you are, Inga. Just like all those who break immigration laws.
Do you think the California authorities will hold to account immigration law breakers with the same rigor and vigor?

rhhardin said...

Esperanto lesson, sentences to translate. kamelo = camel

9. The arab shook his head and said, "No." 10. But the camel commenced to go through the door. 11. His remark did not seem to surprise the camel. 12. The camel pushed its head and neck, and soon its whole body into the warm house. 13. It wished to put merely its nose into it. 14. The arab was angry, because it pushed itself into his house. 15. He said, "Brother, the house is mine, and I do not wish to have you in it." 16. But soon after the remark, the whole camel was in the house. 17. He pushed the young arab into the street. 18. He went across the street and stood upon the grass under a tree.

Palindrome
Sane volema kara rara kamelo venas. A healthily wishful dear rare camel is coming.

Chuck said...

Inga, thanks for posting the .pdf of the criminal complaint.

It all boils down to one thing; by statute, California is one of the minority of states that requires "all party consent" to do electronic recording. (Other states are "one party consent," which is to say that you are allowed to record your own conversations whether or not you notify the other party(ies) to that recording.)

Seems pretty simple, but there's a vast body of case law narrowing those all-party statutes.

The only other count in the complaint was a conspiracy charge, bootstrapped off the eavesdropping charges.

It actually is a refreshingly simple and clear complaint. What is very much unclear is whether there will be a conviction.

buwaya puti said...

Kamala Harris is the face of California corruption. She is the figurehead of what was the Willy Brown machine.
Floating in corporatist funding, and owning the local government system.
Tammany hall does not begin to describe the scale of this situation. It's like boss Tweed, or a coalition of them, owned the whole state, and moreover had intimate control of the whole economy.

Big Mike said...

So is it equally illegal for "60 Minutes" to use ambush journalism and hidden cameras? Or is this another case of Democrats saying that the law is for thee but not for me?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

They are being charged under California Penal Code Section 632:

(a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication...

It will depend on whether the conversations should be considered confidential communication

(c) The term “confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

Mike said...

Meanwhile undercover videos of poultry farms are all over LA local news stations. So long as you are protecting chicken parts and not baby parts it is OK to do undercover videos in California. Helluva standard there Democrats!

Mike said...

Oh and these same local stations are famous for their "auto repair scam" multi-part series where they send in a female with a car and they capture video of the mechanics doing unseemly things (squirting oil on shocks) and recommending bogus repairs. This is an evergreen activity during sweeps weeks.

Is Inga recommending we prosecute local journalists for these obviously illegal recordings?

Is "60 Minutes" barred from their usual activities in my home state?

Are Democrats ever consistent in the application of laws like this when it comes to journalists?

Inga said...

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/28/felony-charges-for-2-who-secretly-filmed-planned-parenthood/

"Abortion opponents said the recordings showed Planned Parenthood was illegally harvesting and selling the organs. Planned Parenthood said the videos were deceptively edited to support extremists’ false claims.

“As we have said from the beginning, and as more than a dozen different state investigations have made clear: Planned Parenthood has done nothing wrong, and the only people who broke the law are those behind the fraudulent tapes,” said Mary Alice Carter, interim vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood, in a statement."

Darrell said...

Thanks, Inga. But intelligent people know better.

buwaya said...

"Planned Parenthood has done nothing wrong"

Legally, in those states, no, they were not breaking laws or not any that the State wanted to enforce. But they have done evil.

Chuck said...

Check your own state law out here:

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide

It's about 38 to 12; '1-party' to '2-party' consent states.

Michael K said...

Inga has Planned Parenthood's back.

Was it Hillary who said her mother was not able to get an abortion because it was illegal ?

Lots of mental firepower on the left.

Drago said...

Inga is going the "Full Arpaio" on the filmmakers!

I can't wait to hear from Inga how she plans on cracking down on illegal immigrants! This should be good.

Drago said...

