It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Court Rules Against StemExpress On Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Well looks like strike 3 for the controversial company that does business with Planned Parenthood.

StemExpress had a temporary court order? that barred the release of the videos we all know about by now.

The Court apparently said The Center for Medical Progress's videos are OK for the public to view.

I think. It's all legal mumbo-jumbo.

(article)
BREAKING: Court Rules Against StemExpress On Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos


(court order partial?)




On Thursday afternoon, Alliance Defending Freedom issued a press release stating that a Superior Court of the State of California has rule in StemExpress v. The Center for Medical Progress, deciding the group has no rights to the materials produced by an undercover investigative journalist.

“People who don’t have anything to hide don’t go to court to stop journalists from reporting the truth," said Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund President Chuck LiMandri. "The court was right to deny StemExpress’ request to gain access to damaging material against them obtained through solid investigative journalism."

LiMandri explains exactly why. "Americans have the right to know the truth about Planned Parenthood's sale of baby body parts and the ‘fiscal rewards’ Stem Express says that it provides to abortion clinics." It is that right which StemExpress, Planned Parenthood, and their allies in the White House and elsewhere have attempted to deny.



Now What ?



edit on Aug-13-2015 by xuenchen because: 1st Amendment




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Now we await another 45 page circle jerk when the videos are released.

Fun times to be had by all.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Well if the body parts are from dead babies, and the "parents" don't want anything for the dead baby/fetus, then I don't see what is wrong about selling them as long as it go's to a research organization for actual research and experiments, or medicine.

But as to the actual topic, finally the court does what is right.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kuroodo
Well if the body parts are from dead babies, and the "parents" don't want anything for the dead baby/fetus, then I don't see what is wrong about selling them as long as it go's to a research organization for actual research and experiments, or medicine.

But as to the actual topic, finally the court does what is right.


Brush up on the case and you'll understand the legalities

Besides the fact that it's ghoulish



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Kuroodo

well I think the problem with that and why everyone has their panties in a bunch, is because if you start profiting off abortions, it opens an ugly can of worms regarding the future of the practice. It creates a slippery slope.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Here is an interesting comment in the ruling:


This general prohibition on prior restraints even applies to speech whose publication is false,
defamatory, violative of privacy rights or otherwise tortious. Gilbert v. National Enquirer,
Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1148; Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1168



Second, even if Plaintiff's evidence demonstrates that the videotapes were obtained in violation
of Penal Code Section 632, Section 632 does not prohibit the disclosure of information gathered
in violation of its terms. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. (2003) 110 Cal.App. 4th 156, 167.
For that reason, the Court is unlikely to enjoin the dissemination of the tapes. Nor does Penal
Code Section 637.2 help Plaintiffs. That section permits a person injured by a violation of Penal
Code Section 632 “to bring an action to enjoin and restrain” such violation. It does not permit an
action to prevent the dissemination of the unlawfully obtained recording.



As a result there is no good cause to permit discovery under CCP §
425.16(g), as it has not been demonstrated that there is “a reasonable probability the court [will]
ever reach [the] issue[s]” of the probability of prevailing on the merits of the Plaintiff s causes of
action or the imminent nature of the harm to be enjoined.


It sounds to me that the court is upholding free speech and does not believe the videos pose an immediate risk.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
How can they do this???

Everyone knows the videos are nothing but deceptively edited, propaganda lies that should bring slander and libel charges against CMP.

Sarc/off


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kuroodo
Well if the body parts are from dead babies, and the "parents" don't want anything for the dead baby/fetus, then I don't see what is wrong about selling them as long as it go's to a research organization for actual research and experiments, or medicine.

But as to the actual topic, finally the court does what is right.


Would you say the same for a dead relative? Or some random dead person? If we find a dead homeless person, should we just sell their body because no one cares what happens to it?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64


It does not permit an action to prevent the dissemination of the unlawfully obtained recording.


They are not ruling on the merit of the videos themselves. They are saying that even if it is unlawfully obtained, it does not pose an immediate risk and therefore the injunction is denied.

That does not mean they may not have further recourse.
edit on 13-8-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)


+17 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
it's ghoulish


Excellent word for this.

