Planned Parenthood Strikes Back - Sues Libelous Video Makers

[JohnLocke]

You know what would be more convincing than a conspiracy theory like this? Actually addressing the specific quotes that are claimed to show CMP's dishonesty and explaining how they're wrong. For some reason, though, no one wants to do that. Instead we get conspiracy theories about Obama and diversions to a different set of videos. I wonder why.

Technically, are the videos not deceptive at least in the fact that CMP deceived Planned Parenthood as to their actual purpose in having the meeting. Did they not also deceive PP by not disclosing that they were filming the meeting?

Last I checked, California was an all party recording state, that is to say, that it is criminal to intentionally record someone on film, audio tape or similar means without the knowledge and consent of all persons so recorded.

It seems to me that even the full tapes could be considered deceptive if there are not placed in the proper context. We have "regular course of dealing" laws and the like which will imply certain terms into a contract even if those terms were never discussed or agreed to. In this case, it is unlikely that the PP or the other party would use the more descriptive terms "reimbursement for the customary and expected expenses necessary for the discharge of the lawful obligations of the party of the first part in the collection, preparation, and transport of the material identified by the party of the second part in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal laws and in the manner prescribed by the regulations promulgated thereunder for the charitable purposes of the party of the second part, as such terms are defined by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the decisions, regulations and rulings of the Internal Revenue Service including as warranted any advice published by such Service on or before the initiation date of this agreement......"

instead of the more simple word "pay."

 

[JohnLocke]

Snip
PP hardly services women's real health needs.

For my 2 bits, I think that a "woman's real health needs" are best determined by the individual woman and her healthcare providers.

Community clinics surpass PP by miles in terms of service.

This statement may be true, but it is certainly irrelevant.

This indictment cannot but hurt PP somewhere along the line. More bad press to follow in spite of the celebrating that is certainly happening at the moment.

I think you overestimate the impact of the indictment. First of all, your assertion that Planned Parenthood is "selling baby parts" is, in context, patently false. The "transaction" complained of in the video was for fetal tissue and tissue from adult humans, no legal "babies" involved. To be honest with you, I think the idea that human dignity depends on gestational age may, in the future, be viewed as irrational and vile as the idea that human dignity depended on the color of one's skin or even the color of the skin of one's great, great grand parents. Second, the felony count is for filing false documents (or tampering with a governmental document I have conflicted reports) which has little to do with biological material at all, and likely evidence of biological materials would be inadmissible on this count.

On the purchase of human tissue misdemeanor charge, eh maybe. Somehow I don't think this case has the same star power of say California v. O.J. Simpson. But more to the point, I'm not sure there are many people who approved of Planned Parenthood prior to this controversy who are likely to change their opinion, or for that matter many people who disapproved of Planned Parenthood who would change their opinion. Even still, it seems possible to fully and successfully prosecute this count using only the adult tissue. In fact, were I prosecutor I might adopt that strategy and file a motion to exclude all references to fetal or other non-adult tissue as being substantially more prejudicial than probative.

 

[JohnLocke]

You can't be charged attempting to buy something that wasn't being sold. PP sold baby parts, that's clear from the videos. Otherwise CMP couldn't be charged with attempting to buy.

Sure you can. You can be prosecuted for buying what you think is cocaine from an undercover police officer, even if the substance was not cocaine, even if the substance was never delivered, etc. You can be busted for solicitation of prostitution if you proposition an undercover cop. You can be busted for bribery of a public official even if the official in question had no intention of complying with the bribe, etc.

There are no baby parts, that is clear from the videos. There is no allegation in the videos that CMP wanted to acquire or represented that they wanted to acquire, nor PP wanted to provide or represented that they were willing to provide, any biological material from persons recently born alive.

 

[AirPo]

It's an odd graphic that pictures 900,000 as less than 300,000 even if that were accurate. As dishonest graphic uses dishonest numbers - what a surprise.

You half to be really gullible to fall for a graph like that.

 

[DaisyDay]

There are no baby parts, that is clear from the videos. There is no allegation in the videos that CMP wanted to acquire or represented that they wanted to acquire, nor PP wanted to provide or represented that they were willing to provide, any biological material from persons recently born alive.

CMP put their offer in writing, in an email, off camera for $1600 per sample fetal tissue. Perhaps they mistakenly figured that PP would jump at that price being offered. Instead, they were ignored.

