Who was the Belle of Ralph Reed’s “Faith and Freedom” conference this weekend? Why, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who was in her element as she preached for a nation run under biblical law and toyed with a possible presidential run.
And, while she was at it, she threw in calling Planned Parenthood a “criminal enterprise” for good measure.
“This organization has by their own records performed 324,008 abortions in 2008 and 2009 and that’s in addition to the trafficking of under-age girls that has gone on under Planned Parenthood’s nose,” she said. “Do you think we could start here by defunding this organization?”
Watch the speech below. She doesn’t want to “talk about it, it’s so disgusting.” Then she talks about it a lot.
An attorney for David Daleiden and his anti-choice group responsible for heavily edited videos attacking Planned Parenthood said in court last week that there was no way to show that the videos had any connection to the uptick in violence directed toward the health-care organization this year.
Attorneys for the National Abortion Federation (NAF) on Friday squared off in court against the orchestrators of the Planned Parenthood attack campaign, arguing that Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) should remain blocked from releasing any video footage that NAF says CMP illegally acquired.
Daleiden and CMP violated multiple state and federal laws, and breached contracts when they published videos deceptively edited to suggest that Planned Parenthood was engaged in the criminal trafficking of fetal tissue, or “baby parts,” according to NAF’s allegation. The videos were cobbled together from more than 500 hours of footage surreptitiously recorded by Daleiden and a group of his associates at NAF’s private meetings in 2014 and 2015.
NAF had submitted to the court evidence that Dr. Savita Ginde, the director of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, where three people were killed by the accused shooter who would later claim to be a “warrior for the babies,” had been subjected to picketing outside her home, including anti-choice protesters handing out fliers to neighbors labeling her a “baby killer.”
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
NAF submitted evidence of Internet commenters calling for the death of Ginde and other NAF members featured in the CMP videos.
Catherine Short, the attorney for CMP, questioned the connection between the videos and the increase in hate speech and violence against NAF members.
Short noted that hate speech is not against the law and is not the sort of “irreparable injury” that will support a preliminary injunction barring the release of more footage.
Residential picketing is protected free speech and aside from “cherry-picking instances of hyperbolic comments online,” NAF had not submitted evidence of doctors having been directly threatened, Short said.
Acknowledging that the accused Colorado Springs shooter, Robert Lewis Dear Jr., said after the shooting to law enforcement, “no more baby parts,” Short argued that there was no way of knowing that the videos provided the impetus for the murderous act.
“We don’t know if he saw a video, and if so, which one,” Short said.
“I don’t think you’re going to make any headway on irreparable injury, but you can argue how you want to,” United States District Court Judge William Orrick said, interrupting Short’s argument and signaling his skepticism toward her claim that NAF had failed to prove irreparable injury.
With a nod to the film A Few Good Men, Short argued that by blocking the release of the videos, the judge is telling Americans, “You can’t handle the truth.” It is beyond dispute that the videos are vital to the public interest, Short said.
“They signed two agreements and had no intention of following any of them,” Orrick said of Daleiden and his associates, before asking for a line of reasoning that he should follow to not impose a preliminary injunction.
The agreements Daleiden signed were boilerplate agreements, the enforceability of which must be weighed against the public interest, Short argued. She said the defendants are not responsible if the public acts “irresponsibly” as a result of the information contained in the videos, calling Dear a “crazy person.”
Linda Shostak, counsel for NAF, said that the First Amendment is not absolute, and can be limited for policy reasons.
She pointed out that the video footage doesn’t prove any criminality, noting that Daleiden’s affidavit, which contains claims that NAF is part of a criminal enterprise, should not be given any weight since he is not a medical expert or a lawyer. Furthermore, she argued, Daleiden is not worthy of belief because he admitted to being untruthful and concealing his identity; she pointed to the lawsuit brought by a tissue procurement company tied to Planned Parenthood—StemExpress—against CMP and Daleiden.
The judge in that case said Daleiden’s testimony was less worthy of credence than the opposing witnesses’ testimony.
