Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

[kenny]

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/25/10830406/planned-parenthood-videos-indicted-daleiden

Partial snip:

The anti-abortion activists behind the Planned Parenthood sting videos just got indicted
Updated by Emily Crockett on January 26, 2016, 11:05 a.m. ET


A Houston grand jury has indicted two anti-abortion activists who were behind this summer's series of undercover anti-Planned Parenthood videos. The activists are David Daleiden, founder of the anti-abortion group that created and publicized the videos, and Sandra Merritt, who appeared with Daleiden in many of the videos.

 

[caf]

Re: The makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" have

Excellent

 

[ame]

Re: The makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" have

GOOD. Now restore all their funding, because it was taken away based on a VERY well known series of lies in a total witch hunt.

 

[monarch64]

I read this last night and cackled like the scary witch that I am.

 

[House Cat]

What is sad is that the damage is done...

 

[Ellen]

Admittedly, I have not done a ton of research on this. But I did remember seeing at least one video clip in the past of a meeting between PP and the undercover people. So I did a cursory search just now to try and find that video and found a Catholic site that actually links 9 videos of meetings. I will also be honest in saying I did not watch every one, I find them too upsetting and frankly unnecessary. My question is, can someone watch at least some of these, though really all should probably for an argument for PP, and tell me if they really think there was nothing illegal/immoral/improper being done here? I am totally asking sincerely, not wanting to get in a big argument. I just want to know, no matter whether one is for against, if they can watch these and say nothing was done wrong, as Eric Ferraro said.

"When they couldn’t find any improper or illegal activity, they made it up," Eric Ferrero, Vice President of Communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement Monday."

I mean, am I missing something?

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/08/pro-lifer-behind-the-undercover-videos-reveals-two-words-that-got-him-into-planned-parenthood/

 

[ksinger]

We are not talking about how you feel about abortion here. To broaden it to more than that will be to go down the fruitless abortion debate rabbithole. This indictment of the video makers is purely a legal issue. And that legal issue boils down to the fact that PP was NOT breaking any law, and the people who made the videos WERE, by attempting to get the PP employee to sign a fake agreement to SELL fetal tissue. (private citizens cannot do a “sting” basically) PP did not sign, and repeatedly stated in the unedited films, that they only ever cover costs, which is legal. See below.

What Does the Law Say?

In a statement made to CNN, another presidential candidate, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, called the practice discussed in the video a “clear violation of federal law.” The “sale” of organs, both adult and fetal, for transplantation is indeed illegal, but donation of tissue — both from aborted fetuses and from adults — is not. And payment for “reasonable” costs is also allowed under the law.

The video itself highlights a portion of title 42 of the U.S. code, which reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” The law does include fetal tissue in its definitions. It says that the term “valuable consideration” doesn’t include “reasonable payments” for removal, transportation, preservation and other associated costs.

In 1993, a law pertaining to federally funded NIH research was enacted that allows donation of fetal tissue from induced abortions if certain criteria are met. These include that the woman donating is not aware of the recipients of the tissue, and that the abortion timing, procedures or method itself would not be altered for the sole purpose of obtaining the tissue.

The 1993 law also says that it is unlawful “for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” The law again excludes the types of costs Nucatola discussed in the video: “The term ‘valuable consideration’ does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”

The American Medical Association echoes this in its ethical guidelines on the issue: “Fetal tissue is not provided in exchange for financial remuneration above that which is necessary to cover reasonable expenses.”

 

[chrono]

We are not talking about how you feel about abortion here. To broaden it to more than that will be to go down the fruitless abortion debate rabbithole. This indictment of the video makers is purely a legal issue. And that legal issue boils down to the fact that PP was NOT breaking any law, and the people who made the videos WERE, by attempting to get the PP employee to sign a fake agreement to SELL fetal tissue. (private citizens cannot do a “sting” basically) PP did not sign, and repeatedly stated in the unedited films, that they only ever cover costs, which is legal.

I agree that this is the issue. Unfortunately, the damage is done and I doubt they'll get their funding back.

