Skip to main content

National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress

Description:  David Daleiden and other investigative journalists under his direction at the Center for Medical Progress recorded videos while undercover at National Abortion Federation conferences in 2014 and 2015 to expose potentially illegal fetal tissue procurement activities involving NAF and Planned Parenthood.


Friday, Apr 21, 2017
 
Attorney sound bite:  Elissa Graves
 
SAN FRANCISCO – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List Education Fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that encourages the full court to take up the case of David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress and uphold First Amendment freedoms for investigative journalists.

The brief in National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress argues that Daleiden and others working under his direction did not “knowingly and intelligently relinquish their First Amendment rights” when they signed agreements while attending and recording National Abortion Federation conferences in 2014 and 2015 to expose potentially illegal fetal tissue procurement activities involving NAF and Planned Parenthood. A divided 9th Circuit panel sided with NAF last month.

“No one can say that you agreed to give up your constitutionally protected freedoms when you didn’t,” said ADF Legal Counsel Elissa Graves. “Courts have repeatedly made clear that no one loses their First Amendment freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press, except perhaps when they have knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently surrendered those freedoms. No one with Center for Medical Progress did that; therefore, we are asking the full 9th Circuit to take up this case and reverse the panel’s decision.”

As the ADF brief on behalf of the Susan B. Anthony List Education Fund explains, “Defendants had no way of knowing that such agreement would be used to prohibit their exercise of First Amendment rights, especially where Defendants sought to expose potentially illegal activity to both law enforcement and the public at large…. The Agreements did not clearly and unambiguously state that adopting the agreement would result in the waiver of First Amendment or other fundamental rights. Defendants did not therefore voluntarily relinquish their First Amendment rights, and the finding of waiver by the District Court was therefore improper.”

Sixteen states have taken action to defund Planned Parenthood, largely in the wake of the authenticated undercover videos that the Center for Medical Progress released and multiple scandals, including waste, abuse, and potential fraud that ADF has reported annually to Congress. Both Congress and the Trump administration have taken action to reduce funding to Planned Parenthood, and a new bill expected in Congress may soon defund the abortion giant.

“The momentum to end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood is accelerating because Americans now know the grisly truth about Planned Parenthood,” said Graves. “Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize America’s number one abortion purveyor, especially when it has been involved in numerous scandals, many of which directly involve taxpayer dollars.” (#DefundPP)
 

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
 
# # # | Ref. 59561

Commentary

Legal Documents

Complaint: National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress
Temporary restraining order: National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress
District court decision: National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress
9th Circuit panel opinion: National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress
Friend-of-the-court brief: National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress