SHOCKING: Fifth Circuit Rules Planned Parenthood Videos Were Not Edited

Planned Parenthood just suffered a stinging defeat in court in regards to videos that showed staffers at the company negotiating prices for aborted baby parts, as PJ Media reports:

In 2015, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a list of sting videos showing staffers at Planned Parenthood affiliates negotiating prices for aborted baby body parts.

Planned Parenthood hired Fusion GPS — the firm notorious for compiling the Trump-Russia dossier — to blast the sting videos as “deceptively edited.” That narrative received a powerful legal defeat earlier this month.


The footage implicating Planned Parenthood in the sale of aborted baby body parts for profit was not just embarrassing — it also revealed illegal behavior.

The State of Texas decided to strip $3.1 million in Medicaid funding from the abortion giant due to this law-breaking, and Planned Parenthood sued to retain it.

A district court issued an injunction preventing Texas from taking the money, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the injunction.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Edith H. Jones issued a rebuke to the district court.

“The district court stated, inaccurately, that the CMP video had not been authenticated and suggested that it may have been edited,” Jones wrote in the ruling.

The district court had ruled against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), but it did not give OIG a fair hearing, Jones argued.

The district court “felt free to credit all of the trial testimony from [Planned Parenthood]—none of which had been offered during the state administrative procedures— [but] the court bound the IG solely to the administrative record and expressly refused to consider any support for termination ‘not included in the Final Notice and not part of the Inspector General’s termination decision.’”

“Having thus narrowed the evidence, the court concluded that OIG ‘did not have prima facie . . . evidence, or even a scintilla of evidence, to conclude the bases of termination set forth in the Final Notice merited finding the Plaintiff Providers were not qualified,’” Jones wrote.

To Top