Anti-abortion activists indicted for undercover videos smearing Planned Parenthood

[Faun]

Texas antiabortion activists used fraud, judge in S.F. rules.

A federal judge in San Francisco dealt another body blow to antiabortion activists who had infiltrated meetings abortion providers, saying individuals like David Daleiden used fraud gain access to those meeting and the engaged in illegal activity and are now prohibited from making public recording or information he and others obtained.

Daleiden is currently facing criminal charges in the state of Texas on similar charges.

But, when someone did the same thing to infiltrate a oil rig location, or a hog farm, that's ok.

When someone serepticiously recorded Mitt Romney's 47% speech, that was ok, too.

What fraud was committed when Romney spoke to the public?

An illegal recording was made and distributed, along with the person making the recording was there under false pretenses.

What was illegal about it? Romney was speaking to a crowd of people. What is illegal about videotaping a public figure?

 

[bravoactual]

So.

Republicans will rant about how they, "Do not want 'The Government' involved in Health Care."

Republicans will bay at the moon about how they, "Do not want 'The Government' in the Doctor's Office."

Republicans will run with great and diligent speed to nearest TV Camera and say how, "They do not want the 'The Government' to make medical decisions."

Republicans will tell anybody who will listen to them about how, "They do want 'The Government' in the Operating Room."

Except of course when it comes a Woman's Body and a Woman's Right To Choose.

Republicans would force a Woman or Young Girl is the victim of Rape and/or Incest to carry that child to term.

Never mind the horror that Woman or Young Girl lived through, force them to carry that child to term.

Abortion is a Medical Decision that the Republicans want the same "Government" they do not want in the Doctor's Office, in the Operating Room, to force on Women regardless of their own choice.

Abortion is a Medical Decision to be left the Woman and her Doctor.

"The Government" has no right to dictate what medical procedure can be done and who may or may not receive said medical procedure. Which is what Republicans are suppose to be opposed to in the first damn place.

IF you believe in the so-called "Right To Life", you must also be opposed Capital Punishment, you must be opposed the use of Torture and and opposed War in any form.

IF you believe in the so-called "Right To Life", you must accept that an unborn Muslim Baby, an unborn Jewish Baby, an unborn African-American Baby, an unborn Asian or an unborn Hispanic has that self-same "Right To Life" that you claim to support.

You must be willing to insure that baby you force the mother to deliver has access to Quality Health, Good Education, Nutritious Food, Clothes on Theiir Back and a Safe, Warm and Healthy Home To Live In.

Which is something VFR (Very Few Republicans) in fact believe in.

 

[bravoactual]

Texas antiabortion activists used fraud, judge in S.F. rules.

A federal judge in San Francisco dealt another body blow to antiabortion activists who had infiltrated meetings abortion providers, saying individuals like David Daleiden used fraud gain access to those meeting and the engaged in illegal activity and are now prohibited from making public recording or information he and others obtained.

Daleiden is currently facing criminal charges in the state of Texas on similar charges.

But, when someone did the same thing to infiltrate a oil rig location, or a hog farm, that's ok.

When someone serepticiously recorded Mitt Romney's 47% speech, that was ok, too.

What fraud was committed when Romney spoke to the public?

An illegal recording was made and distributed, along with the person making the recording was there under false pretenses.

What was illegal about it? Romney was speaking to a crowd of people. What is illegal about videotaping a public figure?

There was no Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in a room full of people. One act must cancel out the other.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Texas antiabortion activists used fraud, judge in S.F. rules.

A federal judge in San Francisco dealt another body blow to antiabortion activists who had infiltrated meetings abortion providers, saying individuals like David Daleiden used fraud gain access to those meeting and the engaged in illegal activity and are now prohibited from making public recording or information he and others obtained.

Daleiden is currently facing criminal charges in the state of Texas on similar charges.

But, when someone did the same thing to infiltrate a oil rig location, or a hog farm, that's ok.

When someone serepticiously recorded Mitt Romney's 47% speech, that was ok, too.

What fraud was committed when Romney spoke to the public?

An illegal recording was made and distributed, along with the person making the recording was there under false pretenses.

What was illegal about it? Romney was speaking to a crowd of people. What is illegal about videotaping a public figure?

There was no Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in a room full of people. One act must cancel out the other.

