# Planned Parenthood sues anti-abortion group behind secret videos **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167 "2016-01-14T21:20:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/81 "2016-01-27T20:42:29Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Yeah, this is pretty interesting. A Republican DA who started off investigating PP ended up presenting evidence to a grand jury sufficient to have CMP activists indicted. > > I think it’s a good time to laud some Republicans for integrity: this DA shows every sign of being a person of integrity, inasmuch as he clearly let facts on the ground change his mind. (A similar circumstance might be if a Democratic DA, under other circumstances, prosecuted PETA activists for similar crimes–although the analogy breaks down due to extremist influences, but that’s another discussion). > > I’m really curious to see what the “tampering with a government record” charge consists of. If it’s fake documents they used to gain access to PP, I don’t much care, and might even oppose the charge based on the general benefits of undercover journalism (“might” being a key word there, would need to know specifics). If it’s tampering in the sense that they engaged in deceit sufficient to lead to investigations of Planned Parenthood, I’m much more pleased with the charges; while I support undercover journalism, I absolutely don’t support bearing false witness. > [@Voyager](#): > > The DA is a she, by the way. And it seems that the faked documents are forged ID cards that allowed the accused criminals to get into the PP office as people allowed to get the material. > > The right is very much the end justifies the means kind of people, aren’t they? So LHOD, you still cool with the indictment? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/82 "2016-01-27T20:43:53Z")
_I_ am, for what it’s worth. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/83 "2016-01-27T21:45:55Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So LHOD, you still cool with the indictment? It’s a really hard case for me to be unbiased about, I gotta say. I have a lot of things going on here: -All else being equal, I want these assholes to suffer for the immensely awful thing they did. This point has the most emotional appeal and the least logical appeal. -All else being equal, I want the law to be applied fairly. -All else being equal, I want undercover journalism not to be squashed. -All else being equal, I want government documents to be trustworthy. Numbers 1, 2, and 4 point toward thinking the indictment is cool. Number 3 gives me pause. Am I okay with the indictment because I’m a vindictive sonofabitch, or am I okay with the indictment because the value of justly-applied laws and protecting government documents are greater than the value of protecting one particular approach to undercover journalism (that approach being forged government documents)? I’d like to think it’s a rational decision, but can’t be sure. What I can be sure of is that there IS a rational basis by which I could be okay with the indictment, so I’m not gonna spend too long navel-gazing to figure out if that’s my basis. I’m cool with the indictment. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/84 "2016-01-27T22:26:57Z")
Don’t much care about the indictment so far as putting somebody behind bars, because they most likely won’t. That said, the prospect of indictment starts the legal gears grinding, so we might fairly expect to learn more about these people, like who they are and who funds them, so on and so forth. Downside is indictment lets them do the Perp Walk to the ATM, they will publicly bleat for money for their legal defense team, etc. And will get it, most likely. So, a little squishy on “support”, more like five points below “meh”. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2016, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/85 "2016-07-27T15:21:34Z")
[Charges dismissed.](http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/planned-parenthood-videos/493181/) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/86 "2016-07-27T15:54:15Z")
Apparently due to a technicality concerning the indictment process: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > After the videos surfaced last year, Dan Patrick, the Texas lieutenant governor, a Republican, asked the Republican district attorney in Harris County to open a criminal investigation into Planned Parenthood in August. A grand jury ended up indicting Mr. Daleiden and Ms. Merritt, and taking no action against Planned Parenthood. > > In January, the duo were handed felony charges for tampering with a government-issued ID, as well as a misdemeanor charge linked to offering to buy human organs. The judge dropped the latter charge a few weeks ago. The felony charge was dismissed Tuesday upon the prosecutors’ request because the grand jury’s term had been extended during the investigation. Daleiden’s lawyers had argued the jury did not have the authority to indict the duo during that time. AFAICT the dropping of charges in this criminal investigation of the anti-PP “activists” has no bearing on the [pending civil suit filed by PP against them](http://www.wsj.com/articles/antiabortion-activists-cleared-in-planned-parenthood-video-case-1469550664): > [@](#): > > The charges were dropped because the grand jury that issued the indictments was given additional information after an extension period, a move that overstepped legal limits, the district attorney said. […] > > Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast said in a statement that dropping the charges “is not the same as finding that [Mr.] Daleiden is innocent of the criminal charges.” > > Melaney Linton, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, said that Mr. Daleidan and other antiabortion activists “spread malicious lies about Planned Parenthood in order to advance their antiabortion agenda.” > > “The decision to drop the prosecution on a technicality does not negate the fact that the only people who engaged in wrongdoing are the extremists behind this fraud,” Ms. Linton said. […] > > Planned Parenthood filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Daleiden and others in January. It said the activists used fake driver’s licenses and attended private conferences, and violated signed nondisclosure agreements by making the videos. The suit, which is pending, also alleges that a fake nonprofit was set up to allow members of the group to pose as officials seeking fetal tissue for medical research. