Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Court orders

User:CFCF, you keep citing WP:BRD. However, as has been pointed out, you should revert only if problem text "cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." Also, "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary." You are not doing any of this. If you would make incremental edits to text you found problem-some, we wouldn't be edit warring. I don't want to continue down this path. Here is a section I have repeadetly cited as edits that should not be controversial: the clarification that there are two lawsuits, not one. Pray tell, what is your objection to this section? Please provide specific objections, edits, or clarifications, instead of just declaring that it is unnaccatable.

In July, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles placed a temporary restraining order on the release of videos of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in El Dorado Hills on May 22, 2015 based on California's anti-wiretapping law. StemExpress served as a middleman between Planned Parenthood and researchers who used the tissues and organs from aborted fetuses, but has since cut ties with the abortion provider. A hearing will be held on August 19, 2015. StemExpress also asked the judge to prohibit the Center For Medical Progress from posting any documents online that mention StemExpress, but that request was denied. They also lost a request for an injunction that would have required the Center for Medical Progress to turn over videos and documentation it obtained.

In a separate court filing, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a restraining order on the release of footage taken at National Abortion Federation conferences in San Fransisco and Baltimore. This order also prohibits the group from disclosing names or addresses of National Abortion Federation members, or dates and locations of future meetings. A hearing will be held on August 27, 2015.

CMP says that they follow "all applicable laws." Daleiden has stated that in the suppressed video the "top leadership" of StemExpress "admitted that they sometimes get fully intact fetuses shipped to their laboratory from the abortion clinics that they work with and that could be prima facie evidence of born-alive infants."

I think this should be non-controversial for the most part. Let's start here, and perhaps we can begin to work together. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You're citing the reason for the reverts yourself. There is no way to "immediately fix" a massive addition like that, it takes time. I applaud the fact we are finally posting here, but without the full references I can't begin to say that if it is a valid addition or not. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I (and the other editors) did not add all the material at once. It took time. Not being willing to put in the time to make the fixes is not a valid excuse. You also deleted text without specificity. Regardless, I don't want to argue. Let's fix this. Now all the refs are restored. What say you to this section now? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It was done over a handful of hours, and other editors were barely involved. Anyway this section is the least controversial one, and apart from a few points I can not immediately say why it shouldn't be reintroduced:

1. By the time it is reintroduced the 18th will have passed – this should not have been included from the start. Wikipedia is not news.
2. There is a clarification tag
3. We should somehow try to summarize and replace the quote

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that much of this does not need to be in the article per WP:NOTNEWS. I would suggest something more simple and direct, along the lines of:

"In July 2015, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles placed a temporary restraining order on the release of videos of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in El Dorado Hills on May 22, citing California's anti-wiretapping law. StemExpress served as a middleman between Planned Parenthood and researchers who used the tissues and organs from aborted fetuses, but has since cut ties with the abortion provider. In a separate court filing, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a restraining order on the release of footage taken at National Abortion Federation conferences in San Francisco and Baltimore, and prohibiting CMP from disclosing the names or addresses of National Abortion Federation members, as well as the dates and locations of future meetings.."

The details about what was asked for, but not granted in court do not seem encyclopedia-worthy, and Daleiden's assertions about what the un-seen videos show are obviously not something we should take at face value. Note that is sourced to a statement made by him in an interview right now, not to a third-party reliable source. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Fyddlestix, for taking a crack at rewriting this section. I think information about what the judge denied are just as relevant as details about what he approved, but in the spirit of compromise I am willing to cut them. However, I'm confused by why you say that Daleiden's statement was not made to a reliable third party reliable source. Is CNN not a RS? He made the statement to one reporter, a RS, and then a completely different reporter, also a RS, used the quotation in a second article. Why should we accept what some parties to this controversy say to reporters but not others? I propose the following for right now, taking CFCF's suggestions above, and understanding that it may change after the hearing:

In July 2015, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles placed a temporary restraining order on the release of videos of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant, citing California's anti-wiretapping law. Daleiden, CMP's leader, states that in the suppressed video StemExpress' "top leadership" claim to have received intact fetuses in the past, and states this could be evidence of born alive infants. StemExpress served as a middleman between Planned Parenthood and researchers using tissues and organs from aborted fetuses, but has since cut ties with the abortion provider. In a separate court filing, a San Francisco federal judge issued a restraining order on the release of footage taken at National Abortion Federation (NAF) conferences, and prohibited CMP from disclosing names or addresses of NAF members, as well as dates and locations of future meetings. StemExpress is also seeking legal action against O'Donnell, who they claim violated a non-disclosure agreement.

