Center for Medical Progress

originally posted by: stosh64
Here is one court ruling in favor of CMP.
BREAKING: Court Rules Against StemExpress On Undercover Planned Parenthood Video
You guys can go back to stroking each other now.

That's just the courts ruling to lift the gag order. There has been no ruling one way or the other on the content of the videos. Can't say that I agree with the decision, but it is what it is.

The people that are upset at the court (the entity that upholds the law) are the same people that are screaming on the side of PP saying that they are obeying the law.

I find it hilarious that to them the law is only "right" when it's in their favor.

Blatant hypocrisy

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

What are you talking about? I'm not upset with the ruling. A bit disappointed, yes, but I'm not upset. I can't change the law and it appears the decision was made to uphold free speech (even speech that is really a bunch of lies). So with that I can get behind the ruling even if it DOES go against my position with PP. So check your gloating at the door.

By the way, here is an interesting write up from a journalist at Vox who watched all 12 hours of unedited footage.

I watched all 12 hours of the unedited Planned Parenthood videos. Here’s what I learned.

Some key points:

The videos are edited to make Planned Parenthood look bad. But that doesn't mean Planned Parenthood didn't do anything wrong.

The videos are sting videos that are designed to smear Planned Parenthood. The unedited footage shows the fake buyers actively attempting to make the discussions look worse for the hapless Planned Parenthood staffers. They are the ones, for instance, who suggest that Nucatola order wine with her meal ("I really, after this week was looking forward to a glass of wine, maybe a bottle, to share of course," one of them says).

It's routinely the fake buyers, not Planned Parenthood, who move the discussion toward money. When Planned Parenthood officials are asked about their motivation, they talk about fetal tissue donation as a real, positive good that could lead to medical advancements. They talk about patients who request these types of services, who like the idea of something productive coming out of their decision to terminate a pregnancy.

"I've had patients ask me before, 'Can I donate this?' I wish!" one Planned Parenthood nurse says.

These moments don't show up in the edited videos. But they are, arguably, the key to understanding the broader debate around these issues. Planned Parenthood is an organization that believes it can do good in the world by procuring fetal tissue for medical researchers. Their critics find fetal tissue research self-evidently repugnant. To a large degree, what you think of the videos comes down to what you think of the fraught topic of fetal tissue research.

This is a consistent theme throughout the 12 hours of video footage: Planned Parenthood officials emphasize, repeatedly, that they do not see fetal tissue as a revenue stream, nor do they intend to make money off of fetal tissue procurement.

Rather, they talk about it as a service they can provide to researchers and patients — something that patients want to participate in and that they want to facilitate, provided it does not lose their clinic any money.

This is the type of footage that tends to get edited out of the Center for Medical Progress clips — and it's much more prevalent than the troublesome moments I'll discuss later.

The Center for Medical Progress spent a lot of time with Planned Parenthood officials, at least 12 hours released on video so far. And during most of it, there really isn't a suggestion that Planned Parenthood intends to make money.

There are specific moments that suggest Planned Parenthood is operating in an ethically gray area— one that really should raise questions for the organization and its supporters.

Nucatola, the national medical director, is the one who says repeatedly that fetal tissue procurement is "not a revenue stream" for Planned Parenthood. Still, she proactively suggests an alternative: that the fetal tissue buyers might consider some type of in-kind donation to the clinics in order to build partnerships. About an hour into lunch, Nucatola suggests that clinics currently struggle with how to dispose of the tissue from abortions that won't be used for research — and suggests that the fetal tissue company could offer disposal services as an "in kind" service.

The disagreement at the heart of the Planned Parenthood videos isn't really about the organization and its internal policies. It's about the morality of fetal tissue research — and of abortion.

What these videos try to do is split the people who are actually comfortable with abortion from those who support it uncomfortably, and who might be repelled by the idea that aborted fetuses are being used for medical research. The Planned Parenthood staffers in these clips are genuinely comfortable with the morality of fetal tissue research — they speak easily, and even a bit dismissively, of issues that many Americans, including some who support Planned Parenthood, find ethically troubling.

