In a major defeat for the anti-abortion group that released controversial recordings of Planned Parenthood employees, a federal judge on Friday banned the activists from sharing undercover video of an annual conference of abortion providers, saying that hundreds of hours of tape contain “no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing”, as the activists claimed.

Grand jury investigating Planned Parenthood indicts anti-abortion activists instead Read more

The ruling, by US district judge William Orrick, also details for the first time how members of the group, the Center for Medical Progress, pursued their targets and tailored their footage to maximize political damage. At the annual meeting, hosted by the National Abortion Federation, activists operated off a “mark list” and, in one case, waited to approach a particular doctor until after she had been drinking.

Before releasing its first videos of Planned Parenthood employees, the center circulated a press release with “messaging guidelines”, Orrick wrote. The goal, the release said, was to inspire “Congressional hearings/investigation and political consequences” for Planned Parenthood, and increase “political pressure”.

Orrick previously blocked the center from releasing any footage taken at the NAF meeting. On Friday, he rejected claims by the Center for Medical Progress and its founder, David Daleiden, that its activities were a form of investigative journalism protected by the first amendment.

Videos of the NAF meeting “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions of criminal misconduct”, Orrick wrote. “Defendants did not – as Daleiden repeatedly asserts – use widely accepted investigatory journalism techniques. Defendants provide no evidence to support that assertion and no cases on point.”

The Center for Medical Progress burst on to the national scene last summer with a series of sting videos edited so they appeared to show Planned Parenthood employees selling fetal tissue in violation of federal law. Planned Parenthood denies the accusations, saying it donates fetal tissue to medical research companies at no cost.

The accusations in the videos have been disproved and 11 state-level investigations found no wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood. Still, the videos resulted in five separate congressional investigations of Planned Parenthood and unsuccessful efforts by Republicans in Congress to strip the group of half a billion dollars in federal family planning funds.

But Friday’s ruling, out of San Francisco, is another sign that the center’s campaign may be faltering.

In late January, a grand jury in Harris County, Texas, investigating Planned Parenthood over the videos declined to take action against the women’s healthcare provider and instead issued several indictments against Daleiden and another activist.

The indictments related to the false IDs Daleiden and Sandra Merritt used to present themselves as members of a fake biotech company. The charge, of tampering with a governmental record, carries between two and 20 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. Daleiden received a second indictment under a law prohibiting the purchase and sale of human organs. Daleiden offered to buy fetal organs from Planned Parenthood of the Gulf coast in an email to which Planned Parenthood never responded.

In a separate legal fight, StemExpress, a biotech firm conducting tissue research, won a restraining order against the center in Los Angeles superior court. It has promised to sue the group over invasion of privacy. The firm had ties to Planned Parenthood, and the sting videos caused the company’s CEO to receive online death threats. The restraining order prevents the center from releasing any video footage it took of StemExpress employees.

In his Friday ruling, Orrick said “a documented, dramatic increase in the volume and extent of threats to and harassment of NAF and its members” after the revelation of some video footage contributed to his ruling.

“There’s no denying that the fraudulent campaign launched by the defendants has put abortion providers at risk,” the NAF president, Vicki Saporta, said in a statement. “We are very grateful that the judge granted this preliminary injunction, which will help protect the safety and security of our members.”

Attorneys for the center vowed over the weekend to appeal against the ruling.