Planned Parenthood vid indictments

[MajGenl.Meade]

The edited video, released July 14 by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress, leaves the impression that Nucatola is talking about Planned Parenthood affiliates making money from fetal tissue. But the edited video ignores other things Nucatola said that contradict that idea.

At one point in the unedited video (which was also released by the group), Nucatola says: “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.”

Here you are LJ - if you've got 2+ hours to spare:

[Lord Jim]

I'm not sure why that concept is difficult for anyone here to grasp; video is not, in fact, inherently more reliable if proven (as in this case) to have been subject to alteration/manipulation.

I'm not saying that it is....in fact, I'm saying pretty much the opposite....(and I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for anyone here to grasp... )

Let's look at this...

Apparently, now Econo has presented us with a "transcript" of the discussion:

the PP official, Deborah Nucatola, says:

“Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.”

Nucatola also says, :

“No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point, she says, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”

My question would be, what is the provenance for this (if not a video or an audio recording, then what? ) construction of the facts?

Are those "quotes" constructed out of thin air?

If so, then we're back to what I suggested earlier; "I prefer to believe what PP says because I prefer to believe what they say versus what the folks who made the video say"...

[Lord Jim]

Here you are LJ - if you've got 2+ hours to spare:

Actually, I only have about an hour to spare, and I've decided to devote that to a far more worthwhile use of my time...

Two back-to-back episodes of The Honey Mooners...

[Big RR]

Is one Hucklebuck?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Okay, so the contention is, that there is in fact an "unedited" video version that backs up the PP version of the conversation...

Wonderful... do you have a link for that?

Hey, you asked. The least you can do is to watch the entire thing.

[Lord Jim]

Is one Hucklebuck?

[Econoline]

Here's another (5 hour 42 minutes 12 seconds) "unedited" video (as noted above, there is evidence that this has, indeed, been edited...so what does that say about this group's honesty?) Apparently what they claim is the "full footage" is ~12 hours long broken into several pieces--which is still incomplete.



Here's some of the transcript (PDF; from the "Center for Medical Progress" itself). I really don't want to spend the time to go through the whole thing, but I found this bit on page 21:

PP: [...] they want to do this, but they want to do it in a way that’s not going to impact them, and it’s much much less about money. You could call them up and say, “I’ll pay you double the money,” and they’re almost more inclined to say no, because it’s going to look bad.
Buyer: Right.
PP: To them, this is not a service they should be making money from, it’s something they should be able to offer this to their patients, in a way that doesn’t impact them.
Buyer: Offsetting their costs.
PP: Right. No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.

Feel free to dig in and find some more quotes which back up PP's contentions. (And keep in mind that there may be more evidence incriminating CMP that they've edited out of the "unedited" footage--and that they (a) have already shown themselves to be inherently dishonest and (b) would have no motive or inclination to edit out anything which would show themselves in a bad light or PP in a good light.)

[Lord Jim]

A five hour 42 minute video? Really? Are you serious right now?

Yeah, I don't see that happening...

[Big RR]

Ready for the $99,000 Answer?

[Econoline]

A five hour 42 minute video? Really? Are you serious right now?

Yeah, I don't see that happening...

Hey, you're the one who asked for it:

Okay, so the contention is, that there is in fact an "unedited" video version that backs up the PP version of the conversation...

Wonderful... do you have a link for that?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hey - that's my line! LJ doesn't want to watch the facts just as he doesn't watch any comedy shows that are funny

[Econoline]

Jim, I've got to say that if you're surprised at the amount of video shot by these phony individuals with their phony corporation in their fishing expedition for quotes they could use out of context, then you really have NOT been following this story.

