Two Activists Who Secretly Recorded Planned Parenthood Face 15 Felony Charges (npr.org)

mi writes: California prosecutors on Tuesday charged two activists who made undercover videos of themselves interacting with officials of a taxpayer-supported organization with 15 felonies, saying they invaded privacy by filming without consent. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a longtime Congressional Democrat who took over the investigation in January, said in a statement that the state "will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations." Didn't we just determine that filming officials is not merely a right, but a First Amendment right? The "taxpayer-supported organization" is Planned Parenthood, and the charges were pressed against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Daleiden has called the charges "bogus," claiming that Planned Parenthood "has violated the law by selling fetal tissue -- an allegation that has been investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim," reports NPR. "Daleiden claimed the video showed evidence that Planned Parenthood was selling that tissue, which would be illegal. Planned Parenthood said the footage was misleadingly edited and that the organization donates tissue following legal guidelines and with permitted reimbursements for expenses, which investigations have corroborated."

Comments

Some privacy is more equal than other

[mi]

Obviously, privacy of police officers is less equal than that of Planned Parenthood officials. Whether the said officials have broken any laws or not, it should not be illegal to record them:

In California, you generally need the consent of everyone involved in order to legally record a private conversation.

Unless they are police officers?

Are PP's employees "entirely different" from policemen? Well, if school vouchers are anti-Constitutional — as the so-called "Liberals" would like us to think — because parents take them to religiously-affiliated private schools, receiving even a little bit of tax money changes everything.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the right-wing folks, they can't stay on the topic. Go in 13 directions so they can feel like they win something.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Harlequin80]

Are you saying any entity that receives any kind of government money invalidates it's employees rights to not be recorded without their knowledge?

From the road maintenance crews, to the contract cleaners, to the defence contractors, to the winner of the $500 council prize for poetry?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Perhaps if they changed the name to "Accidental Parenthood" or (more accurately) "Forced Parenthood" it would make you knee-jerk conservatives happier. I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, followed by the most callous treatment imaginable for the rest of their lives that conservatives espouse. If you're so goddam Christian, how about you fund Meals On Wheels for all those veterans you're so enamored of chest-thumping about? How about you fund some inner-city schools instead of starving their funding so you can promote corporate/religious/magnet schools in wealthy neighborhoods? How about walking some the walk you're so fond of talking the talk about?

/stands by for the inevitable deluge of hypocrisy.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, clown. California is a two-party consent wiretapping state, period.

Obviously, privacy of police officers is less equal than that of Planned Parenthood officials.

Of course it is. The police force work for, and are public employees of, the city/counties/state of California. They are by far more subject to public scrutiny. Moreover, they are granted special powers in very limited and unique circumstances, which is why they should always feel like they're under the public's microscope.

Oh, and by the way, the right to film someone is not the same-- either legally or in common understanding-- as the right to record audio of their conversations. There is an expectation that anyone in a public area as well as the police, who typically work in public areas, can have their image recorded. This is why we have public security cameras. However, in california if you're recording you must provide notices for people walking about saying that for example, a tv show is being recorded here, or this place is mic'd etc.

Are PP's employees "entirely different" from policemen?

Absolutely. They are private citizens, not public servants. What they are NOT is "entirely different" from the rest of the population in the state who are protected from being wiretapped without being first informed and conceding or without a warrant.

Also, you should be aware that Planned Parenthood is not funded with tax money like a charter school is. Planned Parenthood is re-embursed by medicaid just like any other health care organization. And the total amount of reimbursement for abortion-related services comes to exactly zero dollars.

Seriously, pull your fucking head out of your fucking ass.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[sjames]

Yes, the privacy of police officers while on the job being paid by the public is less than the privacy of two people not employed by the public.

Your privacy is also greater, as is an off-duty police officer's.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Mal-2]

Road maintenance crews have no right to on-the-job privacy unless they're using the porta-potty or something similar, as they're out in public. The rest, you have a point. California has some laws that seem intentionally designed to facilitate their abuse, and the wiretapping laws are among them -- but this doesn't seem to be a case of abuse, and attempting to hold this up as such is more likely to tighten the grip of authority than pry loose from it. I hope the ACLU isn't jumping on this one, they need a better test case.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
- Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

(nI'm not Christian, nor conservative)

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Altrag]

Huge difference here: Those police officers are out in the public streets in full view of everyone. There is no expectation of privacy.

The PP employees are (presumably) having their conversation in a private room since you expect the conversation to be well.. private.

If you go into a police station and have a conversation with an officer, you would expect it to be private by default as well because that's a totally different situation from being out on the street.

"Expectation of privacy" is quite an important concept here. Context matters.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[mbkennel]

| Are PP's employees "entirely different" from policemen?

Yes.

Your doctor talking to you is different than a policeman's official actions in *public*. It is similar to you talking with your lawyer. Besides, the defendants in the current issue also fraudulently misrepresented themselves which aids proving ill intent. Regarding policemen, the equivalent would be fraudulently misrepresenting oneself as a psychologist for law-enforcement officers and engaging in private conversations in private, taping them, and then publicizing them to shame policemen and the police department as a collective.

What do school vouchers have to do with anything? There is a Constitutional argument there because there is a long-established constitutional restriction particular to religion.

> After eight years of being racist, dissent is patriotic once again.

Dissent wasn't the problem. """dissent""" which accused Obama of not being a native-born American despite conclusive evidence was clearly a proxy for bigotry as it is about identity not ideas or policy. Secret Muslim sharia sympathizer (despite droning thousands of terrorists to death and whacking Osama) too is pretty much bigotry and not policy dissent.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[TWX]

There is a difference between recording someone in a public place and recording anywhere else.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[TWX]

Because it's a lot cheaper to simply pass laws that prohibit actions that one doesn't want, than it is to force one's self to engage in actions that theoretically should be required but cannot be enforced.

It's also because people are inherently selfish.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[dwywit]

This is a serious question, and I understand that things in the US are different from where I live, but what law or constitutional clause grants a "right to not be recorded"?

Where I live, there are laws covering this under various contexts and circumstances - for example, any one of multiple parties to a conversation can record it without the others' knowledge or permission, but someone who is *not* a party to that conversation, i.e. an eavesdropper, or clandestine listener, may not record the conversation (excepting police with a warrant, obviously). Most conversations can be recorded if you state the fact up front, which implies consent - but you can also request that it *not* be recorded.

Is it that an otherwise private entity like PP that receives tax/public funds suddenly becomes a government agency and therefore subject to the 4th amendment?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[TheReaperD]

Police officers are public employees while on duty, reinforced by federal, and California state laws as well as multiple independent court rulings that have nothing to do with said laws that were passed. So, except for the very vocal disagreement from some police unions, it has been unanimous that public recording of the police, as long as they do not physically impede an investigation, shall be allowed without interference. Now, if the people were to start editing the footage like they did in the Planned ParentHood video to falsify the events to create a completely false narrative that would be tampering with evidence, liable and possibly more charges , just like the Planned ParentHood video. If they did it to the cops I'd want them to be nailed just as bad as I want them to be nailed for doing it to the Planned Parenthood.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

its not right wing its a matter of life and death you asshole.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if you're misinformed, stupid, or trolling, but just in case..

Planned Parenthood is not "directly funded out of the taxpayers pockets". There is no line item for Planned Parenthood in the budget. Planned Parenthood, like any other health care provider, is reimbursed by medicaid for services. Like any hospital or doctor. They are not reimbursed for abortions.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbest thing I hope to read today.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Christians have some of the largest charities in the country. Christians have established some of the largest education and health institutions known to man. I don't think your argument is very valid. Saving a helpless life is the most honorable and human thing to do in this world. I think your definition of the term fetus is a bit outdated as huge advances in neonatal care in the last 40 years has taken place where your so called "fetus" can survive outside the mother and would be called a baby.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious explanation is that it's a simple expression of the misogyny that pervades those that identify as 'conservative' - Though don't bother bringing that up here unless you like seeing brainless ranting about SJWs and some slightly more civil (but equally incorrect) rationalization of the hatred of women.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Why try to save the life of a baby when its being born if the mother is having difficulty during birth if its just a fetus?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[ravenshrike]

The two party consent laws have never gone to the Supreme Court. Course, that may change in 3 years with this case.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Applehu Akbar]

I'm not a Christian and I don't define life as starting at the instant of fertilization, but doesn't life start at some time that has to be specified by law, a definition that is meaningful in cases like the murder of a pregnant woman? Since have put a lot of effort into legally defining death as cessation of brain activity, why not use the start of brain activity as the definition of humanity in secular law?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, followed by the most callous treatment imaginable for the rest of their lives that conservatives espouse.

A third trimester baby is viable, and yet can be legally aborted. It's gross, vile, and makes for very good propaganda.
Demographically speaking, over time, abortion proponents select against themselves in a very darwinistic way.
And for the third ringer, a lot of immigrants (hispanic) come from a culture that opposes abortion.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's correct; they are ENTIRELY different from police officers. Police officers are public officials usually acting in public. This wasn't a public meeting and Planned Parenthood officials aren't considered public even if they receive some public money.

Why is it always the right wingers who are "pro constitution" who so badly misunderstand the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and usually law in general? These slandering criminals are a mirror to your ignorance. Better pay attention before you find yourself in their shoes.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are an idiot, then. What is the issue that is bad but not so bad you can just tell the truth to get it to change?

ISIS are willing to behead you to make sure only allah is worshipped the right way.. To them, you can't die soon enough. Because eternal souls are at stake here.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

because religion = hypocrite

Religion needs to go away sooner than later, unfortunately we still have a few 100 years before the majority of people in the world have woken up and religion becomes a tiny, (probably still vocal) minority of people who believe in a bunch of shit that never happened.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistically they're only killing blacks so who cares. /sarcasm

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

a definition that is meaningful in cases like the murder of a pregnant woman?

There is a subtle detail being missed here. The murder of a pregnant woman is certainly not at the woman's consent. That's the difference. An abortion is the woman's choice. A murder is not. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Pseudonym]

Obviously, privacy of police officers is less equal than that of Planned Parenthood officials.

I understood that what they filmed was basically a counselling session, which is pretty much assumed to be private.

BTW, is "Planned Parenthood official" a real thing, or is that a made-up term?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[mbkennel]

There already is law on this, and causing unwanted deaths of unborn in cases when they would be likely to survive outside, is already a felony everywhere.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Zombie Ryushu]

Its a racism thing. The Anti-Abortion movement is really about ensuring that as many white Christian babies are born as possible, as its more likely whites who use these services in the US. There is the fear of the browning of America.

Look at what the alt-righters are saying, and you'll see the racist basis for the Pro-life movement.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Are laws are rooted in Christian morality not secularism.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Pseudonym]

A third trimester baby is viable, and yet can be legally aborted.

In almost every jurisdiction that I'm aware of (and that's around the world), late-term abortions are not legal unless the fetus is not viable or the mother's health is at significant risk, and almost always require prior medical ethics approval if it's not an emergency.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Mattcelt]

I have had this very thought for many years now.

A close friend had an aneurysm years back, but who was revived (though never resuscitated). In order to remove him from life support, the hospital was required by law to do an EEG to try to detect alpha waves (and thus consciousness, by definition). The test came back negative, and his family helped him to pass on.

I have wondered since what the feasibility would be of running such a test on a foetus to determine the presence of consciousness. This would seem a logical and scientific way to remove the philosophy/religion from the debate altogether and allow everyone to move on.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Pseudonym]

I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, [...]

Sure, let me help you out.

Before the late 1970s, the obsession with fetuses was an entirely Roman Catholic thing. At the time of Roe v Wade, most evangelical Protestants in the US were fine with legal access to abortion at least for health reasons.

In the fallout from Watergate, conservatives got into bed with fundamentalists, taking over both the Republican Party and the evangelical church. The previous wedge issue, segregation, was no longer viable, so to get Catholics onside, abortion was chosen as the new wedge issue.

This is all quite recent history. The "traditional doctrine" that fetuses have the same moral value as a child is younger than the Happy Meal.

If this is news to you, look at what's now happening with contraception. In 20 years time, people may find it hard to believe that most American evangelical Protestants were fine with contraception at the turn of the 21st century.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Per the CDC, 90% of abortions happen within the first three months. Less than 2% happen after 5 months. Almost all states limit abortion to 13 weeks. Exceptions to this are based on medical and/or life threatening reasons.

66-75% of fetuses do not survive if they are born at 23 weeks. It drops to 50% and 10% as the weeks add on. Many of those born too prematurely have issues for the majority, if not their entire lives.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Right wing troll, do you not know the difference between civil servant in a public location vs a private office?

It's called expectation of privacy, but I'm not surprised that such nuances are beyond your comprehension.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

The false dichotomy is strong with this one.

What makes you think they don't value and help post-birth life as well as pre-birth?

The OBSESSION with fetuses, is that they are being murdered with blatant disregard for their human rights.

Just like this OBSESSION with starving children in Africa.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Baloroth]

a definition that is meaningful in cases like the murder of a pregnant woman?

There is a subtle detail being missed here. The murder of a pregnant woman is certainly not at the woman's consent. That's the difference. An abortion is the woman's choice. A murder is not. Glad I could clear that up for you.

You completely missed his point, so hard in fact I suspect it was a deliberate choice to misunderstand what he was saying. What he was saying was that a fetus, unborn child, or hell, a fully born child (or adult), must be legally and/or morally recognized as a human by some definition as some point in time, and at that point it should be afforded legal protection as a human being. In point of fact, under federal law, an unborn child is recognized as a human if it is the victim of a violent crime. "The woman's choice" is completely irrelevant to the question, for the same reason a woman can't simply choose to kill a 6 month old, because everyone recognizes that a 6 month old is a human person, and one person cannot choose to kill another just because they feel like it.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Pad're ... the American Constitution does NOT grant rights. Nor powers. Liberty (rights) proceed naturally from the character of individual humans. Now, while nearly all powers-of-behavior reside in the individual American citizen - - like the power to butcher-out Trotsky progressives or crooked crony capitalists - - the USA Constitution ( USA social contract) donates a few of **ALL** such powers , explicitly limited powers indeed , to the Federal Gub'mnt. The states ... as a class ... already have snatched a backpack full of powers. A few more specified in the Constitution goto DC, but powers over a semi-infinite range of human behaviors reside with the American individual citizen. Of-course if you're a border-jumping bitchfuck or camel-banging Muzzi-wog then you have no such powers (rights) whatsoever. Suck it down.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the CDC 55% of fetuses being aborted are either Black or Hispanic. Other studies report that Black women are three to five times as likely to have abortions as are White women.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Fail troll is fail. NoNonAlphaCharsHere never said anything about the government doing any of those things.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[plopez]

There is no barrier between government and society. Government is deeply ingrained into society, no know human society does not have some form of government even it is only on the scale as a council of elders or patron of a family. And society is very much a part of and influence on government. They are inseparable.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Pseudonym]

The RC Church has formally opposed abortion since the 2nd Century AD.

Yes it has. OTOH, the Protestant church and conservative America never did until just a few decades ago.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[JThundley]

They were at a restaurant, sitting in the outside patio with other patrons. I'm not sure if that's considered public or not.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[buss_error]

I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses

.
It's simple, really. Rich white men (or men of any race) seldom become pregnant. If men were forced to give birth:

1. There would be no more multiple child families

2. abortion would be fully government funded (hey, old men can get Viagra on welfare, but women can't get basic health care)

3. The objection to abortion in my experience has less to do with the fetus than it does with the race for the person wanting one. Oh, they'll say it's about the fetus, but wait a bit, and talk about food stamps or such, and they'll say "If you black or brown, it's easy to get, but not for white people that really need it."

I've come to the conclusion that many conservatives (not all) are never happier than when they have their nose firmly shoved into someone elses genitals or wallet.
Oh, and if you want to flame me for my opinion, just remember that my doing so, you've moved yourself into the class I am discussing. Remember, I said "many" not "all".

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you would. Russia has gotten pretty right wing Christian lately. Boss says they need your help back on Reddit.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[BlueStrat]

Its a racism thing. The Anti-Abortion movement is really about ensuring that as many white Christian babies are born as possible, as its more likely whites who use these services in the US. There is the fear of the browning of America.

Look at what the alt-righters are saying, and you'll see the racist basis for the Pro-life movement.

Right, a eugenics program started by Margaret Sanger (later adopted by Hitler as a solution to the "Jewish problem") and heartily approved by the KKK (remember Senator Byrd, [D-KKK]?) in order to kill off blacks, Hispanics, and the mentally-ill, but it's those opposed to such that are 'racists' and 'misogynists'.

LOL!

Too funny!

Strat

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything you said is conjecture and #2 ends in a lie.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring that line about 'starving their funding', hm?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[wolf12886]

Good luck with that if you're ever in a police station and say something "off the record". No need to worry either since I'm sure if they did record you, you could just make that argument and the police would get 15 felonies filed against them just like these activists.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Comrade Ogilvy]

That makes sense for us secular humanists. But if your primary concern is baked in religion and you know it, then why accept as legitimate data that will very very likely hand your opponents 99% of what they want on a silver platter?

Furthermore, a human 2 year old has a vast amount of brain activity compared to most mammals, but a healthy newborn I would guess is not so impressive. Once the human level activity lines are drawn, someone will test the brainwaves of your hamburger before it is chopped up. That will make some animal rights weirdos esctatic, and the religious groups will declare the whole process as ridiculous.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[axewolf]

(scattershot emotional quibbling appealing to favorite authority)

(participating in partisan politics....(it's current year)....)

You are talking a whole lot of crazy. It's not the federal government's job to fund everything. You are cherry picking things and willfully ignoring the context.

It's a really cheap trick. Just rattle off a bunch of things, too much to really address and refute on this kind of platform, and strut around like you won something.

(modded up....)

dear god stop abandoning reason to delusionally validate your social status. In case you can't see, you aren't on the winning side. Time to compromise, not double down with crazy bullshit. I know it's hard not to copy the actions of the insane media you floss your brain with, but I have faith that you can pull up.

"Conservative vs. liberal" needs to end. The future is about "rational vs. irrational". Yet there is no rational side to be found. We need to establish it.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[roca]

> If you're so goddam Christian, how about you fund Meals On Wheels for all those veterans you're so enamored of chest-thumping about?

Many Meals on Wheels projects are supported by Christian groups, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...:
> Meals on Wheels [Calgary] was formed in response to a plea from the Hospital Chaplaincy Committee of the Calgary Presbytery of the United Church.
http://www.catholiccharities.c...
I personally volunteered for Meals on Wheels work as part of a Christian group.

> How about you fund some inner-city schools instead of starving their funding so you can promote corporate/religious/magnet schools in wealthy neighborhoods?

Christian groups tend to fund their own schools, but there are many that serve poor inner-city areas.

> How about walking some the walk you're so fond of talking the talk about?

Christians and Christian organizations pour enormous resources into charity work. Many of the biggest charities in the USA are Christian.

The blanket assumption that Christians or conservatives (as a whole) do not "walk the walk" is unsustainable.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

"Privacy" and where you send your kid to primary school is life & death? You're the asshole, asshole.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[buss_error]

Everything you said is conjecture

Absolutely. But it's an informed conjecture. Actually, more of an, I don't know...opinion?

and #2 ends in a lie.
Define your terms. If the only woman's healthcare in 50 miles is a closed Planned Parenthood clinic, then it's not a lie.
Do you think I like abortion? Why? I in fact hate it and wish it was not an option some feel they need. I just happen to think it's none of my damned business to tell someone what they can't and can't have medically for a conceptus I have no involvement in. I also hate and loathe the death penalty.

Some would call abortion murder. OK. I will simply point out the Bible says murderers are sinners and God will punish them. Great. News flash: I'm not God.

Don't look now, but I'm pretty sure neither are you.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Lest you be deterred by DNC shills who will loudly lie in response to such claims, here is an article in Time written as an apologia for the pro-choice crowd to explain away any purported racism on the part of Margaret Sanger. They give her every benefit of the doubt and spin every quote in her favor. Still, they have to admit:

That’s not to say that Sanger didn’t also make some deeply disturbing statements in support of eugenics, the now-discredited movement to improve the overall health and fitness of humankind through selective breeding. She did, and very publicly. In a 1921 article, she wrote that, “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

And her is a quote from that 1921 article written by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:

Birth Control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

There's no particular reason to pick just that quote. The whole thing is a pro-eugenics screed filled with racism and class-based breeding preferences.

In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal, with the final aims of Eugenics.

Time goes on to try to rehabilitate Sanger, trotting out Gloria Steinem to try to excuse her writings on eugenics as merely "the language of the day". But this is no temporal anachronism. She clearly views the mission of Planned Parenthood as reducing fertility among the "inferior races and classes". Again, here she is in her own words:

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

One can make any claims one would wish about Planned Parenthood and the value of abortion to women. But claiming that Margaret Sanger's motivations did not include the overtly racist philosophy of eugenics is unsupportable.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[mi]

Are you saying any entity that receives any kind of government money invalidates it's employees rights to not be recorded without their knowledge?

Yes. Receiving public money makes your office a public space and the employees — public servants. Whatever argument you'd use to argue, it is our right to record police, can also be used to argue for the same thing about any other government employees while on the job (with the obvious exception of classified work).

to the winner of the $500 council prize for poetry?