 

[purplesparklies]

Re: Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

Personal opinions regarding abortion aside, how is this different from countless other instances of individuals going undercover for investigative reporting purposes? Serious question.

 

[chrono]

As private citizens, we are not allowed to break the law in order to prove that someone else is breaking the law whereas police are exempt.

 

[Ellen]

K, with all due respect, I would appreciate you not twisting my posts.

1. NO, this is not about my personal opinion, as I stated, and I quote "I just want to know, no matter whether one is for or against, if they can watch these and say nothing was done wrong, as Eric Ferraro said."

2. I asked if one could watch the 9 videos (did you?) and honestly say they saw nothing improper?

3. I never disputed that the law said it had been broken.

Your post is a prime example of why I (and I'm sure others) either quit posting altogether or rarely post anything controversial. Because there are those like you who simply can't keep the post in context. They must twist/divert the posts and their true meanings, and they refuse. to. stick. to. the. question(s).


And purlesparklies, great observation.

 

[purplesparklies]

Re: Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

As private citizens, we are not allowed to break the law in order to prove that someone else is breaking the law whereas police are exempt.

Are investigative reporters breaking the law? Are all investigative reporters opening themselves up to potential lawsuits? We've all likely seen the news stories by reporters uncovering issues with hotel housekeeping or restaurant kitchen conditions or fraud in various industries. What is the difference? Why is one punishable by law and others are not?

 

[chrono]

Re: Makers of that film on PP

As private citizens, we are not allowed to break the law in order to prove that someone else is breaking the law whereas police are exempt.

Are investigative reporters breaking the law? Are all investigative reporters opening themselves up to potential lawsuits? We've all likely seen the news stories by reporters uncovering issues with hotel housekeeping or restaurant kitchen conditions or fraud in various industries. What is the difference? Why is one punishable by law and others are not?

This case was very specific in what law was broken, which is the sale of human organs. In those investigation cases for housekeeping and kitchen conditions, what laws were broken?

 

[iLander]

As private citizens, we are not allowed to break the law in order to prove that someone else is breaking the law whereas police are exempt.

Are investigative reporters breaking the law? Are all investigative reporters opening themselves up to potential lawsuits? We've all likely seen the news stories by reporters uncovering issues with hotel housekeeping or restaurant kitchen conditions or fraud in various industries. What is the difference? Why is one punishable by law and others are not?

Because the "reports" were full of lies and fabrications. If reporters are allowed to make up lies, then support them with lies, anyone can say anything they want.

I could, as a totally hypothetical example, "prove" that you are a pedophile*. I could show you, on hidden camera, talking about how you like kids, or maybe reading to children. I could twist everything you do or say into something evil. Does that really make me a "reporter"? No. It makes me a person who is perpetrating a fraud. Fraud is the legal term for lie.

These guys were not "reporters" in any sense of the word.

So, yes, this needed to be prosecuted, because letting it stand opened the door to lying. I don't want to live in a world were lies are allowed to stand.

*not trying to offend, just making a point.

 

[purplesparklies]

Re: Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

This case was very specific in what law was broken, which is the sale of human organs. In those investigation cases for housekeeping and kitchen conditions, what laws were broken?

Okay. I guess there were various health codes broken but not laws in those cases. Leads me to another question. Maybe you know the answer. If there was proof of laws being broken in the recordings, would the reporters still be at risk for a lawsuit? Is it the investigative reporting or the lack of proof that a crime was committed in the eyes of the law? Does every person who endeavors to be act as a "whistleblower" put themselves at risk? I'm truly curious. There have been many instances over the course of history when a civilian has been the catalyst for change when an individual or company or industry is doing wrong. When is it okay to take on the "establishment", whatever that may be?

 

[chrono]

Re: Makers of that film on PP

Leads me to another question. Maybe you know the answer. If there was proof of laws being broken in the recordings, would the reporters still be at risk for a lawsuit? Is it the investigative reporting or the lack of proof that a crime was committed in the eyes of the law? Does every person who endeavors to be act as a "whistleblower" put themselves at risk? I'm truly curious. There have been many instances over the course of history when a civilian has been the catalyst for change when an individual or company or industry is doing wrong. When is it okay to take on the "establishment", whatever that may be?

