In light of the recent shooting at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, I was reminded of a post I did soon after the release of the first anti-Planned Parenthood videos. I am always a bit conflicted in writing about these things, having worked at Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), investigating and publishing on the criminal and political opposition. It is a task I have taken forward since then as well. So my point of view is certainly well developed and unambiguous. Nevertheless, the ethics of journalism matter to me as well. That is why I have been appalled at the general failure of traditional journalism to quickly and aggressively expose the highly doctored videos produced by the Orwellianly named Center for Medical Progress, which do not actually support the hyperbolic charge that PPFA engages in illegal trafficking in human body parts.
Everyone involved has been rightfully cautious about ascribing suspect Robert Lewis Dear’s motive for the recent massacre at the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, but police now say that he said "no more baby parts" after his arrest. Additionally, the Associated Press, reports and Planned Parenthood confirms, that witnesses said the gunman was motivated by his opposition to abortion.
The national brouhaha about the videos not withstanding, the absence of evidence of unethical or illegal activities on the part of PPFA has become more of an issue, as investigations of the spurious charges in state after state have found no wrong doing.
In fairness, David Daleiden, a conservative Catholic and the principal figure in the Center for Medical Progress, issued a statement that “condemns the barbaric killing spree in Colorado Springs by a violent madman. We applaud the heroic efforts of law enforcement to stop the violence quickly and rescue the victims, and our thoughts and prayers are with the wounded, the lost, and their families.
That’s a good statement, but it also does not address that he may very well have inspired this massacre.
A few months ago, I wrote about how the producers of the anti-Planned Parenthood smear videos attempted to cast themselves as investigative journalists. As someone who has done investigative journalism, this was particularly galling. Facts matter, even in advocacy journalism. But lines have been crossed and the stampede beyond them has blurred so much that it can be hard to recall when we used to try to distinguish between fact and opinion; truth and lies; and journalism as against raw, facts-be-damned politics. And indeed, at what point free speech and journalism crosses over into criminal threat and even terrorism, can also get blurry in the age of the internet and widely available high tech recording equipment. In the end, whether Deer’s alleged crimes will be called domestic terrorism is probably more of a political than a legal question.
Anyway, here is a revised version of my original post.
---------------------------
The barrage of false and inflammatory language directed at Planned Parenthood and its staff by anti-abortion groups and the remarkable disconnect between what is passing for evidence and investigative journalism, and the charges being leveled has been astounding.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and various staff and affiliates stand accused of “selling” or “trafficking in baby parts.” They are said to be “profiteering” in a “black market.” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has gone so far as to call Planned Parenthood “an ongoing criminal enterprise.”
These charges were based largely on short, manipulatively edited, arguably doctored videos produced from hidden camera conversations by the anti-abortion group, Center for Medical Progress (CMP), led by founder David Daleiden who previously served as Director of Research for similar group, Live Action. The videos are being used to justify official investigations by Congress and efforts to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving state and federal funds for routine health care services such as breast cancer screenings, pap smears, contraception, and prenatal care. Federal funds are not used to provide abortion care (except via Medicaid in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother), and many Planned Parenthood affiliates do not even provide abortions. Among those that do, not all are involved in the donation of fetal tissue and organs. This was the case in New Hampshire, where, in response to the CMP’s videos, the state decided not to continue contracting with Planned Parenthood to provide health care services, even though PP was not engaged in fetal tissue research donations and the state Attorney General had already decided that there was no basis for an investigation.
“We do not launch investigations in the state of New Hampshire on rumor,” said Governor Maggie Hassan. “We do not launch criminal investigations in the state of New Hampshire because somebody edits a tape.”
The videos claiming to demonstrate that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue and organs for profit actually only show exactly what PPFA says it does. The organization is reimbursed for the costs associated with procuring tissue for purposes of medical and scientific research. Medical ethicists said that the reimbursement rates discussed in the videos are well within the standard range for non-profits. (For-profit medical enterprises get more.) All legal under federal law. And it is worth noting that no one is proposing changing the laws, or investigating anyone other than Planned Parenthood—likely because the research is life-saving and has led to breakthroughs in cancer treatments and other medical advancements.