"Law and Order" Inga is probably a closet Trump supporter, given her desire to fully enforce any and all laws against all lawbreakers.

Inga said...

"Full Arpaio"? Yes let's lock up these two doofuses in tents outside in 105 degree temps and make them wear pink jumpsuits... or something. As Chuck said, there is a possibility they will be found innocent of the charges, don't go nuts.

mezzrow said...

I see what you did at the end, you sly trickster.

Point made.

Birches said...

Was the woman who secretly recorded former LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling ever charged for her illegal recording? She cost him an NBA franchise. Seems pretty law worthy, no?

Ann Althouse said...

A digital media law site has this:

"California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

"If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.

"If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2."

James Pawlak said...

The cited "right to privacy" is/was for the protection of patients and NOT professional killers.

Humperdink said...

It should be pointed out, charges were dropped in Texas.

OTOH, if this goes to trial, think of the platform these activists will have during the trial. Hopefully, the entire Planned Murderhood operation would be exposed for what they are.

Ann Althouse said...

Thanks for linking to the criminal complaint, Inga.

That does cite §632, which is the law in that passage I put up.

Seems to me the central question is whether the conversation that was in a public place, in a restaurant, was confidential. Did the party that didn't consent to the recording have a reasonable expectation that no one could hear her?

It's a criminal law, so the ambiguity should be resolved on the side of the defendant. Also, there's a freedom of speech issue, another reason to construe the statute narrowly.

I can't believe the people of California want all such recordings retaliated against like this. The selective prosecution angle is especially bad. But show me who else has been prosecuted.

walter said...

So..think these folks went into this w/o counsel/knowledge of the law?

Inga said...

You're welcome Chuck and Althouse.

DanTheMan said...

This isn't about making a case. It's a warning to anyone else who might embarrass the left and their pet causes.
Just like the cake bakers: Make examples of the first ones, the rest will back down.

Qwinn said...

If Hillary actually said her mother was unable to get an abortion because it was illegal, that is hands down the best pro abortion argument I've ever heard. I'm still against it, but just for a second there...

Roy Jacobsen said...

The servants of Moloch at work.

Ann Althouse said...

"Planned Parenthood has done nothing wrong."

That's a stupid way to put it.

Should say nothing legally wrong.

Or you're just helping anti-abortion people make their argument.

Richard Dolan said...

PP gets some $500 million in taxpayer funding annually, or so the news reports say. It will be interesting to see whether that level of gov't funding is enough effectively to make PP a gov'tal actor for purposes of evaluating whether the defendants can be prosecuted for taping these interaction. Hasn't worked out so well when police have tried to charge bystanders for making non-consensual records of their interactions with the public. There was also a report that Ms. Richards testified in Congressional hearings that the meetings videotaped by the defendants were not 'confidential.'

Perhaps Team Volokh and his First Amendment clinic will get involved.

The Godfather said...

So the trial will provide an occasion for further publicizing the trade in baby parts. This helps the abortion cause how?

Inga said...

Althouse,
The quote is from the Denver Post. It's hard to say what made them omit the word "legal", unless they were trying to say there is nothing wrong with asking women to donate their fetuses' remains to medical science.

DKWalser said...

Has 60 Minutes or some other investigative journalist been brought up on criminal charges for such an offense before? Investigative journalists have been using this technique since before I was born. When did it suddenly become illegal?

Francisco D said...

We should ask James Comey if this is a case that a reasonable prosecutor would pursue.

Humperdink said...

How about this Arizona video?

"In their discussion surrounding late-term abortions and intact fetuses in order to harvest body parts, Dr. Taylor explains that babies who are born alive are supposed to be transported to the hospital by law. When pressed, she explains their actions with the living babies depend on "who's in the room,".....

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14892/shock-video-former-planned-parenthood-director-amanda-prestigiacomo

The commie-pinko dems have this thing about tossing videographers in the pokey, while ignoring the underlying issue. Discernment is not their strong suit.