 

[JohnLocke]

Indeed. However that was a murder trial. I don't think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the bar that needs to be reached in these cases.

Incorrect. The standard of proof in ALL criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. There are different burdens of production in various activities involved in the prosecution of a crime, motions for directed verdict, etc. but guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The only possible exceptions I can think of would be under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which I strongly doubt, but I haven't studied it recently) and perhaps the military tribunals associated with non-citizen unlawful combatants (but last I checked they too had "beyond a reasonable doubt" and in any event there are enough Constitutional issues associated therewith to write half a dozen books.)

 

[PapaZoom]

I would agree. The evidence leads me to conclude that they are liars and wrong in this case. Obviously you have come to the opposite conclusion. Do you think if they are cleared in all investigations that you will change your mind or will you feel that it is miscarriage of justice?

First I don't think CMP are liars. They may be wrong in their assertions. They oppose abortion, they are aware of the wide-spread use of fetal tissue (baby body parts) in research and are aware that PP provides such tissue. PP is receiving compensation for providing the tissue. That's a fact that can't be denied. The question is regarding profit from such compensation. CMP claims that PP does in fact profit from the sales. The videos seem to suggest that PP does benefit financially from the sales. So if after all investigations are in will I change my mind about the profit factor? That seems to be the question you are asking.

To me it's an egregious act, to remove a developing human being from the safety of its mother's womb by ripping off arms and legs or whatever barbaric procedure is utilized to remove the body of the fetus. I don't care that it's legal. It's still morally wrong in my view. To make matters worse, PP is providing different body parts to researchers in exchange for compensation of some kind. Does that compensation match exactly the costs for removal, storage, packaging and all that? I doubt it. Is it possible that PP is actually spending more to procure the body parts than they are being compensated for? Yes. Most likely they are coming out ahead. But how does one determine exact procurement costs vs. compensation? That's a question investigations are trying to solve.

So if they are found "not guilty" of selling for profit, I will still feel abortion wrong, and that providing body parts from said abortions is still a moral evil. I won't however simply default to it's a miscarriage of justice. I'd have to know what grand juries know to say that. I also won't agree that PP is "innocent" of selling body parts. Just that they would have been found not guilty. Clearly they provided body parts and received compensation for that. If it's not legally considered "selling" then so be it. But I don't see how that would mean they are innocent. Just that they were found to be not guilty. That's a reasonable conclusion based on what I know of the law. You can be guilty of something, but found to be not guilty if there is insufficient evidence for a guilty conclusion.

 

[PapaZoom]

Actually, from what I've read, this is not the case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...womens-healthcare_us_55f873e3e4b0e333e54b844e

Doctors' offices, community health centers and free clinics lack the capacity to take in an influx of patients who would no longer be able to access medical care at Planned Parenthood if the organization loses access to federal dollars. Especially in areas with few obstetrician-gynecologists, patients could end up going without medical care, waiting weeks or longer for appointments or being forced to travel, experts said.

"If Planned Parenthood tomorrow went away, there's a good number of patients just in my service area that no longer have a doctor or no longer have a place to go for OB/GYN services," said Mark DeFrancesco, a physician in Waterbury, Connecticut, who is president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published an op-ed this month opposing efforts to end Planned Parenthood funding. "If they start calling my office, it's going to be, 'Well, we could take you but it might be two, three months down the road.' If they call other places, it might be, 'We can't even take you.'"

[...]

Although the majority of women Planned Parenthood currently serves would be able to access care elsewhere if the gambit to cut off the organization succeeds, between 5 percent and 25 percent of them wouldn't, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Analysts believe the most likely outcome would be 390,000 women losing their source of medical care -- although the number could be as low as 130,000 or as high as 650,000, the budget agency concluded.
​

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/...rs-and-womens-health-getting-the-facts-right/

The major growth of community health centers is recognition of their importance to the health system and their value to medically underserved communities. Their expansion over the past 15 years, beginning with an initiative launched by President George W. Bush and continuing under the Obama Administration, has been essential to creating health care access.

But even as community health centers close in on 23 million patients served, the National Association of Community Health Centers reports that an estimated 62 million more low-income Americans face elevated health risks and remain without a regular source of primary health care. In the communities they serve, community health centers depend on other sources of affordable health care to help meet their residents’ health care needs.