This isn’t the first time antiabortion groups have used the same methods to smear Planned Parenthood and pressure public officials into investigating the women’s health care provider in search of a justification to make PPFA ineligible to receive federal funds on the same basis as everyone else. (They call it “defunding Planned Parenthood.”) David Daleiden himself served as Director of Research for Live Action during the big smear campaign against PPFA in 2011.
Vickie Saporta of the National Abortion Federation (the professional association of abortion providers, whose membership includes providers in both the non-profit and for-profit medical community), further connected the dots to a similar effort in the 1990s. She wrote in The Washington Examiner that
“In 1999, another anti-abortion group, Life Dynamics, released an ‘undercover’ video claiming that abortion providers were profiting from fetal tissue donation. The allegations led to a congressional hearing in which the star witness confessed to having been paid over $20,000 by Life Dynamics.
He recanted his story, saying under oath that he had lied and that he had no personal knowledge of any instances in which tissue donation programs had violated federal law. Even legislators who opposed abortion doubted his story and credibility. Then Representative — now Senator — Richard Burr, R-N.C., told the witness: ‘I found there to be so many inconsistencies in your testimony … your credibility, as far as this member is concerned, is shot.’
The head of Life Dynamics, Mark Crutcher, admitted that the hearing was a train wreck. It’s no surprise that Crutcher has also been consulting with CMP. Further investigations this time around will find the same thing as last time: That the anti-abortion group and its agents are the ones who acted fraudulently, and that abortion providers have not broken the law.”
The swirl of charges and counter charges can make your head spin, so here is one simple example of the way CMP handles evidence.
Daleiden was interviewed by Alisyn Camerota on CNN’s “New Day” show. He said a brochure for StemExpress, a small company that procures human tissues for researchers, proved that Planned Parenthood harvests fetal parts for profit. He urged viewers to visit the CMP web site to see it.
So I did.
What CMP posted is a generic corporate promotional brochure aimed at a wide audience in the medical field. A PPFA official’s endorsement on the brochure is for the professionalism of the company and makes no mention of pecuniary interests.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the current controversy is that few journalists and public officials are seriously scrutinizing this crude propaganda, and are largely allowing an obscure, militant anti-abortion group to cast themselves as investigative journalists rather than highlighting their agenda and dishonest tactics. Daleiden claims to produce investigative journalism and his lawyers from the Christian Right’s American Center for Law and Justice, characterize Daleiden and his CMP colleague Troy Newman (who also leads the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue) as “investigative journalists.” Christianity Today, the major magazine of evangelical Christianity, called Daleiden a “filmmaker.” These are very generous descriptions of who these men are, and what they do.
The National Abortion Federation obtained a temporary injunction against the Center for Medical Progress, preventing it from publishing confidential material obtained under false pretenses. Among the reasons the injunction was granted are the harassment and death threats against the PPFA staffers who appeared in the videos. In his ruling, Judge William H. Orrick said:
“Critically, the parties do not disagree about NAF’s central allegations: defendants assumed false identities, created a fake company, and lied to NAF in order to obtain access to NAF’s annual meetings and gain private information about its members….[The defendants] unquestionably breached their agreements with NAF…The evidence presented by NAF, including that defendants’ recent dissemination of videos of and conversations with NAF affiliates has led to harassment and death threats for the individuals in those videos, is sufficient to show irreparable injury for the purposes of the temporary restraining order.”
Center for Medical Progress responded:
“The National Abortion Federation is a criminal organization that has spent years conspiring with Planned Parenthood on how to violate federal laws on partial-birth abortion and fetal tissue sales.”
The evidence for this series of charges from CMP?
None.
The original version of this post was published on the blog of Political Research Associates