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/87 "2016-07-27T16:29:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast said in a statement that dropping the charges “is not the same as finding that [Mr.] Daleiden is innocent of the criminal charges.” Is anyone ever found innocent of criminal charges? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/88 "2016-07-27T17:18:08Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > Is anyone ever found innocent of criminal charges? 😕 IANAL, but isn’t that what a “Not Guilty” verdict is? If tried on criminal charges, and found not guilty, isn’t that effectively the same as being found innocent? Technically, I suppose, a “Not Guilty” verdict means only that guilt wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but convincing the jury of one’s innocence is one quite common way to achieve that outcome. Certainly, having criminal charges dropped because of technical violations during the indictment process isn’t equivalent to being tried and found not guilty of the charges. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/89 "2016-07-27T17:27:45Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > Is anyone ever found innocent of criminal charges? Not guilty is not the same as being found innocent. There is something that is called a finding of factual innocence. In that instance, records of arrest and prosecution would typically be sealed and destroyed limiting the circumstance that such events would be discovered via background check, etc. This type of finding can vary by state but does exist in my state of CA. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/90 "2016-07-27T17:30:24Z")
“Not Guilty” doesn’t me “they definitely didn’t do it”. It means “we haven’t found enough to prove they did do it/what we have that proves they did do it cannot be accepted in court”. There \*should \*be a separate verdict for “no, really, they couldn’t possibly have done it/we have factual proof somebody else did it” but then there should be beer, chocolate and ponies as well. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/91 "2016-07-28T02:35:37Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > “Not Guilty” doesn’t me “they definitely didn’t do it”. It means “we haven’t found enough to prove they did do it/what we have that proves they did do it cannot be accepted in court”. There \*should \*be a separate verdict for “no, really, they couldn’t possibly have done it/we have factual proof somebody else did it” but then there should be beer, chocolate and ponies as well. Chocolate beer ponies? Are those like ponies made out of chocolate flavored beer. - Not guilty - they didn’t do it - Not guilty - they might have done it, but the evidence wasn’t sufficient to convince a jury (see O.J. Simpson) - Not guilty - we did something wrong procedurally, so even though they might be guilty as hell for having 20 lbs of cocaine in the back of their car, the chain of custody on the evidence was so screwed up, they are going to walk. ---
**Author:** ![spamforbrains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@spamforbrains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spamforbrains)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/92 "2016-07-28T03:36:07Z")
It was a christian terrorist attack. PP won. The facts are quite clear. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/93 "2016-07-28T03:54:43Z")
> [@spamforbrains](#): > > It was a christian terrorist attack. PP won. The facts are quite clear. Hah! Facts! I remember when people cared about those, in the long-long ago… ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/94 "2016-07-28T05:29:38Z")
Yet another case of why allowing fuckups to kill cases is bad. Someone has a case you don’t to prosecute, just make sure that something gets fucked up along the way. Punish the people who fucked up, but still give a shit about justice and prosecute the offender. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/95 "2016-07-28T13:29:12Z")
Can’t it be presented to a new grand jury? I get dropping the charges concerning offering to buy human organs, nobody believes that they really intended to make such a purchase; but the other charge was dismissed due to a technicality, so why wouldn’t the prosecutor try again? I’m nearly certain that double jeopardy isn’t relevant here. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/96 "2016-07-29T16:12:47Z")
Double jeopardy attaches once the jury is seated. ISTM that the charges were dropped during the pretrial phase, though that’s not entirely clear from the article. So no double jeopardy problem. There may now be a statute of limitations problem. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/97 "2016-07-29T16:39:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Double jeopardy attaches once the jury is seated. ISTM that the charges were dropped during the pretrial phase, though that’s not entirely clear from the article. So no double jeopardy problem. There may now be a statute of limitations problem. From what the article says, it sounds like they were dropped due to a technicality involving the grand jury, so I was assuming it was pretrial, but you may be right that it’s not clear. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/98 "2016-07-29T16:58:16Z")
I don’t think either side comes out of this smelling of roses. Best to let bygones be bygones. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/99 "2016-07-29T17:12:02Z")
Both sides are equal? How so? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2016, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167/100 "2016-07-31T05:22:41Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I don’t think either side comes out of this smelling of roses. Best to let bygones be bygones. It’s unclear to me that PP did anything even slightly improper, possibly because I’m not easily grossed out by the idea of scientific research. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planned-parenthood-sues-anti-abortion-group-behind-secret-videos/743167.md?page=6)