Planned Parenthood Investigated the Investigation of Itself, Media Suddenly Interested

Planned Parenthood investigated the investigation of itself and then sent the report to Congress. Not surprisingly, their report on themselves says they didn’t do anything wrong. But this article goes over the details of the report… Which says the videos don’t really contain deceptive edits, but they asked questions that showed staff members agreeing with doing bad stuff. And they used 2 cameras, and cut out chunks of time (like when people went to the bathroom or were;t saying anything). And even though there isn’t any evidence of audio tampering, we can’t rule it out… they probably just made stuff up.


Reading thru the report itself there are numerous times when the investigators say something like- we don’t know what was cut out, or what was said in this gap, or what was said before. They do not say the video was obviously altered or doctored.

The report spends a bit of time talking about the phrases “a baby” and “another boy” which are in this video:

Apparently these phrases made Planned Parenthood very nervous. They asked for them to be examined specifically. Fusion GPS goes on at some length about how the sound during the time ‘a baby” is uttered is “incomprehensible” and then later points out that the words “another boy” might have been somehow brought out by something the journalist said. You can review these segments yourself: “a baby” at about 9:03 and “another boy” at about 11:09.

I can hear the words ‘a baby” but so what? Aside from the fact that it’s emotionally damning, who cares if the technician said that? Abortions (which pro life people already think kill babies) are not illegal. Calling a dead fetus a baby isn’t illegal or wrong. And it seems likely that the technician was doing what they must do, and making sure they had all the parts of the fetus. So when she said it’s “a baby” she likely meant she has the whole fetus. Similarly with “another boy”, who cares if the technicians talk about the gender?

Except that images of defenseless babies ripped apart, and the tone of the technicians engaged in the grisly work have an emotional impact on the viewer. It’s disturbing.

Let’s assume the journalists trapped the staff people, they were trying their hardest to get incriminating footage and using every mean necessary… The simple fact is, if the staff member were only recouping tissue sample storage and shipping costs they wouldn’t negotiate this way. The costs would be fixed, and much lower. And they would never suggest altering an abortion procedure to allow for more intact organ harvesting, which is illegal, no matter what anyone might say on or off camera, unless they do actually alter abortion procedures for that purpose.

This is the last paragraph of the Summary in the report:

At this point, it is impossible to characterize the extent to which CMP’s undisclosed edits and cuts distort the meaning of the encounters the videos purport to document. However, the manipulation of the videos does mean they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries unless supplemented by CMP’s original material and forensic authentication that this material is supplied in unaltered form. The videos also lack credibility as journalistic products.

According to the article from the Blaze, CMP plans to turn over all material to the authorities. That last sentence is just hogwash. Staff members negotiating prices, offering to change how abortions are done, the testimony from former procurement techs, these all have value as journalistic products. Has anyone at Fusion GPS ever watched an undercover report before?

Who is Fusion GPS, the company that headed up this investigative endeavor? The Weekly Standard says they are a Democratic Opposition Research Firm. Here’s a Wall Street Journal article, mentioned by Weekly Standard, where Fusion GPS is identified doing an investigation into Frank Vandersloot (campaign donor to Romney) back in 2012. Frankly, this analysis done by an actually neutral party would mean a lot more.

Many of the media outlets who have been ignoring these videos as much as possible have some interesting headlines:


Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 7.37.09 PM


Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 7.38.52 PM

NY Times;

Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 7.40.01 PM

Huffington post:

Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 7.42.39 PM

I mean, who really wants to read a 10 page report, anyway? Let’s trust the company that is accused of wrongdoing to commission a report from a partisan source, and the media who ignored the story as much as they could until now.

{UPDATE} CMP released 30 minutes of footage as an addendum to the Full Footage released from the TX undercover video. They also released a detailed response explaining the gaps in the “full footage” videos they released, and said again that the entire video files would be submitted to authorities, with no gaps or cuts. This clip was not included with the original video out of human error:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s