There was no expectation of privacy at a business meeting, in a restaurant.

 

[Faun]

But, when someone did the same thing to infiltrate a oil rig location, or a hog farm, that's ok.

When someone serepticiously recorded Mitt Romney's 47% speech, that was ok, too.

What fraud was committed when Romney spoke to the public?

An illegal recording was made and distributed, along with the person making the recording was there under false pretenses.

What was illegal about it? Romney was speaking to a crowd of people. What is illegal about videotaping a public figure?

There was no Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in a room full of people. One act must cancel out the other.

There was no expectation of privacy at a business meeting, in a restaurant.

And yet, California law says otherwise.

California Recording Law

California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.

If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

Consult The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's Can We Tape?: California for more information on California wiretapping law.
​

 

[bravoactual]

Which is why "Pimp Boy" O'Keefe broke the law.

The Romney Video was NOT shot in California.

 

[Faun]

Which is why "Pimp Boy" O'Keefe broke the law.

The Romney Video was NOT shot in California.

It might not have made a difference since Romney was a public figure.

 

[bravoactual]

Agree.

Romney was speaking to donors though. Pimp Boy was lying from jump.

The expectation of privacy for Romney did not exist. O'Keefe presented himself in one way, and demonstrated another.

 

[bripat9643]

RE: That's my view of women who get pregnant and then expect me to pay for raising their bastards.

Dear bripat9643
What's your view of MEN who get women pregnant
and then expect you to pay for welfare for the children?

Doesn't it take both the MAN and the woman to do this?

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

 

[bravoactual]

Dear bripat9643
What's your view of MEN who get women pregnant
and then expect you to pay for welfare for the children?

Doesn't it take both the MAN and the woman to do this?

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Your just much a Misogynistic Asshole as Der Trumpenfuhrer.

As I remember from my 5th. Grade Science Class, a Woman does NOT get pregnant in a vacuum.

The man who Father's the child does has a responsibility for the Health and Welfare of the child.

Your condescending attitude toward Women belongs sometime in late 2nd. Century.

You do not mind having sex with a Woman, but you do not want the responsibility that goes with it.

Thank the Great Spaghetti God there are fewer and fewer of you.

 

[bripat9643]

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Your just much a Misogynistic Asshole as Der Trumpenfuhrer.

Now that's a compelling argument.

 

[bravoactual]

bripat, your seriously overusing your single digit I.Q.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat, your seriously overusing your single digit I.Q.

That's "you're" not "your" before "seriously."

 

[bravoactual]

Yes......Yes....Yes.....I know.....I know....your as desperate for attention as your fascist hero....

 

[bripat9643]

Yes......Yes....Yes.....I know.....I know....your as desperate for attention as your fascist hero....

You do realize that you're making yourself look like an imbecile, don't you?

 

[Faun]

Dear bripat9643
What's your view of MEN who get women pregnant
and then expect you to pay for welfare for the children?

Doesn't it take both the MAN and the woman to do this?

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Men are not equal to women when it comes to being pregnant. You're actually the dumbfuck who failed biology 101. <smh>

 

[bripat9643]

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Men are not equal to women when it comes to being pregnant. You're actually the dumbfuck who failed biology 101. <smh>

So you don't think the law should treat people equally?

 

[Faun]

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Men are not equal to women when it comes to being pregnant. You're actually the dumbfuck who failed biology 101. <smh>

So you don't think the law should treat people equally?

Of course the law should treat people equally. Like I said before, when men can get pregnant then they too can get abortions.

 

[bripat9643]

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Men are not equal to women when it comes to being pregnant. You're actually the dumbfuck who failed biology 101. <smh>

So you don't think the law should treat people equally?

Of course the law should treat people equally. Like I said before, when men can get pregnant then they too can get abortions.

Then why should men pay to raise a child a woman decides to have? How is that treating people equally?

 

[Faun]

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Men are not equal to women when it comes to being pregnant. You're actually the dumbfuck who failed biology 101. <smh>

So you don't think the law should treat people equally?

Of course the law should treat people equally. Like I said before, when men can get pregnant then they too can get abortions.

Then why should men pay to raise a child a woman decides to have? How is that treating people equally?

That's putting the interest of the child ahead of you deadbeat dads.

Furthermore, both the mom and dad are responsible to support that child. That's equality.