Prize-recipients aren't employed by the government. Everyone else on your list qualifies, yes.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[mi]

No, you idiot. Tax refund is not payment for work done.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

no killing an unborn is wrong. this genocide must stop. 40 million deaths and counting. 40 million babies have died horrible deaths. yes you are all assholes who believe abortion is good. I pray for your souls.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd murder actual live people on the pretext of saving the life of an unborn child. Anti-abortion advocates like you are stupid, vicious animals.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[mi]

I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses

Just can't stay on topic, can you? I expressed no opinion about abortions or fetuses. My point was, any and all government employees — be they policemen, firefighters, teachers, or indeed Planned Parenthood officials — can be recorded by taxpayers while on the job (with the obvious exceptions of those doing classified work, etc.)

How about you fund some inner-city schools

How about you stick to the topic at hand, uhm?..

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Your conclusions are stupid at an epic level, and we are all left poorer for having read them.

The abortion question comes down to one thing.... when does a human life begin? Everything else is irrelevant.

If one believes that human life ( as in a person with full rights as a human) begins at conception, there can be no arguments about abortion. It is morally indefensible at that point.

If, however, on chooses some other time for a starting point.... say at birth... then there are lots of avenues for argument one way or the other.

There is no scientific basis for choosing one moment over another. It is entirely philosophical at that point. Whether that philosophy be steeped in religion or swaddled in sexism is irrelevant. It is fundamentally unproveable and therefore an unresolveable argument.

I have never heard an argument that abortion should be fine for black people but illegal for white people. In point of fact, anti abortion groups argue that the entire point of Planned Parenthood is the eugenics that you would place on them. The founder of Planned Parenthood agreed with them on this point.

You seem to have some heartfelt opinions. But they are entirely based in a fantasy world of projection and motivated reasoning. None of what you write is even remotely supportable. It is the ramblings of a sexist nutcase who is so steeped in team-based politics that it is impossible to see the world in any other way.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[khallow]

Obviously, privacy of police officers is less equal than that of Planned Parenthood officials.

And you have a problem with that why? Police officers on duty don't have the same expectation of privacy that a private non profit and its officials have.

Are PP's employees "entirely different" from policemen?

What law enforcement powers do PP employees have again?

receiving even a little bit of tax money changes everything.

So PP employees should be able to go out and write tickets for speeding and stuff because they get a little tax money?

I notice you don't mention any applicable law. If we just go off of the vague assertion that it "changes everything" rather than a concrete law, then there are plenty of negative ways we could interpret that which make matters worse.

From what I'm reading here, this case doesn't look good for the activists. They committed fraud, they covertly videoed someone (which incidentally may be illegal to do even when the target is a police officer), and libeled Planned Parenthood afterward. The first two are felonies. The last a civil tort.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to chime in to support Roca on this point about schools and charity.

For many decades, the only viable choice for education for many poor, minority, inner city kids has been the private Catholic schools. The Catholic church pours millions of dollars into scholarships in each inner city in the country.

As for "starving the funding" of inner city schools, even adjusting for inflation, funding of public schools has only gone up. Here, there's a chart for that. Or if you prefer politics with your facts, here's a left-leaning takedown of Republican claims that education spending is up astronomically and the results are flat. They rate it "mostly true". No honest broker could claim that any public schools are starved of funding. (Or that evil Republicans or conservatives are running any inner city schools or setting their funding levels.)

However, the cost of administering public schools has gone up exponentially over the same period. A problem that things like charter, magnet and religious schools seek to address. Christians and conservatives (and big, greedy corporations) have put their money where their mouth is on this topic, funding "school choice" voucher programs in inner cities around the country (most notably in Milwaukee) as a demonstration of their commitment to educational excellence for all and as pilot programs to demonstrate a better way of running public education. The left have predictably opposed these moves. (Obama notably killed off Washington DC's voucher program as one of his first acts, relegating thousands of minority students who were doing well to failing schools)

As for Christian charities, well... c'mon. You can't seriously suggest that Christians don't do charity. Just look around the city you live in. What are the hospital names? Baptist Hospital... Methodist Hospital, St. Jude's Hospital, St. Anthony's Hospital.... in fact, the healthcare system in America was largely founded by Christian charitable organizations. And those homeless programs? Mostly Christians. Ever been to a soup kitchen? They are usually in church basements.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to deny the reality all around you. Guidestar maintains a directory of all US charitable organizations, searchable by category. They have 84k christian charities. 48k secular charities. There are thousands for other religions as well. Religious people do charity. That's kinda their thing. In fact, many (if not most) of those secular charities are founded by religious people. The Red Cross is theoretically non-religious. Yet it was founded by people who were Christians, and is now expanded with lots of Muslims as well. The United Way was founded by a group of ministers and a rabbi. Like I said, religious people do charity.

My mother was involved in Meals on Wheels for decades. Her Methodist church was the primary source of funding and volunteers for the program in her county. This silly partisan attempt to make state block grants all about Meals on Wheels is stupid.

My wife had several hundred hours volunteered at our local public school last year. Plus time put in as an officer of the PTA. Plus thousands of dollars spent on supporting the schools. I put in quite a few hours as well. And we both find time to volunteer at our church every week.

So yeah. Christians do put their money where their mouth is. And their time. Whether it is in education or other charitable works.

I'm going to put this anonymous, because I don't like to attach politics to my handle. Besides, being passionately in favor of individual rights and opposed to killing people around the world, my personal politics are decidedly at odds with both major political parties, so getting in political arguments is off-putting for everyone who attaches their self-worth to either team red or team blue.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Useless fucking twat. Dissent has always been patriotic. Racism is shit like claiming that the president was born in another country because he's brown. Dissent is arguing against his policies. Real Americans argued with his policies; racists argued against his legitimacy. Sad that you can't understand the difference.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[imidan]

Obviously, privacy of police officers is less equal than that of Planned Parenthood officials.

In this case, yes. People (including police officers) conducting their activities in public spaces do not have the expectation of privacy.

People (including Planned Parenthood employees) conducting their activities in private spaces in California do have the expectation of privacy. California is a two-party consent state, which means that in a private conversation, both parties must consent to recording.

It's super simple. You can throw up useless chaff like school vouchers if you want, but the law is pretty clear.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[imidan]

Receiving public money makes your office a public space

Umm. No. Get the supreme court to agree with you on that one, and I'll change my answer.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[buss_error]

But they are entirely based in a fantasy world of projection and motivated reasoning.

My objection is based on one very very simple concept: I am not God. I don't have the ultimate authority or prurience to know when a singe cell is a "life" or not.
I do know four things;

God punishes sinners, in accordance with His mercy and the sinner's repentance.

I am not God.

Neither are you.

God is awesome.
Therefore I don't hesitate to post using my long time pseudonym. Yet you post as an Anonymous Coward. Why don't I use my real name? Because I've already been shot twice by people that think abortion is murder, but don't hesitate to attempt murder themselves. I happen to loathe abortion. I happen to wish women didn't feel the need for it. But I also feel I have no right, nor any Holy Right to tell someone else how to obtain grace. I live my life in a way I hope is an example. Only God knows if it's right or not. So I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong or that you are "stupid" or that you are living in "fantasy world", only that I trust God a lot more than to assume He needs me to pass laws for force others to live His Will.

It is not for me to be the proctor of other's righteous lives - only to be and live that which I perceive to be right.

If sin is impossible, then grace is also impossible. For what good is it for people to be forced into Grace? That is an empty husk, the shell of the nut.
And if, as some believe, there is no God, then there is even less reason for me to forbid their choices.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Tranzistors]

Again, you ignore the woman's choice

You are getting ahead of yourself. Rights to life and rights to choose are both very important, but before we can even begin to compare them, we need to figure how much rights are there to begin with. While it is obvious that egg has no rights, wile a 18-year-old has all of them, there blurry lines in between. Even where abortion is legal, I am not aware of legislation that would permit it, if the child could survive caesarean section. And yes, I don't know all the medical terms.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Tranzistors]

without it they would not have a platform to provide abortions

By the same argument governments fund coffee shops. Since it pays for infrastructure and security, those places couldn't otherwise exist (at least their business would suffer significantly)

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[buss_error]

sigh

sed 's/prurience/prescience/g'

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

So when people can keep their filth private , they'll never get caught or convicted for anything. DAMN HANDY.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[james_gnz]

Since have put a lot of effort into legally defining death as cessation of brain activity, why not use the start of brain activity as the definition of humanity in secular law?

I think this is on the right track. However I think it's specifically higher brain function, thoughts and feelings, which is important. Lower brain functions, such as automatic reflexes, just serve a supporting role, IMO. I have heard that this is covered in Morowitz and Trefil (1992)--The facts of life: Science and the abortion controversy. Apparently it's the cerebral cortex that's the seat of consciousness--i.e. thoughts and feelings--and it doesn't begin to form connections until 20 weeks gestation (18 weeks of pregnancy).

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

So you believe that white people, and ONLY white people, mustn't be allowed to simply live around their own kind.

Why? Racist much? Why ONLY white people?

Because you're a braindead idiot who parrots whatever crap the Jewish media tells him, that's why.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[GLMDesigns]

So, all investigative journalists should be sued? Or only those that go after entities that you are in favor of?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Applehu Akbar]

Are laws are rooted in Christian morality not secularism.

Today, Christian moral code(s) are an element in a secular civilization, not enforced by a dominant theocracy.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[mi]

Get the supreme court to agree with you on that one, and I'll change my answer.

The four "Liberals" on Supreme Court — your part of it — did agree in the decision I linked to. If some school vouchers are taken to a religious school, they said, that makes the entire voucher program unconstitutional because tax money "supports religion".

The rest of the Court disagreed and "Liberalism" lost this time, but not in an earlier case like that.

Receiving even a modicum of public funds is a game-changer — as it should be. And then, of course, comes the general and common sense rule of thumb, that California's anti-recording laws are violating: "whatever can be legally seen, can be legally recorded".

I, once again, ask you to come up with an argument for recording police, that can not be used to support recording of PP officials.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[jeff4747]

but what law or constitutional clause grants a "right to not be recorded"?

It's covered under a general "right to privacy" that arises from precedents and "common law". It is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, so it is not a "right" in that sense.

At the same time there is no enumerated "right to record private conversations without consent" in the Constitution, so laws against doing that are not forbidden. That could brush up against freedom of the press in the First amendment, depending on the circumstances of the recordings.

Where I live, there are laws covering this under various contexts and circumstances - for example, any one of multiple parties to a conversation can record it without the others' knowledge or permission

In the US, it mostly varies state-by-state. What you describe is called "one-party consent", which is sufficient in some states. California is not one of them, and the videos were recorded in California. California requires the consent of all parties to a private conversation, and it is common practice to announce that everyone is being recorded at the beginning of the conversation to document that consent has been given.

It should also be noted that video and audio recording often have different laws.

Is it that an otherwise private entity like PP that receives tax/public funds suddenly becomes a government agency

No.

and therefore subject to the 4th amendment?

The 4th amendment prevents the government from searching and seizing property without due process (warrant, court order, etc). It's not applicable.

The 1st amendment includes "freedom of the press", which restricts the government from hampering the efforts of journalists. But PP isn't the government. Nor is PP bringing these charges, the state of California is. And California can bring charges whether or not PP wants them to do so.

The defendants are going to attempt to claim they were acting as journalists and thus shielded by the First amendment. The fact that they edited the recordings to completely change the context is not going to help that claim.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[flopsquad]

My point was, any and all government employees — be they policemen, firefighters, teachers, or indeed Planned Parenthood officials . . .

As usual, mi, you are full of shit. For someone who rails against government so much, you'd think you would have a basic grasp of what government is.

Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that is incorporated in the state of New York (session-based, search for"Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc."). You see, a corporation is "a legal entity, other than a natural person which often has similar rights in law as a person."

The employees of a corporation are not magically transformed into "government officials" under any legal or logical standard, not even when that corporation receives money from the government. Your absurd, post-hoc rationalizing argument means that you also think Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, Lutheran Services of America, and Habitat for Humanity are government entities and their employees are government officials.

Being a government official has wide ranging legal effects from defamation standards to bribery laws to special criminal penalties for threatening one. Words have meanings, and if you want to talk in a grownup conversation, you should use the real definitions, not the special ones mi made up in his head.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Wild_dog!]

states rights.... that is what people want.

Well some states will have different laws than others.
Best know the law if it is not uniform across the states.

How are California wiretapping laws abuse exactly?
They are designed to protect those who don't know they are being recorded from those who are recording.
I would say the law protects the rights of people to not be recorded without their knowledge.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Wild_dog!]

PP receives payments for the feds for services rendered. They do not receive money from a budgetary line.
They receive money for services under Medicaid and Title X, just like hospitals and doctors who see patients.
Pretty certain you wouldn't classify highway building contractors, doctors, hospitals, defense industry contractors as government employees just because the government pays them for services they provide.

"Receiving public money makes your office a public space and the employees — public servants."

Not in the real world or under any law I am aware of. Where did you get that from?

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcastic, but yes, that's why planned parenthood was started.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[jeff4747]

I have wondered since what the feasibility would be of running such a test on a foetus to determine the presence of consciousness.

You do realize it's rather difficult to attach electrodes to the skull of a fetus, right? Given that it is inside a human who actually has rights.

This would seem a logical and scientific way to remove the philosophy/religion from the debate altogether and allow everyone to move on.

"Alpha waves = consciousness" is not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to believe. Also, infant brains are far less developed than child/adult brains. And fetus brains are far less developed than infant brains.

There is no natural line. All of development is a continuous process.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it, the crux of the matter.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal laws are supposed to supersede state and local laws. If a federal court determines that videoing certain groups is legal, then it's legal. No matter where you are in the US

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Exactly. For example, you can record any phone conversation in California, but you must either say explicitly that it is being recorded near the beginning of the conversation or have a warning beep on the line every 20 seconds or so. It is not as if you are even required to ask permission, but you are required to let the other party know about the recording device being used. To fail to inform the other party is considered a kind of fraud -- free speech has never protected intentional fraud.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Please mod parent up for noting that California is exercising authority understood as existing under Common Law, not a specific power enumerated under the state or federal constitutions.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[meglon]

I'm sorry, you're one of those "states rights" dipshits until a state does something you don't like. It's called - a state law. The supreme court has not invalidated it, no matter how much of a long, stupid and completely off tangent attempt you make to try to shoehorn one thing into meaning another.

So the answer to your question: "Didn't we just determine that filming officials is not merely a right, but a First Amendment right?" is.. NO, only fucking morons who don't understand the difference between police officers working for the public in a public setting, and doctors working for a private company would have had their heads so far up their ass to think that's what they were supposed to have learned.

And lets be real clear.... not only did NPR report none of the states found any evidence of wrongdoing, INCLUDING the fucking fake christian sociopaths running Texarse. Here's a good rundown if you can pull your head out of your ass long enough to be bothered to read it: http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/...

These films were nothing more than a couple lying piece of shits, the likes of which normal people have come to expect from conservatives and fake christians, lying like little bitches because they're too fucking moronic to live in reality.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[meglon]

And... you're defending criminals because you agree with them.... They broke the law, which would have been fairly obvious with minimal investigation. They then had a complaint filed against them. Do you not investigate something clearly a criminal act because you agree with said act? How very fucking conservative of you.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Receiving public money makes your office a public space and the employees — public servants.

I got a voucher for a digital converter box a few years ago, did that make me a public servant? Do the container deposits I get back make me a state employee? If receiving reimbursements from the government for qualifying services makes people public servants, then a whole lot of people are being cheated out of their government benefits. I guess that would solve the health care issue though. Did you take part in Cash For Clunkers? Good news! You're now eligible to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that everybody should donate to these causes, then wouldn't the logical first step be to amend the U.S. Constitution, in order to give our government the authority to force us to donate to these causes?

Why would you want to skip that step?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[GLMDesigns]

Isn't what they did what ALL investigative journalism does? When 20/20 or 60 minutes runs an expose and films people surreptitiously what do you suppose that is?

Leaking stolen documents is also against the law. Did we lock up NYTimes writers and editors for publishing the Pentagon Papers? Nope.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses

Just can't stay on topic, can you? I expressed no opinion about abortions or fetuses. My point was, any and all government employees — be they policemen, firefighters, teachers, or indeed Planned Parenthood officials — can be recorded by taxpayers while on the job (with the obvious exceptions of those doing classified work, etc.)

How about you fund some inner-city schools

How about you stick to the topic at hand, uhm?..

Ok...except, Planned Parenthood employees are NOT government employees. Not even quasi-government employees. They are no more an employee of the government than the staff of HP is, despite the fact the government paid HP for the laptop on my desk for me to do my job as a federal employee..

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they aren't journalist and they edited the video to take it out of context. Wait maybe they are journalist :P probably working for Fox.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[meglon]

No, what they did is not journalism. The fact you think it was shows why this world is such a fucked up place: really stupid people.

Journalism is gathering a story, including the evidence to back up said story, and then informing people of that story.

These worthless lying sacks of shit made up the story to say what they wanted it to say. That's not journalism, that being a fucking liar. They broke the law doing so as well, which will hopefully be punished for being the criminal acts that it was. It all still won't change the fact that you're a gullible fucking idiot only listening to things that agree with your opinion... not matter how fucked-in-the-head-crazy your opinion starts out as.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because they weren't the ones who stole the papers. They received them from a third party. They just released what somebody else stole.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a racism thing

You are correct... It is a racism thing. Planned Parenthood was started as a way to keep the black population under control and has become wildly successful thanks to provision of abortions.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

^^^^ mod it up

LOL I got this "Lameness filter. Post ABORTED.

My how I love you slashdot. So apt.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course we all know that many (meaning a society controlling plurality of) rich white conservative men are misogynists, and racists (and wimps?). But don't we still need to have the discussion about the rights of the unborn? There is obviously no physical, or mental difference between a baby one minute after birth and that same mass of cells one minute before birth. When does person-hood begin?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and if you want to flame me for my opinion, just remember that my doing so, you've moved yourself into the class I am discussing

And here I thought you had a pretty reasonable thing going up until that statement. Equivocating those who disagree with you with shitty conservative racists is some pretty weak sauce, though it seems to be the flavor america prefers today.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

causing unwanted deaths of unborn

None of them want to die. This is a pretty disgusting sort of legal hypocrisy, that killing them is legal as long as the egg donors want them dead.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

So why was abortion illegal? The huge overwhelming Catholic influence in America?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[GLMDesigns]

You're combining several things.

1. Is it criminal to surreptitiously film activities if one is an investigative reporter?
1a. If so, are criminal charges brought forward in a consistent manner (ie: everyone who surreptitiously films people is brought up on charges)

2. Did the investigative reporters lie and make up things (Dan Rather) or edit film in such a way to distort the record (Katie Couric).
2a. Is such lying grounds for bringing criminal charges?
2b. If so, are criminal charges brought forward in a consistent manner.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[mi]

I'm sorry, you're one of those "states rights" dipshits

Please, don't hate, asshole. One more namecalling attempt from you, and you'll be talking to your keyboard alone. Behave yourself — you aren't in your "safe space" denouncing opponents' "evil thoughts" to like-minded assholes.

It's called - a state law.

Constitution trumps state laws. If the right to record officials is protected by the First Amendment, no state can take that away.

difference between police officers working for the public in a public setting, and doctors working for a private company

Planned Parenthood is not a private company. Ostensibly a "charity", it is financed by taxes — government money being their single largest source of funds — by far. Which makes them indistinguishable from police, firefighters, or the NPR "journalists".

none of the states found any evidence of wrongdoing

That's irrelevant. The topic is, California bans recording of public officials — such as PP personnel. Had it been about secretly recording, say, opponents of "gay marriage" for example, you and Mr. Becerra would not have objected — because both of you are hypocrites.

These films were nothing more than a couple lying piece of shits

Irrelevant. It still is — or ought to be — legal to make them. "Sticks and bones can break my bones, but the words never hurt me," — remember?

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Cinnamon Beige]

A long time ago, the ACLU defended the right of Neo-Nazis to hold a march--because if they left the court deny them that right, then it'd be established that a community has the ability to deny groups the right to march merely because of what that group is.

You don't have to agree with what they did to recognize that if we get an established precedent that says that "You cannot record public officials (whom the state defines as broadly as possible) without their consent, for any purpose," this can and will be abused, and it will be too late to do your push for how photography is not a crime. The law here, in and of itself, has Problems, but if it's permitted to stand without successful challenge, the courts can and will use that to keep it.

Odds are, this case was chosen as a test case--by California, to get the precedent they want. If you're not willing to care about everybody's rights--you don't really care about anybody's. Regardless of who happens to be charged, the problem some of us have here is that this is a bit too transparent a way to get it so the state can make it a crime to record the cops.

Also, honestly, your entire argument is pretty authoritarian--it's certainly not that of classical liberalism. It's the state's responsibility to prove they are criminals; merely charging somebody with a crime does not mean they committed that crime nor make them criminals, and the state is the one upon whom the burden rests to prove that the person has committed the specific crime they are charged with--not that they committed a crime, but that they committed what they have been charged with. (That the defendant committed a different crime has been quite successfully used as a defense, and sometimes it happens that the state simply fails to prove that specific important part of their case.)

