BLOG5 Major Problems with Planned Parenthood's Lawsuit against the Center for Medical Progress

By Marissa Mayer Posted on: | January 15, 2016

Planned Parenthood just filed a federal lawsuit against The Center for Medical Progress (CMP). And guess what . . . this isn't terrible news!

Not only does this lawsuit get the undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood's dirty dealings in the apparent sale of baby parts back in the spotlight, but it also means that there may be more investigation into Planned Parenthood (as part of the discovery process). Until then, there are already glaring issues with Planned Parenthood's lawsuit, five of which I've laid out for you below.

1. The videos have been authenticated and are available in their entirety online.

Planned Parenthood's press release about the lawsuit refers to the videos as "discredited" multiple times and describes them as "deceptively edited." Just one problem—they've already been authenticated. Forensic analysis of the undercover videos by Coalfire Systems, a highly accredited forensic analysis and cybersecurity company that does work for Fortune 500 companies, determines that the videos are authentic, with no evidence of manipulation.

I know, I know . . . it's a major bummer for Planned Parenthood's favorite talking point, but the fact remains that if you have access to YouTube, you have access to the whole truth about CMP's investigation of Planned Parenthood. The full versions of every video (many hours long) are available there. The only parts missing are moments like David Daleiden going to the bathroom. Thankfully, Daleiden chose not to share those moments with the world, but the good folks at Coalfire reviewed them so you don’t have to.

2. Taking hours of video and condensing it into digestible snippets is not illegal.

Planned Parenthood also complains that CMP "spliced together shards of long conversations to create short videos in order to spread false claims that Planned Parenthood 'sells' or profits from women’s decisions to donate fetal tissue for medical research." Okay, first of all, taking hours of video footage and cutting it down into digestible (in this case, more like stomach-turning) snippets is not illegal. The media does it all the time. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Katie Couric's interview with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards did just that.

Besides, if the Planned Parenthood officials didn't have so many great (and by great, I mean completely repulsive) one-liners, then these videos wouldn't be so damaging to their public image. Think: "I want a Lamborghini!" and "It’s a boy!" and "It's all just a matter of line items" and "Everything we provide is fresh" and . . . well, you get the picture. And again, CMP has released the full videos.


3. Planned Parenthood has admitted to taking money for "fetal tissue."

On October 13, 2015, Planned Parenthood announced it would stop accepting money for baby body parts. But in their press release, Planned Parenthood claims they "never sold fetal tissue or facilitated fetal tissue donation in order to make a profit." 

Let's try to forget for a moment that actual video footage exists of Planned Parenthood executives and abortionists haggling over the price of baby parts. As well as the fact that in her letter to Congress, Cecile Richards admitted that Planned Parenthood had received a “reimbursement of $60 per tissue specimen.” And, of course, that its partner Stem Express publicly advertised that it would provide “fiscal rewards” and a “financial benefit” to abortion clinics in flyers, bearing the endorsement of Planned Parenthood officials.

Even without all that evidence, the question remains: Why would an organization that claims to be doing nothing wrong stop doing the thing they say isn't wrong? Yeah, I'm confused too.


4. The undercover videos focus on the apparent illegal sale of baby parts and illegal abortion practices, not abortion access.

Planned Parenthood seems to have missed the fact that the undercover videos mainly focus on two illegal acts:

  • The sale of "fetal tissue" for profit
  • Modifying the abortion procedure to obtain intact baby body parts

Saying that the videos were meant to "block women's access to safe and legal abortions" is their way of trying to distract people from the fact that the videos provide pretty compelling evidence that Planned Parenthood broke the law.


5. The last time the abortion industry went after pro-lifers under RICO, it lost two Supreme Court cases.

Planned Parenthood's complaint calls it a violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO Act) to “[publish] deceptively edited” and “grossly misleading videos" and accuses the Center for Medical Progress of being a “criminal” organization. Um, no.

"Publishing videos and criticizing Planned Parenthood for its crimes is fully protected free speech under the First Amendment," says ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "It is none of the government’s business to let political special interests like Planned Parenthood decide who’s speech is 'true' and whose is 'deceptive' and then punish one side of the debate."

That's why the abortion industry lost two Supreme Court cases (Scheidler v. National Organization for Women) in 2003 and 2006 – to an 8-vote majority each time!

Planned Parenthood claims that they filed this lawsuit to protect women, but they are only concerned with their own image and their bottom line. And for good reason. Just this week, Kansas became the 8th state to defund the abortion giant, and this month we were the closest we've ever been to defunding them at the federal level after an historic vote by Congress. 

The momentum is staunchly in the pro-life corner, and with the March for Life next week, the lawsuit is likely a last-ditch attempt to turn the tide. Unfortunately for them, millions of Americans have viewed the undercover footage. And such grotesque disregard for life simply can't be unseen. 


Marissa Mayer

Senior Web Writer

Marissa Mayer is an Arizona native who fell in love with the written word at a young age.

More from ADF View All

A Response to Those Who Say Jack’s Case Is Not about Religious Freedom

Religious Freedom

A Response to Those Who Say Jack’s Case Is Not about Religious Freedom

Articles and opinion pieces about Jack Phillips and his Supreme Court case, M...

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 12/11/2017 22:00:00 Read More

If Your Viewpoint Is “Similar” to Someone Else’s, Should It Be Silenced?

Religious Freedom

If Your Viewpoint Is “Similar” to Someone Else’s, Should It Be Silenced?

Too much of a “similar” viewpoint is a bad thing, according to officials at t...

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 12/06/2017 18:00:00 Read More

3 Reasons Pittsburgh’s “Censorship Zones” Should Be Struck Down

Sanctity of Life

3 Reasons Pittsburgh’s “Censorship Zones” Should Be Struck Down

Last week, a federal district court once again upheld Pittsburgh’s censorship...

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 11/21/2017 18:45:00 Read More

Faith & Justice Extended: Q&A with Mollie Hemingway


Faith & Justice Extended: Q&A with Mollie Hemingway

The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway graciously agreed to talk to me about what ...

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 12/01/2017 18:00:00 Read More