Can we agree on this? --BrianCUA (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, what parts of that is a quote – and what isn't? It still uses the exact same wording...

I like Fyddlestix version better and unless there has been significant response to this particular comment there should be no reason to include it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. There was an errant quotation mark there that was confusing things. I've fixed that in the text above. Is it clearer now? Of course, depending on what the court does, it may be a moot point in the end as we may get to see exactly what was on the video. But for now, I think that's what's on the video is important enough to include a sentence on.--BrianCUA (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 19 August 2015

The Current Event template should be removed since the article can't be edited for another two weeks. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Seems reasonable, and I do not see an objection here yet. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Alleged variation in abortion procedures

I would now like to propose the following for the section on "Alleged variation in abortion procedures."

The Center for Medical Progress alleges that the videos show Planned Parenthood officials offering to vary the technique used in abortion in order to acquire more intact fetal tissues and organs. Federal law prohibits using a different procedure to obtain human tissue for medical research, as well as for delivering intact fetuses. Planned Parenthood spokespeople have responded to CMP's allegations by stating that the organization follows "all laws - period," and that the accusations made in CMP's videos "are false."

A document on Planned Parenthood Mar Monte letterhead, where O'Donnell worked, asks doctors to certify that "no substantial alteration in the timing of terminating the pregnancy or the method used was made for the purpose of obtaining the tissue." StemExpress accuses O'Donnell of stealing documents and providing them to CMP.

In the first video, Nucatola said doctors would avoid "crushing" certain parts of the fetus to keep desired organs and body parts intact. In the second video, Gatter offers to speak with the doctors performing the abortions about using a "less crunchy technique" to obtain more intact organs and tissue. She also offers to ask about changing procedures to use one with less suction to better ensure that the aborted fetus comes out more intact.

Ginde, in the fourth video, discusses training abortion doctors to perform abortions so as to keep the fetal tissue and organs intact. In the fifth video Farrell suggests that "if we alter our process and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget," adding that "it will probably also require a little bit of input from the doctors."

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University, believes that it "is a big ethical no-no" to "change how you do the abortion in order to get a better chance of preserving something that you can then make available for research." Caplan believes that Planned Parenthood does do so, but should not, and that in abortion "the primary goal is to give the safest abortion possible. Your sole concern has to be the mother and her health."

Personally, I find it helpful if any improvements to the the text are made directly, like Fiddlestyx did in the section on the court orders. That eliminates any ambiguity about what you want that could be in a comment. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References

REPLY:

Objected to as too much unnecessary detail, and for giving unwarranted credence to innuendos which appear dramatic and disturbing but do not show or imply any actual lawbreaking or misconduct by PP. The same thing CMP does by editing the videos, in fact.

1. The "less crunchy technique" and the "avoiding crushing" from the first two videos, the "training" in the fourth video, and the "altering our process" in the Fifth video are inappropriate for mention, because they do not suggest changing from one procedure to another procedure (which would be illegal); they only suggest adjustments in technique which are within the limits defined by normal case-to-case variations when the same procedure is used, and therefore legal.

2. Isn't there a Wikipedia policy against mentioning the names of victims of crimes? User CFCF mentioned this policy in an earlier section of this TALK page. By recording conversations with Drs. Nucatola and Gatter without their knowing consent, CMP may have violated California state law and committed crimes against these two individuals, who should therefore be treated by Wikipedia as crime victims, and not mentioned by name.

3. The bonuses StemExpress pays its employees do not imply any lawbreaking by PP and are entirely irrelevant.

4. Even the quotation from Professor Caplan may not be appropriate, because, as Dr. Gatter points out, none of the proposed adjustments in technique have any effect on the patient--no additional risk, pain, nor trauma. Even with the adjustments, PP is still, in Professor Caplan's words, "giv[ing] the safest abortion possible". I would suggest removing the section on Professor Caplan altogether.

HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We do not need to show that there was any lawbreaking to include material. That is beyond our scope and our ability. This article is about the controversy. If any wrong doing is ever proved, then perhaps an article on that would be appropriate. For now, our role per WP:NPOV is to "describe disputes." These statements are at the heart of the controversy over altering procedures. Including a one sentence description of each video is far from unnecessary detail. To respond to each of your concerns individually:

1: First off, as stated above, we are not out to prove if anything is legal or illegal. We are describing the controversy. Additionally, the sources do indicate that at least some of the doctors talked about using different procedures. We can include that information if you like. Regardless, Caplan says that it is problematic ethically to "change how you do the abortion," not just change the procedure.

2:WP:AVOIDVICTIM says that we need to take extra care "dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions." These individuals are not notable simply because they were taped undercover. If someone surreptitiously took photos of them in a bathing suit out by the pool in their backyard, I would agree with you. In this case they are notable for comments they themselves made.

