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.

 

Planned Parenthood Files Lawsuit Over Secretly Filmed Videos

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
and I guess good ole Newt is stepping into the "Let's defund the evil Planned Parenthood" garbage bin..
He's trying to unite enough in congress to over ride the presidents veto...

www.newsmax.com...

wonder if he has Tom (THE HAMMER) Delay to assist in this endeavor.




Finally, Darwin comments that, “Malthus has discussed these several [population] checks, but he does not lay stress enough on what is probably the most important of all, namely infanticide, especially of female infants, and the habit of procuring abortion."28 Darwin lived shortly after an age when infanticide was particularly visible and shortly before abortion was to become a major variable in reproductive outcome. The killing of babies need not be a deliberate act in a poor society. In the 18th century, use of opiates, dosing with gin, and too little food probably took many a child's life. Other parents smothered their infants in bed, and abandonment was a common method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. In 1700, Coram, appalled by the plight of babies born in London, petitioned King George II “to prevent the frequent murders of poor, miserable infants at their birth and to suppress the inhuman custom of exposing new infants to perish in the streets.” However, the Foundling Hospital, which Coram founded (1741), merely institutionalized infant death. Of the first 14,934 admitted, 10,204 died. Between 1770 and 1789, 31% of the baptisms in Paris were foundlings. The foundling hospital in Florence, Italy, kept unusually accurate records, and it is interesting to note that the majority of admissions were children of legitimate birth. For the period 1775–1794, foundlings from one (probably representative) group of villages constituted 4.2% of all legitimate births and 50% of all legitimate births to mothers with six or more children in those villages.32

When the poor stayed with their children in workhouses, the outcome was little better. Between 1728 and 1757, there were 468,081 christenings and 273,930 infant deaths in those younger than the age of 2 in London workhouses. Foundling hospitals and workhouses were institutionalized infanticide machines.

Abortion

In 1800, the average married woman in the United States could expect to have 7.04 children; by 1900, the number was 3.56. In Britain, 25% of women marrying in 1860 had eight or more children; by 1925, 40% were to have one or no children. Fertility regulation was so hidden at the time that when demographers began to analyze demographic transition, they often saw it in socioeconomic terms, rather than in behavioral and technologic terms, as if education or income itself could affect fertility directly. Obviously, this is not true, although the exact balance of contraceptive use and induced abortion can never be established in detail. Very low coital frequencies, which may have occurred in some marriages fearful of unintended pregnancies, may also have played a role.33 Oral and anal intercourse were, as today, taboo subjects, and if they were significant variables in achieved family size must forever remain unmeasurable. Coitus interruptus was certainly widely used and is referred to commonly. Spermicides and condoms were well known in the 19th century. Finally, abortion played an important role. In 1889, Rentoul, in Britain, wrote the following:

“Everyone must notice that, although the number of marriages is on the increase, the number of births to each couple is decreasing, and also that no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. Instead of the number of cases of abortion undergoing a diminution, an enormous increase is taking place."34 In France, in 1868, one commentator wrote that abortion had grown “into a veritable industry.” One of the few statistical estimate measures of abortion was made at the Manchester Lying-In Hospital by Whitehead in 1845 and 1846. He questioned 2000 women, and more than one third of them (747) reported one or more abortions. The women with abortions had been pregnant more often (mean, 6.4 pregnancies) than the total population (mean, 4.3 pregnancies).32 In 1873, an American physician pointed out that “abortion has become so frequent that it is rare to find a married woman who passes through the childbearing period who has not had one or more!” One student of abortion patterns estimated that probably 75% to 90% of the abortions performed at that time were for married women.35 Legal cases sometimes illuminate 19th century abortion practices. In 1896, the Chrimes brothers set up a mail-order business in London for the sale of a simple blood tonic that their advertisements implied was an abortifacient. The brothers attempted to blackmail the women who wrote in to purchase the remedy, but their plan was exposed and they were arrested, convicted, and jailed for extortion. In the course of 2 years, they had collected a file of more than 10,000 names, and they were only one of many similar businesses peddling various types of medication for the relief of a “delayed period."36

