David Daleiden has been a thorn in Planned Parenthood’s side since he released the first video showing Planned Parenthood directors offering to sell fetal body parts. Daleiden’s investigation has resulted in numerous referrals for criminal prosecution. America’s largest abortion provider is working overtime to churn out lies to deflect the unwanted attention the videos have garnered. Here are the top three:
David Daleiden has been a thorn in Planned Parenthood’s side.
LIE #1 The videos are fake and/or “deceptively edited.”
THE TRUTH: Planned Parenthood commissioned Fusion GPS, a notably left-leaning research group, to analyze the videos. After reviewing four of Daleiden’s videos, Fusion concluded, “This analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation, but we did identify cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle.” Another digital analysis was performed by Coalfire Systems, Inc., which found that “…the video recordings are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing…The uniformity between the footage from the cameras from the two Investigators also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.”
LIE #2 David Daleiden is not a “real” journalist.
THE TRUTH: A California appellate court, using a definition that “is established without contradiction,” held that journalists “gather, select, and prepare, for purposes of publication to a mass audience, information about current events of interest and concern to that audience.” (See O’Grady v. Superior Court) This is exactly what Daleiden did. The first video released in July 2015 has been viewed over 3 million times—a mass audience by any standard.
LIE #3 The conversations in the videos are protected by privacy laws.
THE TRUTH: Only a handful of states prohibit the recording of conversations. Many of the discussions that took place with Planned Parenthood directors took place in California, which prohibits eavesdropping or recording “confidential communications.” A “confidential communication” entails a reasonable expectation that the conversation be confined to the parties. Daleiden’s California conversations all occurred in public spaces such as crowded restaurants and well-attended conference events. There would be no reasonable expectation of confidentiality in a conversation that was interrupted by wait staff or that would be overheard by people at an adjacent table. Under California law, communications made in public gatherings are not confidential. (See CA Penal Code § 632)