Just to make this clear, yes I'm aware that the Vox journalist still had concerns with PP's practices. Yes, I'm aware that I posted one above. Yes, I'm aware that I skipped one (read the article to find out the other). But the journalist explains that even those concerns really boil down to the true issue. Abortion. This whole discussion is really just about the ethics of abortion and it is designed to split the people on the fence about it. Read the bolded part in my last external quote tag.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That was a great, unbiased article. I agree with everything the writer said. Especially this:

But imagine, for a second, that Planned Parenthood came out tomorrow morning and said that the Center for Medical Progress had caused them to reconsider their position, and henceforth, they would no longer participate in fetal tissue research. Does anyone think Republicans would stop trying to defund Planned Parenthood? Or that the Center for Medical Progress would believe it had won?

Of course not. Planned Parenthood workers are comfortable with fetal tissue research because they are comfortable with abortion — they don't believe a first-trimester fetus to be a living, feeling human being, and so they see the donation of fetal tissue for medical research to be an obvious, unalloyed good. Their critics oppose abortion — they believe abortion to be murder and fetal tissue research to be a form of desecration. Where you fall on the Planned Parenthood videos really reflects where you fall on the fundamental questions of abortion.

I believe that the unedited videos pretty clearly show that PP as an organization, is not involved in fetal tissue research for a profit. I also believe that they need to have some kind of consistent corporate policy on how their affiliates will deal with facilitating the donation of fetal tissue. It doesn't appear that there is a consistent policy, and there should be. If anything good could come out of these videos, that could be it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep. One of the few irrelevant faux wedge issues they have left. Anything to not address the real issues. I'm over it.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Excellent find! Agree.

Does anyone think Republicans would stop trying to defund Planned Parenthood? Or that the Center for Medical Progress would believe it had won?

Of course not.

Bingo!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We know what the court ruling is about, but that is not going to stop Pro-Life nut-jobs from claiming the ruling means Planned Parenthood is evil and CMP is good and the courts agree.

I personally think the far right in the US are getting desperate and looking for shock stories that outrage and play on their congregates emotions in hopes it will drive more to vote in the upcoming election. No doubt this controversy is a manufactured one in my mind.

a reply to: jrod

It's more than that. They aren't just looking for these stories. They are inventing them. I keep comparing this issue to Climategate, and I'm going to do it again here. The right keeps looking for organizations to manufacture political scandals so that they can suddenly interject divisive issues to rally their base. Then they count on their base to not source check or follow up on the controversy once it settles down (this is why climate change deniers still bring up Climategate like it is legitimate point still).

Though I agree with your desperation idea. This controversy was likely spurned out of a growing sense of irrelevancy and distrust within the Republican party. They've had years of so few victories while being as hardlined as possible towards their rhetoric that it is finally catching up to them, but instead of actually changing, they double down on the dishonesty. This is especially true with the upcoming election. The Republicans are likely very worried that they are going to lose three Presidential elections in a row and that's why they latched so vehemently on this issue or just flat out manufactured it.

In a fair world, this dishonesty would catch up to them and the Republican party would fall apart due to disillusionment from the base. Though, what's really going to happen is that it might only cost them the Presidency.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Most of the Senate that's up for grabs in 2016 is Republican. Remember, in 2010 the Republicans defended all of their seats and gained 6. They have a lot to lose here with 24 seats up for election while the Democrats only have 13.

It's to far out to say if they're going to win or lose, but the potential is out there for them to lose big, they're probably losing the Senate no matter what they do.

a reply to: Aazadan

they way they are acting, I have to ask....
you sure they don't want to lose?? kind of like, well we did enough damage as we can for now, time to let the dems have it all so we can blame them when we hit rock bottom....

a reply to: Aazadan

You know statistically due to something called "voter fatigue" in our two party system, political authority usually flip-flops every 6 - 8 years or so. In other words, this is SUPPOSED to be the Republicans' election. If they would have just sat back and ran a normal campaign, I'd say they would have had a REALLY good chance of winning. But with the way they are acting know, it's likely that they will fumble the ball on their own 1 yard line because they are trying some VERY high risk tactics.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aazadan

You know statistically due to something called "voter fatigue" in our two party system, political authority usually flip-flops every 6 - 8 years or so. In other words, this is SUPPOSED to be the Republicans' election. If they would have just sat back and ran a normal campaign, I'd say they would have had a REALLY good chance of winning. But with the way they are acting know, it's likely that they will fumble the ball on their own 1 yard line because they are trying some VERY high risk tactics.