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[bryanandaimee]

Ad-hominem attacks are where it's at. I'm with you there. But I can't help but think you might have missed the point of the debate. Person-hood trumps privacy. The only way to argue that killing a fetus is OK in order to protect a woman's privacy is to also argue that the fetus is not a person under the law. And that is absolutely what the law says. The debate is about whether that is the right thing ethically.

The fetus is obviously human, and it is alive. At what point is it a person? I can see several stages of development being the deciding factor myself. Brain activity might be one, heartbeat might be one, viability might be another. You'll have to be careful about viability though because that keeps creeping back earlier and earlier. I'm not sure where to draw the line, but I'm pretty sure it's not the instant before birth.

You don't have to be a Christian, or white, or male to wonder about when a fetus becomes a person. Ranting about the motivations of the other side doesn't invalidate the basic question.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[michael_wojcik]

In the fallout from Watergate, conservatives got into bed with fundamentalists, taking over both the Republican Party and the evangelical church. The previous wedge issue, segregation, was no longer viable, so to get Catholics onside, abortion was chosen as the new wedge issue.

Yes. Of course, the choice of abortion as the issue wasn't random. Obviously Roe v Wade (1973) helped it crystalize as a rallying point. But the US had also been working through a gradual expansion of the "franchise of personhood" for a couple of centuries, including abolitionism and anti-segregation, expanding the voting franchise to women and lowering the age limit, etc. Under that cultural regime, fetal personhood was an obvious candidate for the expansion of the personhood franchise - though of course it's not an obvious conclusion, since proponents and opponents remain fiercely divided.

The personhood franchise lets anti-abortion arguments piggyback on the long and powerful history of Civil Rights battles in the US. That distinguishes it from, say, "traditional marriage" (or other anti-LGBT planks).

Lauren Berlant's '94 article "America, 'Fat,' the Fetus" in boundary 2 is one version of this analysis, if anyone's interested.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[axewolf]

No, in my argument there is one degree of removal at most. In your example there are many.

Contrast:

Mine: Health care dollars are spent at a place that promotes abortion, using any kind of common sense you assume that makes their patients more likely to use their abortion service

Dollars totally undesignated, able to be spend on anything, are spent to establish roads used for anything and everything, and none of the money is ever touched directly by the business.

I can't describe the horrible feeling that comes when I see people like you actually think you're right. You need to be supervised by some one responsible.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[WrongMonkey]

The absence of alpha waves is conclusive of brain death, but the presence of alpha waves is ambiguous, at best. Experiments have detected human-like alpha waves in a bowl of Jell-O.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[imidan]

Ugh. I don't have a part of the supreme court. There's no need to make that into a tiresome us vs. them argument. The court makes decisions, and according to the way we organized our country, those decisions are binding for all of us. There may be justices with whom I agree more often than others, and there may be decisions that I don't like very much, but I don't get to disclaim justices and decisions that I don't like. My part of the court is the whole court.

But, to your larger point, you seem to be asserting the losing argument of a case that went before the supreme court. And I guess you're trying to say that I should agree with that argument because it's "liberal" and so am I and therefore I must support it. But I don't, and more importantly the majority of the court didn't, so it doesn't matter. And I don't need to come up with the argument that you demand: lawmakers and judges have already done it. That's why these people are being prosecuted, and people who record police in public are not. It's already the law.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Tranzistors]

Thanks for the clarification. Now your argument is less absurd. If we want to bring degrees of removal closer, consider this example — company XYZ sells computers to the government, which is a significant client, but not the only one. Would you believe that this company is publicly funded? I can't agree on that. Do public funds end up in the company? Yes, they do.

What you seem to suggest is that government should take an ethical stance and boycott those businesses that do wrong. But this is absurd, since boycott is employed by those, who only have indirect means of exerting pressure. Governments should combat unethical behaviour by passing laws (bans, regulations or taxation) and enforcing them.

And don't patronize me.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitution trumps state laws. If the right to record officials is protected by the First Amendment, no state can take that away.

That ruling states "we conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." So even if this were a case of someone recording the police, it's still not entirely clear. Recording an on-duty officer in a public place in a manner that does not interfere with his official duties? Protected. Recording an off-duty officer talking about work over dinner? Not clearly protected.

Given that the police typically interact with the public when acting in an official capacity, it isn't even clear how this ruling would relate to recording public officials who typically work in more controlled environments and/or with protected information, or if it would apply to them at all (note the use of the term "the police," not "public officials."). Can you record a private meeting between a Senator and a lobbyist? The President's medical exam? A classified briefing to the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Even if you can make the case for this applying to all public officials (which is a bit of a stretch), the "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions" associated with other officials would likely be far greater than they would be for police officers.

And given the number of rulings on cases involving recording of elected officials (most notably the Gingrich case), some public officials would already seem to be clearly established as separate from police officers when recording is involved (the police officer ruling did not seek to overturn any previous rulings but merely clarify lower court rulings that all agreed to some extent). Absent some other ruling extending the protection of recording police officers to the recording of other officials, precedent would seem to indicate that this ruling does not apply to cases of recording all government employees. But that's not even what the case in question is about.

Planned Parenthood is not a private company. Ostensibly a "charity", it is financed by taxes — government money being their single largest source of funds — by far. Which makes them indistinguishable from police, firefighters, or the NPR "journalists".

Lockheed Martin receives 85% of its revenue from the US government. That's more than double the percentage that Planned Parenthood gets and isn't just the "single largest" source but, unlike with Planned Parenthood, it makes up the majority of their revenue (and an overwhelming majority at that). Are Lockheed Martin employees therefore considered public officials?

If anything, Lockheed Martin would have a stronger case because it holds contracts directly with the US government that are tied to funding directed by Congress, while Planned Parenthood only receives money from the US government through more general federal grant programs and Medicaid reimbursement. But no, even if 100% of a company's revenue is received directly through specific line items in the federal budget that are uniquely tied to that company, its employees are not automatically public officials. Money is irrelevant, authority is what matters. And nobody at Planned Parenthood (or Lockheed Martin for that matter, in theory at least) has the authority to act on behalf of any government in any capacity. And without that, it is impossible for them to be considered public officials in any way.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Mi, you seem to be suffering from "wish it were so". Your interpretation of law is not just wholly unqualified, but it is wholly wrong. Being paid by the government to perform a service - medical non-abortion services in the case of PP - does not automatically convert your business into an official government agency or an official public entity. No amount of wishing on your behalf changes this either under USC or under the CA codes. It is the ownership of an entity that determines this, and PP is a privately owned 501c3 organization.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[mi]

Recording an on-duty officer in a public place in a manner that does not interfere with his official duties? Protected. Recording an off-duty officer talking about work over dinner? Not clearly protected.

Yes, indeed. Now, the PP officials were certainly not "off-duty", so that does not apply. But I'll even grant you, that it is unclear and a "gray area".

Moreover, I have argued earlier, that while I personally support the right to record anything and everything one is legally allowed to see, I do not understand, how the First Amendment in particular protects such an activity.

But the court's — and the Slashdot's — prevailing opinion was, that it does. It is patently obvious from all the namecalling and other passions expressed both in that earlier discussion and this one, that this right to record depends on who is being recorded. As I suggested, had these two activists been from the Left — secretly recording, say, a lobbyist discussing abolition of some FCC regulation or an effort to stall legalization of "gay marriage" — the same prosecutor would've looked the other way and the same folks on Slashdot would've cheered.

If anything, Lockheed Martin would have a stronger case because it holds contracts directly with the US government that are tied to funding directed by Congress

Indeed, had it been a guerilla attempt to expose LM's colluding with lawmakers or to violate some environmental rule, no one would've asked, wait a minute — how did these guys record this? And, even if someone did ask, no prosecution would've resulted from the question.

And without that, it is impossible for them to be considered public officials in any way.

Let's put it this way — it is a much smaller logical jump to conclude, that they are public officials, than to claim, that the First Amendment — the law about Freedom of Expression — protects a perfectly silent and expressionless activity.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Pseudonym]

That's a good question, and historians disagree on this.

Abortion was not illegal in the United States until the latter half of the 19th century. It wasn't talked about before that probably because it was associated with unmarried sex. It became illegal at around the same time that childbirth became medicalised, so one leading theory is that it may have been part of that push to get midwives out of the picture and replace them with doctors.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember, they're anti-abortion and pro killing babies

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, indeed. Now, the PP officials were certainly not "off-duty", so that does not apply. But I'll even grant you, that it is unclear and a "gray area".

You're mixing issues. The point was that the ruling, in its limited scope applying only to police officers, was far from absolute. Your assertion was that the ruling meant that "the right to record officials is protected by the First Amendment." So there are three elements to address: what limits there are to this right, who it applies to, and whether this case is within the scope of these limitations. Taking these one at a time, this point establishes that the right is not absolute, nothing more. You seem to agree, so we can consider this settled.

It is patently obvious from all the namecalling and other passions expressed both in that earlier discussion and this one, that this right to record depends on who is being recorded.

Context matters. Who is doing the recording, who is being recorded, how they are being recorded, where they are being recorded, and why they are being recorded all factor into the determination of legality, as indicated by the unspecified "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions" that are mentioned in the ruling and the details of the laws that cover cases where this ruling does not apply.

As I suggested, had these two activists been from the Left — secretly recording, say, a lobbyist discussing abolition of some FCC regulation or an effort to stall legalization of "gay marriage" — the same prosecutor would've looked the other way and the same folks on Slashdot would've cheered.

How about two Republican Congressmen discussing an ethics investigation? Given the particulars of the Gingrich case, this assertion just doesn't hold water. And the opinions of Slashdot users or even prosecutors are irrelevant here. What matters is the law and how it has been interpreted by the courts. The courts have affirmed a limited right to record police officers, nothing more.

Indeed, had it been a guerilla attempt to expose LM's colluding with lawmakers or to violate some environmental rule, no one would've asked, wait a minute — how did these guys record this? And, even if someone did ask, no prosecution would've resulted from the question.

That's pure speculation. But let's say that someone posing as a lobbyist secretly recorded Lockheed Martin executives discussing environmental regulation compliance in a two party consent state and released a heavily edited version of the footage before releasing 5 hours of raw footage, sparking outrage that ultimately results in no evidence of any crimes being committed by LM. Pure apples-to-apples. Do you really expect everyone to just shrug and walk away? LM has enough lawyers to find even the tiniest loophole to hoist the activists on. And the government has a vested interest in the reputation and success of a company that gets 10% of the defense budget. These guys would be lucky to avoid a one-way trip to Gitmo.

Let's put it this way — it is a much smaller logical jump to conclude, that they are public officials, than to claim, that the First Amendment — the law about Freedom of Expression — protects a perfectly silent and expressionless activity.

Expression is an abstract concept. A completely silent audio file can be (and has been) considered a form of expression. Being a public official is not abstract in the slightest. If you have no authority to act on behalf of a government entity, then you are not a public official, period. This sort of thing is taken very seriously and even public officials have to be very clear about when they can and cannot authorize certain actions. That's because their authority has limits. Part of the rationale for protecting the recording of police officers is to allow the public to confirm that they are properly using their authority. This is the point that can lead you to apply the ruling beyond the stated "police officers" to other public officials, but it's a dead end in this case.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they're NOT babies!

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Altrag]

Oh I'm definitely not saying the police don't take liberties with their powers that they shouldn't have. I'm just saying that comparing such to PP isn't fair.

Though there's still at least some distinction there: You're in their house so expecting that they'll follow your rules is a bit foolhardy, and you can be fairly sure that they won't publicize any recordings they do take that they weren't supposed to (that is, if nobody knows they exist then there's a bit of a no harm, no foul rule in play. Same as if the people who recorded the PP meetings just kept it to themselves -- nobody would be the wiser even though they technically were still in the wrong.)

That said, there are times in a police station when you can absolutely guarantee privacy -- when you're with your lawyer. The police may not get punished for invading your personal privacy (even when they should,) but they sure as hell would take some heat if it came to light that they were recording your confidential meetings with your lawyer.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[EmptyHead]

It is also worth noting that if PP was not tax payer funded, the people in question would not have bothered to film them anyway. That is why I don't buy this nonsense about this being considered a little mom and pop shop whose rights were horribly violated by this effort to expose a tax payer funded organization crossing the line into selling body parts of aborted fetuses. (Regardless of how I might feel about the practice - that is irrelevant)

Felonies? Good lord, they're ruining that term too. What happened to the good ol' days when a felony meant something spectacular had happened?!?

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[EmptyHead]

Democrats love Planned Parenthood. This site is 80-90 percent Democrat leaning for some reason. The only issue you'll find conservatives and democrats working together here is on H-1B visa reform. Anything else political is pointless to discuss here.

Re:Some privacy is more equal than other

[Capsaicin]

The abortion question comes down to one thing.... when does a human life begin? Everything else is irrelevant.

Life, in the biological sense, cannot begin at conception obviously, since a dead sperm or a dead ovum cannot make in living diploid human. Much less can it begin at birth for obvious reasons. Life doesn't begin it's passed on, so the question lacks coherence and we can easily reject a life-based analysis for resolving this question. That is, of course, unless you are using some specialised defintion of 'human life.' But this means this question resolves itself to how it is that we define the term.

Now we can sensibly ask when some form of legal personhood begins (which some people might mean by 'a human life'), which at common law is birth (but being law subject to re-definition). That this is arbitrary, and therefore philosophically unsatisfying, has at least the benefit of producing a definitive answer.

Philosophically we might consider the fact of individual human consciousness (which does have a beginning) that might more sensibly be considered in resolving the ethics of abortion. The question would be, at what point does the possibility of some form of rudimentary self-awareness begin? Which, I suspect, would lie at some point after conception, but before birth.

HOWEVER, there is also the question of the individual human consciousness and the bodily autonomy of the human who is to host the fetus. To sit around and insist that "the abortion question comes down to ... [the question of] when does a human life begin" or even "when does an individual human consciousness begin" is a characteristic of those whose bodies are unlikely ever to be called upon to act as a host. The abortion question, for many in the debate, comes down to one thing, whose has the right to decide what a woman may do with her own body (including carrying or not carrying a fetus from conception to birth). Everything else, they might insist, is irrelevant.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than other

[axewolf]

Enter manufactured consensus enabled through chat bots and censorship

They are not government employees

[Harlequin80]

I really don't understand how anyone can conflate someone who works at Planned Parenthood with a police officer. They are not employees of the Government or any form of government body.

Just because they receive some government funding doesn't mean their status changes. They aren't acting on government orders and should the government withdraw their funding they would attempt to source it elsewhere.

Anyone who is trying to argue that these people are government officials has an agenda they are pushing.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy who posted originally is a moron, obviously.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

> Just because they receive some government funding doesn't mean their status changes.

Furthermore, they 'receive' government funding exactly the same way any hospital or doctor does - via medicaid reimbursement for treating individual patients. There are no government budget line-items earmarked for planned parenthood.

Re:They are not government employees

[amiga3D]

As much as I hope we can kill all government funding for planned parenthood, the right to not be subject to this kind of spying by activists is too important to give up. I see people on the right trying to support this activity but they should beware. When you take these protections away we all lose. Personally I think we've given up too much of our freedoms now. Let's not give any more away.

Re:They are not government employees

[rmdingler]

I'm not sure the take-away from this incident should be whether or not the secretive recording of the Planned Parenthood imbroglio was lawful, so much as I question the implications of editing the recording. citation

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking forward to videotaping all those coeds getting government help with their tuition.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. You got your wish. Planned Parenthood is NOT publicly funded right now.

It only is reimbursed by Medicaid for (non-abortion) services as would be any other health care provider serves Medicaid patients.

Re:They are not government employees

[MightyMartian]

And that, to my mind, is the real crime. By the time these people were done, the claims from the pro-life crowd almost reached the hyperbole that they were making sandwiches out of the aborted fetuses. I suppose that aspect of it could be covered under libel laws, and I certainly do hope that once the prosecutions are done, a nice batch of civil lawsuits follow, where the editing these assholes did to try to make Planned Parenthood seem like a pack of baby-eating monsters is also revealed.

Re:They are not government employees

[phantomfive]

citation

That is truly, and undeniably, without a doubt, a citation.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

If you bothered to read, you would learn that they are not funded by selling off fetal parts. They, like ANY place that performs abortions, are allowed to collect a small stipend for the transport and packaging. It is not a profit center.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand how anyone can conflate someone who works at Planned Parenthood with a police officer.

Mmm, well, the submitter was "mi". Based on mi's post history, this person seems to suffer from the fear that someone, somewhere, might be attempting to improve the world in a way which infringes upon a person's right to be a complete wanker.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're not funded by selling fetal tissue. They charge a small amount (30-100) for it to cover costs, but they turned down the large amount offered by the anti-abortion NGO (I believe that would have been illegal, but I'm not sure).

Not that your comment had any relevance to the initial point that PPFA is not publicly funded.

Re:They are not government employees

[bobbied]

Congratulations. You got your wish. Planned Parenthood is NOT publicly funded right now.

It only is reimbursed by Medicaid for (non-abortion) services as would be any other health care provider serves Medicaid patients.

Isn't accepting Medicaid dollars pretty much the same as being government funded, at least in part?

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

They're also funded by selling off fetal parts.

More than 5 state investigations, 3 different congressional hearings and several miscellaneous local investigations have proven this 'fact' to be false. Troll/pray harder. It'll be equally as effective.

Re:They are not government employees

[kqs]

You may have missed the "investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence" bit of the story. And most of the states were conservative states with investigators who really, really wanted to find evidence. Either every single Planned Parenthood clinic is staffed entirely by loyal criminal geniuses who make Lex Luthor seem an idiot, or they did nothing illegal or wrong. A few clinics donated fetal tissue to research, and received a pittance for it for their costs. And likely less than their cost, because if it were even one penny more than their cost, then at least one of those states would have announced it.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on. They're not in office -- so the excuse about documenting officials doesn't apply. Said excuse being highly important in regard to people who in many cases are given nigh-discretionary power to make exception over the fundamental rights of citizens, such as the police.

In the case of planned parenthood, it's neither office nor are any rights involved.

Re: They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The canteen at the local base is government funded. The McDonald's where the convoy stops to eat is not.

Similarly, the VA is government funded. Planned Parenthood is not.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you know what happens to baby's circumcision skin? I'll give you a hint. A lot of women spread it over their faces in the hopes of looking younger. The rest is sold for scientific research. Why are you concerned about dead things being sold and not about selling parts cut off of living things?

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

By that standard, basically every medical provider (including doctors, hospitals, clinics, medical supply distributors and pharmacies) in the United States are 'government funded'.

Re:They are not government employees

[Opportunist]

Because it serves their agenda. Duh.

Re:They are not government employees

[Opportunist]

Because mutilating babies so they can't get pleasure out of masturbation is a good thing according to conservatives.

Unfortunately they don't really manage to think a hint further, to the point where the friction from fucking someone in the ass is higher and hence more pleasurable when your dick ain't that sensitive anymore.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

No, don't be retarded.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Nahh, "amiga3D" is the typical right wing protobrained moron. He'll repeat any lie that the fat racist drug felon on noontime radio tells him "conservatives" should believe in, like a broken record.

God help us if the moron breeds.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't care, they have their narrative and nothing anyone says other than their pastor will change their mind. Time to start taxing churches.

Re:They are not government employees

[axewolf]

People who perform an official duty of importance in the community are accountable to the community. Transparency is necessary to ensure that abuses are detected and checked.

This is not some petty squabble. This isn't some divorce proceeding where the husband bugged his wife to record her cheating.

This human life and death.

The law is WRONG.

The shilling/insanity is real.

Re:They are not government employees

[Macdude]

Personally I think we've given up too much of our freedoms now.

What about my freedom to use the medical practitioner of my choice? What about my freedom to partake in the medical procedures of my (and my Doctor's) choice? Why do you get to decide what "freedoms" I get to exercise?

Why is it that the people who most loudly shout about defending "freedom", are the ones that want to control who I marry, which bathroom I use, and which god I pray to?

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny how the same people who want to withdraw their government funding also want to treat them as government employees when it suits them...

Re:They are not government employees

[rtb61]

The real mess and legal problems comes from conspiring from the get go, to secretly record and then edit the content as per the instructions of whom ever paid them to do so. So ramp up the charges with extended custodial terms in order to force naming names. Fifteen years is pretty much guaranteed to expose the paymaster, unless they can wangle a pardon from Trump to protect Republicans.

Planned parenthood, seriously why the fuck would any one be stupid enough not to fund that. What, idiots in America lack sufficient useless spawn, from intoxicated idiots to lazy to reach for birth control, right wing dumb fuckers need millions more of them, why, just why. PLANNED parenthood what the fuck could possibly make more sense. Why do you want children to have children, why should anyone be forced to grow a rapists child (genes are real and they have an impact), why should people incapable of looking after children have children (what the rich and greedy need more orphans to be their victims), Americans are sick (damn idiots and lead water pipes, lead in fuels and firing lead bullets like no tomorrow, stupid is as smart consumed lead and became stupid).

Re:They are not government employees

[amiga3D]

So the video he's being prosecuted for making isn't true?

Re:They are not government employees

[Sun]

Maybe it's because I'm not an American, but I don't get what the fuss is about.

If you're having a conversation with me, and I record (video or otherwise) the conversation, how is that invading your privacy? You were already conversing with me?