In 1868, a representative of the British Medical Journal replied to newspaper advertisements for ladies who were “temporarily indisposed.” More than half the advertisements offered abortions.32 In the United States, an English immigrant, Ann Lohman, trading under the more colorful name of Madame Restell, began practicing in New York in the 1830s. She offered both pills and surgery to induce abortions. By the 1840s, she had opened branch agencies in Boston and Philadelphia, and by 1870 she was spending approximately $60,000 each year on advertisements alone. First arrested in 1841, she was convicted of only minor infractions of the law. Her final arrest was because of the activities of the notorious Anthony Comstock, who had launched a personal crusade to ban every form of birth control and prosecute every abortionist.35

However, the scale of abortion and, to some extent, the acceptability of 19th century abortion services are revealed in the number of years it took Comstock to bring Madame Restell to trial: He succeeded in 1878. The confrontation between the missionary of purity and the most famous 19th century abortionist ended dramatically when Madame Restell committed suicide immediately before her trial.

The prices quoted for services were high, ranging from 10–50 guineas ($15–75) in Britain, or 5% or more of the annual income of an average lower middle class family of the time. There was frequent physician involvement in the delivery of services, and fee splitting was common. Services provided in the 19th century parallel those currently found in many parts of the developing world.

One abortion provider claimed to have been in the business for 27 years, beginning in the first years of Queen Victoria's reign. She had patients who came back six or seven times and is quoted as saying, “I'm a jokelar [jocular] person, I am; and cheers 'em up. She needn't mind and mustn't fret, and I'll see her all right. I'm the old original, I am, and have had hundreds."

www.glowm.com...


only a small portion of planned parenthood services involves abortion. the bulk of it involves prevention and keeping women from having six or seven abortions!




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Selling parts of aborted fetuses comes to mind....

Your signature line also applies in this case in how the government should stop funding planned parenthood so long as they profit from the sales of fetus parts.
edit on 17-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Hefficide

Selling parts of aborted fetuses comes to mind....


That wasn't "exposed". That wasn't happening.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Hefficide

Selling parts of aborted fetuses comes to mind.


I just want to know.

Can you back this statement up with "real" facts?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You do know that the accusation of "selling baby parts" was the main lie told in those videos, right? The people making the videos created a shell company, forged documents to make it appear as though they were researchers and then edited discussions of shipping costs to appear calloused and as though profit were a motive.

Planned parenthood is a non-profit.

Shipping any biological material, be it fetal tissue, organs for transplant or even blood to hospitals, is expensive. As PP is non profit they asked any Universities or legal scientific research labs to pay those costs.

That is not even entering into the hot button discussion of the difference between a zygote and a baby. Ninety one percent of abortions happen in the first trimester. Nine percent in the second and point zero one percent (.01% ) in the third. Those happening in the third trimester happen only in cases of non-viability or extreme risk of death to the mother. ( This may be the first, last and only time I ever use Fox News as a linked source, so Conservatives... relish the moment! )

The amount of misinformation and propaganda out there, even without this particular incident is simply staggering. Like Carly Fiorina vehemently insisting that she saw grotesque scenes in these documentaries that don't even exist - in any version, censored or uncensored. Even the people who made the video, as jaded as they are, refused to agree with her.

And yet so many people heard her say it and refuse to believe otherwise... because her lie happens to match their own biases... so they glom on and clutch at the lies like a Kardashian desperately clinging to the fringes of relevance.

It's sad.

We all have biases and opinions. That is natural and totally understandable. What is not natural nor understandable is when we choose to believe that which is patently and demonstrably false simply because the lies support our own predispositions. There is no integrity in that.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

well gee, if you can prove that they were selling baby parts, you need to contact congress, the judge in the NAF case, the many investigators that have been investigating these charges, since none of them have found proof that Planned Parenthood has broken any laws. they are legally allowed to charge for the cost involved in donating the fetal tissue. there were only five or six, maybe even less than that pp clinics that were donating fetal tissue, and on of them donated solely to a university and didn't charge anything. step express stated in one of the videos that they had I believe it was close to 200 sources for their fetal tissue...
so, who was the other sources? why aren't we hearing anything about them? what people are objecting to isn't illegal. it is legal to donate fetal tissue (just like it's legal to donate body parts from dead people) to research and for transnplants. To think that people aren't meeting and discussing the details and making arrangements for this to happen is kind of unreasonalbe. but well, I guess if enough people find it so objectionable, the laws could be changed so that no more fetal tissue is donated and we all can just hope and pray that the cell cultures they have now are adequate to continue on doing the work that they are doing.... because well if you are ever bitten by a rabid animal I am sure that you will want a rabies shot, and well fetal tissue is used to produce it!

if anyone was trying to participate in the illegal buying and selling of fetal tissue it was CMP, they were the ones trying to inflate the prices to be paid hoping that planned parenthood would go along with it. they are the ones who wrote up the contracts that pp lawyers counseled pp not to sign because there was too much within them that was just illegal.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Uhm if you read the lawsuit planned parenthood filed its not based on the group lying about planned parenthood selling baby parts. Its based on a confidentiality breach.


