The anti-choice front group behind a series of videos spreading misinformation about Planned Parenthood deceptively edited footage in “undercover” videos to alter the meaning of dialogue and removed portions of footage the organization claimed were “full footage.”
Recent attempts by Louisiana and Alabama to defund the reproductive health-care provider likely violate federal law.
The bill says it will divert Planned Parenthood’s funding to other providers of women’s health care, but critics say that simply wouldn’t work.
In a letter to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, 32 attorneys from across the country asked that her investigation of the anti-choice front group behind the Planned Parenthood attack videos be conducted with the “utmost urgency,” due to what they call “a real threat to abortion provider safety.”
RH Reality Check has identified at least three names that appear to have been used as pseudonyms by Center for Medical Progress operatives. One of these names appears to belong to a childhood acquaintance of the group’s apparent ringleader, David Daleiden.
As reproductive politics are once again consumed by an attack on Planned Parenthood, it is worth stepping back and asking why this organization is so particularly reviled by the anti-choice movement.
According to Erick Erickson, a regular Fox News contributor, editor of RedState.com, and guest host for Rush Limbaugh, women who seek reproductive health care are “pregnant female animals” with no ability for autonomous thinking.
A watchdog group has asked the California attorney general to investigate whether the anti-choice group that posed as a non-existent medical research entity violated California law “by making false or misleading solicitations for charitable donations.”
The phrases being thrown around by conservative legislators and organizations aren’t medical terms. They’re intentionally deceptive bits of propaganda, and they create an anti-choice political frame for conversations about abortion care that are not rooted in sound science and medicine.
The federal lawsuit claims an Arizona requirement that mandates doctors tell patients both orally and in writing that medication abortions can be reversed is unconstitutional.