California Court Arraigns David Daleiden On 10 Felony Counts For Exposing Abortion Industry Secrets 
Written by Madeline Osburn | Source: The Federalist | February 21, 2020 08:02 PM



Undercover journalist and anti-abortion activist David Daleiden was arraigned Friday in the San Francisco Superior Court on 10 felony counts for his videotape exposés of the abortion industry’s trafficking of aborted baby body parts.
Daleiden pled not guilty to all 10 counts.
Daleiden and his colleague at the Center for Medical Progress, Sandra Merritt, were originally charged with 15 criminal charges for recording conversations with abortionists that occurred in public places, such as restaurants and event spaces. Prosecutors claimed the recordings violated privacy laws and were covered under whistleblower statutes. In September, preliminary hearings were held to determine whether there was probable cause to charge Daleiden and Merritt, and in December, a judge dropped six of the charges. An additional count was added regarding novelty IDs.
Witnesses at the preliminary trial included Planned Parenthood employees and former abortionists, who gave sworn testimony about the selling of whole fetuses, beating fetal hearts, and Planned Parenthood’s deficient ethical and medical standards.
The charges, which include counts of illegal videotaping and conspiracy to illegally videotape, were originally brought by former California Attorney General Kamala hαɾɾιs and her successor, Xavier Becerra, who both have personal ties with Planned Parenthood.
Email records show hαɾɾιs’ office corresponded with Planned Parenthood officials, orchestrating public responses, filing police reports, and even drafting legislation targeting Daleiden. hαɾɾιs has received tens of thousands of dollars in political contributions from Planned Parenthood-affiliated entities.

As an undercover journalist, California shield laws should have protected Daleiden from warrants to seize his videos or recording equipment, yet that’s exactly what hαɾɾιs’ California justice department did.
“It’s blackletter California law that you are not supposed to get a search warrant to seize the unpublished materials of a journalist, whether citizen journalist or professional journalist,” Daleiden told Tucker Carlson in September. “But that’s what Kamala hαɾɾιs did … to protect [Planned Parenthood] from further scrutiny from the crimes of selling aborted baby body parts.”
What’s Trending on BlabberBuzz


The prosecution of Daleiden and Merritt could set a detrimental precedent for undercover journalism.
In the same year Daleiden released his alarming videos speaking to employees of Planned Parenthood and tissue procurement company StemExpress, animal rights activists in California used similar tactics of undercover recording on farms and in slaughterhouses to expose the mistreatment of chickens, yet they faced no legal consequences from the state.
Daleiden’s attorney, Thomas More Society Vice President and senior counsel Peter Breen, said his client, “is being charged as a criminal for using the same investigative reporting techniques regularly exercised by other journalists.
These industry practices are often lauded and rewarded, but here in California, Mr. Daleiden is being charged as a criminal and threatened with years in prison for shining his investigative light on the dark secrets of the abortion industry.”
Abortion Activist: Dismembering Babies Piece By Piece in Abortion No Different Than Pulling a Tooth
This article was sourced from LifeNews
All pro-life measures are intended to save lives and to educate the wider public as well as legislators.
Part of that education process comes in the form of passing on the remarkably dehumanizing and callous remarks that abortionists and their supporters will make in an attempt to deflect attention away what is happening and to whom.
Take today’s hearing before the Nebraska Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, for example. The subject matter was a proposal to ban—stop—the dismemberment of living unborn babies. Twelve states currently have such legislation on the books.
You would think that opposing such a humanitarian measure would give abortion advocates pause. But you would be wrong.
Writing for the LincolnJournal Star, JoAnne Young tells us of the testimony of Dr.
Jody Steinauer, described as “a Nebraska native and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California in San Francisco.” Why is she so strongly opposed?
“It would go against my medical oath to not be able to offer the safest possible method of abortion to my patients in the second trimester,” she said.
Come again? The abortionist can still use tools more appropriate for a slaughter house to tear apart an unborn child. The only limitation is that the child not be alive as her arms and legs are severed and she bleeds to death.
State Senator Suzanne Geist introduced the bill (LB 814) last month on the opening day of the session.
Today she told the Judiciary Committee, “Regardless of our individual opinions on abortion, I think we can agree that no living creature, and certainly no living human being, should be subject to this barbaric act in the name of women’s health.” This practice, she said, “truly has no place in modern medicine and should not be happening in our society.”





Dr. Kathi Aultman, a former Planned Parenthood abortionist who now is pro-life, told the committee, “I support this bill because it prevents the infliction of needless pain and suffering on innocent human beings, and preserves the integrity of the medical profession.”
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
Dr. Aultman added, “There’s no medical reason that the baby has to be alive at the time this procedure is done, unless you’re trying to get fresh fetal tissue for research or something.”
Yet as awful as Dr. Jody Steinauer’s comments were, they were not nearly as tone-deaf as those made by Jon Wood, a medical student at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (pictured). According to Young’s reporting, Wood
said appendectomies, gall bladder removal and wisdom tooth extraction are all dismemberment procedures.
“I believe that those who support this bill don’t necessarily dislike dismemberment per se, but what they typically oppose is the word that comes after,” Wood said.

Is that supposed to be trick question or something so devastatingly witty pro-lifers are left speechless?
Correct, we don’t oppose appendectomies. Why? Because they don’t take the life of a living, separate human being. Apparently, Mr. Wood’s studies have not yet reached the point where he can distinguish a wisdom tooth from an unborn baby.
According to Young, Wood
said bills such as this one exacerbate the state’s brain drain. He would love to stay in Nebraska when he graduates but could go anywhere to practice medicine.
Nebraska will lose him if he can’t use s forceps, clamps, scissors or similar instruments on a living unborn baby to remove him or her from the womb in pieces, right? Just guessing, you might suspect his brain has  already been drained.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.


This article was sourced from The Federalist