In the House and Presidency yes, but in the Senate we've had a lot of backlash since 2004, this all goes back to Bush's wars. In 2004 the Democrats lost big as everyone was bloodthirsty, we had a huge Republican win, but by 2006 that had all changed and the Republicans lost big time in order to shift the balance. In 2008 that continued with the Democrats big win and we then had a voter backlash in 2010 because people didn't like the super majority. The Republicans were supposed to lose in 2010 to balance out 2004, but because of the super majority that didn't happen. Those seats are up again in 2016 and they'll likely be a loss since it's due and there's no administration to vote against, if the seats even split 50/50 as I would expect them to the Republicans lose 7 seats which brings it to 51-47-2 in favor of the Democrats. Basically we have three election cycles in the Senate, one for every 2 year vote. One is heavily Republican, one is heavily Democrat, and one is split a bit more evenly. We're coming into the heavy Republican one which means they have little to gain but a lot to lose.

I have no doubts that the Republicans will take the House though as is usual. The Presidency is too far out to speculate, there's some really good people on both sides, and some really bad people.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not to mention with Congress approval rates at all time lows and the Republicans threatening to shut the government down AGAIN come September (with many even willing to shut it down over the PP issue), I can see your point. Like I said, the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot right now.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Most of the Senate that's up for grabs in 2016 is Republican. Remember, in 2010 the Republicans defended all of their seats and gained 6. They have a lot to lose here with 24 seats up for election while the Democrats only have 13.

It's to far out to say if they're going to win or lose, but the potential is out there for them to lose big, they're probably losing the Senate no matter what they do.

Yep, that must be why the Right Wing is so hotly trying to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

(Sorry for the off-topic post, although this does go to collusion between right-wing power brokers and the US Congress.)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy, excellent thread! Thanks for pointing me to it.

I'm not surprised at all that we see the "usual players" desperately doing ANYTHING they can to keep the discussion AWAY from the conspiracy supporting the "Center for Medical Progress" and associated fraudsters.

One tiny element posted earlier, inside one of the Media Matters articles corroborates your OP:

Sean Hannity: "An Undercover Video Showing They Did Not Tell The Parents." Sean Hannity and his guest, anti-choice activist Lila Rose, repeatedly claimed that the latest video from CMP showed Planned Parenthood "did not tell the parents" about the donation process, and accused Planned Parenthood of breaking multiple laws:

Media Matters

This interview was done yesterday, however, oddly, the official transcript from Hannity is not yet available and neither are any of their typical newsbytes (with "rushed" transcripts). Transcripts - Hannity (Fox News)

... but little Lila has been very busy lately ... she's even taking on Donald Trump when he went off script on the Planned Parenthood "issue" ...

Trump Draws Fire from Pro Life Leader Rose


The connection you were intuiting in your OP is obviously there.

ETA: More Sauce for the Goose - Right Wing Media Chamber Daily Signal - Lila Rose: Undercover Videos Prove ‘What Has Been Happening Now for Decades’

Lila Rose, the founder and president of Live Action, a pro-life group, knows firsthand what it is like to film Planned Parenthood employees undercover.

Live Action has released many undercover videos of Planned Parenthood staffers, including a video of clinic staff giving X-rated advice to underage girls

... and the connections between CMP and previous efforts utilizing the same PROVEN fraudulent methods continue ...

CMP's incorporation papers list Troy Newman, the head of anti-abortion extremist group Operation Rescue (OR), as one of its board members.

OR and its members have a long history of committing crimes against abortion providers. Newman has been arrested, and Cheryl Sullenger, OR's senior policy adviser, served two years in prison following her conviction for conspiracy to bomb a California abortion clinic. In addition, Sullenger's phone number was found in the vehicle of Scott Roeder, who was convicted of murdering Dr. George Tiller.

This isn't the first time Congress has been duped by anti-choice groups. 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.

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.

Source: Doctored Planned Parenthood Videos ...

So, more rocks to look under ... for those who can stand the smell here:

Troy Newman (head of Operation Rescue, on the Board of CMP)
Cheryl Sullenger
Life Dynamics 1999 Video Contraversy (Congressional Investigation)
Mark Crutcher

... and as far as the Congressional Connection goes ...

