The recent dismissal of charges against pro-life activists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt marks a significant defeat for radical abortion activist Kamala Harris.
During her tenure as California Attorney General, Harris initiated the prosecution against them. Now both pro-life advocates will face no criminal repercussions for exposing how Planned Parenthood sold aborted baby parts.
Daleiden and Merritt, associated with the Center for Medical Progress, gained national attention in 2015 after releasing undercover videos alleging that Planned Parenthood was involved in the sale of body parts from aborted babies. These videos sparked widespread controversy and led to multiple investigations into Planned Parenthood’s practices.
Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
In response to the videos, Harris’s office conducted a search of Daleiden’s home in 2016, seizing documents and equipment related to the undercover investigation. This action was unprecedented, as it marked the first time that California had prosecuted individuals for undercover recordings related to abortion practices. Critics argued that Harris’s actions were politically motivated, pointing to her close ties with Planned Parenthood, which had been a significant supporter of her political campaigns.
The legal battle continued for several years, with Daleiden and Merritt facing multiple bogus felony charges from Harris.
However, in a recent development, the California Attorney General’s Office agreed to drop all charges against the activists. This decision was part of a plea agreement that concluded the prolonged legal proceedings without any admission of guilt from Daleiden and Merritt.
Daleiden celebrated defeating Harris.
“After enduring 9 years of weaponized political prosecution, putting an end to the lawfare launched by Kamala Harris is a huge victory for my investigative reporting and for the public’s right to know the truth about Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby body parts. Now we all must get to work to protect families and infants from the criminal abortion-industrial complex,” states Daleiden. “Taking the San Francisco case off the board allows me to focus fully on CMP’s mission to report on the injustices of taxpayer-funded experiments on aborted babies and continue to expand our groundbreaking investigative reporting.”
Troy Newman, Co-founder of Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and President of Operation Rescue, who also faced persecution from Harris, told LifeNews he was glad to see her defeated.
“After nearly a decade of relentless political persecution, Sandra Merritt, a courageous member of our team, has emerged victorious in her battle against the State of California and Kamala Harris. Merritt, a trusted undercover investigator whose work exposed Planned Parenthood’s ghastly trade in aborted baby body parts, was unjustly targeted with 16 felony charges—an unprecedented assault on investigative journalism,” he said.
As co-founder of the Center for Medical Progress and President of Operation Rescue, I had the honor of working closely with Sandra during this investigation. Together, we devised strategies and executed a bold plan to reveal the horrifying depths of the abortion industry’s practices. Our work uncovered undeniable evidence of Planned Parenthood executives treating the remains of aborted babies as mere commodities, haggling over prices for tiny, bloodied arms and legs, and discussing ways to manipulate abortion methods to ensure more “sellable” body parts.
The prosecution of CMP members that followed in California was nothing more than a political witch hunt, orchestrated by pro-abortion leaders to silence the truth. Instead of investigating Planned Parenthood’s criminal activities, state officials – including Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra – colluded with the abortion industry to attack pro-life advocates like Sandra and me.
The dismissal of these charges is seen by many as a defeat for Harris, as it undermines the legal actions she initiated against these courageous pro-life heroes. Critics have rightly accused her of weaponizing the Attorney General’s office to target individuals exposing potential misconduct by organizations that supported her politically. The outcome of this case raises questions about the impartiality of prosecutorial decisions and the influence of political affiliations on legal actions.
