• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge Orders Abortion Foes Not to Release Secretly Filmed Videos

Scrabaholic

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
27,375
Reaction score
19,413
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
In a sharp rebuke, a federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction ordering abortion opponents not to release videos they had secretly made at meetings of abortion providers, and he added that the opponents’ claims that such organizations were illegally selling fetal tissue were baseless.

In the ruling, Judge William H. Orrick of United States District Court in San Francisco also brushed aside claims by the abortion opponents that their use of fraudulent documents and violations of confidentiality agreements to infiltrate meetings of abortion providers were protected because they were journalists involved in what they described as an undercover investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/b...t-to-release-secretly-filmed-videos.html?_r=0

----------------------------------------------

Well, well, well ..... another indication that the videos do not show what CMP says they show - from the article:

In his ruling, Judge Orrick said that his review of hundreds of hours of video secretly shot by the center at meetings of abortion providers found no evidence that any of them had violated the law. No one “admitted to engaging in, agreed to engage in, or expressed interest in engaging in potentially illegal sale of fetal tissue for profit,” he wrote.
Click to expand...

I do think they should release the truly unedited videos, though. Right now, all that has been released are edited ones of varying length.
 
Yep, because those videos were complete and total lies made by lying idiots.
 
Scrabaholic said:
In a sharp rebuke, a federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction ordering abortion opponents not to release videos they had secretly made at meetings of abortion providers, and he added that the opponents’ claims that such organizations were illegally selling fetal tissue were baseless.

In the ruling, Judge William H. Orrick of United States District Court in San Francisco also brushed aside claims by the abortion opponents that their use of fraudulent documents and violations of confidentiality agreements to infiltrate meetings of abortion providers were protected because they were journalists involved in what they described as an undercover investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/b...t-to-release-secretly-filmed-videos.html?_r=0

----------------------------------------------

Well, well, well ..... another indication that the videos do not show what CMP says they show - from the article:

In his ruling, Judge Orrick said that his review of hundreds of hours of video secretly shot by the center at meetings of abortion providers found no evidence that any of them had violated the law. No one “admitted to engaging in, agreed to engage in, or expressed interest in engaging in potentially illegal sale of fetal tissue for profit,” he wrote.
Click to expand...

I do think they should release the truly unedited videos, though. Right now, all that has been released are edited ones of varying length.
Click to expand...

:applaud

I predict crickets...Scraba.
 
I believe there will be claims that the judge has a pro-choice agenda and is purposely 'hiding the facts.'
 
Lursa said:
I believe there will be claims that the judge has a pro-choice agenda and is purposely 'hiding the facts.'
Click to expand...

Just a fact for you "William H. Orrick III appointed by Barack Obama"

The judge obviously has a pro-choice agenda(among other things) or Obama wouldnt have appointed him, however that doesnt mean he is wrong in this case.
 
YEA for abortion!

This applause is telling.
 
WCH said:
The "truth" is abortion is murder. Straight up.
Click to expand...

Really? I could sit here and type "truths" all day long about how our Judicial System works and prove you wrong.

You're welcome to view it murder based on your personal moral perspective all day long, 365 days a year. But there are 6,999,999,999 other moral opinions on this planet.
 
Crovax said:
Just a fact for you "William H. Orrick III appointed by Barack Obama"

The judge obviously has a pro-choice agenda(among other things) or Obama wouldnt have appointed him, however that doesnt mean he is wrong in this case.
Click to expand...

So this brings us to the question: Are we now becoming a 2 branch government? Is this the true intent by one faction or the other?

I heard Trump say last night that he'll make major changes in the judicial system, meaning making it as conservative as it can be and then let the chip fall where they may. Was he pandering when he said that? Absolutely, but not for the benefit of the American people as a whole. To the contrary.

It's comments like this from politicians that is cause enough both sides of the political spectrum to be alarmed and about so many more issues than abortion.

The Republic will be irreparably fractured if one faction or the other gains anywhere near total control over the Judicial System. And the controlling side will become abusive. Half a nation's voice lost.

No matter how much one believes in conservatism or liberalism and thinks that all of one or the other would be paradise, will would find our nation to much like all other "Mono-philosophy" governments. A nightmare. Those in power would eventually begin to systematically cull those who considered themselves to be one of the ruling powers. But government might not think they are as devoted as they want.

So...we'd no longer have governing powers, but RULING powers. And we'd no longer have a government by the consent of the people.

Is this the type of government you think is best for America?
 
Removable Mind said:
So this brings us to the question: Are we now becoming a 2 branch government? Is this the true intent by one faction or the other?

