The nation’s highest-rating court of law has decided to decline hearing an appeal from a pro-life group that was previously found guilty by a jury for illegally filming workers at a Planned Parenthood. Previously, the 9th Circuit Court upheld the majority of damages that had been awarded to Planned Parenthood in its lawsuit against California-based Center for Medical Progress and founder, David Daleiden.
This rejection sets a precedent that will have far-reaching implications for the pro-life movement and its ability to conduct effective investigations into abortion practices.
This case dates back to 2015 when the pro-life organization released secretly recorded conversations with doctors and staff from Planned Parenthood online. It soon gained notoriety as it featured abortion provider executives haggling over pricing for fetal body parts, which sparked nationwide backlash and investigations into the matter at both federal and state levels.
To gain access to these conversations, CMP fabricated a company and people to use as part of their scheme – all without consent or knowledge of those being recorded. In response, Planned Parenthood filed suit in 2016 claiming that CMP’s actions amounted organized crime (racketeering), trespassing, and breach of contract among other claims reported by The Epoch Times.
Supreme Court Declines To Hear Appeal From Pro-Life Group That Secretly Filmed Abortion Workers https://t.co/VvNxnswTYx
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 4, 2023
After a three year wait period, a jury ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood – finding that CMP had also broken Federal Wiretap Act laws while conducting their research/investigation into alleged wrongdoings committed by PPFA employees. As such, they were ordered to pay $2.4 million in damages plus additional attorney fees totaling $13 million dollars.
Although this ruling was later overturned on some counts due to technical invalidity, it still stands firm across most points raised in the lawsuit against them.
The 9th Circuit Court unanimously rejected CMP’s argument that its journalism practices should be shielded by freedoms outlined under the First Amendment; instead ruling that “Invoking journalism and the First Amendment does not shield individuals from liability for violations of laws applicable to all members of society.”