Inga said...

Sorry, correction, it was the representative of PP, Mary Alice Carter, that made the comment.

buwaya said...

What these fellows did was unmask the face of Satan.
The recordings are fascinating on many levels. This is the banality of evil, Hannah Arendt's term, for the normalization of the most terrible sins. These are self-satisfied, comfortable people casually discussing horrors.

buwaya said...

"Discernment is not their strong suit."

Discernment is beside the point. Its all about power, anything else is simply a problem or a tool. They will ignore whatever it is convenient to ignore.

Francisco D said...

Kamala Harris is an attractive woman, but does not seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer.

It is sadly ironic that a woman who failed the California Bar exam sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and decides not to vote for Judge Gorsuch because he follows the law instead of his feelings.

Like Hillary (who failed the DC Bar exam), I suspect that her grasp of legal reasoning is tenuous, at best.

Inga said...

Hospitals also ask women who have miscarried if they want to donate the remains of the fetus to medical science. Why haven't they received any blowback? We haven't seen any tapes of the head of the departments of the hospitals that deal with such things, negotiating with the facilities that do the research.

Yancey Ward said...

There is no expectation of privacy in this particular instance. This should be thrown out by the first judge it comes in contact with, but we all know it won't happen- the politics are completely aligned against the defendants with regards to who is prosecuting them and where it is being conducted.

One would hope that even the most ardent pro-choice advocates and supporters of Planned Parenthood would feel this prosecution is unjustified as both a matter of law and principle, but idealism has no place in this world it appears. I hope the defendants have good representation- they are going to need it since political prisoners don't usually fair too well.

Michael K said...

"a woman who failed the California Bar exam "

It isn;t important since she passed the Willie Brown blowjob test.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Planned Parenthood said the videos were deceptively edited to support extremists’ false claims."

Planned Parenthood lies. The entire videos are available for viewing (I watched them. I'm sure Inga didn't.) and confirm what the edited ones showed - that PP is running a chop shop and trafficking in baby parts.

It's an utterly vile organization.

MikeR said...

Very similar to the Michael Mann defamation case. I would hope that the Washington Post, the LA Times, and other media outlets will file amicus curiae in favor of the defendants, as they did against Michael Mann - because they do this kind of thing all the time and indeed believe that it is essential to being able to do their jobs.

wendybar said...

Obviously can't let the truth get out there anymore...The lefts religion main sacrifice is their Baby Killing Machine... Funny what the left will indict for, and what they ignore!

wendybar said...

Inga said...
Hospitals also ask women who have miscarried if they want to donate the remains of the fetus to medical science. Why haven't they received any blowback? We haven't seen any tapes of the head of the departments of the hospitals that deal with such things, negotiating with the facilities that do the research.

3/29/17, 1:05 PM

Maybe because the BABY died of natural causes and wasn't torn apart while it was pulled out alive???

Larry J said...

Big Mike said...
So is it equally illegal for "60 Minutes" to use ambush journalism and hidden cameras? Or is this another case of Democrats saying that the law is for thee but not for me?


There are a lot of TV journalists who cut their teeth doing hidden camera hit pieces. If I was one of them, I'd be very worried.

Browndog said...

If conservatives want to get all loud mouthed and uppity, they'd better have a good fix on the politics of their county prosecutor.

A felony conviction is very efficient at taking away your guns and right to vote; let alone shutting you up.

Land of the free.....

Francisco D said...

Michael K wrote: " ...she passed the Willie Brown blowjob test."

LOL!

In Chicago, you have to work the precincts on election day and hand over a bag filled with cash to receive political "mentoring" Things really seem different in California.

mockturtle said...

Good point, Browndog!

mockturtle said...

Francisco D observes: In Chicago, you have to work the precincts on election day and hand over a bag filled with cash to receive political "mentoring" Things really seem different in California.

Yes, in 'Californica', a blow job is more valuable currency than cash.

Bruce Hayden said...

