Ninth Circuit hears arguments regarding footage of baby parts for sale

Judges, pro-life investigators and abortion industry organizations presented arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday regarding the release of videos that exposed Planned Parenthood's alleged sales of baby parts.

According to The Recorder, the pro-life group Center for Medical Progress (CMP) signed confidentiality agreements before it infiltrated the annual meetings of National Abortion Federation (NAF) to record secret footage. CMP claimed that the video showed abortion providers discussing the sale of fetal organs.

The court is expected to decide whether the injunction blocking the release of the videos should be permanent or not.

Last February, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against the release of the videos. The injunction required law enforcement to go through a subpoena process in order to view the footage.

Marc Hearron, an attorney for NAF, believed that the district judge made the right decision but two judges from the panel were not convinced.

"What if there was a video that showed that a full-term baby that was born and the physician put its hand over the child's mouth?" Judge Consuelo Callahan asked Hearmon. "I'm very concerned that you seem to be saying that they can't go to the police," he continued.

Hearron tried to point out that the main goal of CMP was to release the videos online and not to surrender them to the authorities. Judge Andrew Hurwitz replied that the group has been "dying to" turn the videos over to law enforcement.

Brunn Roysden of the Arizona Attorney General's office argued that Orrick was mistaken in limiting the ability of law enforcement to gather evidence. He said that his office was able to obtain a footage but it could have accessed it sooner without the restriction.

Catherine Short of the Life Legal Defense Fund, stated that the confidentiality agreements should not hinder individuals from releasing information in the name of public interest, providing that it was not classified.

"What standing do you have to represent the public's right to know as opposed to your client's right to speak?" Hurwitz asked in return.

According to a public information officer that spoke to LifeSiteNews, the ruling will be handed down after several meetings. In one of the meetings the judges will discuss the decision and assign who will write the court's opinion. The judges will meet again to agree on the wording of the written opinion.