The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that allows Texas to strip Planned Parenthood of its Medicaid funding.

The decision, which is tied to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s call to have Planned Parenthood removed as a qualified Medicaid provider following the release of several damning undercover videos, should come as a major blow to not just the abortion provider, but also the press.

The ruling shatters the claim that the tapes, which feature Planned Parenthood associates discussing the processes by which organs from the remains of aborted children can be harvested and donated (for a fee), were selectively edited. It also affirms that Planned Parenthood associates did indeed circumvent legal and ethical guidelines in pursuit of harvesting human organs, all of this in direct contradiction to what the so-called women’s health organization and its eager defenders in the press claimed after the tapes were released in 2015.

The 5th Circuit's decision (WARNING: graphic content) includes these two key quotes affirming earlier findings by the Texas Office of Inspector General and its Chief Medical Officer:



[T]he record reflects that OIG had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited. And the plaintiffs [Planned Parenthood] did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.



[…]



[T]here is no question that the OIG here made factual findings after viewing the videos and related evidence. On the basis of the administrative record … the OIG determined that video discussions “centered on clinic processes and tissue packaging rather than the abortion procedure itself; the video featured repeated discussion about the position of the fetus in the uterus, the risk to the patient, and the patient’s pain tolerance.” The OIG further concluded, based on the videos, that the Provider Plaintiffs at a minimum violated federal standards regarding fetal tissue research and standards of medical ethics by allowing doctors to alter abortion procedures to retrieve tissue for research purposes or allowing the researchers themselves to perform the procedures.



If you still believe everything you read in the news, the court’s ruling this week should come as a great shock.

When pro-life activist David Daleiden and his team at the Center for Medical Progress released the tapes in 2015, Planned Parenthood leaned heavily on the defense that the videos were unfairly doctored. This defense was parroted immediately by a servile press, despite that Planned Parenthood never explained what additional context would have exonerated its senior director of medical services saying on tape that the group was "doing a little better than" breaking even for donated organs (it is illegal to profit from the donation of fetal tissue. It is also illegal under federal law to perform partial birth abortions).

"Second Heavily Edited Planned Parenthood Attack Video Is Also a Big Bust,” Slate declared confidently.

"[A] little-known anti-abortion activist," Mother Jones reported, "ignited a firestorm by releasing ... selectively edited videos."

Planned Parenthood also enlisted the aid of the Democratic-aligned firm Fusion GPS to “prove” that the tapes were unfairly edited. Fusion GPS’ subsequent study, a note-for-note recitation of Planned Parenthood’s "selectively edited" defense, was likewise deemed factual and accurate by newsrooms, despite that it was based on a review of only four of the eight videos that had been released.

“Report for Planned Parenthood finds sting videos manipulated,” Politico reported, stressing that Fusion GPS was careful to bring in "video and transcription experts" who are "not associated with Planned Parenthood."

The firms "findings" are the first "comprehensive account of the video's discrepancies,” the article added.

"Planned Parenthood Videos Were Altered, Analysis Finds,” the New York Times reported.

The Huffington Post said elsewhere that the "'Sting' Videos Of Planned Parenthood Are Totally Manipulated, Forensic Analysis Finds,” adding that even “the supposedly unedited 'full' footage is misleadingly altered, experts say.”

Vox’s Sarah Kliff, who in 2013 dismissed questions about her lack of coverage for convicted serial killer and abortionist Kermit Gosnell by describing the episode as a “ local crime" story, penned an article titled, “I thought I saw all the Planned Parenthood sting footage. Turns out the tapes were edited.”

Not a single one of these reports mentioned Fusion GPS' historical ties to the Democratic Party, which is about as aligned with Planned Parenthood as the GOP is with the National Rifle Association.

As certain newsrooms worked hard to delegitimize the videos based on nothing but the say-so of Planned Parenthood and a Democrat-aligned public relations firm, other newsrooms went out of their way to portray the producer of the tapes as an “ extremist.”

Four years later, we learn from the 5th Circuit that the videos were neither selectively edited, nor was it false to say that Planned Parenthood associates circumvented legal, medical, and ethical guidelines in pursuit of salvaging human remains.

The press talks a big game these days about standing up for the truth and safeguarding facts. But stories such as the undercover Planned Parenthood tapes are a good reminder that, for the national media, some facts are more deserving of protection than others.

(h/t Alexandra DeSanctis)