In Joe Arpaio's defense, the stated purpose of the pink underwear was to detect and deter theft, thereof, and not to embarrass the inmates. When being discharged, it became much easier to detect jail prisoners wearing jail underwear because it was, well, pink. Prior to their introduction, there was apparently quite a bit of theft for the MCSD marked underwear as souvenirs. Dying them pink wa supposedly cheaper than constantly replacing them. Sure, the official justification may have been pretextual, but it was plausible.

Also, a lot of the MCSD inmates preferred Tent City over the jail, because parts of the latter had pretty bad air conditioning. Problem was that the only people who could get into it were longer term convicted inmates (who weren't headed to ADC prisons). This excluded those awaiting trial, sentencing, or with short sentences. Compounding this, AZ either doesn't have a speedy trial requirement, or it is a lot weaker than I was used to in CO - I know someone who just testified in a trial of someone held in MCSD jail for two and a half years before trial (I think the defendant there got 7-10 years, but will get credit for the 2 1/2 years).

Big Mike said...

While everybody is focusing on the complaint against these courageous young journalists, let's not forget the culpability of Planned Parenthood. As I understand it the law allows them to harvest tissue from aborted fetuses for research purposes, and they are entitled to charge "reasonable" fees to cover the costs of sample preparation, shipping, and handling. However they are not permitted to make a profit from these activities. The question that the two journalists appropriately raise is whether Plsnned Parenthood follows the law or not.

Inga said...

"Maybe because the BABY died of natural causes and wasn't torn apart while it was pulled out alive???"

Yes, probably so. However, PP did not require women to donate the remains of their fetuses, PP didn't force women to have an abortion. The aborting women were asked if they wanted to sign a permission form, as do the women who miscarried in the hospital.

Inga said...

"However they are not permitted to make a profit from these activities. The question that the two journalists appropriately raise is whether Plsnned Parenthood follows the law or not."

PP Invesitgations in 12 states find no fetal tissue sales.

Rick said...

This law referenced has already been ruled not applicable where there is no expectation of privacy.

In 1999 a California appeals court ruled that NBC News producers did not violate California's wiretapping law when they secretly recorded a lunch meeting at a Malibu restaurant, since the targets, executives of a company that allegedly sold fraudulent toll-free numbers, "had no objective expectation of privacy in their business lunch meeting." The court noted that one of the executives conceded he "did not say anything he thought was a secret," that the meeting involved a standard sales pitch, and that the executives showed no reticence around the restaurant's staff.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1129683.html

From:

https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/29/anti-abortion-activists-face-dubious-eav

DanTheMan said...

>>KOSMETIK, DAN ACCESORIES SEX P/W TERLENGKAP...!!

First of all, Cosmetic accessories sex is strictly Laslo territory.
As for me, throw out the hardware. Let's do it right.

Not Dylan. Sorry.

Bruce Hayden said...

These privacy rights really do vary state to state (Chuck - thanks for the link). Looked up the three states that I spend the most time in (MT, AZ, CO) and CA. AZ and CO are one party states, while CA and MT are two party states. CO has a nice exception for news people (which arguably could have been utilized here).

Reading the AZ article, I had another thought. I have installed some video surveillance equipment at the new house in AZ, and plan to install more. Was looking at a bunch of different systems at Fry's Electronics yesterday. In any case, DIL and her husband are all paranoid about surveillance in the guest bedroom. I find that ludicrous, but may provide them the cited statute that essentially bans video recording people in bedrooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.

I think that it is important to know at least the laws of the state you live in. I wasn't surprised that CA is a 2 party state, but was surprised that MT is. That means that when we are in MT, we can't record any conversations with anyone unless we disclose the recording. You call me up here in AZ, and I can probably record the call. Not so in MT (without telling you).

Rick said...

These two doofuses broke laws. Now they are being held to account.

3/29/17, 11:39 AM
Blogger Darrell said...
Yet, bomb throwers in Berkeley aren't even arrested. The Law is not only an ass now, it is the biggest one around.


