LA Superior Court Stops Release of Future Videos of StemExpress’ Baby Body Parts Business

LA Superior Court Stops Release of Future Videos of StemExpress’ Baby Body Parts Business July 30, 2015
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by Charlotte Cooper
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by Charlotte Cooper

The Los Angeles Superior Court has issued a temporary restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress, barring them from releasing more videos of StemExpress executives discussing the purchase of aborted baby body parts.

The videos in question are said to include conversations held in a restaurant with three StemExpress executives.

My first reaction was that this is tres ironic, coming as it does from people who come on Public Catholic and throw both shoes because their comments sometimes get deleted. I lost track the first week as to how many times they accused me of violating their odd idea of “freedom of speech” and the First Amendment.

However, this action by the Los Angeles Superior Court does violate First Amendment free speech, since it is the government, stopping journalists from airing videos which show people who are at least indirectly hooked up to the tax base talking about how they make their money. It doesn’t get much more First Amendment than that.

We the People have a right to know what is being done with our tax dollars, and Planned Parenthood certainly gets its share of tax dollars. Also, “researchers” who may be using these body parts from murdered babies are also almost certainly getting a big part of their $$ from the government, as well. It seems clear that StemExpress is getting its $$ from the government, at least indirectly.

It will be interesting indeed to see how this plays out in the courts. It does indicate that Planned Parenthood and its downstream partners such as StemExpress are running hot on this thing.

There’s a cloture vote in the Senate next week. Even though I’ve gone on record saying that we’re gonna lose that vote, I still think we need to put up every bit of fight we can. You never know. I’ve won other fights I thought were lost in the past.

From FoxNews:

A temporary restraining order has been issued preventing an anti-abortion group from releasing any video of leaders of a California company that provides fetal tissue to researchers. The group is the same one that previously released three covertly shot videos of a Planned Parenthood leader discussing the sale of aborted fetuses for research.

The Los Angeles Superior Court order issued Tuesday prohibits the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May. It appears to be the first legal action prohibiting the release of a video from the organization.

The Center for Medical Progress has released three surreptitiously recorded videos to date that have riled anti-abortion activists. The Senate is expected to vote before its August recess on a Republican effort to bar federal aid to Planned Parenthood in the aftermath of the videos’ release.

In a statement Wednesday, center leader David Daleiden said StemExpress was using “meritless litigation” to cover up an “illegal baby parts trade.”

“The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work,” he said.

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

17 responses to “LA Superior Court Stops Release of Future Videos of StemExpress’ Baby Body Parts Business”

  1. It’s only a temporary injunction, right? Presumably to allow PP to prove its case that the videos are slanderous, libelous, or defamatory, and may have been created using illegal means. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that those kinds of claims are notoriously difficult to prove when they involve a public figure or organization.

    PP may yet lose. Again, IANAL, but the courts seem to favor a pretty free interpretation of free speech. You may see the rest of those videos yet.

    Not the same thing as people demanding unfettered access to your combox. Your space, your rules.

  2. Wait, the order is against The Center for Medical Progress releasing the videos? When will courts catch up with the real world? Chances are, these videos are already on an unsecured server someplace, and there are always hackers willing to release any information that needs releasing. I think the court just painted a big red bullseye on CMP’s servers- an almost irresistible one.

  3. Josef Goebbels lives within the Los Angeles Superior Court–Damn the First Amendment—full Ideology ahead no matter the cost to freedom. God help us all.

      • Actually, “old Joe Goebbels” was a neo pagan … and Hitler tolerated him, but made it quite clear in his private discussions that he intended to do away with Christianity.

      • Many who favor abortion were also baptized as Catholics (i.e., Biden, Boxer, Pelosi, etc.) – does a Catholic background necessarily mean they are practicing adherents of the faith?

      • Hitler was baptized as an infant in Linz, where he was born. His father was anti-clerical and he never practiced Catholicism. Actually, he was a pagan like you.
        Goebbels’ parents were practicing Catholics. He got a PhD in Philosophy and left the faith., as Rebecca says, became a pagan.
        Just because a person is Catholic does not mean he is perfect. A practicing Catholic tries to take Faith and the teachings seriously and do right.

  4. From WIKI:
    The California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95[32]). However, non-disclosure recordings by one of the parties can legally be made if the other party is threatening kidnapping, extortion, bribery, or other felony violence. Also included is misdemeanor obscenity and threats of injury to persons or property via an electronic communication device (usually a telephone). All threats must be directed towards one’s self or family members and not third parties. (California Penal Code § 633.5)

    • What expectation of privacy exists in a public restaurant? I hear, but don’t listen to, conversations, although “liver” might catch my attention.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.