What’s more, federal law requires that community health centers be located in communities where there are few other providers. As a result, the notion that there are plenty of community health centers available in those communities to compensate for the loss of Planned Parenthood clinics simply is untrue.

​

It's not really that clear-cut. Cutting out, as your graphic points out, a solid 10+% of women's care providers is a serious hit for a system that's already pretty much running at capacity, and doing so brings even more challenges with it than one might typically think.

I don't agree with any of that. Community Health Care centers are all over the US. For every one PP there are 20 CHC centers. Not only that, but with Obama Care, people who didn't have coverage now do and those people are going to health care centers, not PP. PP does not provide many of the basic needed services for health care. They do some things, but not all. However CHC centers do it all. Top that off with the fact that many health care facilities treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. If PP was totally shut down, patients would find easy access to any services. Only getting an abortion would be made more difficult as PP does about 1/3 of the abortions in the US. Indeed they preform about one abortion every 95 seconds. They are a huge abortion provider and not a health care facility.

 

[Belk]

Incorrect. The standard of proof in ALL criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. There are different burdens of production in various activities involved in the prosecution of a crime, motions for directed verdict, etc. but guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The only possible exceptions I can think of would be under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which I strongly doubt, but I haven't studied it recently) and perhaps the military tribunals associated with non-citizen unlawful combatants (but last I checked they too had "beyond a reasonable doubt" and in any event there are enough Constitutional issues associated therewith to write half a dozen books.)

Huh! you learn something new every day. I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[PapaZoom]

Have you seen this?

http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/a...ned-parenthood-board-member-working-for-them/

I head about it but also that the PP board member won't be working this particular case. I don't know that for a fact but it makes sense. Conflict of interest and all. Still this is a good article. Worth reading.

 

[Belk]

First I don't think CMP are liars. They may be wrong in their assertions. They oppose abortion, they are aware of the wide-spread use of fetal tissue (baby body parts) in research and are aware that PP provides such tissue. PP is receiving compensation for providing the tissue. That's a fact that can't be denied. The question is regarding profit from such compensation. CMP claims that PP does in fact profit from the sales. The videos seem to suggest that PP does benefit financially from the sales. So if after all investigations are in will I change my mind about the profit factor? That seems to be the question you are asking.

I suppose that depends upon your definition of "profit". My understanding of the law is they are legally allowed to recoup expenses but they cannot charge more then what it cost them.

To me it's an egregious act, to remove a developing human being from the safety of its mother's womb by ripping off arms and legs or whatever barbaric procedure is utilized to remove the body of the fetus. I don't care that it's legal. It's still morally wrong in my view. To make matters worse, PP is providing different body parts to researchers in exchange for compensation of some kind. Does that compensation match exactly the costs for removal, storage, packaging and all that? I doubt it. Is it possible that PP is actually spending more to procure the body parts than they are being compensated for? Yes. Most likely they are coming out ahead. But how does one determine exact procurement costs vs. compensation? That's a question investigations are trying to solve.

So if they are found "not guilty" of selling for profit, I will still feel abortion wrong, and that providing body parts from said abortions is still a moral evil. I won't however simply default to it's a miscarriage of justice. I'd have to know what grand juries know to say that. I also won't agree that PP is "innocent" of selling body parts. Just that they would have been found not guilty. Clearly they provided body parts and received compensation for that. If it's not legally considered "selling" then so be it. But I don't see how that would mean they are innocent. Just that they were found to be not guilty. That's a reasonable conclusion based on what I know of the law. You can be guilty of something, but found to be not guilty if there is insufficient evidence for a guilty conclusion.

I think I understand what you are saying. If all the investigations come back with PP found to not be in the wrong would you agree that it is likely they are in compliance with the law regulating these transactions?

 

[PapaZoom]

I suppose that depends upon your definition of "profit". My understanding of the law is they are legally allowed to recoup expenses but they cannot charge more then what it cost them.

I think that's right. Yet how did they show their costs vs compensation? It seems to me they just came up with approximate figures across the board.

I think I understand what you are saying. If all the investigations come back with PP found to not be in the wrong would you agree that it is likely they are in compliance with the law regulating these transactions?

Yes. It would be hard to argue otherwise IMO.