As for CMP and Daleiden’s attempt to distance themselves from the rash of clinic violence in the wake of the videos, Shostak pointed to the fact that a Washington state man, Scott Anthony Horton, had been arrested on criminal charges of directing threatening messages to a StemExpress employee. The FBI thinks there’s a connection between the anti-choice smear videos and the subsequent violence, she noted.
CMP and Daleiden would have been free to continue the dialogue about abortion rights and fetal tissue donation without putting NAF members at risk, violating contracts, and misrepresenting who they are, Shostak argued.
This case has always been about its members, said NAF President and CEO Vicki Saporta, who attended the hearing on Friday.
“Our interest all along has been the safety and security of our members and since the first video was released in early July, NAF has reported an unprecedented increase in hate speech, threats, and calls to action against abortion providers which resulted in three people being murdered and nine injured in Colorado Springs,” Saporta said in a statement following the hearing. “And I think the judge clearly understood that our members are and continue to be at risk.”
The judge did not immediately issue a ruling and took the matter under advisement.
Orrick noted that he was inclined to believe NAF had made the requisite showing of irreparable injury (a judge can issue a preliminary injunction only if the party seeking the injunctionfaces a “substantial threat of irreparable injury.”) Orrick pointed to the increase in hate speech against abortion providers, incidents of death threats, arson, and the deadly shooting at the Colorado Springs clinic.
After the first round of videos were released, the judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the release of any further footage.
Daleiden maintains that the order constitutes prior restraint, or pre-publication censorship. He said it is a violation of his First Amendment rights. Daleiden also contends that NAF is trying to hide evidence of criminal activity.
NAF contends that Daleiden waived any First Amendment right he may have had to publish the videos when he signed a confidentiality agreement promising not to disclose any information he learned at NAF’s private meetings without obtaining consent from NAF. The confidentiality agreement is part of a strict security protocol followed by NAF in order to protect its members from harassment by anti-choice radicals and terrorists.
Orrick seemed skeptical of Daleiden’s claims. He said that he had read the transcript of the videos and didn’t see any evidence of illegal activity on Planned Parenthood’s part. Every state and federal investigation launched by GOP lawmakers this year has turned up no wrongdoing by the health-care provider.
In an effort to pull the rug out from under the most recent attacks by the anti-choice movement, Planned Parenthood decided this week to forgo reimbursement for fetal tissue donation, while still offering this option to its patients. Some worry that this action may make matters worse in the long term.
On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) sent a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stating that its affiliates would no longer request reimbursement for donation of fetal tissue, instead covering the costs of preserving and transferring the tissues on its own. The move comes after months of attacks on PPFA and its affiliates resulting from a series of deceptively edited videos claiming that affiliates were profiting from collection and donation of fetal tissue for research.
The claims have never been backed up: No evidence to support these allegations has ever been presented by the producers of the videos or the congressional Republicans now using them to attack Planned Parenthood.
PPFA sees the decision to forgo reimbursement altogether as a strategic move intended to expose the real intentions of those seeking to ban safe abortion care in the United States. There are more than three million people who receive reproductive health care each year from PPFA, and efforts to weaken the organization will only undermine public health and cost us more in the long run.
Not everyone is happy about the decision, however.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Collecting, donating, and accepting reimbursement for the costs of transferring fetal tissue from clinics to labs is completely legal; realizing profits from such donations is not. Fetal tissue donations are regulated by a law passed in 1993, which in turn was based on the findings of a panel appointed by former President Ronald Reagan. Fetal tissue is and has long been used in a variety of medical and public health research efforts, ranging from development of vaccines to the search for treatment of a wide range of debilitating and potentially life-threatening conditions including but not limited to Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Down syndrome, leukemia, immunologic disorders, diabetes, and maternal and infant health conditions. What PPFA and other providers offering patients the option of donating fetal tissue do is essential to public health research.
It is also a widely employed public health strategy. According to Dr. David Grimes, former chief of the Abortion Surveillance branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “being compensated for administrative costs associated with fetal tissue collection is analogous to the American Red Cross getting compensated for the collection, storage, and transportation of blood products.”
