Babies’ Lives Matter: Center for Medical Progress Ironies
Pro-life activist David Daleiden and an associate from the Center for Medical Progress, whose undercover exposés of Planned Parenthood abortionists’ cavalier discussions of the careful crushing and distribution of human body parts created a furor last summer, have been indicted. Both have been charged with tampering with government documents, and Daleiden has also been indicted for violating a Texas state law that says “a person commits an offense if he or she knowingly or intentionally offers to buy, offers to sell, acquires, receives, sells, or otherwise transfers any human organ for valuable consideration.”
Planned Parenthood, always at the forefront of public celebrations of perversity, rejoices:
The Center for Medical Progress operatives spent nearly three years creating a fake company, creating fake identities (including fake government IDs), obtaining a credit card using a fake name, and engaged in a series of lies to worm their way into private events, to trespass onto private property, and to illegally record conversations without consent.
“The people behind this fraud lied and broke the law in order to spread malicious lies about Planned Parenthood to advance their extreme anti-abortion political agenda….As the dust settles and the truth comes out, it’s become totally clear that the only people who engaged in wrongdoing are the criminals behind this fraud, and we’re glad they are being held accountable.”
The indictment drips with irony. Daleiden, who everyone in the universe knows was trying to expose and stop the sale of human body parts acquired via abortion, is charged with offering to buy human organs, while Planned Parenthood, who actually does sell—oops, I mean “donate”—body parts is in the clear.
Since liberals have been whining that the “highly edited” undercover videos were profoundly unethical, enquiring minds want to know if liberals would object on similar grounds to Nellie Bly’s undercover exposé of the barbaric treatment of patients at a New York insane asylum decades ago, the result of which was a grand jury investigation and ultimately changes in the way patients were treated.
What about the NBC television show “To Catch a Predator” in which both fake identities and secret video recordings were used to expose child predators?
And then there’s the case of cattle cruelty. Just last August a federal judge struck down an Idaho “ag-gag” law that banned undercover videos at factory farms—videos which are used by animal rights activists to expose mistreatment of farm animals.
According to the L.A. Times, U.S. Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill argued that “‘the law violated the 1st Amendment and selectively targeted activists or journalists who might be critical of factory farm practices.’” In his decision, Winmill further stated that “‘The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: …the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment.’”
And who is making and vigorously defending the use of undercover videos to ensure that farm animals are treated humanely? “Progressives”—the same people who oppose the use of undercover videos to try to ensure that humans are treated humanely during and after their legalized slaughter.
Here’s more about the undercover video of bovine-abuse :
…Los Angeles-based animal rights group, Mercy for Animals, released undercover video that showed dairy workers at one Idaho farm beating and abusing cows.
One clip showed workers at Bettencourt Dairies’ Dry Creek Dairy in Hansen, Idaho, dragging a cow with a tractor after attaching a chain to her neck.
Although the video resulted in criminal charges against some of the workers, many Idaho lawmakers appeared more piqued by the animal rights activists who produced the highly edited footage.
Lawmakers likened it to propaganda or worse. One lawmaker called the undercover videos “farm terrorism” intended to damage the agricultural industry. Another compared activists to ancient invaders who destroyed crops to starve enemies into submission.
Idaho’s law made it a misdemeanor — punishable by up to a year in prison, plus potentially steep damages — to make secret recordings or misrepresent one’s identity to gain entrance to an agricultural facility.
After the law was passed, a broad coalition of animal rights activists, journalists and civil liberties advocates sued Idaho in federal court. Plaintiffs included the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho and left-wing news magazine CounterPunch.
Winmill said that if farm owners were concerned about highly edited activist videos, they could mount their own public relations campaigns.
“The remedy for misleading speech, or speech we do not like, is more speech, not enforced silence,” Winmill wrote.
Mercy for Animals hailed the ruling, saying it was looking forward to producing more undercover videos in Idaho.
“Idaho’s lawmakers should be ashamed of wasting precious time and valuable resources enacting unconstitutional laws that threaten animal welfare….” Nathan Runkle, president of Mercy for Animals….
“We hope they will now focus their efforts on improving animal welfare and rewarding the brave whistleblowers who uncover criminal activity in Idaho’s agricultural operation,” Runkle said. [emphasis added]
If a whistle-blower seeking to protect cows from abuse should be rewarded, then a whistle-blower seeking to protect tiny vulnerable humans from dismemberment, death, and sale should at least not be indicted.
The Poynter Institute, a non-profit journalism school, defends the use of undercover reporting:
Hidden cameras and any form of deception should be used judiciously and rarely. They should be reserved for those exceptional stories of great public interest involving great harm to individuals or system failure at the highest levels.
If the re-positioning or careful crushing of small humans during their killing in order to maximize their “donation” compensation and utility for research doesn’t constitute great harm to individuals or system failure at the highest levels, nothing does.
It boggles the mind that moral regressives find the dragging of a cow by its neck (a moral offense, indeed) to be a greater moral offense than dismembering or sucking the brains out of a human.
First published at Illinois Family Institute
Top 6 on BarbWire.com