David Daleiden testified on his fourth and final day on the witness stand that the Texas Texas Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast abortion clinic planned to “move forward” on a deal he pitched to them as an undercover investigator to buy aborted baby livers from them for $750 each.
On Day 13 of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America vs. Center for Medical Progress federal civil trial, Daleiden confirmed that before CMP released its undercover videos in July 2015 that he went to 10 law enforcement agencies, both state and federal, with evidence of violent crimes — including babies killed by vivisection — committed by the organ harvesting industry.
The young mastermind behind the sting operation that exposed Planned Parenthood trafficking in aborted baby parts further testified that his fictitious fetal tissue procurement company, BioMax, designed a brochure that included a “specifically criminal transaction over fetal body parts,” which was “a per-volume kickback based on the number of body parts sold.”
Daleiden did so in order “to test the plaintiffs’ reaction and engagement with a business proposal of that nature,” he said.
Only Dr. Mary Gatter, a longtime abortionist at Planned Parenthood Pasadena who was shown in the CMP videos haggling over the price of aborted baby body parts and quipping that she wanted a Lamborghini, “wanted to make sure that she would still get her per-specimen fee based on that language,” he testified.
“But that was the only question we got about it.”
Planned Parenthood Federation of America and 10 affiliates are accusing Daleiden, CMP investigative reporters Sandra Merritt and Adrian Lopez, and founding board members Albin Rhomberg, and Troy Newman of Operation Rescue of 15 crimes, including Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization violations and illegal taping. The abortion giant is seeking damages in potentially millions of dollars.
The defense is arguing that California law allows covert taping of confidential information when gathering evidence of violent crimes against the person and that the law does not regard conversations that can be overheard as confidential. Further, the federal law against recording confidential conversations only applies if the recordings are done for the purpose of committing a further crime or tort.
Moreover, they argue that the citizen journalists were exercising their First Amendment rights, and are not legally liable for any alleged damages, or for the public outrage resulting from the publication of the videos.