This discrepancy is why the left spent so much effort in their march through the institutions. As long as a good liberal decides who is charged and who isn't they will always deem offenses against their beliefs more seriously, especially since this practice has been normalized through their control of academia and media.

Rusty said...

You'd think PP isn't all that proud of what they do.
Hey! Look at all the services we offer! Let's see if we can meet your needs!

n.n said...

There was a similar ruling when the veil of privacy was lifted from the gas chambers.

Planned Parenthood is in good company... and then there was clinical cannibalism.

The pro-life activists are allied with humanity and stand on unimpeachable moral ground.

dbp said...

"These two doofuses broke laws. Now they are being held to account."

I'm so old, I remember when people were presumed innocent unless convicted in a court of law.

n.n said...

don't tell me abortion isn't a business

It's an industry with a nearly 100% kill-rate and greater than zero rate (thanks to unqualified abortionists) of collateral damage. Social justice adventurism (e.g. wars of aggression, catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform) comes in second. Defensive wars come in third.

mockturtle said...

According to the CDC: In 2013, 664,435 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2013 was 12.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 200 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Can you imagine if we lost that many babies due to a virus or war? People would be furious. Two abortions for every ten live births. Shocking.

Big Mike said...

@Inga, so if Planned Parenthood charges hundreds of dollars -- as apparently they do -- for fetal tissue samples, you believe -- on what basis, may I ask? -- that these are reasonable costs of sample preparation, shipping, and handling? Seems to me that if any prosecutor was serious about forensic accounting, he or she would win in court.

Interestingly enough, I support abortion and I strongly support research using fetal tissue samples. But the cause does not justify breaking the law. Not now, not ever.

Inga said...

"Interestingly enough, I support abortion and I strongly support research using fetal tissue samples. But the cause does not justify breaking the law. Not now, not ever."

Big Mike. There were 12 investigations in 12 different states that exonerated PP from any crimes. Did you not read the link I provided that listed every state that investigated PP and found them innocent of illegal wrongdoing? I trust that if any of theses states, especially red states like Texas, would've found wrongdoing, we would've seen charges against PP.

Birches said...

Inga is partially right. There isn't anything wrong with donating to science. The problem with these videos is that it shows the dishonesty in pretending a fetus is not human while simultaneously profiting off of their very human body parts. Althouse's position on abortion (that it is legally sanctioned killing) is not really the POV that most pro abortion people propagandize. They push the idea that an unborn child is an unwanted parasite, that abortion is like getting a tumor removed. These videos show the dishonesty of their rhetoric and that's why the people that exposed their duplicity must be punished.

jaed said...

reasonable costs of sample preparation, shipping, and handling?

If you look at the transcript of that first tape, it was made clear that the buyer was expected to bear all those costs. They didn't come out of the fee to Planned Parenthood. The PP director made clear that their preference was that the buyer send a lab tech to prepare and select the parts and organs to be purchased. If PP had to have one of their people do it, the price would be higher to account for that person's work time.

Matthew Sablan said...

"(c) The term “confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded."

-- If I'm thinking the same videos, several were done at public places, where they even had people not related to the recordings come by and walk near by; I think one was at a restaurant with a waiter? Yeah. A reasonable person would expect to be overheard at a restaurant or public event. Unless there were recordings in a private office, and even then, there's precedent in not charging people who take video in places that it makes no sense to me.

Big Mike said...

@Inga, no I didn't. Judging from your comments it would be a waste of a mouse click. There are investigations and then there are investigations. As Professor Althouse would put it, res ipsa loquitur.

Rick said...

Birches said...
There isn't anything wrong with donating to science.


Donating tissue is not and never has been the issue. The issue has always been selling. Planned Parenthood is hiding behind the word game that exchanging tissue for money is not selling as long as they refer to the money half of the exchange as a reimbursement.