How is me recording the conversation different than me testifying about its content?

Shachar

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you think that a Dr. who takes reimbursement for treating a medicaid patient is government funded. The doctor is getting a fee for service that is paid on the patient's behalf by medicaid. If you think that, then, for instance, Boeing is not a private corporation but a government funded entity as the government pays Boeing for air planes. And on and on. Net-net, you're stretching, maybe for ideological reasons?

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I hope we can kill all government funding for planned parenthood.

I swear to god, I will never get Americans.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former Amiga user, you absolutely disgust me. Not only are you a lying Linux zealot and troll, but also an idiot. I'm sure when David Daleiden gets out of prison you'll be the first one lined up to suck his deceptive cock.

Re:They are not government employees

[Wild_dog!]

Who are you referring to?

Re:They are not government employees

[Wild_dog!]

Yep... and they aren't funded by the government.... they get fees from Medicare/medicaid for the services they render to poor women.
Many doctors won't see patients like these because what they get paid is paltry.
An zero abortions have federal funding by law.
Those are private donations.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

The "videos" are fraudulently edited. He's a liar. Just like you, neanderthal fuckface.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not get distracted from the issue at hand. A politician-turned-Attorney General, bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood, is maliciously prosecuting someone for recording conversations in a public restaurant. He is ignoring his own state law to do so. This amounts of a violation of Title 18, Section 242 of the United States code, conspiracy against civil rights. He picked the wrong time in history to try this stunt and will be lucky not to end up in jail himself.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing babies isn't - or rather, shouldn't be - a protected "right" of your doctor. And going to such murderous scum for your baby killing fix is such a disgusting notion that you should be committed rather than provided the evil service you sought.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care who you marry. I don't care what bathroom you use. I don't care what practitioner you use, provided you don't ask me to pay for it (if you do, I'll have opinions). I don't care what god you pray to (is there any significant movement that's trying to force you to pray/not pray to a given god? I think this one's strawman.)

But freedoms aren't equal. Which is more important, freedom to advocate for whatever you want, or freedom to marry who you want? Clearly the first, since through exercise of it you can get the second. I'll ally with the enemies of marriage rights against the enemies of free speech any day.

Re: They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Your last statement makes it sound like you don't believe in free speech. You'd ally with the enemies of marriage rights but not the enemies of free speech. That's how I read it atleast.

Re: They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you gave up your privacy and rights a long time ago doesn't mean we want the same. We don't want a survaliance state and we are trying hard to fight the powers that be into making it one.

If you record what I say without my consent, it is illegal. This case shows why. The people who recorded the video EDITED it to create the agenda they wanted. If you can't see why this is a bad thing then I don't know what else to tell you.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

"want to control who I marry, which bathroom I use, and which god I pray to?"

One of these things is not like the others.

Re:They are not government employees

[colonel spalding]

It's irrelevant in this case. The deplorables edited the film so it looked as if the PP people did something they didn't.

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

That freedom hasn't been taken away. If it has, can you please cite where and when?

Re:They are not government employees

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point completely.

I do not wish to fund this activity.

You want to fund this stuff? Go ahead - that is your choice.

They need more $$$, dig deeper - make it hurt!

So 60 Minutes...

[Tulsa_Time]

can no longer record undercover in CA ?

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[bobbied]

Apparently not..

Well, actually it depends on what political side you are covering (or uncovering) when you do it in CA..

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[guruevi]

CA is a two-party consent state so it has never been legal in CA to record surreptitiously where the other party expects the conversation to be private.

The exceptions may be federal employees on duty at the time of recording under federal jurisdiction but this doesn't apply here, PP is a private organization and the employees are private entities.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Dunbal]

Not if you're recording the government breaking the law. Only the government is allowed to get away with breaking the law.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

And reporters

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[rahvin112]

As with anything, you break the law and it's up to the DA to decide if you are prosecuted, not everyone that commits a crime gets prosecuted. In this case the people involved did classic one party recordings that are illegal in California. How the public perceives that illegal action will likely determine if you are prosecuted or not. Considering the published recordings were doctored to make it look like people said things they didn't say that action probably increased the likelihood of them being prosecuted, in addition no finding of wrong doing on the part of PP obviously increased the likelihood because you lose the argument of public good.

These guys weren't journalists, they were political operatives lying to people so they could illegally recording conversations without the consent of the party in a 2-party state and then doctored the recordings to make them say things they didn't. That will get you prosecuted in almost every state that's a 2 party state. In addition the use of fake drivers licenses and lying about their names and stuff puts them up for false ID charge and a fraud prosecution.

I would be surprised if they didn't prosecute them given the conduct involved.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[TWX]

Grand juries and prosecutors usually have wide discretion for bringing charges too. Given that the fraudsters intentionally engaged in fraud with the recordings that they made it's not exactly the same circumstances as recording a farmer willfully kicking his way through the barn packed to the walls with chickens unprompted.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[bobbied]

I'd like to point out that not everyone charged is convicted either.. But I'd like to also ask the following:

What is a journalist? If there is an exception for being a journalist, then they are going to get off because they where acting like journalists doing an investigative report on PP, which they released to the public and it became news. Sure seems like a good basis for the "We are journalists" claim to come.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[bobbied]

IF that is true, they are going to walk free....

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[bobbied]

Bringing charges? Sure.. Making them stick? That will take a judge and jury... Not all charges end up in convictions. Somehow I get the impression these guys will not get convicted, though it will cost them a lot of money to defend themselves, money that will likely be donated..

In the mean time, they will drag this through the press, giving PP a repeated black eye.... I'm guessing they will say "Mission Accomplished!" when this is all done.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[bobbied]

Oh yea, that's right...er... Leftist's view.. No, I didn't get the memo, I'm not on the proper distribution list.

Which is why I'm happy with the SCOTUS pick we got from Trump... Imagine, a judge that thinks he's bound to rule based on what the law says and not on how he feels about it... Judges like him will end this kind of political prosecution....

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

And if journalists use false identities and secret recordings, and then edit the recordings to create an impression that's been proved false by government investigators, then they can be charged with libel... as well as criminal trespass. Whether their film is accurate or not, doing it in medical surrounding also becomes criminal violation of HIPPA.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[kqs]

If there is an exception for being a journalist, then they are going to get off because they where acting like journalists doing an investigative report on PP, which they released to the public and it became news.

When you edit the recordings, changing the order of questions and answers so that it sounds like someone is breaking the law when they are not, then you are not a journalist.

In the past, a few (fortunately very few) journalists have completely skewed undercover operations like this. And whenever those people are caught, they usually lose their jobs and are never hired or respected again, and their employer takes a huge credibility hit, because they WERE NOT ACTING AS JOURNALISTS. This encourages other journalists to not do this, and news outlets to not let their employees do this. It's not a perfect system, but it usually works well enough. Just like this case, except for the many people who despite all of the evidence believe these criminals uncovered something.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[kqs]

People exposing illegal actions by PP/Democrats are criminal terrorists, not reporters/journalists.

And in this case, people who lie about exposing illegal actions are also criminals, though nobody but you seems to be calling them terrorists. Why do you think they are terrorists? That's kinda creepy.

Reporters and journalists get quotes then assemble them into a story. Zealots edit the quotes so that they seem to mean something very different than what they say. Sadly, there are more zealots that there should be in this world.

Criminals are reporters or zealots or anyone else who gets their quotes illegally. Some are prosecuted, some are not. The ones who put out true stories are usually not prosecuted, though there are exceptions. Really, the ones who put out false stories are also rarely prosecuted, but some judges get grumpy when people try to frame innocent folk.

These guys are zealots and criminals. I don't know if they'll be convicted; fake IDs and illegal recording are fairly minor and you know they will have very well funded defenses.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[kqs]

You do realize that these folks recorded private citizens and employees of a non-profit, and not "the government", right? People seem really confused by this point, and I have no idea why.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine, a judge that thinks he's bound to rule based on what the law says and not on how he feels about it... Judges like him will end this kind of political prosecution....

Nope, as Justice Alito demonstrated in his joining Roberts' dissent on Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Judges will gladly betray their own legal principles in a fit of pique, solely to vent their rage. He couldn't even man up enough to write a separate concurrent opinion, but wussied out. Thomas has been an even worse violator, and Scalka took the cake in Obergefeld v. Hodges. His own principles would have required him to enforce the full faith and credit clause. Naturally, he pulled an opinion that was worse than Taney's out of his ass.

If Gorsuch does anything, it will be to endorse another form of persecution, such as the firing of a reporter for WUTC in Tennessee because the Senator in question didn't notice her reporting badge and recording gear.

Feel free to take a stand on that one BEFORE you accuse anyone of hypocrisy. But get the facts first. Including the law.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[BlueStrat]

Gah! *Napoleon*!

Apologies.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof? I've not seen a comparison of the original footage vs the aired footage. Conclusively show men this and I'll think about it. Without bringing that.. the collective opinions here are just that.. opinions. Politicians.. especially when they are in heat (election season) will edit whatever they need to meet their goal. I've not seen the proof that there was intentional editing to slander the message. If they've done nothing wrong (which I doubt) then there is likely no way to turn "I love chocolate cookies that weigh 10 ounces" into "10 ounce chocolate weighs more than love".

I'm not on either side what I detest is any federally funded organization that picks and chooses both how it reports its conduct while simultaneously boasting about its benefits which may not be the same.

What puzzles me is why this community is so left/liberal/zionist that a balance cannot be advertised. It's like you are in charge of guarding Willy Wonka's factory while you blame the nearby school system for ease of access to sugar. Hypocrite much? The problem isn't chocolate which is acceptable in moderation.. the problem is that the impacts to humans aren't being truly shared.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sugar-industry-scientific-heart-research-that-made-fat-look-bad/

Why doesn't the Slashdot mass-thought group come down like the hammer of justice on the shamble of an op-ed that Katie Couric did on gun control? I'm betting the editing was similar... removing segments that didn't agree with the message while stitching together the rest to better display the pre-planned "message"

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/26/479655743/manipulative-editing-reflects-poorly-on-couric-and-her-gun-documentary

For the same reason.. why don't you truth-warriors step in and call out when Mayor Rob Emmanuel blames weak federal gun legislation for the unconscionable gun deaths in his city when that city/county/state has some of the most strict gun control laws in the country. The actual problem is lack of prosecution of those offenders.. but I don't see screaming and yelling here.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/justice/chicago-shootings/index.html

I didn't see any of you getting your panties in a wad when the Clinton foundation took millions in amid a deal with the Russians for Uranium.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

Nor any equivalent disgust when Bill took in half a million from Russia for speeches, a million (combined) from the UAE, 550,000 from China yet none of you got worked up enough during the last election to bitch about foreign influence.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/

Yet the consensus here.. is that it is more important to legitimize the sale of post-abortion baby parts and demonize any group that tries to halt it? Is this somehow a better use of your time and efforts?

Stay strong, prosper and live well in your glass castles. The usual warnings about "stones" still apply.

Peace out... there are many more sheep in the flock only a days journey from you.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Tulsa_Time]

Sounds like Katie Couric.... is she a Journalist ?

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Trickster Paean]

There are no exceptions for being a journalist to the California wiretapping statute (Cal. Penal Code 632).
If you are in California, you should get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation, just to be on the safe side.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[Trickster Paean]

It isn't true. There are no exceptions for reporters to the California wiretapping statute, Cal. Penal Code 632.
Daleiden and Merritt are probably going to be convicted on at least some of the charges.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

The media edit the news all the time, based on what their corporate interests and political agenda is. You had the edited 911 call about Travon Martin. You had Lester Holt interrupting Trump every time Hillary rubbed her nose. They make trump look wrong and stupid all the time by how they misreport the news. They're actively involved in brainwashing the public.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the answer to your questions already:

The Left has no morals or ethics. Their behavior is simple binary: "does it support my goal? yes: promote it, no: attack it."

Facts, truths, common sense, law, decency. All of those are irrelevant if they get in the Leftist's way. Unless of course, it works in your favor for that particular case. Then they shout it from the mountain, attempting to appear as some pious, saintly figure.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do those with mod points even bother modding-down BlueStrat?

You know he wears your down-mods with pride as a badge of honor, right? His karma is so high it won't affect him anyway, and he knows this. You simply waste points that could be used better elsewhere. That's part of the satisfaction he gets from your down-mods.

Why encourage him or give him the satisfaction?

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

"journalists" do this every day now. If you look at the published clips, they are heavily edited every day to follow a narrative.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[iris-n]

Or maybe people who are actually murdering innocents are terrorists?

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Wild_dog!]

Luckily you can just go and look the videos up. You don't have to take anyones word for it.
But I have looked at a bunch of the full videos and they are very very long. 5 hours plus.
It will take some work on your part to do however to comb through it all.
The short videos are nothing like the long ones. The long ones are really really really long and boring for the most part.

I will do the easy part for you .... but you will have to do the rest.

Center for medical Progress videos:
https://www.youtube.com/channe...

Or you can just pick a fact checker with the understanding that they have already sifted through all of this stuff and presented things in a verifiable manner.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Wild_dog!]

The left has no morals?
Broad brush strokes are easy.

Let me fix that for you.
Some people have no morals.
Most people have varying levels of morals
Some people are highly moral.

Doesn't have anything to do with political bent.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[Wild_dog!]

The allowable exceptions I found are police are able to record in the course of an investigation. Witnesses who are designated to do so by the police are able to record in the course of an investigation.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[Wild_dog!]

Except no violations by PP upon multiple politically driven "investigation", hence not criminal.

Nothing to see here.

back to you.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean that liberal Democrat who went on a shooting spree?

I agree. Most Democrats should be put in Gitmo.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm growing really suspicious of the diehard Trump supporters that show up in all of these threads, while all other actual "nerd" related threads rarely reach over 100 comments these days. For one, how many "nerds" do you know that are religious conservative and nationalist? It's just not very common, a lot more tend to be agnostic, atheist, or mildly religious, unless all of these people live in really religious areas in the south. I have actually been a regular to this site for many years and what makes up the dominant "right" viewpoint on here has never been like this. /. seems like an unusual place to target, but I do think they know "nerds" are more susceptible, hence even more aggressive activity on 4chan and Reddit. All it takes is a couple people an hour of their time and a bunch of fake registered and AC accounts and the resources to use different IPs.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[mrchaotica]

CA is a two-party consent state

I think Planned Parenthood does good work and I'm glad the asshats who tried to undermine it are getting prosecuted, but two-party consent is not the law the prosecution should be hanging their hat on. Why?

Because in general, two-party consent is bullshit (and CA's assertion of extraterritorial jursidiction over it is even more bullshit). If I'm a party to a conversation I should have the right to record it regardless of the consent -- or indeed, knowledge -- of any other party involved!

Instead, what these people should be prosecuted for is not the act of recording itself, but rather the act of slanderously misrepresenting their findings!

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a journalist?

For starters, someone who adheres to the basic principles of journalism.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Straif]

where the other party expects the conversation to be private.

That is the issue. It's been pretty much established that most meetings in public areas where neither party had reasonable expectation of privacy were exempt from this law. There are also cases where meetings happened inside the offices of the targeted party that were considered exempt because while not in 'public' the conversations could be overheard by any other passerby thereby removing the expectation of privacy.

Essentially the law is written and enforced in such a way that unless the parties are alone behind locked doors the recording party can make a claim the conversation was public and not be in violation.

In this case 14 of 15 charges would most likely already be covered under the exceptions already spelt out in CA case law. The 15th charge is essentially saying they conspired to commit the crime of making the recordings, which is obvious but not much of a crime if the 14 other charges are dismissed.

No matter where you fall on the pro/anti abortion scale this prosecution reeks of politics.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[slashdotwannabe]

Imagine, a judge that thinks he's bound to rule based on what the law says and not on how he feels about it... Judges like him will end this kind of political prosecution....

And here's where we see that your previous posts were concern trolling. You can't have it both ways. In your first sentence you SAY you want judges to rule based on the law, and in your second sentence, you call this prosecution politically motivated, even though the fraud charges in particular are cut and dried. They FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS. There's no room for "feels" there.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[HeckRuler]

but two-party consent is not the law the prosecution should be hanging their hat on

. . . It's a well-established law on the books that was violated.

two-party consent is bullshit

Well, YES. But that's just... like... our opinion man.

If I'm a party to a conversation I should have the right to record it regardless of the consent -- or indeed, knowledge -- of any other party involved!

Rather than "at a party", I believe the term "no reasonable expectation of privacy" is more appropriate.

BUT. What the law IS versus what the law SHOULD be are two different things.

Listen, one of the reasons we even HAVE states is to test out different rulesets and find out what works, what doesn't, and for who. California and Chicago are trying out the whole "you can lie your ass off while off the record" idea. And yeah, both you and I agree that's probably just a tool for corrupt officials. But until the locals get pissed off enough about it to change it, those are the rules.

Instead, what these people should be prosecuted for is not the act of recording itself, but rather the act of slanderously misrepresenting their findings!

Instead? Rather than? How about "in addition to". Hence why they have 15 different charges against them.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[bobbied]

If that's what the law says should happen... But hey, creating a fake ID is not always a crime, especially if the ID being faked isn't a government issued one.

So making a fake ID card for a convention, so it looks like you are an attendee, is not a crime. Now if you use that fake ID to gain entry to a convention, THAT might be a crime (i.e. trespassing) or gain some benefit like eating from the buffet (stealing), but making and having the ID is not a crime.

Faking a government issued ID (Driver's license, Passport and the like) IS a crime, but is that what these folks actually did?

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[slashdotwannabe]

Faking a government issued ID (Driver's license, Passport and the like) IS a crime, but is that what these folks actually did?

Seriously? More concern trolling?

Gosh! No, I'm sure the ID they faked is a Monopoly Banker ID Card with a picture of Monopoly Man on it, and that's what they presented to Planned Parenthood to prove their identities, and they accepted it because they're stoopid, and the DA filed 15 felony counts because he's pissed at PP for being so stoopid, not because they broken any laws.

Also, the separate indictments by a Grand Jury in Texas -- TEXAS -- that indicted the pair on the same charges were clearly under the influence of Satan.

Also, the fact that these guys used a stolen password to access an email system they weren't authorized to use can't POSSIBLY have happened.

Since they can't POSSIBLY have logged into an email system, they obviously did not send several emails fraudulently pretending to be other people.

They can't POSSIBLY have fraudulently used someone else's credit card to pay a $325 registration fee.

Sure. It's all fake news generated by a liberal media and a overzealous prosecutor just trying to make his bones in that Liberaltopia of California.

Hey. Here's an idea. Go read the indictment and educate yourself. But then, it's pretty obvious you have no interest in educating yourself; your interest is in sowing doubt.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean that liberal Democrat who went on a shooting spree?

"Following subsequent evaluations that determined Dear to be delusional, the judge in the case ruled in May 2016 that Dear was incompetent to stand trial and ordered him indefinitely confined to a Colorado state mental hospital."

Trying to classify someone delusional and incompetent into a political party is impossible.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[bobbied]

Um... No.... They just made up new names to use when talking to people and created a company to further the deception. Nothing illegal in either of those acts and they are not charged for doing that.....

By the Way, Charge 15 is supported by bogus information that was thrown in for political purposes. Actually, the whole thing is and they likely won't make it to court. This DA is just slumming for votes.... Must be an election year..

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[slashdotwannabe]

Huh. How convenient it must be for you to ignore the things you cannot refute like the credit card fraud and illegal access to email systems and try to hang your argument on making bogus claims like...

They just made up new names to use when talking to people and created a company to further the deception.

In the real world that the rest of us live in, we call that "fraud". Here's the legal test:

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

All five of the above elements exist. Oops. Illegal. Now, I'm not going to do something as stupid as, say, predicting the future like you have and say that "the whole think likely won't make it to court" (especially since now that charges have been filed, it IS in court), but the facts of the case are undisputed and clear, and Xavier Becerra, the Attorney General was just appointed and inherited the case from his predecessor and isn't up for re-election until 2018. So much for your latest round of doubt and speculation.

As I said, you have no interest in an honest discovery of fact. You want to push your agenda.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

They released both the FULL and edited (for time, not content) versions simultaneously. Accusations of "doctored footage" is liberal spin.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[bobbied]

But sir, they are not charged with FRAUD. It's 14 counts of recording people without telling them and 1 count of conspiracy to record people without telling them...

Oh and one more thing... You *do* know that the DA that charged them took campaign money from Planed Parenthood right?

If these two broke the law making their recordings in CA and end up convicted so be it, let the DA prove this in court to a judge and jury.. But let's not make this into more than it really is. IF the DA thought there was a valid fraud charge, he should have charged them with that too, but he didn't. I think they've been selectively prosecuted for political reasons by a DA from a staunchly liberal area (San Francisco CA), but I firmly understand that is MY view and that others will disagree.

And one last thing before you go away... At the risk of doing the same thing as you.... It's common for one who has not thought through all sides of a debate but holds a specific view based on their emotional perspective to attack the person rather than the issue being debated. Since the last presidential election we've seen this in riots and violence from the radical left in unprecedented amounts. You seem to be engaged in a personal attack, at least in part even though you don't know me from Adam...

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[slashdotwannabe]

But sir, they are not charged with FRAUD. It's 14 counts of recording people without telling them and 1 count of conspiracy to record people without telling them...

