Supreme Court rejects appeal to release
anti-abortion activists' videos
Send a link to a friend
[April 03, 2018]
By Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court on
Monday rejected a bid by anti-abortion activists to win the release of
videos they surreptitiously recorded at meetings of abortion providers.
The justices declined to take up appeals by the abortion opponents and
left in place a lower court's ruling blocking the release of videos that
had the aim of exposing alleged illegal sales of aborted fetal tissue
for profit. The trial judge in the case concluded there was no evidence
of criminal wrongdoing by the abortion providers captured in the videos.
The activists, including anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress
founder David Daleiden, recorded the videos in 2014 and 2015 at annual
meetings of the National Abortion Federation, a nonprofit organization
representing abortion providers including affiliates of Planned
Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood has said the videos were heavily edited to leave a
false impression of wrongdoing.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4f52d/4f52d01e649808355d5373fdd6f0459d7f97f8a0" alt=""
The National Abortion Federation in 2015 sued Daleiden, the
California-based Center for Medical Progress and former center board
member Troy Newman to stop the release of videos.
The federation said the videos were illegally recorded at private
meetings protected by confidentiality agreements and that the
anti-abortion activists had infiltrated the meetings by posing as
executives of a company that bought fetal tissue.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco blocked the release
of the videos in 2016, ruling that enforcing the confidentiality
agreements would not violate free speech rights under the U.S.
Constitution's First Amendment. Orrick discounted the claim by the
abortion opponents that they were acting as "citizen journalists" in an
undercover investigation.
Such confidentiality agreements help ensure privacy and safety for
abortion providers given the increase in threats and violence they faced
since the defendants' release of other videos in July 2015, Orrick said.
[to top of second column]
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/53b2b/53b2bf0b329b281267e02835be19b5d300e378bd" alt=""
Anti-abortion activist David Daleiden speaks at a news conference
outside court in Houston, Texas, U.S., February 4, 2016.
REUTERS/Ruthy Munoz/File Photo
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9359b/9359b979105a09ac351b25de21f383dacbd5ecb3" alt=""
The judge noted that in November 2015 a man fatally shot three
people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado. The man told
police he was upset with Planned Parenthood for performing abortions
and "the selling of body parts," according to court documents.
National Abortion Federation President Vicki Saporta said the video
campaign has put abortion providers at risk. "We are grateful that
the Supreme Court denied the defendants' latest attempt to
circumvent the very necessary security precautions NAF has in
place," Saporta said.
Daleiden's attorney Catherine Short said, "The Supreme Court seems
to have decided that the problems with Judge Orrick's gag order are
better addressed at lower court levels at this time."
Orrick later found Daleiden, the Center for Medical Progress and two
of his attorneys in contempt of court after they published some of
the blocked material on the internet.
The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year
upheld the injunction against the videos' publication, prompting
Daleiden and Newman to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Daleiden and an associate, Sandra Merritt, last year were charged in
California with filming Planned Parenthood workers without their
consent.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1aae0/1aae07902abb38a03198316638aa5f64b1ce1311" alt=""
(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |