Planned Parenthood’s False Doctoring Claim Exposed

In a statement released yesterday Planned Parenthood said:

Planned Parenthood of New York City has reviewed this video carefully, and it is clear that the video cannot be trusted. The conversation as portrayed on this doctored videotape is not accurate.

They go on to state:

These tapes are clearly doctored and cannot be trusted.

In the statement Planned Parenthood fails to point to anything specific in the video that was doctored. How can one judge for themselves whether something is doctored when Planned Parenthood won’t even say what they think is doctored?

The full uncut video and accompanying audio is embedded below for your viewing:

We have even released the full uncut tape of the 2nd camera angle and accompanying audio as well:

And finally the clinic visit was also recorded with an audio recorder. That audio in mp3 format can be downloaded here.

Anyone can compare these 3 separate recording streams and see that they are synchronous and accurate.

Planned Parenthood, you have made the accusation that our tape was doctored while offering no evidence of doctoring whatsoever. Your desperate attempt to smear our student group, Live Action, to defend your organization’s actions of supporting child sex traffickers speaks volumes about who you are. Instead of reforming your ways to ensure that young girls are not trafficked, your focus is on avoiding scrutiny and keeping your government funding.

You could have admitted your mistakes from the beginning and opened yourself up to real accountability that would have ensured that minors are protected. Instead you have chosen to defend the indefensible and hurl wild accusations  at the expense of ensuring that real little girls are protected. Your reaction shows that your problems are not your front-line staff but rather your management that isn’t willing to take child trafficking seriously and do the right thing.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Planned Parenthood’s False Doctoring Claim Exposed -- Topsy.com

  • QuaerensDeum

    Be careful, Live Action, and pray much in these days with the spotlight on you. Pray for faithfulness, not for success, and trust that the Lord will defend the helpless, give rest to the weary, and heal the brokenhearted. The Lord hears the cry of the poor – blessed be the Lord!

    Thank you for what you have done in pro-life (mom *and* child life) work. We are praying for you.

  • utilitarian56

    The videos do show manipulation as have previous videos. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102040026

    This is just an example of a mistake they made in manipulating the videos. The PP employees have also stated to the FBI that they the video and what they remember happening do not match.

    • pnyikos

      And you believe the Planned Parenthood statement?

      Do you think they actually viewed the video and pointed out what they remember differently, or don't remember? What a laugh!

      Earlier, you wrote:
      "You're drilling down pretty far to try to prove that mp3s and mpegs obtained by a biased party are, in fact, evidence. They are not. Especially when obtained under false pretenses."

      Does "false pretenses" equate to "illegal means"? If so, 99% of all sting operations fail to produce evidence in The World According To Utilitarian56. But even if the means were illegal, ponder the following.

      There are two legitimate approaches to information obtained by illegal means. The United States legal system has opted for disallowing it in testimony. But it could equally well allow it, but punish those obtaining it for the way in which they obtained it. It has chosen the former path because the agents are generally a valuable part of the law enforcement apparatus, and also to prevent the methods from getting so out of hand as to prosecute innocent people, as was the case in the Soviet Union.

      Do you maintain Planned Parenthood is innocent of wrongdoing?

      • utilitarian56

        I never wrote that.

        • pnyikos

          Sorry, my mistake. My comment should have been addressed to asseffgreg. I also should have toned down my comment about "your allies". You seem to be going at things in a reasonable manner, now that I know who's who; asseffgreg is another matter.

    • pnyikos

      I've looked at the "manipulation" in the url you gave, http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102040026 , and it's much ado about nothing. Some self-contained audio was shifted from one place to another, according to the account, and there is no attempt to show that there was anything wrong with the actual content.

      Your allies are out in force there, I see: before comments were closed, a person who pointed this out got 18 thumbs down and only two thumbs up; while a person who "refuted" him with some abstract generalities and unproven claims got 3 thumbs up and no thumbs down.

      Thus does your side play "shoot the messenger".

  • livewell8

    One abridged video had a visual sync error but nothing was doctored and full tapes were released of all 6 clinics. There is no accusation of any substance that was doctored. This might help you: http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2011/02/04/media-

    • utilitarian56

      First please use the reply button and do not simply post over me. Reference to my comment (The videos do show manipulation as have previous videos. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102040026)

      In response to that article. Media Matters never claimed that all the videos showed no wrong doing as one video clearly did in a way that video manipulation could never do. The worker in this video was fired and is the reason for the retraining.

      In all other cases the employees reported the incidents to the authorities and gave factual information about reliant laws. These are the videos that MM and PP is claiming showed nothing wrong happened. MM also claims that one of these videos shows signs of doctoring. This does not invalidate their original claim that the videos showed nothing illegal. It simply shows that these videos were altered possibly to enhance liveactions view point. You can clearly see the evidence for yourself in the full videos directly from live action. It is possible that the sync error is really just that an error made in good faith while editing. But the fact that the PP employees have reported to the FBI that their conversations do not match the video demands at least some explanation. Again just because the videos show nothing illegal(besides the first) does not mean they were not manipulated.

      • livewell8

        "In all other cases the employees reported the incidents to the authorities" Please cite.

        "the fact that the PP employees have reported to the FBI that their conversations do not match the video demands at least some explanation."
        Someone may have just lied to the FBI. Oh snap.