3: You are correct. The line about the bonuses belongs in the financial aspects section, not this one. I will remove it.

4:I don't know if you are deliberately misreading Caplan, but I'm not sure how else you could come to that conclusion. He is stating that he believes PP does change their procedure, but should not, because the sole concern is no longer for the mother.

Thank you for your thoughts. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Financial aspects

Seeing as we are making good progress on the other sections, I want to continue it by proposing the following text for the Financial aspects section.

The CMP presents the videos as evidence of Planned Parenthood engaging in the illegal sale of fetal tissue and organs. Biomax, the corporation they set up for the investigation, offered one clinic US$1,600 for liver and thymus fetal tissues. The New York Times has characterized the offer as an attempt to "trap the affiliate in the act of accepting a high payment for fetal tissue," but the affiliate declined the offer.

In the unedited version of the first video, Nucatola repeatedly states that Planned Parenthood does not make money from tissue donations, and that the $30 to $100 charge only covers procurement costs. PPFA said that they may donate fetal tissue at the request of a patient, but that such tissue is never sold. At one point, Nucatola said "nobody should be 'selling' tissue," and "that's just not the goal here."

Gatter, in the second video, worried about giving a "lowball" figure for the organs and tissue, saying that "in negotiations the person who throws out the figure first is at a loss." She later says that the price may go up after checking to see what other affiliates get, and jokes that "I want a Lamborghini." O'Donnell, the former StemExpress employee, claimed in the third video that some body parts were worth more than others. A document in the video with her shows the rate of pay technicians would receive, as well as a bonus structure for various organs and tissues.

The fourth video shows Ginde discussing the possibility of providing organs for reasons other than research: "I know putting it under the research gives us a little bit of a, a little sort of a overhang over the whole thing," Ginde says. "And in public I think it makes a lot more sense for it to be in the research vein, than I'd say, business venture." Ginde also recalled discussions she had with attorneys about how best to avoid breaking the law. She worried that "if you have someone in a really anti state that's going to be doing this for you, they're probably going to get caught."

The fifth video shows Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director and pro-life activist, saying the sale of fetal tissue and organs made her branch about $120,000 a month. Daleiden has also alleged that "Planned Parenthood illegally uses partial-birth abortions 'to harvest higher quality fetal organs for sale.'" In the same video, Farrell says that doctors can "get creative" and obtain more intact fetal organs and tissue in order to contribute to the "diversification of the revenue stream." She adds that "if we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget."

Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s biorepository told FactCheck.org that "there’s no way there’s a profit at that price." She wrote that non-profit hospitals provide adult "tissue blocks from surgical procedures" at around $100–500 per block, and noted that "$30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee." Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories said that "$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue." Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance said this was "a modest price tag for cost recovery."

What do you think? --BrianCUA (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Another state finds no wrongdoing by PP

I suggest adding Pennsylvania to the list (in the "Investigations" section) of states which have found no wrongdoing nor lawbreaking by PP. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Good addition! I incorporated that into Investigations section of the draft, but found another source than a political blog. --BrianCUA (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 23, 2015

The New England Journal of Medicine in the "Reception" section should be italicized. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Very misleading impression from lead

Barring the fact that an overwhelming majority of this article seems opinionated heavily in favour of Planned Parenthood's stance (and hence distinctly striking me as bias), the lead reads fairly weirdly. I noticed a big discussion above regarding the use of the phrase "highly edited"; as a reader who randomly chooses to learn about this controversy, this phrase imparts the idea that the videos were dishonest in their portrayal, which is problematic since that simply hasn't turned out to be the case (with regards to the later release of the wholly unedited videos). I know I'm flogging a dead horse, but I feel strongly enough about neutrality concerns to put this forward: what exactly is wrong with saying only "edited" in the lead? Why should the lead describe the "true extent" of editing at all? Isn't that what the article body is for? "Edited" is, in and of itself, a neutral and wholly acceptable word that conveys the accurate information without making it seem like it has undertones of morality. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I know the quote marks are a bit jarring, but using them was the condition for its inclusion. It's a notable quote found in many sources. The implication that the editing was deceptive is not found in those actual words (they are just the most accurate description), but is found in many sources, which provide evidence of much deception, and those quotes are found in the article, but not the lead.

