3 Reasons Why The Planned Parenthood Indictment Has CHILLING Implications For Journalists

When the ruling was handed down, there was a triumphant cheer from the collective Left, and a groan from those who March For Life.

It didn’t take long for social media to fill up with “we-won-you-lost” taunts, and general mocking of the people and values of the side that lost the case.

The decision handed down by the Grand Jury found in favor of Planned Parenthood, and against the lead investigator responsible for the now famous “baby parts” films.

By “found against the lead investigator” I mean to say that David Daleiden will be himself facing charges for two counts. One for “tampering with a governmental record” (felony) and the other (misdemeanor) for violation of the state’s prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs.”

It is easy to see this through the my-team/your-team lens. But whichever side you cheered for in this case, I would like you to consider three things:

First: What does this mean for future citizen-journalism? Supposing this wasn’t a hidden-camera expose on the “beloved” Planned Parenthood. What if it were an expose on corrupt Banking practices, or illegal mining practices. Something that would be swept under the rug unless it could be shown that the executives themselves were knowingly part of it. What approach besides this one could be used to expose them? And would such journalists — whose sole aim it was to expose these practices — be subject to prosecution for trying to prove they exist? Because that’s what happened here.

Second: Planned Parenthood has not sued for defamation. The various things their top executives have been recorded as saying, about the “less crunchy technique to get whole specimens” (before laughing and saying she wants a Lamborghini), or “if they can do a little better than break even”, or the other damning statements that suggest monetary gain takes priority over medical best practices in their offices stand and they do so without retraction, amendment, or claims that they were never said by the people to whom they were attributed.

Third: This ruling has no impact on any ongoing investigations into the practices of Planned Parenthood. This neither convicts Daleiden of guilt, nor exonerates PP’s own practices in the larger scale. Do those who take this as the final word on PP similarly accept OJ’s innocence? What about that “hands-up-don’t-shoot” guy? Either the courts always get it right or they sometimes don’t.

David Daleiden has given his own response to the ruling and its implications. It’s well worth the read. Here is an excerpt:

Planned Parenthood cannot rebut the incriminating statements of its own leadership on these tapes, and so it has resorted to an awkward shuffle of blind denials and stagy distractions in their wake. The truth will continue to come out through the congressional probe, through the ongoing state investigations and through the frivolous lawsuit Planned Parenthood now brings in retaliation for its exposure. The accounting gimmicks I believe Planned Parenthood uses to hide its baby parts sales may pass unnoticed in 24-hour-news-cycle sound bites, but the quality-based specimen payments from fetal tissue vendors who already do all the work of collection and transport are impossible to defend under closer scrutiny. In order to avoid such scrutiny, Planned Parenthood has announced a dubious “policy change” to end these payments. After months of defending them as perfectly legal and appropriate, this seems like an admission of guilt.

Planned Parenthood falsely advertises itself as a vital, mainstream medical organization, when in reality it offers a limited set of basic reproductive health services, which act as a cover for a booming abortion business. This leviathan, subsidized by nearly $500 million taxpayer dollars each year, spends millions in lobbying and electioneering money to prop up its public image and funding streams. The polling data indicate that when the public knows that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country and receives taxpayer funding yet engages in one-sided electioneering and harvests baby parts, even its own supporters turn against it.

Share if you think journalists on BOTH sides should be outraged over this

About the author: Wes Walker

Wes Walker is the author of "Blueprint For a Government that Doesn't Suck". He has been lighting up Clashdaily.com since its inception in July of 2012. Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck

View all articles by Wes Walker

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a comment

Please disable your Ad Blocker to leave a comment.

Trending Now on Clash Daily