Planned Parenthood Cleared, but 2 Indicted Over Videos. Brian J. Rosenthal, Chron.com
A grand jury convened to investigate whether a Houston Planned Parenthood clinic had sold the organs of aborted fetuses on Monday cleared the clinic and instead indicted the undercover videographers behind the allegations, surprising the officials who called for the probe and delighting supporters of the women's health organization.
Already District Attorney Devon Anderson, and her supporters are heralding this as a triumph of justice over party politics. While her detractors are suggesting that this is purely political and, at least in part, driven by the fact that Anderson is facing no electoral pressure from the Right. In fact, Ms. Anderson's next contested election will be against Democratic candidate for D.A. Kim Ogg.
On a State level, both Attorney General Ken Paxton and Governor Abbott both weighed in that the State's investigation is continuing despite these indictments, something (oddly) Anderson's supporters are now suggesting IS pure politics.
There is an old saying of questionable provenance which goes something like this: "In Texas, a prosecutor could get an indictment against a ham sandwich." With a pick-a-pal selection system (recently done away with) the odds have always been tilted in the favor of indictment, IF the DA wishes to indict. Even without pick-a-pal, the evidentiary rules are still more favorable to obtaining an indictment then not. What this means is that the indictments that were handed down were done so because D.A. Devon Anderson wanted them to be. Whether her reasons were based on the rule of law (as supporters claim) for electoral reasons (as detractors claim) or because her and her staff are sympathetic toward (and in at least one case work for) Planned Parenthood is open to debate.
What is not debatable is that this process has played out exactly as Anderson desired. While we may never fully know Anderson's motivations, we at least know that we're going to be treated to a circus show of a trial that could potentially ask some fairly serious 1st Amendment questions. As I've stated before, many people believe that only certain (state-approved) media outlets truly enjoy free speech protection under the 1st Amendment. The question of whether or not an issues-based activist group does or no is something the courts will have to decide.
For now we wait, and see exactly how this is going to play out. Before I end this however I have one question that I have yet to find an answer for.
If you've viewed the footage, and I have, then what you see in some cases is a negotiation over price for an illegal transaction regarding aborted baby organs. Given that the act of buying and selling of human organs is illegal, then how can you charge the Center for Medical Progress with buying and not charge Planned Parenthood with solicitation of the same? Going back to the ham sandwich theory of indictments I think that's a fair question to ask DA Anderson.
It will be interesting to see if anyone in the media has interest in asking it.