        • utilitarian56

          Citations: http://liveaction.org/blog/top-six-planned-parent
          http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroo

          liveaction itself posted the document showing that PP had at the very least mailed the attorney general well before the release of any videos about 12 different locations where this was reported.(I should note the date on this does not give evidence that they did not report earlier just that they did not report on later than that) PP further claims they contacted in all cases. Now they could be lying. But there are videos from only 6 locations. So if they are lying about reporting the FBI would know they were lying.

          Now they could still be lying to the FBI about the exact conversations. But remeber once again the FBI was contacted before the videos came out. So at least to some extent the PP story can be cross checked. Of course you could just claim the FBI is out to protect the child abusers too.

          On the other side I still have seen no explanation for the video sync problem.

          • livewell8

            "liveaction itself posted the document showing that PP had at the very least mailed the attorney general well before the release of any videos"
            Yes they sent a letter to the FBI Jan 18 but that is 4 to 7 days after their clinics were visited. That isn't prompt reporting to law enforcement is it? They also in the letter didn't talk about New York which is where the video that came out yesterday was from.

            "PP further claims they contacted in all cases"
            Which seems like a lie considering their Jan 18 letter didn't talk about New York yet a NY video came out yesterday. Why would they contact but not include it in their letter?

            "So at least to some extent the PP story can be cross checked."
            Yes it can. I think it will be some time before the FBI reveals to the public what they have found which will show who has lied, etc. But you are right, the truth will come out if the FBI gives a report because they can cross check.

            "Of course you could just claim the FBI is out to protect the child abusers too. "
            I'm not claiming that.

            Live Action says the video sync error came from a mistake by an assistant editor that had never contracted with Live Action before.

            I think PP is using their Jan 18 report to the FBI as cover for all reporting. I've only see evidence in 1 of the 6 videos cases of contacting local law enforcement right way.

          • utilitarian56

            I guess we will have to let people with more information resolve this. There is no good evidence that PP contacted the authorities immediately after all incidents. There is also no evidence that they did not. We do know for sure that at most it took them 7 days after the first incident.

            However they have claimed they did and if they are lying law enforcement will know. So we will just have to wait and see. Also it would be nice to see an official statement from the actual editor about the video mistake. It is a pretty massive mistake to make considering the possible consequences and the ease of avoiding it if there were not any manipulations.

          • livewell8

            "We do know for sure that at most it took them 7 days after the first incident."

            Except in the Bronx case which was not listed in the letter to Holder. Also they only listed states and not specific locations so it is unknown if every visit in every state was reported at this time.

            In the Bronx case, Planned Parenthood isn't claiming they reported promptly but rather that their staff members didn't hear the actors say "sex work" in the video. I heard it in there at least twice.

          • utilitarian56

            You are right it is not in the original letter. However they are claiming it was reported and that the staff was interviewed by the FBI http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroo

            They are additionally reporting that the workers did not hear the words "sex work" although even without those words they would have had enough to go on to call the authorities. But it would have changed the context in the videos enough to make the workers not seem nearly as bad. As it would have taken them longer to realize what was going on.

            Edit: Rereading they do not claim they did it promptly just that they did it. Again though a situation without enough information to make strong claims about.

          • x_x

            So the videos are conclusive evidence that PP may take up to 7 days to recognize and report an interstate sex trafficking ring.

            I was actually pretty worried when I saw the first few videos. I thought PP was knowingly facilitating sex trafficking. Good thing I decided to look into the story a bit more rather than just taking it at face value.

          • livewell8

            Interesting to note that Planned Parenthood reported to the FBI after they thought they were bring investigated by Live Action. It is unknown if they reported sex trafficking to the FBI as just that or if they reported to try to cover their tail. Also their letter to the FBI didn't include the state of NY which is where the Live Action video from yesterday came from.

          • utilitarian56

            Their is no evidence that they knew this was liveaction. They almost certainly suspected something was up because it is unlikely so many pimps would act so stupidly so close together.

            But even if this is the case it is not evidence that PP was covering up sexual abuse. It is also not evidence that they were not of course.

            No they did not specifically have New York in the letter but that is not evidence that they did not report. And even if they did not report that would still only be 2(only 1 mandatory by law) out of at least 12 cases where they did report(unless they are making a obvious lie the FBI would know about).

            Even the one case was bad enough. It suggests they do not take the issue seriously enough. Worse if there really are two cases of no reporting and the other cases took 4-7 days to be reported.

            But the suggestion that PP at an organizational level tried to cover up sexual abuse is not supported as liveaction seems to claim. If liveaction was not trying to make this sweeping claim I would have applauded their actions.

          • livewell8

            "Their is no evidence that they knew this was liveaction."
            Well not initially but PP's letter to the FBI says in it that they think it is Live Action.

          • utilitarian56

            It says they think that it is possible. And this does not invalidate the point that even if they knew it adds no evidence that they covered anything up.

    • pnyikos

      Well done, Livewell8! I've hit the reply button in response to "utilitarian56" where he made that "manipulation" comment and given him my own independent interpretation of that benighted Media Matters website. Only then did I look the url you gave and see Breitbart do a much more thorough job of it.

  • http://www.debatepopular.blogspot.com Julio-Debate Popular

    Well, at least the video is not handled and I think it’s real. They should open the doors to see what they actually do.