The original claims against PPFA came from a previously unknown anti-choice group calling itself the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and were based on a series of videos recorded surreptitiously and taken by people operating under false pretenses using false identities. Apart from asserting that PPFA was selling fetal tissue, CMP also either misinterpreted or misled the public and the media on various aspects of the law governing fetal tissue collection, alleging, for example, that PPFA doctors were “changing methods” to collect more tissue. But the provision of the law governing methods applied only to organ collection for now-discontinued transplant research, and never to the clinical care provided by reproductive health providers like PPFA. So there was effectively no law to break—nor any evidence that PPFA ever did so anyway. In its letter to NIH, PPFA states that its own internal policies and practices have always adhered to all portions of the law, even those that do not apply to its work. In other words, PPFA voluntarily went above and beyond standing law.
CMP is closely affiliated with other radical anti-choice groups such as Operation Rescue and Live Action films. CMP is now under investigation in California for possibly breaking the law. Meanwhile, as noted earlier and worth repeating, no evidence of wrongdoing by PPFA has ever been presented. The absence of evidence notwithstanding, congressional Republicans are conducting what are clearly viciously partisan hearings, another in a long series of efforts to eliminate access to reproductive health care for low-income people under Medicaid and Title X, the programs through which PPFA receives government reimbursement of funding for providing care.
In short, we’ve seen this movie many times before, and this is a tired but still dangerous sequel. Radical anti-choicers and their counterparts in Congress and state legislatures continue to use these unproven allegations in their quest to marginalize and destroy a provider that provides high-quality primary reproductive health care to more than three million Americans per year. Five Planned Parenthood clinics in two states offer fetal tissue donation to their patients; one clinic did not accept reimbursements in the first place. Yet seven states have wasted time and money investigating claims by CMP—Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and South Dakota—even though no PP clinics in any of these states collect or donate fetal tissue. A number of other states have rushed to ban fetal tissue research irrespective of the costs to public health.
In its letter to NIH, PPFA states that it will continue to provide people the option of donating fetal tissue while absorbing the costs of preserving and transferring the tissue itself. Cecile Richards, president of PPFA, wrote:
The participation by a handful of our affiliates in supporting women who choose to make fetal tissue donation has always been about nothing other than honoring the desire of those women and contributing to life-saving research and cures. In order to completely debunk the disingenuous argument that our opponents have been using – and to reveal the true political purpose of these attacks – our Federation has decided, going forward, that any Planned Parenthood health center that is involved in donating tissue after an abortion for medical research will follow the model already in place at one of our two affiliates currently facilitating donations for fetal tissue research. That affiliate accepts no reimbursement for its reasonable expenses – even though reimbursement is fully permitted under the 1993 law. Going forward, all of our health centers will follow the same policy, even if it means they will not recover reimbursements permitted by the 1993 law.
The letter continues:
[O]ur decision not to take any reimbursement for expenses should not be interpreted as a suggestion that anyone else should not take reimbursement or that the law in this area isn’t strong. Our decision is first and foremost about preserving the ability of our patients to donate tissue, and to expose our opponents’ false charges about this limited but important work.
In a phone call with Rewire, Eric Ferrero, vice president of communications at PPFA, said the decision was intended to “take away the smoke screen that anti-abortion activists are using to justify all these attacks, and in so doing lay bare their actual agenda.”
“We have known all along this is not about fetal tissue,” he continued. “It’s about banning abortion in this country. We are essentially calling their bluff.”
Ferrero reiterated points made in the letter to NIH that “PPFA stands behind fetal tissue research, we are proud of this work, and nothing about our decision to change our policy should be interpreted to suggest that others should not be reimbursed. The law allows for it, medical standards allow for it, other health-care providers do it, and it is totally appropriate.”
PPFA’s strategic calculation is that the decision not to accept reimbursement for fetal tissue immediately calls into question the legitimacy of both CMP and members of Congress who are using the fetal tissue charges to attack women’s health care. PPFA also is talking over the heads of Congress, so to speak, to reach the public; polls show consistently high levels of support for PPFA, and as Ferrero noted, the thinking is that once you take out the fetal tissue piece you uncover the real motivations.
