Surprise: Court Removes Injunction on Planned Parenthood Video, New Video Released

originally posted by: windword

Okay. So, you just passed on the lie?

Stop with the name calling.

It's getting stale and sickening.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well you keep on saying they did something illegal, but they didint, so isint that lying?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

Yea for another round of abortion is eviler, PP wasent found doing anything illegal in 2006, my money is on the same thing happening this time around.

Don't quit your day job.




I know I know, I won't either !!

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: xuenchen

Well you keep on saying they did something illegal, but they didint, so isint that lying?

The investigations are not complete yet.

And I am suggesting a conspiracy theory.

That's Kosher with YOU right?



Stale and boring.

Funny how nobody is surprised that the L.A. judge ruled the court had no legal authority to impose a prior restraint against CMP.
Guess everyone really knew that original order was partisan and bogus.

Perhaps this is an example of why it is completely accurate to characterize posts such as the OP here as lying:

A Los Angeles County judge on Friday ruled that an antiabortion group that secretly recorded videos of abortion providers and others had a 1st Amendment right to make at least one of the recordings public.

Superior Court Judge Joanne O'Donnell dissolved a temporary restraining order that had previously been imposed in state court in L.A. that prevented the release of one video taken by the Center for Medical Progress.

In that case, StemExpress, a Placerville, Calif., company that provides fetal tissue to researchers, had asked the court to block the release of video recorded by the group at a May meeting in an El Dorado Hills restaurant with leaders of the company.

O'Donnell ruled that StemExpress had shown that the firm had a good chance of prevailing in court on an invasion of privacy claim against the group. California law prohibits the unauthorized recording of confidential conversations.

Nevertheless, the judge ruled, the court did not have the legal authority to impose a prior restraint and stop the antiabortion rights group from publishing the video.

The actual story from the LA Times

The judge found that StemExpress had shown a good chance of prevailing in court.

The judge found that CMP has a First Amendment right to release the vids at this point least.

If you can't read between the lines, shes giving CMP enough rope to truly hang itself.

So the OP, and the OP source, is absolutely fraudulent in several ways: the video itself, the statements characterizing what Judge O'Donnell actually said, etc. etc.

It's not "name calling" to point out that apparent deliberate untruths are called lies.

Trying to hide under a "conspiracy theory" defense, at this point, is just disrespectful to the spirit of ATS.

The only Conspiracy here is an attempt to defraud the American people on the part of the so-called "Center for Medical Progress."

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: windword

Okay. So, you just passed on the lie?

Stop with the name calling.

It's getting stale and sickening.

HAHA! Hello Pot! Have you met Kettle?

I think ongoing and future investigations will uncover fraud.

I believe many people involved have got lackadaisical and will be caught when a few whistleblowers with newly vested interest come forward.

I also think new money has been found in the Obama.Care laws.

PP is ripe for a takeover because the big money from somewhere else is interested.

The whole thing could just be a takeover attempt.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Perhaps this is an example of why it is completely accurate to characterize posts such as the OP here as lying:

A Los Angeles County judge on Friday ruled that an antiabortion group that secretly recorded videos of abortion providers and others had a 1st Amendment right to make at least one of the recordings public.

Superior Court Judge Joanne O'Donnell dissolved a temporary restraining order that had previously been imposed in state court in L.A. that prevented the release of one video taken by the Center for Medical Progress.

In that case, StemExpress, a Placerville, Calif., company that provides fetal tissue to researchers, had asked the court to block the release of video recorded by the group at a May meeting in an El Dorado Hills restaurant with leaders of the company.

O'Donnell ruled that StemExpress had shown that the firm had a good chance of prevailing in court on an invasion of privacy claim against the group. California law prohibits the unauthorized recording of confidential conversations.

Nevertheless, the judge ruled, the court did not have the legal authority to impose a prior restraint and stop the antiabortion rights group from publishing the video.

The actual story from the LA Times

The judge found that StemExpress had shown a good chance of prevailing in court.