I don't know for sure but based on my interpretation of the law, which could be wrong because I really don't know for sure, I think the reporters will still have broken the law and might be prosecuted. I think the key here is that one must not break the law when exposing the wrongs of the "establishment". Two wrongs doesn't not make one right.

 

[purplesparklies]

Re: Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

So, in this case, the investigation was not the problem? Rather it was the content of the video distributed based on the position that the videos did not show an accurate representation of what was actually found? Investigating is okay but the danger lies in how the findings are shared?

 

[telephone89]

Re: Makers of that film on PP

So, in this case, the investigation was not the problem? Rather it was the content of the video distributed based on the position that the videos did not show an accurate representation of what was actually found? Investigating is okay but the danger lies in how the findings are shared?

If they are edited to promote a flat out lie, then yes.

I am filming you:
me: do you love your family?
you: Of course!
me: would you kill your family?
you: Um, no.

If I edit that so it looks like
me: would you kill your family?
you: Of course!

I don't think you'd be very happy with me, and would probably sue as that is untruthful, and not what you said. So yes, presentation of findings are very important.

 

[chrono]

Re: Makers of that film on PP

So, in this case, the investigation was not the problem? Rather it was the content of the video distributed based on the position that the videos did not show an accurate representation of what was actually found? Investigating is okay but the danger lies in how the findings are shared?

I think the investigation is fine but the way it was carried out was wrong. They broke the law doing it when they edited the video into something that was never said in the original video = fraud.

 

[purplesparklies]

Re: Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

Okay. Thanks Chrono and telephone89. That makes sense.

I have seen much debate about this and wasn't clear about all the legalities. I have seen parts of some of the videos but can't watch as they make my stomach turn so I don't know the details about what is allegedly falsely edited. I am pro-life so I am not a PP supporter regardless of whether their actions are found to be legal or illegal. As one who is pro-life, it frustrates me if the recordings were manipulated as that dishonesty only casts doubt on those who are fighting for the rights of the unborn.

 

[telephone89]

Re: Makers of that film on PP

Okay. Thanks Chrono and telephone89. That makes sense.

I have seen much debate about this and wasn't clear about all the legalities. I have seen parts of some of the videos but can't watch as they make my stomach turn so I don't know the details about what is allegedly falsely edited. I am pro-life so I am not a PP supporter regardless of whether their actions are found to be legal or illegal. As one who is pro-life, it frustrates me if the recordings were manipulated as that dishonesty only casts doubt on those who are fighting for the rights of the unborn.

Tbh, I think this annoys even non pro-lifers (I cant think of the other name?). With such a complex issue, people need to know the facts and decide for themselves. But when either side starts falsifying documents/evidence/whatever to try and make their point, it doesn't do ANYONE any good, because the actual facts get clouded. I'd rather make someone a decision based on what is actually going on. If you disagree, that is fine, but at least you disagree (or agree) with the truth - not some made up story!

 

[purplesparklies]

Re: Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

Tbh, I think this annoys even non pro-lifers (I cant think of the other name?). With such a complex issue, people need to know the facts and decide for themselves. But when either side starts falsifying documents/evidence/whatever to try and make their point, it doesn't do ANYONE any good, because the actual facts get clouded. I'd rather make someone a decision based on what is actually going on. If you disagree, that is fine, but at least you disagree (or agree) with the truth - not some made up story!

Exactly.

 

[chrono]

Re: Makers of that film on PP

Purpliesparklies,
I appreciate your patience to have a calm and civil discussion about this. It is such a sensitive topic that it's very easy for it to touch a nerve, then go all awry. And I mean this in a sincere and honest way. I hope it doesn't come off as condescending.

Telephone,
I think the other camp calls themselves Pro-Choicers.