First of all, I'm a ma'am, thank you. I said they committed fraud, and gave you the 5 point legal test. I didn't assert that fraud was in the indictment. If you think they didn't commit fraud, simply point out which point of the 5 point test fails. Go ahead, I'll wait. Just because the indictment doesn't include a fraud charge doesn't mean they didn't commit fraud. Indictments often do not contain all of the crimes committed, but the charges the AG thinks he can win. Al Capone didn't go to jail for murder -- even though he committed many of them. He went to jail for tax evasion.

You *do* know that the DA that charged them took campaign money from Planed Parenthood right?

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the enormity of the bias you feel that would drive you to make such an irrelevant and incorrect statement. Let's break it down, to whit:

• 1. - Our Attorney General was *appointed* to fill a seat vacated by the recent elections. Thus, there WAS no campaign to which PP might have contributed.
  1. - Xavier Beccera's campaign contributions for his most recent Congressional Campaign are a matter of public record. Planned Parenthood does not appear anywhere in the list of 550 donors.
  1. - Let's say for the sake of humoring an obviously partisan person that Planned Parenthood DID contribute? So what? How is that relevant to this discussion? You are implying that he is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood. Don't imply. Assert -- if you have the evidence. Otherwise, why make such a statement?

So here is what I *do* know: you pulled an irrelevant assertion out of your ass without verifying it. Why would you do this without basic fact checking unless you're biased to see the AG as a big bad boogeyman persecuting poor, poor political operatives for the anti-abortion movement because he's in the pocket of Godless Abortionists?

It's common for one who has not thought through all sides of a debate but holds a specific view based on their emotional perspective to attack the person rather than the issue being debated. Since the last presidential election we've seen this in riots and violence from the radical left in unprecedented amounts. You seem to be engaged in a personal attack, at least in part even though you don't know me from Adam...

You seem to be confused about the difference between noting bias and a "personal attack". Noting that you are displaying a level of bias so high that it not only causes you to make irrational arguments, but it causes you to lie to advance your position is not a "personal attack". It's an evaluation based on observation -- and so I *do* know you from Adam. I have observed your behavior across several posts. Now, to be charitable, it's possible that perhaps you simply read somewhere that PP donated to our AG, so in that case it isn't a lie, since you didn't knowingly tell a falsehood. In that case, it's your bias causing you to fail to check basic facts before you put your name behind them. In that case, you're merely a tool.

I haven't called you a poopyhead or a moron. If you feel "attacked" by a basic review of facts, that's your conscience bothering you.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is almost true. It is not true in a public place, like out on the street. The recording did not take place in a public place that would be visible to a casual bystander.

Re: So 60 Minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to classify someone delusional and incompetent into a political party is impossible.

So the Democrats aren't actually "the Party of no", they're "the no Party at all", as they're all delusional and suffering mental disorder often resulting in violence.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[mrchaotica]

Rather than "at a party"

I didn't say "if I'm at a party," I said "if I AM a party." "Party" doesn't mean "social gathering," it means "a participant in the conversation."

My claim is that each participant in a conversation should have just as much right to record the conversation with a recording device as he does to record it in his memory. That rule should apply to all conversations everywhere, whether in public or not.

Instead? Rather than? How about "in addition to". Hence why they have 15 different charges against them.

Well, good. In that case, 14 charges should be enough anyway.

Re:So 60 Minutes...

[EmptyHead]

Hmm, each of us notice different things that offend us. the vast majority of comments are pro-left on this site. Personally, I wish we'd leave divisive matters like abortion and toilet privacy to the states so people could have an option of moving without leaving the country if things became too offensive for them. Ramming one set of values down everyone's throats seems to be causing a lot of discontent.

Apples v. Oranges?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Didn't we just determine that filming officials is not merely a right, but a First Amendment right?

The two links in this question refer to filming police officers, who are employed by their jurisdiction to enforce laws. Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3), a nonprofit corporation, so aren't their officials by definition not public employees? What is similar in this case, other than the recording of others, that makes it comparable to filming of public employees performing public duties?

Re:Apples v. Oranges?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they was funded by we taxpayers, and we is able to record any of them things us paid for!!!11!1!

Re:Apples v. Oranges?

[whoever57]

Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3), a nonprofit corporation, so aren't their officials by definition not public employees?

Do you even know what a 501(c)(3) corporation is? As for being public employees, I'll give you a hint: it's related to the word "corporation".

But let's look at another example. What about people who get jobs in abattoirs in order to record the genuine mistreatment of animals? Should they be prosecuted? How is this different?

Hard cases make bad laws.

Re:Apples v. Oranges?

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course, if PP is a government agency, then so is every hospital in the country that accepts federal money. Bring your cameras into the OR, guys! Let competing hospitals see how dirty a film they can make about the folks across town! The heck with HIPPA or patient privacy.

(Question: since courts obviously ARE government agencies, then don't we have the right to sneak in and leave our cameras recording closed deliberations or jury discussions? How about court-approved settlements that are cloaked by secrecy? How about the Supreme Court? Its decisions are much more important than whether a single agency performs abortions? Or is some privacy more private than others?)

Re:Apples v. Oranges?

[Anonymous Coward]

But let's look at another example. What about people who get jobs in abattoirs in order to record the genuine mistreatment of animals? Should they be prosecuted? How is this different?

Why would they need to record conversations?

The number of crimes that can only be uncovered and convicted based on one-party recordings (basically, only ones that have no hard evidence) seems not to be worth the cost of giving up privacy of conversations.

Re:Apples v. Oranges?

[Wild_dog!]

Nope.

Their federal funding is contractual.
They provide medical services to poor women and men.
They bill Medicare/Medicaid.... just like your local hospital or your own doctor when they see a Medicare/Medicaid patient.
Most of their funding from he government comes from contractual services for Medicaid and Title 10.
AKA. Patients come for services, PP provides said services, They bill the federal government.

Charging a fee for a service rendered does not make them taxpayer funded.

There is no Keep PP running part of the federal budget. They don't get some sort of Block sum.
They do get a lot of money for their services because they provide so many services nation wide.

So when people talk about "Defunding PP" They basically are talking about trying to block patients from being able to go to PP for services.

Kind of like saying we need to block your local hospital/doctor from receiving any medical money from the feds by mandating that patients not go to them.

Too much government intervention if you ask me. But then some people are comfortable with the government telling people what they can and can't do.

Re:Apples v. Oranges?

[Verdatum]

From what I've read, in two-party consent cases, including California, you cannot record without consent in a private setting as part of investigative journalism. In those states, you are restricted to merely observing and reporting those observations. If you watch enough investigative news programs like 60 Minutes, you'll sometimes hear the reporter explain how they were unable to record an experience, while other times, they break out the technology; this is why. You may be able to argue that this should not be the case due to the first amendment. And in one case, the supreme court ruled that Illinois' two-party consent law was unconstitutional and struck down, though this ruling was not strong enough to end other states' consent laws. I'm curious about times where the Supreme Court explicitly upheld these laws, unfortunately, I don't have the time to go down that rabbit hole.

Filming in PUBLIC vs PRIVATE

[ByTor-2112]

There is a distinction between your privacy rights in public and private. Just like secretly recording telephone conversations is prohibited. The first amendment does not give me the right to come into your home, invited, and start secretly filming. If these videos had been recorded in public settings, I doubt the legality would be in question.

Re: Filming in PUBLIC vs PRIVATE

[Anonymous Coward]

They were recorded in public...in public restaurants...

Re:Filming in PUBLIC vs PRIVATE

[Anonymous Coward]

There are exceptions in certain jurisdictions, but typically it's not prohibited to secretly record your own telephone conversations.

Re:Filming in PUBLIC vs PRIVATE

[bobbied]

Do be careful... This varies by State.

In this case, the state of CA doesn't allow recordings (audio or video) without all parties knowing they are being recorded with very few exceptions.

Re:Filming in PUBLIC vs PRIVATE

[bobbied]

In Liberal CA, even in public locations recording audio / video generally requires all parties know they are being recorded... I would imagine though, that where the recordings where made (public or not) would be a factor in the punishment phase of a criminal trial.

Re:Filming in PUBLIC vs PRIVATE

[Trickster Paean]

This is EXTREMELY bad advice in California.
It does not matter if you are in public or in private. Whether you are in a private setting like a home, a semi-public setting like a restaurant, or a public setting like a town square, you will still violate Cal. Penal Code 632 if the communication is confidential.
What matters is whether the communication is confidential: whether there is an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy of the communication.

You can be in a bustling restaurant and have an objectively reasonable expectation that you will not be overheard or recorded.
You can be sitting on a park bench in full view of everyone and have an objectively reasonable expectation that you will not be overheard or recorded.
You can be sitting in a private home, with lights and cameras set up around you, and signs saying that filming is going on, and have no reasonable expectation that you will not be overheard or recorded.
Whether a communication is confidential is a fact intensive inquiry. So get the other party's consent in California if you want to record.

Re:Filming in PUBLIC vs PRIVATE

[Wild_dog!]

Public or private is not the issue.

Two party consent is the issue.

What they were doing was illegal in California under California law and the laws of many other states.
States have a right to make laws the way they want and California made such activity illegal.

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[Anonymous Coward]

And Democrats publicly ignore the breaking of the law if they can claim that the "evidence" was collected improperly.

Assuming the recordings where made in CA, They where stupid for recording a conversation in a state that requires all party's consent to the recording, but you do get that this doesn't negate the facts about how PP does business..

Please... "Journalists" use fucking quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

Two Activists Who Secretly Recorded Planned Parenthood Face 15 Felony Charges

When faced with the recent onslaught of stupid company and organisation names that use a generic sounding phrases, please wrap the bastards in quotes for the benefit of those who have never herd of it before... so it doesn't sound like extremely ambiguous confusing nonsense.

My head asplode!

[msauve]

Daleiden has called the charges "bogus," claiming that Planned Parenthood "has violated the law by selling fetal tissue -- an allegation that has been investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim," reports NPR.

So, exactly who are they quoting here? Daleiden claiming there's no evidence to support his own claims? WTF. Can somebody find an editor who isn't BeauHD?

Re: My head asplode!

[Anonymous Coward]

The last closing quote is in the wrong place; it should be before the hyphen.

BeauHD is garbage. I can only guess he is a relative of the owners here. I think there was only one ever story he posted that wasn't fucked up in some way a 4th grader would have caught and fixed.

Re:My head asplode!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you hadn't actively looked for something to "not understand", you would have understood that the second quote is a quote of someone partially quoting someone else. NPR quotes first quotes Daleiden's allegation, and proceeds to note that this allegation already has been investigated in over a dozen states, none of which has found said allegation to be anything but hot air.

Reading, so hard.

Re: My head asplode!

[msauve]

I think Beau is Timothy's son, and it's a genetic disability.

Double standard

[steveha]

Undercover videos are apparently fine when they record evidence of animal abuse.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/investigations

http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/29/california-is-fine-with-undercover-sting-videos-that-expose-animal-cruelty/

But an undercover video related to abortion gets a different standard.

I am foursquare opposed to double standards under the law. If Mercy for Animals isn't charged for surreptitious recording, then this verdict should be overturned.

P.S. The NPR article makes the claim that the video was misleadingly edited. If so, then sue those guys for slander; lying by misleading editing is still lying. Don't selectively enforce a recording law because you are actually upset about something else.

P.P.S. "...an allegation that has been investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim." If we are going to hammer people with 15 felony charges for collecting evidence, I'm not surprised there's no evidence. Also, I'm always suspicious of claims like that... "don't evaluate their video evidence on its own merits, discount it because nobody else has similar evidence from other locations" makes no sense. Again, if the video really was misleadingly edited in a deceptive way, nail them for that.

Re:Double standard

[bobbied]

On you PS ---- All of the video recorded was made available for anyone to view and I've heard from folks I trust who have taken the time to watch multiple hours of this that the edited versions are NOT unfairly edited to obscure or manipulate the context of what's happening. I make no specific claim beyond that is sure seems that PP is trying to spin out of the PR damage with their "it was deceptively edited" claim, and they would be highly motivated to lie about this if the edited versions videos where accurate. Is PP lying? I think it's likely, but I have no proof to offer of that. Your mileage may vary.

Re:Double standard

[RatBastard]

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Re:Double standard

[kqs]

As the summary said, "investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim".

Most of those states were very conservative states, and most of the investigations were started with the intent of proving that PP was breaking the law.

And yet exactly ZERO states have announced that they found any wrongdoing by PP. Zero. These are states like Texas and Kansas, hardly liberal strongholds.

So, you can believe "folks you trust" who have claimed something but offered no evidence, or you can believe the states who dearly wanted to find something incriminating but who didn't. I mean, what you are saying is that the governments of Kansas and Texas really hate PP but have decided not to attack them this one time (while still trying to outlaw them and defund them). This makes no sense.

Re:Double standard

[Wild_dog!]

I took the time to view some of the Full Footage. Some is really really long 5+ hours.
Short videos are highly edited and from what I heard in the longer videos... there was nothing damning.

https://www.youtube.com/channe...

You could do the same but what I have found is that if you think PP is criminal you will hear criminality in the discourse.
If you do not, then you won't. Your beliefs will always tinge the watching of videos about abortion in some way.

Multiple investigations did not find criminality. Fact checkers have found significant editing in a way to slant what has been said.

You will either look at that and say it is all wrong or not wrong based on your own beliefs.
"Is PP lying? I think it's likely"

You seem to have formulated your opinion with no need for video of any kind.
To each his own.

Re:Double standard

[Straif]

The "investigated by more than a dozen states" itself is a very misleading stat. PP is not a monolithic organization and each States 'chapter' (I don't know how they like to refer to themselves) run under slightly different rules. In many of the states where investigations happened the local PP did not even partake in the fetal organ donation program so effectively they were investigating NOTHING. In others they just had to show they didn't make a profit from the donation.

There is also a difference between breaking the law and skirting the law (much like the recordings in question). The law prevents PP from making a profit from organ 'donations' but when you control the costing it's very hard to make a profit if you don't want to. It's the same way so many Hollywood movies 'lose' money even when their budgets were small and they had enormous ticket sales. When you control all the cost if you want to lose money on paper it's just a matter of adjusting a number here and there.

These videos were never going to lead to prosecutions against PP (although the Feds did send a list to DOJ for further investigation but since Obama was in office you can guess where those went). They were all about getting PP executives on video/tape saying what most people would think are unconscionable statements. It was a PR campaign from the get go just like these charges are mostly PR with little chance of actual conviction based on existing CA case law.

Re:Double standard

[kqs]

In others they just had to show they didn't make a profit from the donation.

Err, yes. Donated fetal tissue is critical to many research efforts (we forget how terrible polio used to be). Like any tissue samples, it has to be packed up using specialized materials using trained technicians. You can get it from for-profit hospitals, who have high expenses, or places like PP, which have lower expenses and thus charge less. The fees are certainly not a useful profit center for PP (unless you assume that the conservative state investigators could have accused PP of illegally making money off of this but somehow decided not to mention it in the final reports.)

There is also a difference between breaking the law and skirting the law (much like the recordings in question).

No, recording audio in a two-party state without the proper permissions is breaking the law. If a webcam records a visitor to your house without their permission, it is illegal but you will probably not be convicted for it. On the other hand, if you set out to record people without their permission, then you change around the order of the questions and answers to try to frame them, well, you have a higher chance of being convicted.

It seems that you are saying that these folks illegally recorded people. They edited the recordings to make it seem that the people were engaging in illegal activity (ironic). They loudly proclaimed (lied) that their recordings proved illegal activity on the part of PP. But this was all a lying PR campaign, PP was perhaps distasteful but not illegal. And you are okay with this because you dislike things that PP is doing.

That is terrible. You are happy that these people bore false witness. Maybe you should consider that in the context of your morals and/or ethics.

Re:Double standard

[Straif]

Even the groups hired by PP's defenders reported that the edited videos did not differ in any material way from the unedited ones which were also freely available. The closest they come to actually showing a lie is the fact there is a scene of a stillbirth, that was not the result of an abortion, while a voiceover described an actual abortion. Effectively the fact they used the wrong stock photo is being used as a case that all the hours of raw footage are inaccurate. By that standard half of TV news would be considered a lie.

People like you keep repeating the 'lying' claim but it's usually a circular argument pointing to someone else's claim pointing to someone else pointing to nothing.

What should really worry people about this prosecution is the level if intermingling there is between the prosecutors in CA and PP. The Attorney General has accepted campaign contributions from PP all the while filing charges against their political enemies. The Dems are pushing legislation which would effectively make any type of undercover reporting against PP a crime.

Re:Double standard

[HeckRuler]

But an undercover video related to abortion gets a different standard.

I am foursquare opposed to double standards under the law.

So after everything you've learned in this thread, how do you feel about states rights?

You know, the part that makes two different standards that different people in different states have to follow.

Re:Double standard

[steveha]

how do you feel about states rights?

I'm in favor of them. In general I am in favor of regulations being handled at the lowest reasonable level. Example: Schools should be regulated by school districts, not the Federal government.

You know, the part that makes two different standards that different people in different states have to follow.

The article that I linked made the case that California was unequally enforcing its laws, by ignoring surreptitious recordings made by one group and prosecuting another group with felonies. Since that is not "different states", your comments are irrelevant.

P.S. The article overlooked the distinction between surreptitious video-only recordings and surreptitious recordings that include audio, so my objection was not well-founded and I withdraw it.

Re:Double standard

[kqs]

From http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks ... for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.

On July 21, the Center for Medical Progress released a second, similar video, again featuring a discussion with a Planned Parenthood official in a restaurant. The numbers mentioned in the edited video are similar to what Nucatola said. The official, Mary Gatter, quotes a rate of $75 per specimen, and says she was thinking of saying $50. The discussion only reaches $100 because the “buyers” in the video mention higher prices.

So, I think we can agree:
      * PP is not making money when donating fetal tissue to research, if it is charging $30-$100 and hospitals charge $100-150. Note also that you are not complaining about those hospitals. Why is that?
      * The Center for Medical Progress claims that their videos prove that PP is selling fetal tissue for money. They asked leading questions and edited the videos to try to make this point. Saying something when the facts say otherwise is what most 6-year-olds call "lying", though you may call it PR.
      * Using the wrong stock footage (and not calling it out as stock footage in a "documentary" full of actual footage) would also be considered lying (nowadays, probably "alternative footage"). That doesn't imply that the rest of the footage is fake, but it does imply that any implications from those videos should be considered suspect.

Re:Double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

And yet people here persist on doing so over and over.

Here's why and it's retardedly simple

[Anonymous Coward]

California has a two-party consent for recording private individuals law. Which means, oh deluded ones, both parties have to notified recording is taking place and both have to consent. He did not notify or get the second party's consent. Guilty. Explain away that.

Re:Here's why and it's retardedly simple

[Straif]

The law requires a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's a very big loophole.

In some cases even having a meeting in your office with the door open can be considered outside this law let alone having a meeting in a public restaurant (where most of these recordings happened).

Re:Kangaroo Court

[Anonymous Coward]

California has an activist AG that is all-too-happy to prosecute people who have insulted Planned Parenthood, one of the left's sacred cows. Two avowed conservatives are being targeted for prosecution in a liberal state? Shocking.

Cue the slashdot trolls telling me how I'm unreasonable...

2 people producing forged government identification to attend a meeting , making illegal recordings of conversations between private citizens therein, editing said recordings in a clumsy attempt to make the recorded persons appear to be doing something illegal, and then wasting a judge's time? All sounds like perfectly reasonable behaviour. Something should be done about this commie-liberal plot.

Ahh

[Anonymous Coward]

the austim is strong with this thread

Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this kind of bizarro misrepresentation "article" would be why Slashdot commentership and readership has fallen so far.

"Didn't we just determine that filming officials is not merely a right, but a First Amendment right?"

(A) Planned Parenthood is not a government entity.
(B) The people that were secretly recorded, were private individuals in a private location, not on public streets.
(C) Oh yeah, Daleiden and his fellow felons also falsified government documents, made fake IDs and drivers' licenses, and committed credit card fraud in theri litlte scam-scheme.

Fuck every one of the right wingers who tries to defend their bullshit.

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[Anonymous Coward]

Except PP maintains that the video was misleadingly edited, which would imply any 'facts' gathered in the interview are suspect.

Personally, I'm still on the fence about it all. As such, I am fine with the charges. If the trial can show that the recordings were edited in such a fashion to imply guilt, then alright then, it's a two-fer. If they can't, I would be fine with an investigation of PP's business records to ensure adherence to the laws on the matter.

It's obviously not that.

[mbkennel]

> I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, followed by the most callous treatment imaginable for the rest of their lives that conservatives espouse.

The problem is that you are believing their words.

Of course, the position is completely nonsensical and hypocritical if one imagines the goal is devotion to needs of health and life of fetuses.

The explanation which is consistent, however, is the recognition that Forced Accidental Parenthood is awful, and that's the entire point of it: because the true goal is to punish, perhaps for a lifetime, poor young women who had sex and further inflict this punishment on their spawn to hurt the mothers even more and use as a fearful example to others.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[MightyMartian]

That would certainly appear to be the underlying reason for the entire Pro-life movement, and often enough they don't even bother disguising it. When you have elected representatives declaring that that pregnancy produced by rape is somehow "God moving in mysterious ways", you're dealing with people who have a pretty clear idea that women's only real purpose in this world is to collect semen and pop out babies.