Imagine how fast the government would be broke if such nonsense were accepted in tax law. If Home Depot starts calling their receipts reimbursements for their employee's time does it mean they aren't selling tools?

Inga said...

Florida

In July 2015, Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott ordered a state investigation to see whether Planned Parenthood was "selling body parts," Politico Florida reported at the time. On Aug. 5, the agency investigating the clinics released its findings, saying that none of the state's Planned Parenthood sites had been selling tissue or body parts. However, the investigation did find that one clinic out of Florida's 16 wasn't correctly keeping its records of fetal remains. In addition, three were found to have been performing second-trimester abortions while only being licensed to perform abortions in the first trimester, according to Politico. Planned Parenthood disputed this, arguing that the state had changed the rules on how it measured the first trimester, as Reuters reported. Though it briefly looked like the state and Planned Parenthood agreed on the issue, Politico reported, the organization was fined in September 2015.

Georgia

Republican Gov. Nathan Deal on July 16, 2015, asked the state's Departments of Community Health and Public Health to investigate whether Planned Parenthood was engaging in the "horrific practice" that the CMP's videos claimed to depict. On Aug. 13, the Department of Public Health reported that all five of the clinics had "proper procedures in place for burial or internment of [fetal] remains," as NPR member station WABE reported.

Indiana

In July 2015, Republican Gov. Mike Pence asked the state Department of Health to investigate the state's Planned Parenthood clinics, to see whether they were engaging in any sale of fetal tissue, local TV station WTHR reported. Weeks later, the department said it had "concluded there was no evidence of this type of activity" at three Planned Parenthood facilities in the state, as the Indianapolis Star reported.

Inga said...

Kansas

On July 21, 2015, Republican Gov. Sam Brownback asked his state's Board of Healing Arts "to address the issue of sale of tissue and organs from the unborn" at Planned Parenthood facilities, the Topeka Capital-Journal reported. This month, the board said it had "determined no further action would be taken at this time," per the Associated Press.

Massachusetts

On July 17, 2015, Republican state Rep. James Lyons sent a letter to Democratic state Attorney General Maura Healey, asking her to launch an investigation into whether Planned Parenthood was participating in fetal tissue sales like those the CMP video purported to show, as the Boston Herald reported. On July 29, Healey responded in a statement that the state's Planned Parenthood sites were "fully compliant with state and federal laws regarding the disposition of fetal tissue" and were not participating in any fetal tissue donation, though it is legal in that state, as the Boston Globe reported.

Michigan

On July 16, 2015, Republican state Sen. Phil Pavlov asked the state to investigate "to determine whether or not any Michigan-based facilities have participated in the horrifying sale of babies' body parts," MLive reported. In October, the two departments handling the investigations issued a statement, saying that "there is no evidence to date that illegal practices are occurring," MLive reported.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Hospitals also ask women who have miscarried if they want to donate the remains of the fetus to medical science. Why haven't they received any blowback?"

-- Do hospitals reschedule medical procedures to get a better yield or lie to the women having the procedures about what will be done to maximize the yield, as was revealed in this and other videos?

Inga said...

Missouri

On July 21, 2015, Democratic Attorney General Chris Koster started an investigation, saying that "the questions raised by [CMP's] videos require careful review," local TV station KMBC reported. In September, a release from Koster's office said the investigation turned up no "irregularities involving the transmission, examination, or disposal of the fetal organs and tissue" from abortions at the state's one clinic that performed surgical abortions, as the New York Times reported.

Nevada

In September 2015, Nevada Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt sent a letter to Nevada Planned Parenthood facilities. Mentioning the videos, the letter asked the sites about their abortion procedures and also asked if they donate fetal tissue, as the AP reported. In December 2015, his office closed the investigation, saying that the facilities weren't performing surgical abortions and that there also wasn't evidence of tissue donation, according to the AP.