The judge found that CMP has a First Amendment right to release the vids at this point least.

If you can't read between the lines, shes giving CMP enough rope to truly hang itself.

Odd that you opt to read "between" the lines.

The original ruling was clearly and legally declared unconstitutional. Do you refute that?...or do you intend to continue reading between lines when attempting to make your case?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Why don't you quote that from Judge O'Donnell's decision?

Then we won't have to read between anything.

Go ahead; we'll wait.

California law prohibits the unauthorized recording of confidential conversations.

That of course assumes permission wasn't granted and authorized.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

Why don't you quote that from Judge O'Donnell's decision?

Then we won't have to read between anything.

Go ahead; we'll wait.

As you ignored my question to you, I'll assume you don't refute it.
Wise choice.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Yeah yeah.

You made the claim about "what the Judge said" so ... Quote it.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Yea for another round of abortion is eviler, PP wasent found doing anything illegal in 2006, my money is on the same thing happening this time around.

I also love the surprise in the tittle, really playing on words even if it was already posted here that the videos where ok to try to use to sue PP even if they havent done anything illegal.

Politics is funny we have politicians running around raising money all over the country.all these States starting investigations spending money like Ohio, Arizona, Texas, and Kansas—Planned Parenthood affiliates don't even have fetal tissue donation programs, making it hard to believe the states will find any illegal activity related to the practice. In Louisiana, where Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered an investigation in mid-July, Planned Parenthood does not even operate a single abortion clinic.

This is nothing more than attempt to make an issue happens every election cycle.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you're wrong, this is the end for planned parenthood. This isn't going away. You ever watch a show called Supernatural? Planned parenthood sounds like its run by demons. I don't even believe in demons, but they whole thing just is sad and disgusting. They cut up little babies inside the womb and suck them out, it's awful that people equate women's choice to killing little babies like this. It means are society is morally corrupt. We deserve what we get. I'm fine with abortion first trimester, but once we have a little person in there with a brain and body...only demons would cut up little babies. Defending that is just disgusting. Same ideology is why we have so many killings, life means less and less every day. Respect for life is very low right now. If you live in a death cult world, you may find yourself a victim and not just a proponent.

V

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

Why don't you quote that from Judge O'Donnell's decision?

Then we won't have to read between anything.

Go ahead; we'll wait.

Don't hold your breath. What the judge said and what you posted here is not conducive to the false premise presented here.

ETA: The thread the OP attempted to mimic here was "Surprise!" with an exclamation point and was from an actual title of an article, which his was not. But neither the lack of attention to detail nor the feeble mimicking attempt are a surprise either.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yeah yeah.

You made the claim about "what the Judge said" so ... Quote it.

The original ruling was clearly and legally declared unconstitutional. Do you refute that?

It was a simple and direct question to you...yet, you refuse to answer if you refute it.
Still waiting...
Tell ya what...take the weekend if you need it.

Looks like those vids are having quite an effect:

Thousands protest outside Planned Parenthood clinics around the country

Thousands of antiabortion activists descended upon Planned Parenthood clinics on Saturday to participate in a nationwide protest aimed at cutting off federal funding for the controversial health-care organization.

The demonstrations unfolded at about 320 clinics around the nation, according to organizers, with some gatherings drawing a few dozen protesters and others drawing hundreds and perhaps thousands more.

The protests kicked off at 9 a.m. Saturday and included speakers, prayer groups and chants, as well as signs distributed by organizers that said “Planned Parenthood sells baby parts.”

www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Looks like those vids are having quite an effect

What effect are you looking for? What are the goals of the protesters?

Is this a correct assessment? From you link:

“These rallies are meant to intimidate and harass our patients, who rely on our nonprofit health centers for basic, preventive health care,” Eric Ferrero, vice president of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement. “The people behind these protests have a clear political agenda: They want to ban abortion, and block women and men from accessing basic reproductive health care.”

If not, what is the goal of these protests, ya think?

Nevermind.