Keep in mind that the very purpose of editing these videos was to present a certain impression that is not found when they are viewed in their unedited state. In this case, and the whole history of the perpetrators (especially the James O'Keefe / Andrew Breitbart team), much deception has been proven, followed by imprisonment and huge financial compensation to victims. These anti-abortion activists aren't just ordinary people making their own opinions known, they are actively using any and all methods, including dishonesty, to discredit those who support free choice. Their dishonesty has been proven many times, but it seems that their supporters consider that "the ends justify the means". Why can't they just argue their points without resorting to dishonesty? That would be the better course of action, because their POV is certainly worthy of discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, is the first and second paragraph written by the same person, or did somebody forget to sign? Just curious :P.

Secondly, the only sources citing a "highly misleading, dishonest editing" version of events have been vocally pro-Planned Parenthood from the very beginning. There are other sources that do make more weighted analysis of the unedited videos, and some of them are reliable/major. I don't understand why the scope of documentation in this article is so limited only to the liberal left-wing viewpoint of support? Shouldn't an encyclopedia legitimately put forward every viewpoint? To me, this article comes off as very one-sided with almost no substantial focus on opposing viewpoints. Just my two cents. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the indents to make it clear I wrote both paragraphs. Thanks for catching that!

I suggest you read the (currently) last section below (#Protected_edit_request_on_August_28.2C_2015_.28Lede.29). Also read the sources and the transcript of the analysis. This will help you understand the degree of deception practiced by CMP. Many major RS have commented on this matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 28, 2015 (Lede)

The Lede opens with "In July and August 2015 the anti-abortion organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a number of "highly edited" and unedited videos." (emphasis added). According to recently reported findings, even the "fully footage videos" were edited. Quoting an investigative reporter, Glenn Simpson: "So what we found was, I think importantly, perhaps most importantly, that the full footage CMP tapes were, in fact, missing large sections." I propose that it be changed to "In July and August 2015 the anti-abortion organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a number of "highly edited" shorter, and edited longer versions that CMP inaccurately claimed were "full footage".

Mattnad (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This is an important development, and more RS are reporting it. I have added another source and improved the format of this request. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons. First, this is a claim by Planned Parenthood, not a definitive fact. Even the WSJ headline says there are "dueling assessments." Secondly, this is clearly not an "uncontroversial" request. I agree, however, that it is an important development and should be in the article. I suggest that we work on it in the draft. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)un

Planned parenthood brought this forward, but the analysis and quote is by a reporter unaffiliated with Planned Parenthood. And CMP admitted they edited the footage, but stated what they took out was not relevant.Mattnad (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that a consensus version, with refs, should be worked out before inclusion. Let's work on that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• BrianCUA, since we don't have a clear consensus, and likely won't be able to achieve it with the present version, I have deactivated the request. Now let's work on a better version, including more sources.

I have created an area below for this purpose. Rather than making it a real subsection, I have just made a headline. That way we can move up and down in this whole section to grab refs and content. It will be easier that way. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Briancua and neutrality concerns. We could add that planned parenthood disputes they are unedited and CMP's response but all that should go in the body. We already have the POV quote of "highly edited" in the lead. I suggest resolving this by instead using a simpler opening which only briefly and neutrally states they released edited videos. In the body, we could discuss "highly edited" as a quote attributed to whomever, and the whole debate over the longer, supposedly unedited versions should also go in the body of the article not in the lead.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I like the idea of first developing the content in the body, and then briefly summarizing the most important points in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Workshop for creating a consensus version

Sources

Here are more RS, fully formatted for immediate use

• Analysis of Center for Medical Progress Videos (Use of this primary ref is justified - and necessary - because of its mention in multiple secondary RS. Note that direct use of content can be OR, so use secondary sources.)

• "A report by outside analysts commissioned by Planned Parenthood concluded the videos contained major gaps and were so altered that they couldn’t be used as legal evidence."

• Planned Parenthood: Even ‘full’ videos were altered

• Planned Parenthood says covertly filmed videos were heavily altered

• More Evidence That the Planned Parenthood Videos Were Altered

• 'Sting' Videos Of Planned Parenthood Are Totally Manipulated, Forensic Analysis Finds. "Even the supposedly unedited "full" footage is misleadingly altered, experts say."

BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Any refs used should be placed in the refs section at the bottom of the page, alphabetically by ref name.

References

Sandbox

It occurs to me that working on this one section at a time may not be the most efficient route. For example, in a section above it was pointed out that a sentence in a proposed section didn't belong there and that it was more appropriate for another section. For that reason, I have created Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy/sandbox so that we can work on the article as a whole. Then, once we get it into shape, we can move it into the mainspace. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea. However, mainspace pages aren't allowed to have subpages, with the exception of ancient redirects. As such, I've moved Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy/sandbox to Draft:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 19:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that there has been a great deal of discussion here on suggested changes, some of which I like and others I think need more work, I would like to remind everyone that we can work on the draft until the protection is lifted. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)