Kamala Harris teamed up with Planned Parenthood to target David Daleiden

washingtontimes.com

Officials from California Attorney General Kamala Harris‘ office and Planned Parenthood collaborated to draft legislation targeting the pro-life activist whose undercover videos showed officials for the nation’s largest abortion provider discussing the sale of fetal body parts, emails show.

The emails depict conversations between the state agency and Planned Parenthood over AB 1671, which would amend the penal code to make secretly recording and disseminating communications with health care providers a crime. Gov. Jerry Brown has until the end of the month to sign or veto the bill.

AB 1671 is a response to the Center for Medical Progress’ undercover video series spearheaded by David Daleiden.

The emails show Beth Parker, chief legal counsel for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, sending multiple drafts of AB 1671 to Jill Habig, who was at the time special counsel to the attorney general.

“Attached is the language for AB 1671, proposed amendments to Penal Code section 632,” Ms. Parker wrote in an email marked March 8. “I look forward to your thoughts about this.”

Ms. Parker sent a revised draft of the legislation to Ms. Habig on March 16. “Here’s the rewrite of the video tape bill,” she wrote. “Let me know what you think.”

Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor of jurisprudence at Chapman University, said the emails show Ms. Harris is a “tool ofPlanned Parenthood.” He said it is not uncommon for the attorney general to play a role in the legislative process, but added that Ms. Harris in this case was “working with Planned Parenthood to protect it from criminal prosecution.”

“The state attorney general is supposed to represent the people of California, not a particular industry in California,” Mr. Rotunda said. “What would people say if the attorney general would be working with the local slaughterhouses to help them cover up instances of cruelty to animals?”

A spokesperson for the Office of the Attorney General acknowledged a request for comment from The Washington Times, but subsequent emails asking about the extent of the office’s involvement in drafting AB 1671 went unanswered.