Planned Parenthood is suing David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress, the organization that caught the abortion company selling aborted baby parts and fully intact aborted babies.

“Planned Parenthood says Daleiden broke multiple laws and violated confidentiality agreements to obtain interviews with officials to discuss how some clinics were compensated for providing aborted fetuses for medical research purposes,” a Washington Examiner report on the lawsuit indicates.


Planned Parenthood Is Suing Undercover Video Anti-Abortion Group Planned Parenthood is suing the anti-abortion group that secretly filmed its doctors and released videos claiming abortion clinics sold fetal tissues illegally.

If there was no truth to the videos they would have filed a suit using something other than RICO statutes.

The lawsuit paperwork is at the bottom of the page. Notice they don't deny it. They are going after the group for setting up fake companies to get the interviews to document the sale of aborted fetuses.
edit on 17-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

If there was no truth to the videos they would have filed a suit using something other than RICO statutes.


Seems to me, lawsuits are filed for "best course of action".

They are not always filed in ways one would think, who is not in the "law" profession.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Sure but in this case the lawsuit is not going after them for lying about what planned parenthood does with aborted fetuses. Instead they are going after them for using deceptive practices to gain interviews with planned parenthood managers to discuss selling fetus parts.

Even in the world of law the difference is night and day.

If the videos were manipulated lies then they would have included that in the lawsuit and didnt. Their foundation is the manner in which the group gained interviews to discuss the sale of fetus parts.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

actually, if does mention that the videos were highly edited. planned parenthood even hired experts to examine the videos and the full lengths of the short clips that were released.

so yes, they do claim that the cmp claims were not true.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That's an interesting take on the situation. Here's another...

Suing simply for Libel would be way too easy on the guilty parties. There has been an unconscionable fallout as a result of the videos - not just to Planned Parenthood but also to many low income people who lost ( temporarily or otherwise ) access to facets of their healthcare, including STD and cancer screenings - along with reproductive care... but three people ended up murdered in cold blood, killed by a fanatic who believed the lies.

A simple Civil suit is nowhere near enough. Not even close.

By suing for the reasons that they are, Planned Parenthood is taking a stand that is designed to lead to criminal charges being filed against the people who so callously engaged in their short sighted and agenda driven CRIMINAL attempts at social engineering.


The civil suit accuses the defendants -- the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress and a fake fetal tissue procurement company called "BioMax"-- of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and committing fraud, invasion of privacy, illegal secret recording and trespassing. The accused conspirators, David Daleiden, Troy Newman and four other activists, used fake government IDs to gain entry into private medical conferences, secretly taped conversations with Planned Parenthood staffers, and sliced up those interviews into a series of inflammatory videos that accuse the family planning provider of selling fetal tissue for profit.


Source

RICO is not something that normally is seen in Civil courts and the message being sent is obvious. The Civil suit is merely the appetizer for the inevitable Federal criminal charges to come.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide
they will also get something like three times the damages because it's rico...



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   


LOS ANGELES — California prosecutors on Tuesday charged two anti-abortion activists who made undercover videos of themselves trying to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood with 15 felonies, saying they invaded the privacy of medical providers by filming without consent.


www.msn.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


it's about time!! wonder if they will be adding any charges to the list. for some reason I find it hard to believe that setting up bogus companies just for the purpose of deceiving people doesn't involve some law breaking..

edit on 29-3-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Sure but in this case the lawsuit is not going after them for lying about what planned parenthood does with aborted fetuses.
Despite the fact that they did "lie" - in terms of FAKE NEWS - they fabricated this thing. Obvi


Instead they are going after them for using deceptive practices to gain interviews with planned parenthood managers to discuss selling fetus parts.


Which is like "Entrapment" , right?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join