Survey: 1 in 4 Americans Skips Doctor Because of Cost
America's Cheapest Family Joins Jim Paris Live

Group Behind Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos Seeks to Have Judge Disqualified

The Center for Medical Progress (CMP), responsible for capturing on video the ultra-candid admissions of Planned Parenthood (PP) staff and affiliates about the abortion-related work they do, is hitting back at a federal judge who recently ordered their latest productions to be kicked off the Internet.

According to Live Action News, attorneys for CMP and its founder, David Daleiden, have filed a motion in a Northern California U.S. District Court that asks for Judge William H. Orrick III to be disqualified “on the grounds that there is evidence of bias in favor of the plaintiff and prejudice against the defendants.”


The plaintiff in the latest case brought against CMP is the National Abortion Federation (NAF). The NAF is suing the anti-abortion group on the basis that the ghoulish videos might inflame to such a degree that lives of NAF member abortionists could be endangered.

You may be familiar with the most recent CMP videos to surface, as they’ve received a fair bit of press coverage. The recordings, made at a variety of NAF trade shows (the abortion industry has trade shows – chew on the for a second), reveal various abortionists matter-of-factly griping about hassles that arise during the grim procedures, like “the head that gets stuck that we can’t get out,” and “an eyeball just fell down into my lap, and that is gross!”


The affidavit filed on behalf of Daleiden and CMP accuses the judge of, among other things, having a rather cozy relationship with an organization that has historically strong ties to Planned Parenthood. The organization, Good Samaritan Family Resource Center (GSFRC) in San Francisco, is an abortion referral center for PP. Judge Orrick was a legal advisor to GSFRC from 1986 to 2009.

An excerpt of the affidavit references Judge Orrick’s alleged professional conflict of interest, as well as personal comments both he and his wife have allegedly made in public forums that call into question his ability to remain impartial while adjudicating cases involving Planned Parenthood and any of its affiliates:

This includes Judge Orrick’s longstanding relationship as a past board member, and more recently as an emeritus board member, of an organization that has a “key partnership” with a Planned Parenthood affiliate that is a member of the plaintiff National Abortion Federation (NAF). Judge Orrick’s wife has also posted public comments, pictured with her husband, that are supportive of Planned Parenthood and critical of these moving defendants. For this reason, and the others set forth below, Daleiden and CMP respectfully request that Judge Orrick be recused from this case and that a stay be granted on all proceedings in this case until this motion is heard.”

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large