I heard Trump say last night that he'll make major changes in the judicial system, meaning making it as conservative as it can be and then let the chip fall where they may. Was he pandering when he said that? Absolutely, but not for the benefit of the American people as a whole. To the contrary.

It's comments like this from politicians that is cause enough both sides of the political spectrum to be alarmed and about so many more issues than abortion.

The Republic will be irreparably fractured if one faction or the other gains anywhere near total control over the Judicial System. And the controlling side will become abusive. Half a nation's voice lost.

No matter how much one believes in conservatism or liberalism and thinks that all of one or the other would be paradise, will would find our nation to much like all other "Mono-philosophy" governments. A nightmare. Those in power would eventually begin to systematically cull those who considered themselves to be one of the ruling powers. But government might not think they are as devoted as they want.

So...we'd no longer have governing powers, but RULING powers. And we'd no longer have a government by the consent of the people.

Is this the type of government you think is best for America?
Click to expand...

This is already underway. Obama's push to further empower super agencies like the IRS and the EPA is already accomplishing this fact. There are a number of others that have been given this green light by the current administration.

By regulatory fiat, these super agencies are ruling over citizens, who have no consent, and little power to stop them. Do you have a problem with that?
 
ocean515 said:
This is already underway. Obama's push to further empower super agencies like the IRS and the EPA is already accomplishing this fact. There are a number of others that have been given this green light by the current administration.

By regulatory fiat, these super agencies are ruling over citizens, who have no consent, and little power to stop them. Do you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

Push, shove, force, covertly, overtly,....yadda, yadda, yadda.

I knew somebody would waste no time making this an OBAMA thing. He's gone for all practical purposes...just like GWB was gone and all other presidents before them.

One man or woman in the White House isn't the decider of every action by a single faction - even if a given faction holds the majority seats. Executive Orders...meh, are almost worthless. The changing of the guard nulls those type actions.

You had to make this a partisan thing, but in my opinion, you just can't see the forest for the trees. It's in the interest of both sides to grow government. It just shouldn't be that difficult to see.

Government is a monster that we the people created and now we can't stop it...regardless of what side YOU think you belong to. In the end, we've become worker bees for Washington. We'll do what they say, when the say it...willingly or unwillingly.
 
Removable Mind said:
Push, shove, force, covertly, overtly,....yadda, yadda, yadda.

I knew somebody would waste no time making this an OBAMA thing. He's gone for all practical purposes...just like GWB was gone and all other presidents before them.

One man or woman in the White House isn't the decider of every action by a single faction - even if a given faction holds the majority seats. Executive Orders...meh, are almost worthless. The changing of the guard nulls those type actions.

You had to make this a partisan thing, but in my opinion, you just can't see the forest for the trees. It's in the interest of both sides to grow government. It just shouldn't be that difficult to see.

Government is a monster that we the people created and now we can't stop it...regardless of what side YOU think you belong to. In the end, we've become worker bees for Washington. We'll do what they say, when the say it...willingly or unwillingly.
Click to expand...

The point is in direct alignment with your claim about power and consent. It is a fact the current administration has been pushing a directive to replace government with agency rule. You can't just slice out the Judiciary and claim political influence threatens a government of the people, without acknowledging this effort is already underway amongst government agencies.

This effort to create a regulatory rule bureaucracy is a liberal thing, and there is no escaping it. While your other points are valid, it has been demonstrated by the President of the United States that a highly partisan agenda can be forced upon all people through the power of agency nomination.

Cut off the agencies ability to operate in the manner in which a President decrees, and far more control can be returned to the people than a Supreme Court justice nominee.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Or they will say the judge is pandering to PP or something similar.....
Click to expand...

Yes, why would those anti-abortion liars let the truth stand in the way of their deceitful propaganda.
 
ocean515 said:
The point is in direct alignment with your claim about power and consent. It is a fact the current administration has been pushing a directive to replace government with agency rule. You can't just slice out the Judiciary and claim political influence threatens a government of the people, without acknowledging this effort is already underway amongst government agencies.

This effort to create a regulatory rule bureaucracy is a liberal thing, and there is no escaping it. While your other points are valid, it has been demonstrated by the President of the United States that a highly partisan agenda can be forced upon all people through the power of agency nomination.

Cut off the agencies ability to operate in the manner in which a President decrees, and far more control can be returned to the people than a Supreme Court justice nominee.
Click to expand...

The Executive Branch's duty is (as stated in the Constitution)?