Of course, once the baby is born, those fine God-fearing men could care less.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know wonderful fathers how about you?

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I could accept this "punish sinners" mentality if only they weren't so hypocritical. Some of the most ardent punishment advocates are they themselves guilty of some sin or another, and expect to be forgiven because they are "good people," (i guess meaning white and wealthy)

If they were at least consistent I would at least understand.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[mbkennel]

So why isn't Make Condomless Sex Illegal a universal required position among American conservative politicians?

Oh yeah, because it isn't really about that is it.

> Men who support abortion aren't really any better than rapists.

Why do most women think so differently about that?

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Type44Q]

Indeed.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people I know who attend pro-life rallies are women. They care too much for the cute little, innocent babies to let others slaughter them. The same kind of thing happens at animal shelters.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[reboot246]

Some people have personal responsibility and some do not. There's no way to force a person to be responsible, but ending an innocent human life to shirk responsibility is barbaric. Surely we're better than that if we want to call ourselves civilized.

If impregnating as many women as you can without being willing to support your own offspring is your idea of being a man, maybe you should rethink what being a man is. The women in your life would be happier if you did.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

>So why isn't Make Condomless Sex Illegal a universal required position among American conservative politicians?

Because contraception is a tool of the devil.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Opportunist]

Oh please. If men could get pregnant, you could have abortions in WalMart while you wait on your tires being rotated.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Opportunist]

Care to inform us about your position on capital punishment? Just curious.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Opportunist]

So buttfucking is wrong, using condoms is wrong and getting rid of unwanted side effects of fucking is wrong. Is there any way to please those idiots?

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying men are better than women?

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Don't fuck!

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

The explanation which is consistent, however, is the recognition that Forced Accidental Parenthood is awful, and that's the entire point of it: because the true goal is to punish, perhaps for a lifetime, poor young women who had sex and further inflict this punishment on their spawn to hurt the mothers even more and use as a fearful example to others.

I tend to think of it more along the lines of:
"We can get a bunch of votes if we do these things."
"Won't they insists we make sure the new babies are taken care of, possibly up through college?"
"Nah. The other side is against even doing this. It is a great wedge issue. Lots of power; little real responsibility."
*nods*

Again, I don't think that the average far right winger likes other peoples pain. They simply do not care, or believe their single or few issues are worth more than everything else in the universe.

Similarly, I think I've figured out most of Trump's actions. The make america great again was actually quite clever, in a rather sick way. First, if he is running as a republican, he can ignore any voters that are just never going to vote for a republican. They can hate him as much as they want. They mean nothing to him. Now if your going to do something again, you have to delta to before. What is different? New people. Outsourcing, Manufacturing moved oversees; some industries leaving such as coal mining, etc, etc. On the new people front, you need a juicy target or two. Those terrorists evidently werent enough, so he tossed in Mexicans and such and made up a bunch of lies. Oh look, they are dangerous. I will protect you from them. After all, they weren't here when America was great, so they must be part of the problem. (I still half wonder if he is deliberately copying Hitler here.) Again, I don't agree with any of this. I just think Trump is just playing a long con manipulating peoples emotional responses through lies and then giving sound byte solutions.

Lost your job in the coal mine --> Blame something that didn't exist when america was "great"
Lost your job in general --> Same thing. Must be those Mexicans, h1b, etc, outsourcing, trade policy, etc, etc. The causes and solutions need to be simplistic, sound good, and be repeated a lot. Truth is not a requirement.
Life is hard --> Again blame it on things/people that are "different" Hell the "different" argument has been the basis behind prejudice from time immemorial.
Drugs killed a family member -> I alone can fix it and make it like it was. (see the health care bill that removed health care) Just because he says something, doesn't mean he will do it. Besides many of his promises contradict each other.
Reality making you look bad --> Blame the system that exists now (while making the system worse). Tell a few big whoppers.. Dead cat strategy to infinity and beyond
Terrorists killing people --> project a manly image of decisiveness, like a great man from the good old days. I know more than the generals. We are going to win so much. I have a secret plan. Again, he doesn't have a real plan, other than perhaps to take more risks.
For a country to be great and "manly" it must be really strong --> Cut every other agency, and to hell with the consequences, or even a cost benefits analysis. In the good old days we were "strong"
Judges tell you you can't do that --> Call them out for endangering the country. Whine that they are keeping you from making america great again. Citing cherry picked cases to support a policy that doesn't otherwise make sense. Again there is no evidence that trump cares about anything except what people think of trump. Long term planning isn't in it.
Your policies not really helping --> Doesn't matter. Cite and take credit for everything you can that is good, whether you are responsible or not.
Want more money-->Make sure to stop at a trump property around every three days. With all the entourage you carry around you wil

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

the true goal is to punish, perhaps for a lifetime, poor young women

The pro-life people that I know consider abortion wrong for one simple reason: they believe it is killing a person. And that is the crux of the issue. If an unborn is a person, then killing it is murder and should be illegal. If not, then do whatever you want with it.

Thus, these accusations of hypocrisy and ulterior motives don't hold water. The same logic would brand any "conservative" who opposes murder (of the already born) be a hypocrite with ulterior motives. "Parents not allowed to murder their 5 year old? They must want to punish the parents for having a child in the first place."

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe, some people think an unborn child deserves life. Simple. Occam's razor and all that.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool strawman

Re:It's obviously not that.

[MightyMartian]

Well you can't, so now you have to grapple with the real issue, and not the fantasy one.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[axewolf]

OR
how about this:

Support and educate these mothers and STOP KILLING BABIES

The amazing doublethink that these drones employ to ignore the fact that this is "Nazi-style" eugenics.

Mod me down, you're still supporting the worst possible kind of murder from a totally insane system. If you keep fighting on it's side you'll be put down along with it, as you deserve.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what did it ever do to deserve birth? Hitler was once a unborn fetus. Occam's razor is for simple people.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, there are significant numbers of both men and women that oppose abortion. And even those that don't aren't necessarily ok with it being that accessible.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. And that is human life vs a human's convenience.

Guess which one wins.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you value life, adopt. If you don't do that, you don't value life.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[ArylAkamov]

"When you have elected representatives declaring that that pregnancy produced by rape is somehow "God moving in mysterious ways""

Source?

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmmmm.... baby... the other white meat... Care to pass me a rib?

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't stipulate to a fertilized egg being a human life. The rest of your argument is, therefore, invalid.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Opportunist]

No, but better at getting their way.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Opportunist]

But ... be fruitful and multiply! It's in your book, read it up!

Maybe mommy didn't tell you yet, but that ain't gonna work without fucking.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[fisted]

So what when there's 10bn humans on earth? What when there's 20? 50? Not that's not an 'if', but a 'when'.
At some point, adding another life will actually harm other lives. Where do you draw the line?

Re:It's obviously not that.

[fisted]

s/Not/Note/

Re:It's obviously not that.

[dave420]

You're not too good with population forecasts, huh?

Re:It's obviously not that.

[fisted]

You're not too good with reading comprehension, huh? That isn't a forecast, it's a question about where to draw the line.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[dunkelfalke]

They probably think that this passage is talking about basic algebra.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Forced Accidental Parenthood" is the most asinine term I've heard in awhile.

Having unprotected sex makes babies

Unless one was raped, it was a choice

If they choose to have unprotected sex, they are also consenting to having a child. This is where one's "right to choose" comes in to play.

There's nothing forced about it unless one of them was raped.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[thegarbz]

Pro-life movement

There's no such movement. Everyone who claims to be pro-life are actually "pro-birth". The people FOR abortions are the ones who are actually pro-life.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

EXACTLY THIS!! How can everyone continue to ignore this after Ginsberg let the cat out of the bag many years ago? It's population control of the worst kind and they've convinced the targets it's their "right".

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Opportunist]

Typical, god didn't think of the snakes. Care to tell me how adders are supposed to multiply?

Re: It's obviously not that.

[parkinglot777]

Not exactly wording but to me is quite close -- Wikipedia. Luckily, he didn't get into the office.

"I, too, certainly stand for life. I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view. But I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have, to have an abortion, is in that case of the life of the mother. I've struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Re: It's obviously not that.

[meglon]

Algebra? Most of those numbnuts can barely add.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[meglon]

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...

https://www.politicalgarbagech...

http://www.newslo.com/pregnanc...

What's the matter, Google too hard for you?

Re:It's obviously not that.

[pnutjam]

Because they don't treat it the same. A woman who had 5 abortions should be treated like Andrea Yates by Pro-life people.

Anyone who stands outside and merely "protests" organized murder, is not really concerned. Are these "babies" just collateral damage, like the 1st graders gunned down without a peep from Firearm enthusiasts?

There is every indication that pro-lifers understand the radical difference between a baby and a fetus.

Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. I love babies, but I also love freedom and want them to grow up in a better world.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[MightyMartian]

You mean, an actual human life versus a fetus that may or may not end up as a human being.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. No fucking.

Unless you're talking about their same-sex encounters in airport restrooms.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[aquacrayfish]

By adding.
#mathjokes

(I'll see myself out)

Re:It's obviously not that.

[bryanandaimee]

And yet words do mean things independent of the imagined motivation of the opposition. Arguments are not invalidated by the life choices of the arguer. You might almost imagine an argument as a means of arriving at a truth that is independent of political or societal norms.

The courts have ruled that the fetus is not a person. It may be killed for any reason up to the arbitrary line of the end of the second trimester. It may be killed after that point up to the moment of birth if the state with jurisdiction decides not to forbid it.

Once the baby is born, sticking sharp objects into its brain for the purposes of ending its life is murder under the law. And yet it is not necessarily murder if you do it five minutes earlier.

Is it so hard to imagine that even reasonable people with no desire to cause harm to anyone might have ethical questions about whether this current legal regime is ethically sound?

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Opportunist]

Oh c'mon. The correct answer is "And THE LORD sent them to chop down trees and build furniture, for adders can multiply with the aid of log tables".

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. A foetus is already an actual complete human life for all reasonable definitions.

Unless you think a juvenile human isn't human, in which case you have no problem killing prepubescent children, you murderous fuck.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

What? This isn't the "hope and change" you wanted?

Re: It's obviously not that.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you make a dead baby float?

I'll tell ya. One scoop dead baby, 2 scoops ice cream. Enjoy.

Re: It's obviously not that.

[ArylAkamov]

That was cringe inducing to read.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[driblio]

So do something about funding welfare and educating people and birth control - like planned parenthood does - to reduce the number of people getting pregnant who don't want to be. Then there will be less killing of 'people'. If you JUST target abortions (and defund everything that people who support them do) you create MORE SUFFERING, even if you succeed in less abortions.

Jesus H Sheesh! It's not complicated.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[EmptyHead]

This isn't about abortions - that's water under the bridge. It's about selling body parts.

Re:It's obviously not that.

[Opportunist]

Last time I checked not even religious nuts consider their kids part of their body.

Re:Double confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me?

1. The animal abuse videos are usually not recorded in california where the state wiretapping laws apply.

2. The animal abuse videos are mostly visual images of people stomping on animal's heads and kicking them in the throat. They are not audio recordings of conversations.

3. Animals don't have conversations.

4. Wiretapping laws do not apply to animals.

5. States have tried to make recording undercover abuse videos illegal. They failed.

PS-- your PS doesn't make sense for the above reasons.

PPS-- you are confused about what the word "evidence" is referring to.

PETA does this routinely

[devloop]

While I agree that the "activists" violated California's privacy laws, this is not much different from what PETA routinely does while secretly filming farmers. To my knowledge, this has never resulted in PETA being prosecuted. To the contrary, the video has been used as evidence in legal filings and lawsuits to stop cruelty and abuse against animals.

Re:PETA does this routinely

[Anonymous Coward]

If you bother to look, I'm sure you'll discover that individuals of PETA where prosecuted, yet the PETA organization was not. As where these two clowns but not CMP itself. Same with individuals of BLM. I know such subtle details are often lost on people. Go back to your trollmaster, you missed a few crucial lessons.

Re:PETA does this routinely

[Anonymous Coward]

Is insulting someone after providing evidence equivalent to a mic drop? It makes you look like a jerk.

Re:PETA does this routinely

[Anonymous Coward]

Progressives don't like it when "the ends justify the means" gets turned around on them.

Re:PETA does this routinely

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The legal system has a very long tradition of throwing away any evidence that is illegally obtained. At best, a video like that can be used to tip off the authorities who will then make an official visit to inspect the conditions at the farm - and the results of that inspection will be admissible.

Felonies?

[wisnoskij]

Is recording someone really a felony? I would expect it only to be against the law if you released the recording, and still a civil matter. Their are entire shows, Marketplace for one, which operate on recording people secretly to uncovering illegal and suspect business practices.

Re:Felonies?

[kqs]

Is recording someone really a felony?.

Are you really asking this when about 20 seconds of googling would tell you? Wow. Not a fan of facts, I see.

In many states, recording audio when all parties have not agreed is very very illegal, yes. California is one of these states. The laws are complex, full of caveats and details, and vary between states and between audio and video recordings. Shows like "Marketplace" are very careful to stay on one side of the law. These yahoos were not, which means they probably committed a felony.

Also, shows like Marketplace tend to release excerpts which, when you hear the full clip, give a mostly accurate picture of what was going on. These guys edited the excepts, including mis-matched questions and answers, to give a false picture of what was going on. Some judges are lenient towards people who expose criminal activity, but few are lenient towards people who try to frame innocents.

Re:Felonies?

[Trickster Paean]

Yes, intentionally recording a confidential communication without consent is a felony. See Cal. Penal Code 632.
Just making the recording without consent subjects you to possible civil liability as well. See Cal. Penal Code 637.2.
The crimes for which you can secretly record individuals to without their consent to obtain evidence of criminal activity are limited, largely to extortion, kidnapping, bribery, and felonies involving violence against the person. See Cal. Penal Code 633.5.
Obtaining consent to record the communication is the best way to avoid these possible penalties in California.

Re:Felonies?

[iris-n]

As these videos led to a terrorist attack, I think charging those idiots with a felony is entirely appropriate.

That the felony in question is only related to the recording of the video is irrelevant to me. Al Capone was, after all, arrested for tax evasion.

Re:Felonies?

[EmptyHead]

Yes, intentionally recording a confidential communication without consent is a felony. See Cal. Penal Code 632. Just making the recording without consent subjects you to possible civil liability as well. See Cal. Penal Code 637.2. The crimes for which you can secretly record individuals to without their consent to obtain evidence of criminal activity are limited, largely to extortion, kidnapping, bribery, and felonies involving violence against the person. See Cal. Penal Code 633.5. Obtaining consent to record the communication is the best way to avoid these possible penalties in California.

Interesting. A case could be made that the people recording this were trying to obtain evidence of bribery or violence against a person.

Re:Felonies?

[Trickster Paean]

There's no case that could be made for that in California. The crime of bribery in California is defined in Cal. Penal Code 92 - 100, and it applies only to those bribing, "... judicial officer, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire, or to any person who may be authorized by law to hear or determine any question or controversy..." None of the individuals that Daleiden and Merritt recorded would qualify for that.

As for violence against the person, that is referring specifically to Sections 187-248 of the California Penal Code. That includes crimes of Homicide, Mayhem, Kidnapping, Robbery, Assault and Battery, False Imprisonment and Human Trafficking, but only crimes that rise to a felony level. None of the crimes within that section would apply. While California does define homicide to be the "unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought" (Cal. Penal Code 187(a)), it expressly exempts fetuses in cases of abortion, when done by a surgeon to save the life of the mother, or where the mother aids, solicits, abets, or consents to the act. So there too, there isn't a case to be made.

Daleiden and Merritt recorded people without their consent in California, and, as far as I can tell, fall under no exception to the prohibition against secretly recording others.

An Old Trick

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an old trick that has been used again and again. "They" take a law they want to get passed, like outlawing recording, then pick a case that everyone agrees the subjects are bad people and deserve some prison time. Wanting to see guilty people punished, the public allows these verdicts to proceed unchallenged, without realizing that this will set a precedent, in this case it will outlaw surreptitious recording. I agree that these two people are worms who deserve punishment for lying to harm P.P., but later this new law will be used to persecute and prosecute people who secretly record anything. Some things need to be recorded so that the rest of us who were not there can see what really happened and take appropriate action. The ability to get the word out to the rest of the people about crimes and injustices are what keeps our country free. No wonder many in power want to make that a crime.

Re:An Old Trick

[jeff4747]

So you're under the mistaken impression that two-party consent is new?

It isn't.

Re:An Old Trick

[nedlohs]

There is no law they want to get passed. As should be obvious from the fact that they are facing charges it is already the law. No "new law" is needed. It is illegal to record a private conversation in California without first obtaining consent from all parties.

There are no first amendment issues here

[taustin]

You do not have the right to film the police all the time, anywhere. Only when they are in a public place, performing their duties.

This is all about the expectation of privacy. Planned Parenthood might be, to a small degree, publicly funded, but they are still a private organization. In their own offices, they have an expectation of privacy, unless they knowingly give it up> You cannot knowingly give it up if you being secretly recorded.

Some states (and, IIRC, federal law) require the consent of only one party to record. California is not one of them. Some states that require all-party consent treat it as a civil offense - you can sue someone who records you without permission. California is not one of them. Some states treat it as a misdemeanor - you can go to jail for it. California is not one of them.

California has made audio recordings, when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without permission from all parties, a felony. 14 people secretly recorded, 14 charges (plus on for conspiracy).

These yahoos chose California from the perception (not especially accurate) that it is the most eeeeeevillllll librul state, and thus, most likely to get them footage they could edit into something that will get them a lot of money.

They choose poorly. Now they get to pay the price.

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[PPH]

They choose poorly.

This.

You would think that someone setting up a sting like this would seek even a little bit of legal advice. Or even just f**king Google it.

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

The people that did the recording have an answer. They are just looking for the question to put the answer to. That is not the smartest way to do anything. These are the same ilk that believe in pizzagate.

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[cirby]

Only when they are in a public place, performing their duties.

This is all about the expectation of privacy. Planned Parenthood might be, to a small degree, publicly funded,

"To a small degree" meaning "about 40 percent of their budget comes from the US government."

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

Public or not, that's still private property.

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, sorry, "publically funded" and "reimbursed by the government for providing healthcare services" are not the same thing.

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if that was true, which it isn't, it wouldn't change anything. Either people have the state as their employer, or they don't. These people do not. You do not get to redefine who their employer is.

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[jeff4747]

These are people who believe women can't handle one difficult decision (abortion), so they must be forced to make millions of difficult decisions (parenthood).

They don't exactly think things through.

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[TechnoJoe]

Yes, there are. These were undercover videos by journalists. First amendment issues at risk here include:

- Does the government get to pick and choose who is a bona fide journalist, and thus allowing the government to choose who gets first amendment protection for the press?

- Does the freedom of the press include the right to conduct undercover investigations, which involve NOT getting the consent of those being investigated?

For #1, if you want to argue that they're not journalists, I hope you can see the dangers of letting the government decide who is and isn't a journalist. In effect, it's the same as letting the government decide who gets first amendment protection and who doesn't. I don't think that will work out so well. Do you want a jury to decide at their criminal trial? While that is a tiny bit better, it's not much of a right if a jury can vote it away, especially if your investigation is controversial and the jurors happen to not like what you found.

To get to #2, you have to concede that they're journalists who are covered by the free press. (See #1.) Undercover investigations are older than the first amendment, and if you're going to suddenly say the press can't conduct them, you're going to upset Dateline, 20/20, and A LOT of mainstream media. In effect, it would give the government a monopoly on undercover investigations, and I don't think that will work out so well either.

Clearly, two consent laws are unconstitutional as applied to press, if not everyone.

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently only about 8% of the budget comes from the govt funding, the other 32% is not budgetary subsidies, but instead Medicaid Reimbursements, AKA Govt Run Health Insurance Pays its bills on time.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[taustin]

Since journalists aren't allowed to secretly record people without permission either, your entire response is pointless and irrelevant. If they worked for the New York Times, they'd be facing the same charges for the same crimes. And rightly so. Otherwise, anyone claiming to be a journalist could record you masturbating to goat porn in your bedroom and claim first amendment protection when they put it up on Facebook. (See how easy that slippery slope straw man is?)

There are no first amendment issues here. Only privacy issues in a state where audio recordings without the consent of all parties is a felony.

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[TechnoJoe]

There's a huge difference between a third-party (who wasn't part of a conversation/event) recording something, and a visible participant/witness recording something, even if the recording is secret. If the reporter bugs your room, yes, a privacy violation. Prosecute. If you let the reporter in the room with you, talk to him about it, and still do it in front of him anyway, it's news, even if you don't know he's a reporter.

You asserted NYT would be equally liable if they did the same thing. Can you cite me any cases where that's happened? What about all the Dateline, 20/20, 60 minutes, or other local news undercover investigations? Those were all without permission. It seems standard operating procedure for lots of news outlets, so where are the hundreds of jailed/prosecuted reporters?

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[taustin]

There's a huge difference between a third-party (who wasn't part of a conversation/event) recording something, and a visible participant/witness recording something, even if the recording is secret.