Washington, D.C. – Following Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) announcement of a working group, today U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) along with Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), James Lankford (R-OK) and 21 cosponsors introduced legislation to protect women’s health and defund Planned Parenthood, S.1881. This legislation follows gruesome footage showcasing Planned Parenthood’s role in the harvesting of the organs of unborn babies.

Cosponsors of the bill include Senators John Barrasso (WY), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (AR), Richard Burr (NC) Dan Coats (IN), Tom Cotton (AR) John Cornyn (TX), Ted Cruz (TX), Steve Daines (MT), Mike Enzi (WY), Deb Fischer (NE), James Inhofe (OK), Johnny Isakson (GA), Ron Johnson (WI), James Lankford (OK), John McCain (AZ) Mitch McConnell (KY), Jerry Moran (KS), Rand Paul (KY), David Perdue (GA), Pat Roberts (KS), Ben Sasse (NE), Tim Scott (SC), and John Thune (SD).

Senate to Defund Planned Parenthood - July 28, 2015

If Senator Richard Burr tinkles any bells, he was also involved in the 1999 investigation of Life Dynamics:

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."

(from previous source)

... though apparently, Senator Burr's incredulity in fraudulent videos has faded in the last few years and he's now on board again ... Senator Burr Interview on Issues, Planned Parenthood, etc. (See the lower complete video on the page)

Sauce for the goose.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What these videos try to do is split the people who are actually comfortable with abortion from those who support it uncomfortably, and who might be repelled by the idea that aborted fetuses are being used for medical research.

Good point. The more people who are turned off by PP in general would give the extremists even more reason to try to shut down PP.


What people have to keep in mind is that there are those out there whose churches/religious beliefs include but go beyond "life begins at conception" (used for anti-abortion). There are other religious beliefs:

Sex is for uniting a man and woman (in marriage only) in order to procreate.

There should be nothing to prevent conception except "natural family planning" (not even barrier methods are allowed).

...it is immoral for PP to promote and distribute products, such as those listed above, as well as condoms, which artificially attempt to render procreation impossible, even to those who are married.

Why do we oppose Planned Parenthood? Planned Parenthood Promotes Contraception


These are also the ideas behind actions to shut down PP, such as the ones taken by CMP. Religious beliefs. Religious beliefs with big money behind it. Religious big money wanting to make America in ITS image.

In the 1980s, the GOP was able to bring unity to its base by using the Pro-Life Movement to unite Catholics and Southern Baptists. A single issue voter could provide political power by going to the polls each election (at all levels) to vote for Republicans. This single issue morphed to include personhood and anti-contraception. PP is in the GOP base crosshairs.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Like I said, the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot right now.

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, what would happen should the pro-lifers get what they want and PP goes down, and their abortion clinics across the nations shuttered

There's still a demand for abortion and there's a demand for fetal tissues. With states placing more expensive restriction on abortions clinics, big money, for profit mega corporations like Pfizer, Merck, et al, will step in and fill the gap. Then, you'll have big pharma abortion clinics siphoning baby body parts, with assembly line precision, to their own labs to sell off for high profit.

Big business wins! F# the little guy, whether he's pro-life or pro-choice.

For those who try to deny that the same lies are being told by the same people trying to use the same methods, take a look at the following link LIfetalk Television Talking Points

November 1999
*Notebook

1. Baby Parts Marketing
A. Anatomic Gift Foundation dropping fetal tissue aspects of business.
B. Abortion industry hired a PI to ferret out “spies” in industry.
C. On Capitol Hill, Senator Bob Smith, addresses baby parts marketing, while in the House, a motion was passed for a congressional investigation into the marketing of baby parts. Pro-abortion Congress-people deny that baby parts are being marketed.
D. Order forms for baby parts make it impossible to say that fetus is a blob of tissue. Forms state specific body parts even in very early abortions.
E. Killing baby after a live birth abortion is the same as D&E, the only difference is location.

It goes on to suggest that one uses "weird religious practices of pro-aborts" suggesting that Wiccans use abortions in their rituals. IN 1999.

If you're interested in seeing just how long the exact same rhetoric has been used, advance through "Lifetalk Television" talking points for each month both before and after November 1999.