 

[purplesparklies]

Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

I think the same holds true for any issue. That is the problem with politics, in general. Too many are intent on swaying the opinions of people rather than sharing facts. Thus, the blatant mistruths and skewing of numbers and statistics all to confuse the issue and the voter. Both sides are guilty. Very frustrating. I think candidates for office should be surrounded by the names and logos of all corporate and private high level donors. Then, the American people will truly know who is driving the campaign.

 

[purplesparklies]

Re: Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

Purpliesparklies,
I appreciate your patience to have a calm and civil discussion about this. It is such a sensitive topic that it's very easy for it to touch a nerve, then go all awry. And I mean this in a sincere and honest way. I hope it doesn't come off as condescending.
.

Thank you very much, Chrono. I admit that I was concerned that my posts would come across as facetious by those who may remember that I am a pro-life Catholic. I truly was just trying to educate myself and I sincerely appreciate your response and the responses of others who answered honestly and without assumptions about my intentions. This is a very emotionally charged issue but there is always something to be learned from honest, respectful conversation.

Yay, us!

 

[telephone89]

Re: Makers of that film on PP

Telephone,
I think the other camp calls themselves Pro-Choicers.

Thank you! Having some brain issues today
ftr I am pro-choice, and cant even remember the name haha

 

[kenny]

I have a friend who's a filmmaker.
She's taught me about film's immense power to manipulate minds.
Extreme examples of masters at this are Hitler and North Korea's leaders.

Even documentaries, which are supposed to be neutral, honest, and just-the-facts inadvertently influence the audience by what truth they show and what truth gets left out.
The best documentary filmmakers can try very hard to not spin the content to 'preach' their view ... but it's nearly impossible.
Films, like photographs, are automatically believed when often they should not be.

Few people who do not make films understand how powerful editing is.

Forget film, (which is a one-way conversation).
Let's talk about real conversation .. simple word choice can manipulate others even when we don't realize or intend it.
For example consider how the terms life and choice are used.

Logically and reasonably, those who are not pro-life could be called anti-life.
But while those who describe themselves a pro-life do not consider the term 'pro-life' to be inflammatory the logical antonym 'anti-life' is obviously inflammatory.

Likewise , those who are not pro-choice could be called anti-choice.
But while those who describe themselves a pro-choice do not consider the term 'pro-choice' to be inflammatory the logical antonym 'anti-choice' is also inflammatory.

The challenge of having these conversations is to not let your emotions get triggered by the baggage of inadvertently-inflamatory terms.
The challenge of watching any film is always keeping a skeptical mind and remember that no film is neutral.
There's always and agenda to convert you.

 

[purplesparklies]

Re: Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

Interesting perspective, Kenny. I don't know any filmmakers but have noticed that watching a film can have a dramatic impact on my emotions. To the extent that I choose not to watch some things. The images linger in my mind far too long.

I do smile to myself when having a discussion amongst friends about an issue on which we may not agree. Often, friends will enthusiastically tell me that if I would only watch the documentary about X, I would "understand" and then agree with their position. They are dumbfounded when I ask who directed the documentary. They don't think it matters! Hello? Someone set out to create a documentary to clearly showcase a specific issue. Of course it matters who did it as that gives insight as to the intent. To watch and draw conclusions without considering the intent and reasoning behind the creation of the film makes no sense to me.

 

[kenny]

Re: Makers of that film on PP

... Often, friends will enthusiastically tell me that if I would only watch the documentary about X, I would "understand" and then agree with their position. They are dumbfounded when I ask who directed the documentary. They don't think it matters! Hello? Someone set out to create a documentary to clearly showcase a specific issue. Of course it matters who did it as that gives insight as to the intent. To watch and draw conclusions without considering the intent and reasoning behind the creation of the film makes no sense to me.

So true.

Another thing I try to keep a healthy skepticism of is 'Studies'.
I always ask, "Who paid for the study, and how do they benefit?"

 

[purplesparklies]

Re: Makers of that film on PP "selling fetus parts" indicted

So true.

Another thing I try to keep a healthy skepticism of is 'Studies'.
I always ask, "Who paid for the study, and how do they benefit?"

Me too. Often more telling than the study itself.