It's amazing to me that we can have a discussion about, say, a cop shooting an aggressive dog, and it being determined that the officer followed all policies and protocols and broke no laws... yet still have a major uproar over it. We can have a situation in which a woman legally shoots a giraffe in Africa, breaking no laws whatsoever, and have a major uproar over it. We can have a president following the laws which allow enhanced interrogation techniques to be performed, and have a major uproar over it. We can have corporation using perfectly legal loopholes to reduce their federal tax burden, and have a major uproar over it... but when we have a major uproar over the ghoulishness of standard PP abortion procedures relating to the bodies of those babies, the same crowd immediately plays the "it's all legal" card to dismiss the issue.

I'd suggest perspective is needed, but I'm not exactly sure society is capable of using it anymore. Sad, honestly.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Double post?
I swear, this has never happened to me before. I've just been working too much lately, sweetie.
edit on 13-8-2015 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Excellently put! And great example of the hypocrisy


From the same people who use to say

"Laws don't dictate morality "


+9 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That is because we have lost our moral compass, and I'm not talking about religion.


+3 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: burdman30ott6



That is because we have lost our moral compass, and I'm not talking about religion.





Side effect of selective abidcation of personal responsibility in the west. You can't very well expect people to follow what their common sense is telling them is right when they live in a world where the more mistakes you make, the more you're encouraged to blame anyone but yourself.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Would you say the same for a dead relative? Or some random dead person? If we find a dead homeless person, should we just sell their body because no one cares what happens to it?


Yes, and if decomposition isn't too bad, we frequently do.

If we're going to perform abortions what would you prefer? An abortion or an abortion that contributes to medical research that saves future lives?


originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Excellent word for this.

It's amazing to me that we can have a discussion about, say, a cop shooting an aggressive dog, and it being determined that the officer followed all policies and protocols and broke no laws... yet still have a major uproar over it. We can have a situation in which a woman legally shoots a giraffe in Africa, breaking no laws whatsoever, and have a major uproar over it. We can have a president following the laws which allow enhanced interrogation techniques to be performed, and have a major uproar over it. We can have corporation using perfectly legal loopholes to reduce their federal tax burden, and have a major uproar over it... but when we have a major uproar over the ghoulishness of standard PP abortion procedures relating to the bodies of those babies, the same crowd immediately plays the "it's all legal" card to dismiss the issue.


The fetus is dead either way. In all of your examples you're talking about killing something, whether or not we collect tissue doesn't change the fact that the person is already getting an abortion.

Edit: It's not performing abortions to collect human tissue, it's collecting human tissue from abortions that are already going to happen. There is a world of difference between the two.
edit on 13-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

If it's in a state to be useful, absolutely. Same reason I believe that organ donation shouldn't be an opt-in thing. Quite simply, if a dead body can be put to use to help a living human, not doing so is completely unjustifiable.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: stosh64


It does not permit an action to prevent the dissemination of the unlawfully obtained recording.


They are not ruling on the merit of the videos themselves. They are saying that even if it is unlawfully obtained, it does not pose an immediate risk and therefore the injunction is denied.

That does not mean they may not have further recourse.


Thank you so much for explaining that to me.

I have such a hard time with my reading comprehension.

Probably relates to my Religious upbringing and skipping school to shoot targets.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
It'll be nice to see what they release next. It's funny how nobody gets mad about undercover videos from farms/feedlots where animals are mistreated, but when it's humans everyone just blows it off.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



Would you say the same for a dead relative?


Absolutely. Both my parents bodies were harvested for all they could get, and I was surprised just how much they actually got, before their bodies were cremated, and their remains scattered by us children.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Edit: It's not performing abortions to collect human tissue, it's collecting human tissue from abortions that are already going to happen. There is a world of difference between the two.


Actually it's having a menu with "shipping and handling" prices attached to the tissue... As I said, it is ghoulish.

Oh, and my 3rd and 4th examples involved no killing.

As to organ donation of the deceased, unless there's been a significant change in the law which I am unaware of, most states require the deceased to have initiated that through registration as an organ donor or via a living will. If someone has it written into their will "I want to go into the ground intact," there's no mechanism to supercede those wishes. The same respect is certainly not granted to these unborn humans, who not only have no say about not being killed, but also have no say over what happens to them after death.

Again, ghoulish and certainly not the behavior of an allegedly "enlightened" (America! my ass!) society that respects the sanctity of life.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join