Not surprisingly, this step did not change the minds of those who attacked PPFA in the first place. David Daleiden, the head of CMP, called it an “admission of guilt,” though of what it isn’t clear, since reimbursement for fetal tissue samples is completely legal, and, again, as noted above, no evidence exists whatsoever of wrongdoing in the first place.
Concerns about the new policy have been raised, however, by independent providers. Several providers agreed to speak to Rewire, all of whom requested anonymity to avoid becoming the focal point of an ever-emboldened and increasingly violent anti-choice movement. “Our concern as an independent provider is that it just puts a bigger target on our backs,” said one provider, referring to concerns that independent providers who take reimbursement for services will be sought out.
These providers pointed to the imbalance of resources between Planned Parenthood and the many independent clinics struggling to provide high-quality care on small budgets with small margins. One benefit to being the nation’s largest provider of reproductive health care is that just by sheer numbers, PPFA has an enormous base of financial support; the people they’ve served often go on to donate so that others can access health care. Independent providers do not have the same resource base and so have different concerns about marginal costs.
Providing the option for fetal tissue donation and then ensuring the integrity of the tissue until it gets to researchers is far more costly than is widely understood. First, there are training costs. All staff involved in any aspect of the fetal tissue collection and donation have to be specially trained, including the people responsible for its packaging and transport. The training is expensive and must be repeated each time a new staff member comes on board.
Then there are recurring costs. At one clinic, the total costs in 2014 for the number of hours involved spent by employees directly involved in fetal tissue research came to approximately $64,700. Indirect costs, such as facility overhead, supplies, and administrative support came to $23,300.
The director of this clinic said: “When comparing our expenses and the reimbursement collected, (based on a negotiated fee), the resulting gap is inked in red. We absolutely make no income by participating in this program. It is the non-tangible positive benefits that are so much more far reaching, for our community, staff, and most of all the women, and families, who elect to participate.” Independent providers noted that if non-reimbursement were to become the norm, independents would not be able to sustain their services without recouping the marginal costs of collecting and donating tissue.
Others worried about whether declining reimbursement will reinforce the stigma manufactured by the right around reproductive health care generally and abortion particularly. This is, of course, the aim of the anti-choice movement: to so vilify and isolate providers that even in a country in which roughly one in three women have at least one abortion and where everyone needs sexual and reproductive health care, stigma—coupled with violence and legal harassment—will drive providers to give up providing services or shame women into not seeking services.
Some independent providers are concerned about the same effect regarding abortion providers and reimbursement for services such as fetal tissue donation. “I value abortion work and time,” says Jenifer Groves, executive director of the Cherry Hill Women’s Center. “To honor the work we do we need to realize that it has value,” she continued. “Altruism is threaded throughout everything we do. Expecting to be paid for a service is prevalent in nonprofit and for-profit work, and the work can still be done with heart. This move increases stigma and indies will get the brunt of it. I love PP but I can’t not see this.”
In a very real sense, the questions raised by independent providers around Planned Parenthood’s decision to forgo reimbursement for the work involved in donating fetal tissue reveal the ongoing tensions and questions faced by reproductive health-care providers writ large. What is the right balance between holding your ground on principle and taking actions meant to win a shorter-term battle, when doing so may affect the outcome of the war? Who decides the balance?
How do we draw a line in the sand that protects integral public health work without compromising either its integrity or the broader understanding of what it takes to ensure that work survives? How can the climate of stigma and discrimination against reproductive health providers—and by extension against all the people who need their services—be challenged and reversed? What responsibility do larger and smaller providers of reproductive health care have to each other? And how can they both co-exist?
These questions are important and the concerns worth noting. That said, there is as yet no concrete evidence that PPFA’s decision to decline reimbursement will affect independent providers.
Still, all of these and other questions must be carefully considered, because only one thing is certain: The dedication of a movement organized, focused, and working relentlessly to eliminate access to essential reproductive health care for all people.