An anti-abortion group has asked a federal appeals court to block an order that the group disclose by Friday the names of those who allegedly conspired to secretly record an abortion trade group’s April 2014 meetings.
The emergency petition to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals contends the ordered disclosure would “seriously, imminently and irreparably” threaten the First Amendment activities of the group and participants.
The order October 30 by U.S. District Judge William Orrick required the Center for Medical Progress and its founder David Daleiden to disclose the names by October 30 and then by Friday, Dec. 4.
Daleidin and the group were behind the undercover” sting” videos of a Planned Parenthood doctor. Orrick order the center to surrender to outside lawyers the originals and all copies of material covered by a July temporary restraining order.
The litigation stemmed from the center’s July release of at least six videos of Planned Parenthood officials and others discussing the preservation and transfer of fetal tissue for research.
Planned Parenthood responded in August after its own internal review by saying four of the videos were deceptively edited to imply wrongdoing. Planned Parenthood said there was no evidence it sold fetal tissue for profit as alleged.
The undercover footage allegedly showed a Planned Parenthood doctor talking about the sale of fetal body parts after abortions that raised the ire of House Republicans in Congress and launched an investigation and calls to defund Planned Parenthood.
The National Abortion Federation sought the injunction to prohibit Daleidin and his group from speaking publicly about the controversial and potentially criminal conduct in human tissue procurement.
Orrick denied the latest request by the anti-abortion group to stay the order to turn over the tapes and instead ordered them to disclose the information by Friday.
On November 25, the group went to the 9th Circuit seeking an order blocking the order and allowing the group to retain the material based on First Amendment protections.
Case: In re The Center for Medical Progress, No. 15-17318