Ohio

In mid-July 2015, Ohio Republican Attorney General Mike DeWine announced that he was launching an investigation into whether any Planned Parenthood clinics in the state were selling fetal parts, according to Cleveland.com. In December, the state released the investigation, revealing that there was no evidence of any such sales. However, investigators did find that fetal remains were disposed of via incinerators or landfills, which, while not illegal, DeWine claimed "violate[d] Ohio administrative code," as Cleveland.com reported. (An Ohio Planned Parenthood official disputed his claim.)

Inga said...

Pennsylvania

In July, two Republican state legislators asked the state attorney general to investigate whether Planned Parenthood in Pennsylvania was selling fetal tissue, Philly.com reported. In August, state Health Secretary Karen Murphy responded in a letter that there was no evidence that any Pennsylvania facilities were buying, selling or donating fetal tissue, as The Hill reports.

South Dakota

In July 2015, Republican state Attorney General Marty Jackley instructed the state Health Department to investigate whether fetal tissue sales were occurring at Planned Parenthood, the AP reported. On Aug. 11, 2015, Jackley told the Associated Press that "there are no reports, complaints or inspection records that would demonstrate any evidence (of) illegal activity in South Dakota at this time."

Washington

In late July 2015, 34 Republican lawmakers wrote a letter asking Democratic Attorney General Bob Ferguson to investigate whether the state's Planned Parenthood clinics were selling fetal parts, the Seattle Times reported. In November, Ferguson reported that the state had found no evidence that the state's affiliates were selling fetal tissue. Washington is home to one of only two clinics (the other being in California) that Planned Parenthood says currently donate any fetal tissue to researchers.

In addition, eight states (California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia) decided not to pursue investigations into the videos' allegations.

Inga said...

"@Inga, no I didn't. Judging from your comments it would be a waste of a mouse click. There are investigations and then there are investigations."

Big Mike,
If you suspect these investigations were bogus, then I suggest you write to the authorities in the various states and file a complaint.

Matthew Sablan said...

They may not be bogus, but there's a difference between "couldn't find anything" and "didn't want to find anything."

Remember. Investigations into Kermit Gosnell's abortion practice turned up nothing for years.

bagoh20 said...

This is like when your older brother puts his fist right up to your eye and claims he's doing nothing wrong becuase he isn't touching you.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, from the videos, I think the problem is that what is an illegal sale and what offends people's sensibilities are radically different, and USUALLY the politics are the other way (see arts funding for Piss Christ.)

bagoh20 said...

"Althouse's position on abortion (that it is legally sanctioned killing)" which is often morally fine in my opinion, except that with abortion, the important things are that it's unnecessary, and it's killing of the innocent, which makes all the difference.

n.n said...

Gas chambers and medical experimentation were legal practices in the past and not so distant present. Unwanted or unfavored human lives were deemed unworthy, denied their personhood, denied their dignity, denied their right to life.

How are modern practices of elective abortions, clinical cannibalism, and [class] diversity different?

The difference is not privacy, the state controls its reporting. The difference is not lack of familiarity, they are strangers and unknowns. It is not empathy, they are statistics.

A human life evolves from conception is an unimpeachable scientific truth. So, when and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain the right to life, to dignity?

Never again, maybe.

Matthew Sablan said...

Maybe I worded it wrong. The point is, we're used to the fact Republicans and Democrats value things differently; in some cases, one prefers the letter of the law, in other cases, it is the other way.

The fact that people in the videos expected to make money out of the deal makes it clear there was a profit motive, and not just "donations," but save for the videos, they've probably very carefully cooked the books to hide that desire.

Rick said...

Apparently Inga believes a crime cannot have occurred unless that same crime occurred in other states as well.

What an odd belief.

bagoh20 said...

"Maybe because the BABY died of natural causes and wasn't torn apart while it was pulled out alive???"

Disciples will tell you it's OK, becuase the law works in mysterious ways. We can never understand the minds of lawyers, or judges, or legislatures. We can only try to see their grace in our lives.

Humperdink said...