 

[The Cadet]

I don't agree with any of that. Community Health Care centers are all over the US. For every one PP there are 20 CHC centers.

According to the figures you posted earlier, that's not quite the number, but okay, let's say that all of a sudden, the CHC system lost 5% of its total capacity. Given that the system is already pretty much at capacity, that's a lot of people suddenly on the streets. Oh, and as the article pointed out, the coverage typically wasn't competitive, so many people in areas with PPs simply don't have CHCs to fall back on.

 

[JohnLocke]

I suppose that depends upon your definition of "profit". My understanding of the law is they are legally allowed to recoup expenses but they cannot charge more then what it cost them.

Close but not quite. A non-profit may make revenue is excess of expenses on particular transactions, the requirement is that the organization not make a profit. For example, I create a micro enterprise charity where we loan money to poor people to start small businesses. One year it turns out that many more of our borrowers made their payments than we expected so we have an excess of revenue over costs. Before the fiscal year ends, we direct that excess revenue to other charitable purposes, e.g. giving it to a different charity, increasing our capital reserve as a hedge against future risks or preliminary to expanding operations, etc. (with tons of rules, exceptions, etc.) Charitable non-profits are complicated things and they really are different.

Non-profit status is determined at the end of the fiscal year, not each transaction. The American Red Cross, for example, charges more for blood than it costs them to collect it. This excess, however, is offset by other expenses like the disaster relief they do which costs a lot, but generates no revenue. It's still a charitable non-profit. In a similar way, Planned Parenthood might make an excess of revenue over direct costs in transactions like these, but those could be offset by, for example, providing other services below cost.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I think that's right. Yet how did they show their costs vs compensation? It seems to me they just came up with approximate figures across the board.

Maybe they saved their receipts.

 

[Belk]

I think that's right. Yet how did they show their costs vs compensation? It seems to me they just came up with approximate figures across the board.

I certainly could not tell you. My sister is the accountant. I play with computers for a living.

Yes. It would be hard to argue otherwise IMO.

I would agree with that statement. Thanks for the discussion PapaZoom.

 

[JohnLocke]

I think that's right. Yet how did they show their costs vs compensation? It seems to me they just came up with approximate figures across the board.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5014/1936/7155/PPFA_Audited_FS_FY2014.PDF

Looking at the audited financial statements of the organization would be a good start. As a practical matter, all costs figures are estimates and how you allocate costs to particular activities is complicated. How much of the costs associated with secretaries, answering services, telecommunication equipment and service, professional employees, benefits, utilities, etc. should be allocated to any particular task or revenue item is complicated. I know about these issues, but I generally just refer such questions to one of the Certified Public Auditors I know. Frankly, I'm not sufficiently skilled in Generally Accepted Accounting Practices to give a definitive answer.

 

[Belk]

Close but not quite. A non-profit may make revenue is excess of expenses on particular transactions, the requirement is that the organization not make a profit. For example, I create a micro enterprise charity where we loan money to poor people to start small businesses. One year it turns out that many more of our borrowers made their payments than we expected so we have an excess of revenue over costs. Before the fiscal year ends, we direct that excess revenue to other charitable purposes, e.g. giving it to a different charity, increasing our capital reserve as a hedge against future risks or preliminary to expanding operations, etc. (with tons of rules, exceptions, etc.) Charitable non-profits are complicated things and they really are different.

Non-profit status is determined at the end of the fiscal year, not each transaction. The American Red Cross, for example, charges more for blood than it costs them to collect it. This excess, however, is offset by other expenses like the disaster relief they do which costs a lot, but generates no revenue. It's still a charitable non-profit. In a similar way, Planned Parenthood might make an excess of revenue over direct costs in transactions like these, but those could be offset by, for example, providing other services below cost.

Gotcha. Thanks again.

 

[DaisyDay]

I head about it but also that the PP board member won't be working this particular case. I don't know that for a fact but it makes sense. Conflict of interest and all. Still this is a good article. Worth reading.

Question: does this indictment of CMP have anything whatsoever to do with family law?

Lauren Reeder is a prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney's criminal family law division.

 

[AirPo]

Question: does this indictment of CMP have anything whatsoever to do with family law?

Well yeah. If PP wasn't a factory farm, infanticide, slaughter house, then there would be actuall families.