[rubato]

Jim, I've got to say that if you're surprised at the amount of video shot by these phony individuals with their phony corporation in their fishing expedition for quotes they could use out of context, then you really have NOT been following this story.

an illustration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_P ... ontroversy

The CMP videos consisted of portions of secretly recorded, hours-long conversations between actors hired by the CMP and Planned Parenthood staff. The actors posed as representatives of a non-existent company called Biomax Procurement Services, presenting themselves as potential buyers of fetal tissue and organs.[1] CMP claims that it has "hundreds if not thousands of hours of recordings."[2]

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an editorial in support of Planned Parenthood's "efforts to channel fetal tissue into important medical research". The editorial argued that many medical advances would not have been made without fetal tissue research and that "Planned Parenthood, its physicians, and the researchers who do this work should be praised, not damned." The NEJM described CMP's actions as a "campaign of misinformation" and said that it is shameful that CMP "continues to twist the facts to achieve its ends". In addition, the NEJM praised Planned Parenthood's contributions to women's health care and stated that the "contraception services that Planned Parenthood delivers may be the single greatest effort to prevent the unwanted pregnancies that result in abortions".[32]
... " ]

[Scooter]

[rubato]

And in Texas! That's the biggest surprise of all.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Texas antiabortion activists used fraud, judge in S.F. rules
By Bob Egelko
Updated 1:51 pm, Saturday, February 6, 2016

A federal judge in San Francisco has dealt another blow to antiabortion activists who infiltrated national meetings of abortion providers, saying they used fraud to gain access, failed to uncover any illegal activity and are prohibited from making public any of the recordings or other information they obtained.

David Daleiden and his colleagues at the Center for Medical Progress, posing as executives of a fetal research company, repeatedly tried to trap members of the National Abortion Federation into expressing interest in illegally selling fetal tissue, U.S. District Judge William Orrick said late Friday in an injunction against Daleiden’s group. Orrick said members of the group, in conversations they secretly recorded, used words like “profit” and “top dollar” and quoted abortion providers as expressing interest — but never found a single instance of anyone agreeing to sell fetal tissue for profit.

Despite Daleiden’s claims that he uncovered lawbreaking, the judge said, “there is no such evidence in (the) recordings,” but considerable evidence of deception by the antiabortion group.

Judge cites rising threats

The activists “created a fake company and lied to gain access to NAF’s annual meetings,” where they signed promises to keep everything they learned confidential, Orrick said. Since Daleiden’s organization released its first group of edited videos in July of its meetings with Planned Parenthood members — some of whom they had initially contacted at the National Abortion Federation meetings — there has been a “dramatic increase in the volume and extent of threats to and harassment of NAF and its members,” Orrick said.

A grand jury in Texas has charged Daleiden and another antiabortion activist, Sandra Merritt, with falsifying government documents, the fake California driver’s licenses they used to pose as researchers and gain access to Planned Parenthood offices. Daleiden is also charged with trying to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood. Merritt accompanied him to the National Abortion Federation meetings and is a defendant in the San Francisco case.

Orrick’s ruling “shows what a fraud this was from the very beginning,” said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. “The judge draws a direct line between their fraudulent campaign and the subsequent unprecedented escalation in hate speech and threats against abortion providers.”

The Center for Medical Progress will appeal Orrick’s ruling, said attorney Catherine Short of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. She said Daleiden’s group has never publicly released any recordings from the NAF meetings, although, with Orrick’s permission, it has provided some information to members of Congress.

Extending restraining order

The injunction extends a restraining order Orrick issued last July barring disclosure of recordings and other information Daleiden and his colleagues obtained at the abortion federation’s meetings in San Francisco in 2014 and Baltimore in 2015. Injunctions, unlike restraining orders, can be appealed to higher courts.

Daleiden has argued that the activists were acting as “investigative journalists” and had the right, under the First Amendment, to gain access to the meetings and expose the wrongdoing they uncovered. Orrick acknowledged the importance of the First Amendment, “a keystone of our Constitution and our democracy,” but said any free-speech rights Daleiden’s group could assert in this case were outweighed by the abortion providers’ rights to safety and privacy.

So far, Orrick said, the products of the Center for Medical Progress’s project “have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions (at least with respect to the NAF materials) of criminal conduct.”

source