Posted on 07/28/2015 11:13:44 PM PDT by Morgana
A regional branch of Planned Parenthood warned reporters in a new letter Monday against airing recent sting videos released by a group which purport to show the abortion provider’s employees discussing the sell of aborted fetus parts.
KVLY-TV in North Dakota published the letter from Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota.
“CMP has used footage obtained through deceit and unlawful behavior, including possible violations of state recording laws, federal tax laws and falsified state identification. Then, they concoct wildly false stories through selective editing,” the letter alleged.
“We expect this video will be no different in that regard; however, footage yet to come is expected to represent an extreme violation of patient privacy by including footage of post-abortion fetal tissue neither patients nor health care professionals authorized be filmed,” it added.
The letter was sent one day before the Center for Medical Progress released a third video, appearing to show Planned Parenthood workers standing by dead fetuses while talking about the price “per item.”
The letter concluded warning that “the material should not be aired.”
A representative for Planned Parenthood could not be reached for comment by TheBlaze.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Talk about projection. Liberals are masters of it.
Illinois has the same set up. Our pols don’t want to be recorded.
Not so easy to get the tooth paste back in the tube
Maybe we can get rid of PP this time
Edited? Careful what you allege, lest the whole proof be released untouched.
“Health care professionals” my arse, and the dead babies hardly constitute “patients.”
The way it was obtained may be illegal, but no more illegal than what the government does to everyday citizens....
Funny, when they release an edited video, it is ok to riot because of the “seriousness of the charge”. When someone records PP discussing selling dead babies, and edits it, that is considered worse than the act of selling dead babies.
Looks like all those films of the concentration camps in Germany in 1945 are invalid also.
After all, did the Army get signed consent forms from the barely alive prisoners they filmed? /s
FPP.
Fortunately, I think the reporters had good legal advice.
Under California Law Penal Code § 632:
632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.By having the discussion in a public place (a restaurant), there could be no expectation of not being overheard, and so no "confidential communication"(b) The term "person" includes an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or recording the communication.
(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
-— By having the discussion in a public place (a restaurant), there could be no expectation of not being overheard, and so no “confidential communication” -—
Thanks for the very important info.
60 Min on CBS has been doing this for decades.
They get awards for Attack Video.
Well, it was a "heavily edited" video. As everyone knows, that changes the morals of cutting up a living human and selling the parts for profit. If only they had not "heavily edited" the video people would understand exactly how moral cutting up a living human and selling the body parts is.
Or else...?
WHAT are StemExpress and the others USING these dead baby body parts FOR???
“Recording a conversation with a person without so advising them is prohibited in California.”
It isn’t in MN, I know that for a fact. Very few states are actually two party states. Of course if you record something across state lines (video conference or telephone for example), then Federal law comes into play, which requires all parties are aware of recording.
Borders on whistleblower, although not directly employed. There may be something along this angle for protection.
They know, they have millions of drones out there who willing take that as the truth, and this number is growing. If this is not turned around in the next 10 years, the drones win.
One was recorded in Colorado. The AG and Colorado Dept. of Health are investigating.
No.
Recording a conversation with a person without so advising them is prohibited in California.
If you are in a place where you could reasonably expect privacy yes. If you are sitting in a public restaurant where anyone can overhear you, no.
They checked the laws very carefully to make sure they were complying with them.
I heard the guy talking about it on Hannity radio yesterday.
Even the California recordings have precedent.
Recording a conversation in a public place is no violation as there isn’t an expectation of privacy while sitting at a table in a restaurant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.