Please share "The Fact" in some form of a legitimate source. And please don't come back with some long winded explanation...just post citations/links that prove your claim.

==========================================

Do you realize that there's quite a few members in this forum who support a totally conservative government, period. No other factions allowed. Maybe the same applies to some liberal, but to be honest, I haven't seen that point made from that side of the fence, but doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

==========================================

You just don't "appear" to grasp that government, including both conservative and liberal factions, over decades, have systematically accrued a power, which has fallen out of the voters ability to have any meaningful influence...no matter who winds up in office.

And the powers behind the politicians, they win no matter which faction member is put in office.

We've been taught to believe that one action by government is liberal, the other conservative, and that these factions really represent the best interest of "a portion American people" who respectively support one side or the other. What evidence do we have that that's true?

==========================================

I read an article on BBC in which a retired elected official of the Russian government explained exactly how most all governments work and various methods used to devise ways to distract their constituents from "the real issues", which would require politicians to be accountable (no matter where they are - or what officials claim their philosophy to be). In other words, how to create a division among fellow citizens in a way to protect the officials from any more scrutiny than necessary.

What methods work the best with American politicians? Fire everybody up about gays, abortion, race issues, religion, guns. Meanwhile, what about fixing crooked election finance, making politicians subject to the same laws constituents have to, end cronyism, end the bottomless money pit of money supply being dumped into super pacs also known as "dark money", which flows like wine in Napa Valley, and zero transparency required. The list is long on problems within Washington that profoundly impacts every American.

In other words, we have serious problems within our system of government that prevent meaningful reforms from taking place that might benefit all factions "of citizens", not those who rules our lives.

We have a self-will-run-riot government. The ping pong game they play is for their entertainment and self-interest and to "distract/divide the constituents' attention".

You can't name a single government official in government (past or present) who isn't a power freak. Who hasn't attempted to use their power to their personal advantage or gain. But there's always a method behind the madness. Very organized and systematic methods. They do what they do "because the can", at will.

I see people who are, as it's popularly said, "drinking the kool aid", but from what I'm seeing, they are shooting up the kool aid.
 
Crovax said:
Just a fact for you "William H. Orrick III appointed by Barack Obama"

The judge obviously has a pro-choice agenda(among other things) or Obama wouldnt have appointed him, however that doesnt mean he is wrong in this case.
Click to expand...

So your assumptions are: Obama is pro-choice strongly enough to have appointed this judge based on that (is Obama even pro-choice?), the judge is pro-choice based on his political appointment or affiliation, the judge is so biased that he cannot do his job properly, and that all liberals/Democrats are pro-choice? :roll:
 
WCH said:
YEA for abortion!

This applause is telling.
Click to expand...

Yeah for women's rights is more like it. Yeah for the govt for not forcing itself into women's reproductive choices!
 
Lursa said:
So your assumptions are: Obama is pro-choice strongly enough to have appointed this judge based on that (is Obama even pro-choice?), the judge is pro-choice based on his political appointment or affiliation, the judge is so biased that he cannot do his job properly, and that all liberals/Democrats are pro-choice? :roll:
Click to expand...

100% score from NARAL and 0% from NRLC

Just like a republican would only appoint a judge who is pro-life, Obama is only going to appoint judges who would uphold roe v wade. That doesnt mean that a judge isnt qualified or that Obama isnt doing his job properly

heres a little question from the 2008 presidential debates

: Could you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on Roe v. Wade?

OBAMA: Well, I think it’s true that we shouldn’t apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people. And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe vs. Wade probably hangs in the balance. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.
Click to expand...

Its clear that Obama has thought about Roe v Wade in his nominations (among other core democrat principals) and that he understands the actions his appointments will have.
 
Crovax said:
100% score from NARAL and 0% from NRLC

Just like a republican would only appoint a judge who is pro-life, Obama is only going to appoint judges who would uphold roe v wade. That doesnt mean that a judge isnt qualified or that Obama isnt doing his job properly

heres a little question from the 2008 presidential debates



Its clear that Obama has thought about Roe v Wade in his nominations (among other core democrat principals) and that he understands the actions his appointments will have.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty well-balanced to me....basing his opinion and appointments on "what real-world folks are going thru."
 
Lursa said:
Sounds pretty well-balanced to me....basing his opinion and appointments on "what real-world folks are going thru."
Click to expand...

If you cant read between the lines on what that means, I don't know what to do for you.
 
Removable Mind said:
The Executive Branch's duty is (as stated in the Constitution)?

Please share "The Fact" in some form of a legitimate source. And please don't come back with some long winded explanation...just post citations/links that prove your claim.