In fact, no, there isn't, in California (or any other all-party consent state, but in California, it's a felony . What part of it's a felony is so hard to understand? The completely ignorance of the law and refusal to listen is why these guys are going prison because it's a felony in California to record audio without the permission of everyone if there is an expectation of privacy.

If you don't like it, avoid California. Seriously, because it's a felony

Re:There are no first amendment issues here

[TechnoJoe]

This analysis would seem to disagree with you. According to the Ninth Circuit, only people have privacy rights, not corporations.

California Prosecutors Don’t Have A Case Against Planned Parenthood Whistleblowers

Re:Kangaroo Court

[MightyMartian]

So you don't think using fraudulent ID, secretly recording conversations in a two-party state, and then editing those recordings to make the people involved sound like their breaking the law when there's no evidence forthcoming that any law is broken is somehow an example of favoritism towards the aggrieved party?

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[Anonymous Coward]

And here we have an example of Rethuglicanus Cromagnonus, or "Common Subhuman Republican"; immune to facts but willing to repeat whatever nonsense was repeated by the Orange Orangutang masquerading as president, or what was fed to them at their last Klan rally.

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[bobbied]

The complete sets of video is posted for all to see... You can go see for your self if PP is telling the truth if you have enough time to watch it all.

I've not see the videos, edited or not, so I don't know, but I've heard from many people I trust that the edited versions are not unfairly edited or pieced together to make PP look bad. Your mileage may vary, but I suggest anybody wishing to make authoritative claims like this not take either side's word for it but go watch the hours of video yourself.

State of California.

[mbkennel]

In this case, there is a specific California law.

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-xavier-becerra-announces-charges-filed-against-david-robert

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/Complaint%20Affidavit_SF.PDF?

Not officials?

[Anonymous Coward]

So are employees of any entity that receives government funding considered "officials" then?

That seems incredibly broad.

Re:Not officials?

[Opportunist]

By that logic, all the people receiving food stamps are government employees.

Re:Not officials?

[Wild_dog!]

They don't receive government funding.
There is no part of the budget that is tagged "PP"

What they do is provide services (Medicare and Title X) and bill the government for those services just like doctors and hospitals do.
It is just that they cater to the poor across America and provide a ton of services to those who would mostly be turned away in clinical practices.
They are a big provider for the underserved.
They get a lot of money from services they provide that others will not.

No way to Defund Planned Parenthood" that... that is a moronic phrase.

Re:Kangaroo Court

[Anonymous Coward]

California has an activist AG that is all-too-happy to prosecute people who have insulted Planned Parenthood

This has not happened. You do not believe that this has happened. You want it to be what's happening, but you know that it isn't. Therefore, your claim that it is happening makes you a liar.

Re:Don't mess with planned parenthood

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not believe that. You want to, but you know it's bullshit.

Re:Double confused

[steveha]

If I am understanding you correctly, it is legal in California to record visual evidence of a crime, but not audio of someone discussing willingness to do illegal things. This possibly answers my objection. If it's a protection against self-incrimination, I don't think I can object to it.

If 60 Minutes has made undercover videos in California that included audio recordings, and they were never prosecuted for it, then I have an objection again.

As for the rest of your comments, you seem a bit confused. The animals are not accused of anything; the secret videos were of humans doing things to animals, and those secret videos are apparently perfectly legal.

P.S. "Flamebait"? Seriously? Moderators, if you must mod me down just because you don't like what I wrote, the traditional one to use is "Overrated". I may be overrated but I'm neither trolling nor flamebaiting.

I really do think the law should be easy to understand and applied even-handedly. Justice should be blind, and people I hate should be treated the same as people I admire.

Islam beats christianity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just pointing out the uncomfortable facts.

But both of you only pay out if you get worshippers in return. You make helping people contingent on them worshipping your version of your god.

Re:Islam beats christianity.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's laughable. When you give to someone from the bottom of your heart there is no expectation of debt to be payed back. I am sure anybody that has given to charity or volunteered for a church or soup kitchen understands. Maybe you should open your heart up a bit more and understand faith doesn't work like that.

Re:Islam beats christianity.

[Grishnakh]

That's bullshit. I've seen it for myself: Christian soup kitchens require desperate, hungry people to sit for an hour for a sermon before they're allowed to have any food. Giving away something with strings attached, even if they're not actually financial, is not "giving from the bottom of your heart".

Re: Islam beats christianity.

[Anonymous Coward]

lol I can see it now. "Man I'm hungry when will this preacher shut the hell up"

Re: Islam beats christianity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of the millions of people helped by Christians daily, I'm sure we can take your one experience at some soup kitchen to be truly representative.

Re: Islam beats christianity.

[Grishnakh]

How about all the millions in Africa that the Christian missionaries "help" by spreading Christianity and teaching them to hate gay people, so that they pass laws legalizing murder of homosexuals?

No one is helped by Christianity, it's a religion that only spreads hate and demands money from its followers.

"Illegal Recording"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think these guys are scum (many investigations have found no wrongdoing), but I've never understood the "all parties consent" laws. I can completely understand it being illegal for a third uninvolved party secretly recording a conversation between two other unsuspecting parties, but if you're talking with someone else you're effectively giving up your "privacy" to that individual. The law (and common sense) doesn't prevent a person from writing up a transcript of the conversation, the only thing video recording is doing in addition to that is proving what was said. The one limitation would be that it should be legally required that the full context of the conversation should be made available so that one party can't selectively edit the footage to present a lopsided view (as was claimed in this case by Planned Parenthood).

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[MightyMartian]

Translation: I totally buy other people's analecdotal claims that I have no intention of verifying.

There's these people I totally trust who say you eat kittens. I won review their evidence, but it's okay if I go around saying you eat kittens, okay?

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[Anonymous Coward]

"but I've heard from many people I trust "

You suck at evaluating who to trust then, bigotbrain.

Private citizens are now officials?

[Anonymous Coward]

" Didn't we just determine that filming officials is not merely a right, but a First Amendment right?

We also determined that the Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg. Neither of these 2 determinations has anything to do with the article.

This is about secretly filming citizens on private property. So just like putting a camera in the toilet of the women's room to privately film on private property, this is illegal.
Openly filming .gov officials in public is the same as secretly filming citizens on private property.. yeah.. you go with that.
So nice agenda and false equivalency there.

If you look at the picture and are any good at reading people, the guy is nuts. This is just a psycho with an agenda. Hopefully he has a long time to get the therapy he needs in prison.
No one will miss a religious fanatic whose cause is known for blowing up civilians for .

Where does it end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sperm can be introduced to an egg via IVF and implanted into a willing mother to carry to term. Does that mean sperm and eggs are alive and should be protected as well?

Re:Where does it end?

[aevan]

Yes. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.

Re:Where does it end?

[pnutjam]

yeah, don't you save yours too?

Re: Where does it end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sperm great again.

What about medical privacy?

[plopez]

If you are filming in a medical facility are you not violating medical privacy laws? Intruding on the rights of health care workers and possibly other patients?

Re:Double confused

[sjames]

Look at the 60 minutes segments very carefully. Note that in some cases they present video with the reporter voice over repeating what was said rather than simply playing an audio recording. That's because they didn't record audio for legal reasons.

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[Anonymous Coward]

But we're not talking about kittens, we're talking about human lives.

Sadly since you equate children to kittens, it certainly makes sense that you think abortion is OK. Sort of like Dahmer used to kill animals before he moved on to humans. Yeah - you're like Dahmer. That's how far you've regressed.

You do realize that your party and your ideology have lost right? That you don't control the federal government anymore, and you only control pockets on the coasts and some major cities.

And not for long at that. In 1-2 decades abortion will be outlawed. For good.

Re:Double confused

[kqs]

If I am understanding you correctly, it is legal in California to record visual evidence of a crime, but not audio of someone discussing willingness to do illegal things. This possibly answers my objection.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but did you really complain about the unfairness of the laws when you have NO IDEA WHAT THE LAWS ARE? Really?

Many states (plus the federal government for recordings across state lines) make a very large distinction between video and audio recording. Video is usually fine, with certain major limitations. Audio is often/usually not fine, again with many caveats. Every state is different.

If you try to compare the legality of video recordings (like most animal abuse recordings) and of these audio+video recordings, then you are just showing a complete lack of knowledge about the subject and a complete unwillingness to spend the 20 minutes of googling it would take to become partly informed. Please, take those 20 minutes.

And, again I'm not trying to be rude, but this shows that you don't really let facts get in the way of your opinions. You can continue on this way, or you can change and try to become informed. It's your choice, but it's kinda an important one I think.

Sell Baby Parts

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are a hero for the left.

Expose the deplorable, inhumane acts, and you get 14 felony acts thrown your way.

Ain't soulless America great?

Re:Sell Baby Parts

[Opportunist]

So selling something is wrong and trespassing on private property is right?

What are you, a commie?

Re:Sell Baby Parts

[Wild_dog!]

Don't break the law.
If you do you will have some level of consequence in most cases.
Pretty certain Delaiden knew he was breaking the law.
He was willing to do what he did anyway because he fashions himself a crusader in a holy cause.

Re:Sell Baby Parts

[meglon]

For lying sacks of shit like you that can't stand living in reality? Yeh, looks like you have plenty of time to lie all you want. Tell me, does you're asshole ever get jealous of your mouth for all the shit coming out of it? Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are?

The Church has been against abortion for 2K years

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all quite recent history. The "traditional doctrine" that fetuses have the same moral value as a child is younger than the Happy Meal.

Not according to the US Catholic Bishops:

* http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life.cfm

Going back to Aquinas (~1250 AD):

He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful: wherefore if there results the death either of the woman or of the animated fetus, he will not be excused from homicide, especially seeing that death is the natural result of such a blow.

* http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article8

Records go back to the first century AD condemning it:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_abortion#Early_Christianity

So for the Catholic (and probably Orthodox) Church, it's been there since the beginning. (I'll let the Protestants try to justify their own position.)

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: I totally buy other people's analecdotal claims that I have no intention of verifying.

There's these people I totally trust who say you eat kittens. I won review their evidence, but it's okay if I go around saying you eat kittens, okay?

Translation: you're too lazy and/or afraid the videos are accurate.

Re:Don't mess with planned parenthood

[Opportunist]

If only they did. The world would so quickly become a much better place.

Over simplification

[buss_error]

Didn't we just determine that filming officials is not merely a right, but a First Amendment right?

We did. We determined that it is a right to film government officials in public. This filming (and subsequent editing that changed the meaning of the conversation) occurred not in public and not with Government officials

Re: So 60 Minutes...m

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorryâ, misclickedâ.

Anyway if the Anti-abortion movement is desperate enough to defend this pair of lying frauds, you might as well kiss any moral legitimacy goodbye.

Like the money wasted on fruitless investigations as a result of these deceits, the effort would be better spent on any number of things.

But then, they are quite foolish. Look at how many opposed condoms.

Re:The Church has been against abortion for 2K yea

[Pseudonym]

I believe I used the precise words "an entirely Roman Catholic thing".

We're talking about American conservatism, which has never been dominated by Catholicism.

Re:Kangaroo Court

[Anonymous Coward]

You're so witty! Oh wait, I mean retarded.
The 'white racists' love PP - it's primarily culling minorities, who are disproportionately availing themselves of its services. This may be right vs left, but klan/racist, not so much.

Re: Some privacy is more equal than othero

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, a eugenics program started by Margaret Sanger (later adopted by Hitler as a solution to the "Jewish problem") and heartilyapproved by the KKK (remember Senator Byrd, [D-KKK]?) in order to kill off blacks, Hispanics , and the mentally-ill, but it's those opposed to such that are 'racists' and 'misogynists'.

I
Wow, Bluestrat, not only did you lie about Margaret Sanger (she actually disfavored abortion, and saw contraceptiveâs as a way to prevent them), you even tried to connect her, a Russian Jew, to Hitler, as if Germany needed her help to invent Zyklon B, then you throw in Byrd while ignoring the GOP embracing Strom Thurmond and the Southern Strategy.

Why not throw in a fabricated quote by Johnson and claim Booth was a Democrat?h

Sorry, but you are the party that attacked Maxine Waters hair this week, treated April Ryan with disrespectâ and spent six years chasing the Birther lie.

Oh, and don't forget Steve "more white babies" King.

Reap the fruits of sowing the wind.

Goodbye Karma

[Voyager529]

As one of the handful of Christians on Slashdot, hopefully I can provide a reasonable, rational counterargument to the string of assumptions about "Pro-Lifers"...

1. Yes, there are crazies. We have them. The left has their SJWs, and the right has the weekly Pro-Life protesters whose concern ends on delivery day. Yes, I know. Extremism on *any* cause is invariably going to make a mess of the initial concern. Moreover, it's not helpful that the extremists tend to make the headlines, while the majority of people who adhere to a cause tend to be willing to avoid making waves despite agreement with the core principle. If, for the sake of argument, we could ignore the third standard deviation for a few minutes, I'd appreciate it.

2. As has been discussed elsewhere in the thread, the core question involved here is this: "At what point is it 'human'?". Is it at birth, and not a minute before? Is it 'human' the day before? Is it third trimester (i.e. where the fetus can generally survive outside the womb)? Is it when it can feel pain, when there's a heartbeat, detectable brainwave patterns, when RNA recombinates, when the zygote attaches to the uteran wall, or when the egg is fertilized? Right now, the legal limit is 'birth', but I submit that there's at least some validity to the notion that a child should be legally protected as much on the day before its birth as the day after. Disregarding the rhetoric and talking points, the core question at hand is where the line should be drawn.

3. Many Christians *do* provide help and care to mothers amidst crisis pregnancies. CareNet is a network of crisis pregnancy centers that are completely donor supported and provide assistance for women amidst crisis pregnancies both before and after their birth. Diapers and formula are freely given to those who need it. Most have a skeleton crew of paid staff with the majority being volunteers, all of whom go through formal training, medical services are being provided by licensed medical doctors, and they're hella quick to dismiss anyone who treats those who come for care with anything but dignity and respect. There are lots of Christians who are looking to solve the problem, rather than legislate it into a criminal act.

4. Yes, chauvinists are still a thing. However, pursuant to point #2, there's some middle ground between "it's not worth protecting until after birth" and "women belong barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen".

Yes, we can do better, and I (and many like me) am working on it. However, I have a completely sincere question: The elected officials who say dumb things and the protesters who clearly haven't done a lick of critical thinking get a whole lot of airtime, for free, and it echoes far and long. What should those who are trying to address the matter in the right way supposed to do? Put a camera in the face of every woman who walks in? Facebook Live every time a pro-life individual calls out a wreckless protester? Burn people at the stake if they say mean things to someone amidst a crisis pregnancy? Or, on the other hand, not act in accordance to a held set of beliefs, even if it's in a way that does not impose upon others? If doing the wrong thing gets publicity and doing the right thing doesn't, the narrative is going to be swayed as a result. I'm perfectly content helping out in the shadows and not claiming any sort of credit for it (happy to give any credit to God to whom it's due), but I honestly wish it were possible to realistically counterbalance the "Pro-Lifers are hypocritical jerks" narrative without publicity whoring and am completely open to suggestions in that respect.

On the topic at hand, if they took the videos in a state which requires both parties consent to recordings, then yes, they should have acted in accordance with the law. The situation they're in now is what it means to be a martyr, and if they did what they did because they believed in it enough to break the law, then this is the consequence and I while I wish them the best in court (due process is everyone's right), if the court does not rule in their favor, then that is the nature of martyrdom.

Thanks for reading.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, the legal limit is 'birth',

Nope. Even historically, it was first breath, not birth. But even now, it is a matter of differing laws, with some, like Kansas, trying to go for fertilization.

Yes, we can do better, and I (and many like me) am working on it. However, I have a completely sincere question: The elected officials who say dumb things and the protesters who clearly haven't done a lick of critical thinking get a whole lot of airtime, for free, and it echoes far and long. What should those who are trying to address the matter in the right way supposed to do?

Here's a way you can do it: Disavow some of your crazies, there are more than a few of them around, including the submitter. Instead of ignoring, confront them and dissuade them from their madness. They're not hard to find, here in this thread, and you can make a good start by standing against them.

That's a suggestion for you. Even these "activists" would be a good target. Denounce them. Condemn them as enemies to your movement. Because they are, same as Trump lying about abortions in the debate, or Fiorina making up a story about seeing an abortion video, or Eric Harris committing an act of terrorism.

You lose the moral high ground with every lie, every deceit, and every act of violence.

And do look at the abuses at Crisis Pregnancy Centers. They're as bad as the Catholic ones in Ireland.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[MightyMartian]

How about you let your personal morals dictate your decisions, admit that in a large society you're going to have to accept that you're side doesn't automatically win and further accept that conflicts of liberty are inevitable and complex.

As to martyrdom, spare me. They doctored their recordings. That isn't just breaking what they may feel is an unjust law, that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments; thought shalt not bear false witness.

At any rate, you seem keen to hand wave away bastards who insist impregnated victims of incest and rape are examples of God's mysterious ways, meanwhile basically asserting anyone who is pro choice is an uninformed ignoramus.

How about this. You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Voyager529]

Here's a way you can do it: Disavow some of your crazies, there are more than a few of them around, including the submitter. Instead of ignoring, confront them and dissuade them from their madness. They're not hard to find, here in this thread, and you can make a good start by standing against them.

That's a suggestion for you. Even these "activists" would be a good target. Denounce them. Condemn them as enemies to your movement. Because they are, same as Trump lying about abortions in the debate, or Fiorina making up a story about seeing an abortion video, or Eric Harris committing an act of terrorism.

You lose the moral high ground with every lie, every deceit, and every act of violence.

And do look at the abuses at Crisis Pregnancy Centers. They're as bad as the Catholic ones in Ireland.

No problem. I disavow those who who cause harm to others, direct or indirect, specifically in the context of the movement which wishes to defend the lives of those who are not yet born They are enemies to the movement.

I have never lied about anything regarding those in Planned Parenthood or the nature of abortions, I have never harmed anyone with whom I have disagreed on the topic, and I have never knowingly supported, directly or indirectly, any group, organization, or facility which has done so, and have researched the groups and facilities I have supported to ensure that, to the best of my knowledge, they are providing assistance and services with dignity and respect to their recipients.

If that counts, you have what you want. If it does not count because I have not single-handedly silenced every individual who has caused harm, then the suggestion requires clarification.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Voyager529]

How about you let your personal morals dictate your decisions, admit that in a large society you're going to have to accept that you're side doesn't automatically win and further accept that conflicts of liberty are inevitable and complex.

Where did I say that my side automatically wins? I went to great lengths to indicate that the situation is more nuanced than "a unified group of people who believe that abortion recipients deserve the death penalty".

As to martyrdom, spare me. They doctored their recordings. That isn't just breaking what they may feel is an unjust law, that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments; thought shalt not bear false witness.

If the recordings were doctored in a way that is misleading, then by all means, I concur with you. However, I submit that it's not false witness if the editing was not manipulative or intended to be misleading, and that the illegality of the recordings is a result of the two-party consent requirement. Moreover, if they were manipulatively edited, then by all means, slander charge, maximum sentence. The Pro-Life movement does not need that sort of behavior for the very reasons you've specified.

At any rate, you seem keen to hand wave away bastards who insist impregnated victims of incest and rape are examples of God's mysterious ways, meanwhile basically asserting anyone who is pro choice is an uninformed ignoramus.

How about this. You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.

I have done neither. I have admitted that there are those who are extremists, but focusing on extremists is a guaranteed way to avoid the possibility of productive discussion as we find common ground on the unacceptability of the extremism while neglecting to address the more rational points of the discord. I did not use an ad hominem attack of any kind on anyone who is Pro-Choice, I did not tell anyone what their medical choices would be, and I did not advocate for any method, legislative or otherwise, which would give me such a 'right'.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[slashdot_commentator]

Just read what he wrote. Its civil and reasonable and on Slashdot. How many of those kind of posts do you see here?

Re:Goodbye Karma

[M1rth]

Well, your ku-klux brethren commenting anonymously all around here have pretty much shown us that you have no moral basis to stand on and your "christian 10 commandments" banning you from lying aren't something you follow.

So excuse me if I don't take your falsehoods here any more seriously than I do theirs. "Christians", feh.... liars, scammers, and delusional frauds.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Trogre]

Interesting perspective you have there.

On that note, would you care to share your views on Islam?

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 2.11% Muslims in the US according to one source, and 0.8% according to another. So maybe he doesn't have much of a view on them, because they play no notable role in daily US life.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[james_gnz]

2. As has been discussed elsewhere in the thread, the core question involved here is this: "At what point is it 'human'?".

Although that's close to the right question, I think it need a bit of adjustment. Firstly, insert "a", as in "At what point is it 'a human'?" The unfertilised egg is arguably already 'human'--it's human tissue--but not a human. Secondly, possibly further change "a human" to "a person". If we're thinking of "a human" as an animal, i.e. as a body, that's the wrong approach. We can quite happily talk about multi-headed animals, e.g. Cerberus the three-headed dog, but we'd never talk about "multi-headed people". We'd talk about conjoint twins. Reposting something I posted elsewhere:

I think it's a mind, not a body, that defines a person. One body is usually associated with one mind. However if we think about (or postulate) cases where this isn't the case, I think it becomes obvious that it's the mind that's important, and the body is just a vessel.

e.g. We think of Conjoint/Siamese twins as twins, two people, not one person, because there are two minds, despite there being only one body. If a person is decapitated, they are dead and gone, regardless of whether their body could be kept on life support, because it is the mind that is important not the body, and the mind is gone. Considering the hypothetical situation in "body swap" stories like Freaky Friday, we would say that the people are in different bodies, not that the people have different minds in them, because it is the mind, not the body, that defines the person.