Humperdink said: "Discernment is not their strong suit."

buwaya responded: "Discernment is beside the point. Its all about power, anything else is simply a problem or a tool. They will ignore whatever it is convenient to ignore."

Lack of discernment between good and evil ......

themightypuck said...

Whatever happened to the chick who recorded Roger Sterling and subjected him to a forced sale of his basketball team (for loads of cash)?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

It is a fun argument: PP says they didn't talk about anything controversial and didn't do anything wrong--they were just discussing research practices at a restaurant or whatever. Such a conversation wouldn't have any reason to be confidential, since the participants weren't discussing anything secret it touchy, etc. This criminal charge, though, requires that the conversation (if held in a public place where others might overhear) be one of a confidential nature.
So...if they argue that what was being discussed was hush-hush material, admitting that the conversation covered things PP does not want to make public, the criminal charges make sense but then PP would have to actually make that admission. If they maintain that nothing untoward was discussed then there is no basis for a criminal charge.

Well, if the law meant anything, I mean. Obviously the attorney general of CA isn't restrained by the law. Isn't this the same attorney gen who got PP to help write the law she crafted to make recording "medical providers" illegal? How much money has the CA attorney gen taken from PP, do you think?

richardsson said...

Long agao, Xavier Becerra was once briefly my State Assemblyman. He even stopped in my garage while walking precincts. I was changing oil in my car and he wanted to shake hands with me. I told him don't be a fool. He sent out mail with all kinds of fruitcake ideas, and my neighbors who are mostly Asian made it clear that they wanted him to go away, which he did. My current Assemblyman is Ed Chau. He just proposed a law that would outlaw "fake news." Ha. Ha. I think he may have scuttled the bill to avoid hoots and laughter. I guess they don't teach the First Amendment in California law schools anymore.

Michael K said...

In August, state Health Secretary Karen Murphy responded in a letter that there was no evidence that any Pennsylvania facilities were buying, selling or donating fetal tissue, as The Hill reports.

Dr Kermit Gosnell could not be reached for comment. He is in prison.

He is America’s most prolific serial killer. And yet Kermit Gosnell was no obvious criminal. The abortion doctor was a pillar of his community, an advocate for women’s “reproductive health,” and a respected member of Philadelphia’s professional elite. His Women’s Medical Society Clinic looked like admirable community outreach by a brave doctor committed to upholding women’s rights. Meanwhile, inside the filthy building, Gosnell was casually murdering born-alive infants, butchering women, and making a macabre collection of severed babies’ feet.

Pennsylvania can certainly be trusted to investigate these things fairly.

damikesc said...

as more than a dozen different state investigations have made clear: Planned Parenthood has done nothing wrong

Multiple state investigations cleared the KKK as well.

Think about it, Inga. You support a group that is measurably WORSE than the KKK. I mean, sure, they have a lot of similarities:

1) Both supported HEAVILY by Democrats at the state and federal level
2) Both opposed HEAVILY by Republicans at the state and federal level
3) Both targeted lower-class, primarily black, people.

The main difference is that PP has killed way more people.

Also, the DOJ might need to take over CA due to rampant violations of civil rights. Cannot trust CA to respect the rights of all of their citizens by any measure.

Bruce Hayden said...

A couple things. First, apparently, PP contributed to the campaign of CA AG Becerra, whose office is prosecuting this. Many would suggest a conflict of interest. But, this is CA...

Also, someone brought up Free Speech and Freedom of the Press. Esp the latter. No question that this was newsworthy. Arguably, the statute is not unconstitutional as written, but may be so as applied. Pretty clearly designed to quell Should be interesting to see how this progresses. The 9th Circuit seems, to me, to be more interested in privacy than free speech (etc).

Matthew Blaine said...

Not politically motivated. Never mind that AG Harris collaborated with Planned Parenthood to draft AB 1671 to make recording healthcare providers illegal. Probably Cecile Richards felt testifying to Congress that having clinical discussions in a non-confidential setting wasn't so helpful.