Thursday, October 31

“The Enormity of Abortion”

Today’s testimony came to a close in a strange way, with the phrase “the enormity of abortion” emerging from the lips, not of a pro-life defendant or a witness for the defense, but of a lawyer for Planned Parenthood. Read to the end to learn more.

+ + + + + +
 
On Thursday, October 31, defendant David Daleiden’s testimony continued for all but fifteen minutes of the five-hour session.

His attorneys questioned him in detail about the various documents he executed in his applications for his mock fetal-tissue-procurement company BioMax to be an Exhibitor at conferences held by Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation, and about his understanding of various “confidentiality” requirements.

In response to attorney questions, he described in some detail his practice of choosing well-populated public settings such as restaurants and receptions for recording his covert videotapes of interactions with people in the abortion industry, where the conversations could be overheard and therefore could not be private or considered confidential. And he testified that in his conversations with Planned Parenthood personnel no one had stated or indicated that any given conversation was to be considered confidential or “off the record.”

There was also lengthy discussion of the mock i.d. card he had made on his home computer for his undercover identity. This, he said, he had intentionally made to be unusable as anything but a stage prop. He built it from a photocopy of his own expired California driver’s license. It had a scrambled number, an expired date, a headshot of him as a fifteen-year-old, and a ‘magnetic strip’ on the back that was merely a bar of ink. He testified that in his interactions as an Exhibitor at Planned Parenthood and NAF conferences he had never been asked to remove it from his wallet nor had it ever been examined or run through any scanner.

Observers who are new to this trial may wonder: Daleiden claims that his undercover project was an investigation of suspected criminal activity; we know that his tapes were released to the public; but when and how did he share the results of his work with law enforcement agencies?  Daleiden’s attorneys raised this question again:

Q. Did you actually list in your roadmap for the project what various plans you had in terms of your coordinating with law enforcement?

A. Yes, I did.

Plaintiff’s attorney objected to “going back over material that has already been covered with this witness.” The result was that the judge read aloud to the jury a long list of the efforts Daleiden made to interest various law enforcement agencies in his findings, beginning months before his public posting of videos in July 2015:

THE COURT:  So ladies and gentlemen, the parties agree in this case that Mr. Daleiden made the following contacts with members of law enforcement, and provided members of law enforcement with documents and recordings made by the Center for Medical Progress… .

After this reading was done, Daleiden’s lawyer resumed questioning:
 
Q. Did you think CMP had committed any crimes when you gave those videos to law enforcement?
 
A. No, I did not.
 
Q. After you released these videos to the public, did you receive any death threats?
 
A. Um, yes. I received a handful of death threats after releasing the videos.
 
Q. What form did they take?
 
A. Most of them were in the form of emails that were sent into the CMP email account. There was a handful of voicemails, as well.
 
Q. Did you hire private security?
 
A. No, I did not.
 
Q. Did you sue anybody?
 
A. No, I did not.

Daleiden’s questioning by both defense attorneys and the plaintiffs’ attorneys continued until very near the end of the session. Then he stepped down from the witness stand. 

Plaintiff’s attorneys then ended the day by playing the videotaped deposition of Phillip Cronin, an early associate of Daleiden’s in the founding of the Center for Medical Progress. It was in this deposition that the striking phrase in our headline was used, twice, by Amy Lynne Bomse, plaintiff’s attorney, as she questioned Mr. Cronin about his intentions in associating himself with Daleiden’s planned undercover project.  (I have no transcript of the videotape, so I report it here as I heard it):

Q.  Was it your goal to show the enormity of abortion so that abortion could ultimately be outlawed?

A. Yes.

“The enormity of abortion.” It’s a wonderful phrase, and true.

+++++++

A highlight of the day was the presence in the gallery of Joseph Scheidler, 92 years old, who flew in from Chicago to be present for a few days. Founder of the Pro Life Action League, he is the successful defendant in the landmark case National Organization of Women vs. Scheidler, which was the first instance in which pro-life activists were accused of violations of the RICO Act.  His book is 'Racketeer for Life." Joe Scheidler’s commentary after today’s proceedings can be found here:
https://www.facebook.com/pg/prolifeaction/posts/?ref=page_internal

                                   --- by J. A. Gray, correspondent