There can't be a mind until after 20 weeks gestation (18 weeks after fertilisation), because connections don't begin to form in the cerebral cortex until then, so until then there is just an empty vessel, IMHO.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Eosi]

Your post was good and well defined. So the question I pose to you, what if the women seeking services are NOT in fact Christians or of the same faith as you? Most of the debates I have heard are how "God would not want this", which means that non-Christians are having Christian beliefs forced upon them. In this nation of freedom to believe what ever religious ways you wish, at what point do we stop using a book for force views upon others??

By that same token, using the book to say "This is God's will" (or other similar statement) begs the alternative questions. IF its God's will and we are created by him to fulfill his desires, why did he not prevent the creation of abortion? Why does he not just stop the process from working?

Re:Goodbye Karma

[AmiMoJo]

Thanks for the great comment.

The question of when a foetus becomes a human doesn't really make sense. It's a continual process. At various stages it has more or fewer human qualities and similarity to a human baby.

That's why the focus is usually on those factors, like ability to react to stimulus.

There is no good answer. It's not that kind of question.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem. I disavow those who who cause harm to others, direct or indirect, specifically in the context of the movement which wishes to defend the lives of those who are not yet born They are enemies to the movement.

Well, that's a start, but in the future, I suggest that you be more specific, and call them out directly. A lack of targets is often a problem in such denunciations, as it causes you to appear less committed. To put it another way, and use your own words from below, it is more like you have chosen to appear to have denounced every one of them without identification of any of them.

A lack of focus, as it were. You may feel some reticence to do so, but I consider it important to pick actual targets, not make what can be perceived as empty gestures.

I have never lied about anything regarding those in Planned Parenthood or the nature of abortions, I have never harmed anyone with whom I have disagreed on the topic, and I have never knowingly supported, directly or indirectly, any group, organization, or facility which has done so, and have researched the groups and facilities I have supported to ensure that, to the best of my knowledge, they are providing assistance and services with dignity and respect to their recipients.

Oh my, where did this come from? I would say this isn't useful at all, since it's really coming across as grandiose claims of morality. You're talking about yourself, when my suggestions were far from how you should identify yourself, and more about identifying the ones who you don't want standing with you. I don't know if it was simple misapprehension on your part, or something else, but bringing this up, I would submit for your consideration, comes across as pompous and boastful, and it is certainly not what I recommended you do.

I would instead advise against it, as it does not actually serve your interests very well to make such claims. It is very prideful. That is not what I suggested for a reason.

If that counts, you have what you want. If it does not count because I have not single-handedly silenced every individual who has caused harm, then the suggestion requires clarification.

It's not what I want, it's what you should to do in order to establish your bonafides, and sadly, I'm afraid you may be unaware that the process is a continual burden upon yourself. It never stops being a task necessary to perform. Hence my describing it as a start, not a finishing.

I see that as less clarification, and more dispelling of what I fear is some naivety on your part, but I'm not opposed to your conceptualization. My other recommendations I feel are more technical means of improvement, or identification of a problem in your expression(which I could have told you beforehand, but I did not realize that you would consider it needful, however, since you brought it up, I hope you don't mind me informing you that I consider it faulty) , but again, if you want to conceive of them as clarifications, feel free to do so.

Anyway, you will have to continue to cleanse the bad elements from your cause, and work to disestablish them, and it will help to both realize that specific identification of those offenders will be useful and that avoiding self-important claims is important to not appear as if you were grandstanding.

Re: Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because Christians are the only people who think killing is wrong.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[jeff4747]

2. As has been discussed elsewhere in the thread, the core question involved here is this: "At what point is it 'human'?". Is it at birth, and not a minute before? Is it 'human' the day before? Is it third trimester (i.e. where the fetus can generally survive outside the womb)? Is it when it can feel pain, when there's a heartbeat, detectable brainwave patterns, when RNA recombinates, when the zygote attaches to the uteran wall, or when the egg is fertilized? Right now, the legal limit is 'birth', but I submit that there's at least some validity to the notion that a child should be legally protected as much on the day before its birth as the day after. Disregarding the rhetoric and talking points, the core question at hand is where the line should be drawn.

What charges should be brought against women who miscarry? And keep in mind you will be charging the mother in 25% of all pregnancies where the mother is aware she is pregnant.

We very frequently charge parents when there is an accidental death of a child. It's really not hard to find something they did or failed to do that might have prevented the death, so we bring charges.

It's really not hard to find something a woman did or failed to do before the miscarriage that might have prevented it. After all, every single woman who has a miscarriage does. So what charges should we bring?

There's a reason we draw a line at birth. Pregnancy is risky and fertilization has a significant error rate.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

That and, he's probably not interested in discussing Islam with some pointy-white-hooded moron like Trogre.

Re: Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Decent attempt at equivocation, but complete and utter bullshit none the less.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Sigmon]

How about this. You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.

Really? Do you REALLY mean that? So, do we both agree that Obamacare (or any other Federal involvement in healthcare) needs to be repealed permanently? Because all these laws congress has passed over the years are EXACTLY you 'telling me what my personal medical choices will be.'

Additionally, if it's "her pussy, her choice" then don't come to me, the taxpayer, expecting me to pay for the abortion. I don't want anything to do with it... but if I'm paying for it you may absolutely expect me to have a say in what she can and can't do with her pussy.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[MightyMartian]

Does your mother know what kind of woman-hating monster you are? I'm going to assume you don't have a wife or a girlfriend, because you couldn't hide your hatred that well for any length of time, but you know, moms can overlook the fact that you're a hate-filled worm.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Straif]

2 copies of every video were released; the edited copy (for time reasons) and the unedited copy. Even when reviewed by liberal groups they could not find any substantive changes due to editing.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

The situation they're in now is what it means to be a martyr

Interesting, I would said this is what it means to be a "fraud".

Re:Goodbye Karma

[bryanandaimee]

That question is equivalent to
"What charges should be brought against hospice centers when terminal cancer patients die under their care?"

To which the obvious answer is none.

We don't charge parents when their child dies of natural causes, and charging them in accidental death is a cruelty fit for only the most vindictive societies imaginable. Charging parents for death caused directly by neglect is defensible.

Your argument is a good one if you are in favor of defining person-hood using the test of viability. In that case mothers who miscarry are safe from prosecution. Third trimester abortions on the other hand would often fail that test. If we as a society were to define a fetus as a person at the moment of viability we would need to outlaw abortions of healthy babies that reasonable physicians might conclude are viable outside the womb.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Trogre]

I see what you're saying. You reckon he's one of those insular Americans who has no clue what goes on outside his borders? Makes sense. He probably thinks the name World Series isn't ironic too.

Re: Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never paid for an abortion. Those are paid for by private donations. Federal dollars are used for routine wellness preventative screenings, birth control and the like.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you think Trogre wears a pointy white hood because... s/he agreed with a Christian?

Do you also think all atheists are Josef Stalin?

Re:Goodbye Karma

[jeff4747]

We don't charge parents when their child dies of natural causes

We don't know the reason for the vast majority of miscarriages. Therefore, we can not know if the death was natural causes or not.

And I assure you if we look closely enough we will find something the woman did that was not perfect. Because no one is perfect.

"You had a glass of wine before you knew you were pregnant, and miscarried 1 month later." If you declare an embryo to be a human being, that could be a case for child endangerment to negligent homicide.

"You were not maintaining your blood sugar properly because you were constantly throwing up from morning sickness".

"You smoked pot". (Not been shown to harm a fetus, but it's the evil demon weed)

And so on, and so on.

and charging them in accidental death is a cruelty fit for only the most vindictive societies imaginable.

Yet it happens very frequently. Lots of criminal negligence and child endangerment charges are based on accidents that the DA decided the parents should have prevented.

Your argument is a good one if you are in favor of defining person-hood using the test of viability.

Actually, my argument is we need to keep the line at birth. It's the pro-lifers who wish to move that line backwards without considering anything other than punishing those terrible sluts who have sex.

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

And thanks for writing a good column.

>"At what point is it 'human'?".
I'll venture a guess, based on a common characteristic of people around the world & through history finding value in anything:
We value something that we can relate to.

So a fishlike zygote? In common terms there's little to relate to.
An unborn, yet very baby-looking baby? In common terms there's a lot more to relate to.
In other words "when it's cute".

Re:Goodbye Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's quite a chip you have on your shoulder there.

Did a Christian eat your favourite kitten when you were growing up or something?

Coverup

[axewolf]

Whenever something horrible and true is uncovered, the media/judicial/political machine revs up and spews out lies and fabrications, and most people who were alarmed go back to snoozing.

Eventually the people who have acuity are going to have to break off from those who don't. There isn't a future for any of us as long as this horrible machine can invert so many people's reality.

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[MightyMartian]

At best it will be put back on the states, but if Gorsuch is an example of Trump's future nominees, Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere

Double standard (waaah)!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about recording audio in California, none of the clips you link to are covered by the law under discussion.

But hey, I guess you're a millennial, and you probably 'feel' like you're right. So well done. Great analysis of the injustice done here. You're one step closer to exposing the entire huge liberal conspiracy that rules the United States even as we speak.

*pats Steveha on the head*

(As an aside, there are laws being made to stop animal rights activists from recording animal abuse; can you point to any such equivalents for the anti-abortionists?)

It's punishment

[rsilvergun]

they revel in it. Most of these are folks who, for whatever reason, didn't get what they wanted out of life. They're bitter as hell about that and what others to suffer the same fate. I've seen it on the left too with some LGBT folks I know who get upset when the younger generation doesn't face as much bullying. The difference being that when I call the LGBTs on it they snap out of it and realize they're being jerks. The right wing just double down.

I think it's a basic childish (animalistic?) desire for "fairness". They got knocked up and/or knocked/someone up too soon and it ruined their lives. They can't bear the thought of someone else "getting away" with it. The suffered for their mistakes and they'll be damned if everybody else doesn't. As the saying goes, Misery Loves Company.

You're full of it

[rsilvergun]

and so is that Fred shmuck. Adding apostrophes to his name and the name of some crap book he wrote won't distract from that fact.

For 5 thousand years of recorded history if we left anything that really mattered (food production, health care, education, transportation) to the unorganized masses of people it either didn't get done, got done really badly or only got done for the really rich. Everytime people banded together and agreed that there was a minimum that should be done by and for people motherfucking shit got done. That got us to the moon. It cured diseases that plagued us for centuries. It's why we've never had a repeat of the dust bowl/Great Depression.

Said it before, say it again: Don't leave the free market in charge of anything more important than a Twinkie. And keep an eye on 'em while they're making that Twinkie or they'll fill it with sawdust.

Re:You're full of it

[GameboyRMH]

Don't leave the free market in charge of anything more important than a Twinkie. And keep an eye on 'em while they're making that Twinkie or they'll fill it with sawdust.

Haha great sig material!

For the leaders it's just good politics

[rsilvergun]

there's records of them getting together and discussing how to make a wedge issue that would divide the working class and settling on abortion. They didn't even try to hide it because they didn't need to. It's a perfect wedge issue because it's so divisive. Just look at what they named it ("Pro-Life"/"Pro-Choice").

Yeah actually, they are fine

[rsilvergun]

so long as they're not recording a conversation and just filming the animal abuse then you haven't broken any wiretapping laws. It's one of the consequences of animals being purely (and largely unregulated) property. Nice try though. Really nice.

After Republicans get their man on the court

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternative facts will be acceptable to courts.

Cook

[Anonymous Coward]

Them.

Re:Double confused

[Anonymous Coward]

it is legal in California to record visual evidence of a crime, but not audio of someone discussing willingness to do illegal things.

Except that is not what happened here. They recorded audio then reassembled it to appear as a willingness to do illegal things. That's an asshole thing to do, and it is no surprise that you get the book thrown at you where a normal journalist acting ethically would get away with the same actions.

It's not punishment, it's a dominance strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

The goal is not punishment. It's demographic aggression, and it's as old as all religion. Programming your followers to reproduce as much as possible increases your follower base, so you out-compete the other religions for regional political dominance (by simply outnumbering everyone else). Dominance has perks, so the big religions want it. Maximal reproduction is one of two ways they got big, and the other way, conversion, is hard in a saturated market for religion.

The children's quality of life is irrelevant. If you program your bots to have 10 children each, and 2 die and the remaining 8 are poor, doesn't matter - you still have more followers. This is an evolutionary strategy at work. Church leaders may not even be aware of it, though I think they are. Countries used to do this, now a few religions are the only ones trying, and most are failing at it. Thank God, since in a full world, this dominance strategy is a red queen race to ecological suicide, not to mention the likely effects on standard of living.

criminalized

[Anonymous Coward]

what world is this when you get criminalized for exposing criminals ?

Whistleblowers are so bad for elitists who think the laws do not apply to them. Laws are only made for poor people who can't bribe that same law.
All in all , the law should not be wondered they don't get respected anymore.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Good

"Pay attention to who's in the room"...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pay attention to who's in the room"... to deal with babies born alive...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeINzcwb3qU

This is evil beyond belief, and the idea that the investigators are somehow criminals is just typical of the evil establishment that condones, funds and encourages the atrocity that is abortion.

News for nerds?????

[borcharc]

I am at a complete loss how this political interest story has anything to do with news for nerds? I can find politically interesting shit to argue about over at the politically interesting news and comment sites.

Re:News for nerds?????

[EmptyHead]

I am at a complete loss how this political interest story has anything to do with news for nerds? I can find politically interesting shit to argue about over at the politically interesting news and comment sites.

Well, one example is that this serves as a warning for us not to put audio recording devices in our drones if operating in California!

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, you're the one saying they're eating kittens, without saying something like "just watch the whole hour 2 of recording".

Totally different scenarios

[EndlessNameless]

The police officers are state officials, and furthermore they have the legal authority to use force against citizens.

Planned Parenthood may receive some government money, but it is a private organization with no special legal powers.

Filming police acts as a check on government abuse, and it should be a specifically enumerated constitutional right.

Too bad we didn't have video recorders back in the 1700s when the Bill of Rights was written, or else it probably would have been included.

None of you want to talk about what was SAID

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange that, isn't it. You don't want to talk about the fact that the woman on the video admits that SOME of the babies are ALIVE after the 'abortion'.

Sorry - 'fetuses' - wouldn't want you to have to face reality now, would we!

Notice that all those in favour of abortion use the word 'fetus' instead of 'baby', I wonder why..,
Notice that all those in favour of abortion don't want you to even talk about what abortion IS, or to look at pictures of the results of an abortion. Why is that? Because it's so obviously horrific and evil that you know you'll lose the argument?

Why are millions of women getting pregnant "by accident" every year, all over the planet? Are women so stupid that they can't remember to take one pill, once a day?

(I am an atheist, by the way)

So let's talk about the DISMEMBERMENT of living babies, in the womb, and why you think that is acceptable. This is the most evil atrocity the world has ever known, and it carries on precisely because of all the pro abortion scum who like to deny reality, obfuscate, bait and switch, and continue this evil.

"Don't call them babies, that's creepy"
Did any of you actually WATCH the video to see what the abortionist actually said, so that you can address it? Oh wait - you can't justify or defend anything she said, so you're concentrating on the 'evil' people who filmed her saying it.

"I go up to 24 weeks". Why do they say it in weeks? So that you won't think of SIX MONTHS. That's how far along a baby can be when these sadists dismember them alive... Do you understand how evil that is? If you don't, what IS evil in the mad world that you live in?

You also all know that you can't win a debate, which is why you wish to silence dissent, and you wish to silence EVIDENCE like that shown in this video, an abortionist directly admitting that she dismembers babies. These are atrocities beyond comprehension, but rather than try to stop them, you would rather protect your own feelings and pretend it's not happening. How utterly pathetic.

cronies have power in our government

[Anonymous Coward]

PP is a crony of the D half of the one party system.

As a result, it has power.

And this is the result: Dare to show that PP is doing something illegal, and they get exempt from prosecution, and they get the government to prosecute the whistleblowers.

Welcome to the cronyocracy - our government.

Seems Fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Take video of man talking about grabbing pussy A OK. Take video of unplanned parenthood YOUR GOING TO JAIL!

Re:Double confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, to hell with discretion, and to hell with context and consideration. Every single incident of every single law being broken must be enforced to the full extent of the law. Under today's laws, society would become completely non-functional. You would have to either infinitely expand the laws to outline every single exception and circumstance, or simply get rid of almost all the laws where context might come in to play. Your comments seem like you are upset that these individuals are in trouble and so you want to make sure everyone else's day is ruined too.

Re:Double confused

[steveha]

If you try to compare the legality of video recordings (like most animal abuse recordings) and of these audio+video recordings, then you are just showing a complete lack of knowledge about the subject and a complete unwillingness to spend the 20 minutes of googling it would take to become partly informed.

I provided a link to a web article on this, which made the case that California has a double standard. I found this persuasive and I shared it here on Slashdot. It didn't occur to me that the premise of the article might be flawed due to the whole audio vs. video aspect... I thought surreptitious recording of any nature was forbidden.

Neither the article I linked nor the NPR article linked on the Slashdot story covered the audio vs. video distinction and I didn't think of it on my own.

Let me state clearly for the record: I Googled up a few pages about surreptitious recording, and it does look to me like California permits surreptitious video recording but not audio. This answers to my satisfaction the question as to why Mercy for Animals can make surreptitious videos and not get charged. The article whose link I provided was based on a flawed premise, and I wish I had checked up on it before posting it here.

And, again I'm not trying to be rude, but this shows that you don't really let facts get in the way of your opinions.

I didn't think you were being rude until this sentence.

I didn't spend 20 minutes Googling for background because I mistakenly thought I already understood the background. I think it's fair to call this "a mistake" rather than evidence that I "don't really let facts get in the way of [my] opinions."

You can continue on this way, or you can change and try to become informed. It's your choice, but it's kinda an important one I think.

Friend, you have made the mistake of generalizing from limited data. I'm not perfect, but I haven't done anything to earn this lecture from you.

I made a mistake and you called me on it. Fair enough. But it's not reasonable to conclude on the basis of that one mistake that I don't care about facts at all, or that I am completely uninformed.

If I wanted to be ironic, here I would lecture you on how you seem awfully quick to judge, and that you should work to rid yourself of this flaw. But all I know for sure is that you did it this one time.

Re:Double confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Let's just get rid of laws completely. The King or his agents will decide who is to be thrown in prison and for what reason. We'll just choose a benevolent, enlightened King and it'll be awesome.

Yeah there has to be some give and take, but it sucks that there are so many laws that everyone breaks them all the time without even knowing. How about lets have less laws and not selective enforcement.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-10-22/you-break-law-every-day-without-even-knowing-it

Re:Double confused

[Agent0013]

I commend you sir on the way you owned up to your original misunderstanding. A lot of people would not take the time to understand the details and especially to admit that maybe they did not know everything at all times. The GP's comments were a bit harsh, but I bet they are used to people not acting as civilized as you do. Thank you, you are a benefit to discussions on this site.

Re:Double confused

[jdavidb]

If 60 Minutes has made undercover videos in California that included audio recordings, and they were never prosecuted for it, then I have an objection again.

Yes; I really worry about laws or uneven enforcement of laws that create a special "media class" of people that have rights the rest of us don't have. That means that we'll end up with an entrenched media that doesn't face real competition and accountability.

Re:Republicans.... (the right)

[slashdotwannabe]

But we're not talking about kittens, we're talking about human lives.

We aren't talking about "human lives". We're talking about embryos and fetuses.

Every time an anti-freedom activist lies about what abortion actually is a kitten dies.

Are we missing the key point?

[barrygrommit]

Wait. Let's try to stay on point: Planned Parenthood said the footage was misleadingly edited.

Recording the meetings was one thing (and not legal).
But more important was that they fudged, faked, twisted the footage.
It does not require gigantic technical skills to edit tape.
But, in this case, it is illegal.

Re:Are we missing the key point?

[EmptyHead]

Wait. Let's try to stay on point: Planned Parenthood said the footage was misleadingly edited. Recording the meetings was one thing (and not legal). But more important was that they fudged, faked, twisted the footage. It does not require gigantic technical skills to edit tape. But, in this case, it is illegal.

Someone posted above that the original recordings with no editing were made available. I haven't seen a source for this though.

Never Again

[Anonymous Coward]

After 30 years as a committed PP supporter, never again will I give these bastards one red cent. It's murder, people.

Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

The real argument isn't about private/public employees. This story has been spun by the douchebags on both sides that the truth no longer matters.

Some people are against abortion and believe it is wrong to be forced to pay in to services that provide it.

If you believe in this type of 'treatment' then by all means - give away.

Just remember, when they need more money then you dig deeper. Because you want it.

Ever wonder if we already aborted the child who would have become smart enough to unlock a source for renewable energy?