fbpx
Articles

Explainer: Disturbing allegations made in Planned Parenthood v. Center for Medical Progress

/
November 7, 2019

On Sept. 3, 2019, a criminal hearing began over a series of undercover videos taken by David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). The videos were taken of several individuals from 2014 and 2015 surrounding the National Abortion Federation conferences. After the videos were released, this created a flurry of national news about Planned Parenthood illegally trafficking in fetal tissue. Some of the strongest accusations came against the company StemExpress, which acts as a kind of middleman between hospitals and clinics like Planned Parenthood (where “samples” can be collected) and facilities that use fetal tissue for research.

Planned Parenthood subsequently filed suit against Daleiden and Merritt, who have been charged with 15 crimes, including “violating the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO Act) and engaging in wire fraud, mail fraud, invasion of privacy, illegal secret recording, and trespassing.” Daleiden asserted that he and Merritt were acting as undercover journalists trying to expose illegal activity and that their activities should be protected. Additionally, he and his attorneys say that the videos were taken in public locations where there wasn’t an expectation of privacy.

Subsequent to the criminal hearing, the case has moved to a civil trial in which Planned Parenthood is seeking damages against Daleiden and CMP. Jury selection began on Oct. 2. Since proceedings have begun, the judge overseeing the civil trial has repeatedly blocked evidence presented by the defense about Planned Parenthood’s actions involving the sale of fetal tissue. In his opening statements, the judge said that the case, “is not about the truth of whether plaintiffs profited from the sale of fetal tissue or otherwise violated the law in securing tissue for those programs,” and, “Those issues are a matter of dispute between the parties in the world outside this courtroom.” Thus, he has kept the scope of the trial to narrowly focus on the civil charges surrounding Daleiden rather than on potential allegations surrounding Planned Parenthood.  

The case is ongoing and will continue through at least Nov. 15.

During the midst of the hearings and trial, several disturbing claims have been made. One of the many examples concerned the harvesting of fetal brain tissue. According to the CMP website, “In her sworn testimony, Doe 12 admitted that when a fetal brain is able to be harvested, it is because the baby’s head may still be attached to the body after being pulled out of the womb. When confronted with her statements on undercover video about shipping ‘intact cases,’ she also did not deny that StemExpress harvests and transfers unborn children from completely intact abortions.” 

As Christians, we believe that all people, including the unborn, are created in the image of God with infinite worth and value (Gen. 1:26-27).

These and other allegations imply that fetuses could potentially still be alive when their organs are harvested. One such disturbing account details how a fetal heart was momentarily revived during a procedure to remove the brain after it had already died.

How ought Christians to think about this?

Dr. C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D., Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University and a research fellow of the ERLC corresponded by email to comment on this case:

There are several perverse ironies in this case. First, in nearly any other context David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt would be hailed as heroic protectors of human rights. When television journalists pose undercover to expose bad behavior in big business the public response is usually a positive “gotcha!” Or when police run sting operations to catch men soliciting prostitutes, the response is gratitude for cleaning up the streets of America. But when investigators go undercover to expose potential infanticide StemExpress has the temerity to go to court and some people raise eyebrows of disapproval against the whistleblowers. This demonstrates just how protected the abortion industry is in our culture. 

Another perverse irony in this case is that if animal vivisectionists were on trial, the public outcry would be deafening. Most Americans, in fact most Westerners, find dissection of live monkeys, dogs, or rabbits morally reprehensible, and for good reasons. No one should be so cruel as to inflict unnecessary pain on another living creature. Yet in a culture numbed by the abortion of more than 50 million unborn children since 1973, exposure of late-term abortion and infanticide are treated like tabloid journalism and the whistleblowers are guilty until proven innocent.

According to the Washington Times, jury selection began Oct. 1 for the case against Daleiden and Merritt. The jury will decide whether the pair were guilty of fraud and trespassing. This is the latest perverse irony. In any other context the protection of human life would take precedence over corporate privacy claims. So StemExpress can keep its despicable practices hidden behind a veil of protection, while Daleiden and Merritt are exposed to public ridicule and possible jail time. Abortion in America has truly turned the world upside down.

As Christians, we believe that all people, including the unborn, are created in the image of God with infinite worth and value (Gen. 1:26-27). Throughout Scripture, the unborn are continually described as having worth and value and having human characteristics, including having a will (Gen. 25:21-26), emotions (Luke 1:44), having a purpose and destiny (Jer. 1:5), and even being able to be filled with the Holy Spirit as it was with John the Baptist (Luke 1:15). We ought to seek to defend their lives from abortion and from having their body parts used or sold in illegal ways. Pray that this case can be used to stir the consciences of Americans so that the brutal practice of abortion can be done away with.

Neal Hardin

Neal Hardin grew up in Murrieta, CA before getting his BS in Metallurgical Engineering from the University of Utah in 2012. Following that, he worked as an engineer for 4 years at a steel mill before the Lord called him to pursue a seminary education in 2016. Neal is currently a … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24