On Friday, Us District Court Judge William Orrick rejected a request to dismiss claims against the Center for Medical Progress brought forth by Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood filed several claims against the Center, including a claim that it doctored and posted videos that accused Planned Parenthood of selling fetal remains. Planned Parenthood does donate fetal remains to medical research centers with the consent of their patients and does not receive any profits from the transactions. The motions for dismissal by the Center for Medical Progress for this and 15 other additional claims were rejected by Orrick in his 56-page ruling.
However, Orrick did note that the “defendants have raised a number of arguments that may cause the claims in this case to be narrowed after discovery on summary judgement. However, plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to plausibly state their claims at this juncture.”
Planned Parenthood sued the Center in January earlier this year on the grounds that it cost Planned Parenthood millions of dollars by creating a fake fetal procurement company named BioMax. This allowed the Center to access conferences and record doctors discussing the sale of fetal remains. Planned Parenthood claims that the videos were edited to make it appear that Planned Parenthood planned to sell fetal tissue.
The lawsuit states that the Center directly harmed Planned Parenthood by providing propaganda that may have been connected to hostile actions against the organization. Hostility against Planned Parenthood spiked after release of the Center’s videos, including vandalism, death-threats to its doctors, arson, and a shooting that killed three people in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs. This resulted in increased expenses for security, complying with government investigations and damage to property.
Planned Parenthood’s legal grounds to bring forth claims against the Center for Medical Progress relies mainly on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The Center for Medical Progress may be charged with civil penalties under RICO if it is found to have harmed Planned Parenthood. The question is, were the damages inflicted on Planned Parenthood orchestrated by the Center’s conduct?
While Orrick did recognize that some injuries to Planned Parenthood were conducted strictly by third-parties, he also noted that injuries such as increased security costs and vandalism “are much more directly tied to [the] defendant’s conduct and do not rise the problem of intervening actions of third parties.”
The Center for Medical Progress argued in its motion that the claims of racketeering brought were not supported because Planned Parenthood only sustained reputational harm from the Center’s direct actions. Furthermore, the Center also claimed that anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) claims filed by Planned Parenthood denied the Center the right to free speech.
However, the Center waived its right to publish videos procured from conferences held by Planned Parenthood because they signed confidentiality agreements, thus eliminating the First Amendment as a legal protection for publication of the videos. Additionally, Planned Parenthood stated that the filming of its doctors without their consent is illegal and would not be protected under the anti-SLAPP statutes. Orrick agreed with Planned Parenthood, noting that it would likely succeed with its claim in Court, despite the Center’s claim of being denied First Amendment rights.
Beth Parker, the Lead Counsel for Planned Parenthood, expressed her thoughts on the proceedings stating, “It reinforces our thought that we have a very strong case against the Center for Medical Progress and other anti-abortion individuals who orchestrated this smear campaign. We know there is a long road ahead before trial, but this is an excellent first step.
Planned Parenthood is represented by Sharon Mayo, Amy Bomse, and Jee Young You of Arnold & Porter, San Francisco.
Leave a Comment