Shocker: LA Times editorial board finds CA charges against Center for Medical Progress ‘disturbing’

The Los Angeles Times could never be considered a pro-life news outlet (Live Action News has reported on the various ways in which it is anything but.) It comes as a surprise, then, that the Times’ editorial board would call the 15 felony counts brought against the Center for Medical Progress’s David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt by California AG Xavier Becerra this week “a disturbing overreach.”

The Center for Medical Progress released another of its undercover videos this week, showing a former Planned Parenthood director talking about the upper body strength needed to perform 24-week abortions and admitting that what she aborts can come out “looking like a baby.”

What’s not so surprising is that the LA Times editorial board isn’t suddenly doing an about face on Planned Parenthood. They refer to the abortion giant as “a healthcare provider,” and claim that the Center for Medical Progress’s videos are “heavily edited” (a claim which has been debunked) and have “failed” to discredit Planned Parenthood. Therefore, it speaks volumes that the Times’ editors are so beholden to Planned Parenthood and yet believe the charges against Daleiden and Merritt are unjust.

The Times’ editors seem to believe there’s a better way to chastise the Center for Medical Progress for daring to investigate Planned Parenthood’s gruesome practices — sue them for damages (emphasis mine):

It’s disturbingly aggressive for Becerra to apply this criminal statute to people who were trying to influence a contested issue of public policy, regardless of how sound or popular that policy may be. Planned Parenthood and biomedical company StemExpress, which was also featured in the videos, have another remedy for the harm that was done to them: They can sue Daleiden and Merritt for damages. The state doesn’t need to threaten the pair with prison time.

While the editorial emphasizes the support for Planned Parenthood to the very end, the editor’s belief in the state’s wrongdoing in bringing these charges is also made clear. “Nevertheless, as misguided as [Daleiden and Merritt] were,” assert the Times’ editors, “their aim was to change people’s views on important and controversial issues — abortion and fetal tissue research.”

As Live Action News has highlighted, the state of California has shown its hypocrisy by showing support for other undercover investigations, even efforts by NARAL to attack life-affirming crisis pregnancy centers, which resulted in “bully laws” against the free speech of such centers.

If even the LA Times can see the California attorney general’s attack on Planned Parenthood’s opponents for what it is, perhaps the abortion industry’s friends have crossed a bridge too far.