==========================================

Do you realize that there's quite a few members in this forum who support a totally conservative government, period. No other factions allowed. Maybe the same applies to some liberal, but to be honest, I haven't seen that point made from that side of the fence, but doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

==========================================

You just don't "appear" to grasp that government, including both conservative and liberal factions, over decades, have systematically accrued a power, which has fallen out of the voters ability to have any meaningful influence...no matter who winds up in office.

And the powers behind the politicians, they win no matter which faction member is put in office.

We've been taught to believe that one action by government is liberal, the other conservative, and that these factions really represent the best interest of "a portion American people" who respectively support one side or the other. What evidence do we have that that's true?

==========================================

I read an article on BBC in which a retired elected official of the Russian government explained exactly how most all governments work and various methods used to devise ways to distract their constituents from "the real issues", which would require politicians to be accountable (no matter where they are - or what officials claim their philosophy to be). In other words, how to create a division among fellow citizens in a way to protect the officials from any more scrutiny than necessary.

What methods work the best with American politicians? Fire everybody up about gays, abortion, race issues, religion, guns. Meanwhile, what about fixing crooked election finance, making politicians subject to the same laws constituents have to, end cronyism, end the bottomless money pit of money supply being dumped into super pacs also known as "dark money", which flows like wine in Napa Valley, and zero transparency required. The list is long on problems within Washington that profoundly impacts every American.

In other words, we have serious problems within our system of government that prevent meaningful reforms from taking place that might benefit all factions "of citizens", not those who rules our lives.

We have a self-will-run-riot government. The ping pong game they play is for their entertainment and self-interest and to "distract/divide the constituents' attention".

You can't name a single government official in government (past or present) who isn't a power freak. Who hasn't attempted to use their power to their personal advantage or gain. But there's always a method behind the madness. Very organized and systematic methods. They do what they do "because the can", at will.

I see people who are, as it's popularly said, "drinking the kool aid", but from what I'm seeing, they are shooting up the kool aid.
Click to expand...

Environmental Justice | US EPA

Where in mission of the EPA is a mandate to set local government policy? Where is this power given.
 
ocean515 said:
Environmental Justice | US EPA

Where in mission of the EPA is a mandate to set local government policy? Where is this power given.
Click to expand...

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the U.S. federal government which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.

The agency is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by Congress. The current administrator is Gina McCarthy. The EPA is not a Cabinet department, but the administrator is normally given cabinet rank.

Contact your Congressman. GOP has only had like 45 years muster up legislation to get rid of the EPA, or any facet of it. It was started by a Republican President.

The States don't override a lot of Federal policies, rules, and regulations. Sounds like a personal issue with you.

However...the EPA hasn't always won in the implementation of policy and programs.

See the following link on Supreme Court rulings AGAINST the EPA...but also some wins by the EPA

EPA Lawsuit - Home

Obviously it's not impossible to get to them via lawsuits. Some do reach the S.C.

You need to contact your Congressmen/women and file a complaint if you think the EPA has reached its powers.

What else do you have?
 
Lursa said:
Yeah for women's rights is more like it. Yeah for the govt for not forcing itself into women's reproductive choices!
Click to expand...

OK.... Yea for women's right to murder their own children.

:shoot:applaud:rock
 
Removable Mind said:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the U.S. federal government which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.

The agency is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by Congress. The current administrator is Gina McCarthy. The EPA is not a Cabinet department, but the administrator is normally given cabinet rank.

Contact your Congressman. GOP has only had like 45 years muster up legislation to get rid of the EPA, or any facet of it. It was started by a Republican President.

The States don't override a lot of Federal policies, rules, and regulations. Sounds like a personal issue with you.

However...the EPA hasn't always won in the implementation of policy and programs.

See the following link on Supreme Court rulings AGAINST the EPA...but also some wins by the EPA

EPA Lawsuit - Home

Obviously it's not impossible to get to them via lawsuits. Some do reach the S.C.

You need to contact your Congressmen/women and file a complaint if you think the EPA has reached its powers.

What else do you have?
Click to expand...

:lamo

That's the best you can come up with? You didn't even scratch the surface. The EPA, through it's Environment Justice initiative is taking local authority away from citizens, and applying a regulatory standard that citizens have no input on, and can only hope to thwart by legal intervention, provided they have the means to do so.

Got anything better, because this response from you indicates you haven't taken the time to acquaint yourself with any relevant facts.

It's rather naïve to think you can come back with such a hollow reply and expect that to be the last word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom