Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Planned Parenthood has Been Asking Journalists to Sign NDAs at Events

Planned Parenthood has Been Asking Journalists to Sign NDAs at Events

Planned Parenthood passes out these NDAs, even though it “has positioned itself as a bulwark against an administration that regularly attacks press credibility.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scH13YZRpIw

Vice reporter Carter Sherman revealed that Planned Parenthood had asked her two times to sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) at a happy hour for the media.

The abortion organization asked her to sign one in 2018 when Sherman covered its Power of Pink volunteer training event.

This second NDA rightfully upset Sherman, who informed Planned Parenthood she planned to call them out on their agreements with reporters. Now the organization has scurried to clear up this apparent “misunderstanding.” (Please note the sarcasm)

After Sherman told her plans to Planned Parenthood, it quickly emailed journalists listed to attend the happy hour that they do not need to sign the NDA because an employee mistakenly sent it.

Not good enough for Sherman. She pointed out she had to sign one in 2018. It looks like Sherman caught Planned Parenthood in a few lies:

Planned Parenthood told VICE News it is not their policy to require NDAs of reporters covering the organization.

“Planned Parenthood is proud of the work we do to ensure that journalists and editors have access to the incredible staff, patients, services, and education that we provide,” Erica Sackin, senior director of communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told VICE News in an email. “We pride ourselves on our transparency, and our support for freedom of the press as a pillar of our democracy.”

But she did concede that the organization had asked reporters for NDAs, but characterized those request as mistakes.

“That said, our interactions with reporters around this have been less than perfect,” Sackin said. “It is not — and has not been — our official policy to require any reporter to sign an NDA that would prevent them from reporting an event we’re asking them to cover, or for informal off-the-record events. In instances when we have asked reporters to do so, it has been the result of miscommunication and misunderstanding between staff, or of staff members out of an abundance of caution enforcing rules that should not apply to journalists.”

Sackin’s explanation contradicts what another employee told Sherman, who said she would not attend the happy hour:

The staffer promised to ask the legal team if I could get around it. But, they added, “Our policy is to have all people who enter our event spaces people sign an NDA (with allowances for journalists to report) so we would need sign off from our legal department to register you without one.”

What does “allowances for journalists to report” mean? I asked.

“I was just referring to the fact that [the] wording of the NDA doesn’t preclude journalists from speaking to folks on the record,” the staffer said. “It’s not written as such specifically for journalists, but there’s a section on rightfully receiving confidential information from a Third Party.”

When I asked VICE News’ lawyer for his help understanding the NDA’s restrictions, he told me that despite those reporting “allowances,” I would still likely not be able to report on any information I learned from Planned Parenthood staff or associates — a restriction that could drastically hinder my reporting. Both the NDA I saw in 2018 and the one this week include that language.

Non-journalists tend to receive the NDAs, which makes sense. I can understand why any organization would do that.

Reporters, even “bloggers” like us, will agree to talk to people off-the-record, but it is not the same as agreeing to a legal document. That document can ruin a person’s career (emphasis mine):

“It’s easier to punish someone,” Culver said of NDAs. “A reporter thinks, ‘Ugh, I signed that NDA; I’ve gotta be extra careful, I’ve gotta be on the watch.’ It’s someone saying, ‘I have a tool of enforcement,’ and then that may make you less courageous.”

Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota, agreed.

“Whether it’s an association like Planned Parenthood or a corporation, it’s just giving them the ability to essentially control the narrative,” Kirtley told me of asking journalists to sign NDAs. “Putting aside the legitimate concerns that they may have about subterfuge and so forth, for me, the bottom line is organizations like this cannot expect the news media to essentially be an extension of their public relations arm.”

Executive Director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation Trevor Timm echoed Kirtley’s sentiments, basically saying the NDAs intimidate the journalists (emphasis mine):

“You wouldn’t know for sure if the information you heard from some third party, at this party, was covered. You’re going to have to spend [time] with your legal counsel,” Timm said. “It’s going to be very stressful for you, and, you know, for a lot of people they’re just going to be like, ‘They’re not worth it.’ And that’s what these legal instruments often are used for, for those kind of grey-area situations where the company is not going to sue you but they know just by having you sign this, it will potentially keep you quiet.”

Sherman noted that Planned Parenthood passes out these NDAs, even though it “has positioned itself as a bulwark against an administration that regularly attacks press credibility.”

President Donald Trump is not always wrong about the media. I mean, look at what CNN’s Chris Cuomo did yesterday. We have seen a 180 change in the press from President Barack Obama to Trump. I would not mind the intense reporting on the Trump administration if reporters applied that same effort to Democrats.

Anyway, Sherman is correct. While the First Amendment only applies to the government, the NDAs displays another layer of Planned Parenthood hypocrisy. You cannot call out the president for stifling free press while trying to oppress it yourself.

Then again, it is not a shock that Planned Parenthood wants to control the narrative. We know the organization survives on infanticide. We all know the organization could survive without the help of our tax money.

Planned Parenthood does not want its dirty secrets getting out. Can you blame them? The pro-life side grows as more people learn about how a baby dies in an abortion.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Reporter. NDA.

LOL.

    Concise in reply to Barry. | November 22, 2019 at 7:15 pm

    It is beyond a joke. Reporters are supposed to objectively relate the facts. How does one objectively relate anything when you are in a contractual relationship with the object of your reporting? At the very least this is a serious conflict of interest and a gross violation of basic journalistic ethics. Of course, that is assuming there is any such thing as journalistic ethics anymore.

      Especially if those reporters do not reveal the contractual obligations to the public (readers, listeners, and watchers)
      It used to be called “conflict of interest”.

[Elective] abortion and [clinical] cannibalism.

That said, rites preclude rights.

Don’t reporters already do EXACTLY what Planned Parenthood tells them?

There were times and places where Planned Parenthood was about birth control, and abortion only as a last resort. That was when birth control was far less easily available, as well as less effective.

A lot has changed since then.

One of the things that has changed is that the mission of the entity has changed from birth control to abortion and the kind of education that looks more like grooming. The Gateway Pundit published educational materials for elementary students that parents considered obscene. Why Planned Parenthood thinks it would be appropriate to teach elementary students about “fisting” is beyond me.

Another thing that changed is that Planned Parenthood turned to the sale of human body parts as a revenue stream. The entity was exposed as making decisions in its financial interests as opposed to the best interests of the patient, without disclosing the reason for those decisions. These included pushing back the date of the abortion to allow for greater fetal growth, and denial of proper anesthesia to obtain more commercially valuable body parts.

I am sure they don’t want to answer real questions from reporters.

President Donald Trump is not always wrong about the media

What’s that even mean? Whhen has President Donald Trump ever been wrong about the media?

“… the First Amendment only applies to the government…”

True, but our government shouldn’t be giving ANY of our tax money to any organization that tramples on any of our rights.

Lucifer Morningstar | November 22, 2019 at 4:35 pm

Planned Parenthood told VICE News it is not their policy to require NDAs of reporters covering the organization.

After Sherman told her plans to Planned Parenthood, it quickly emailed journalists listed to attend the happy hour that they do not need to sign the NDA because an employee mistakenly sent it

But if Planned Parenthood doesn’t “require NDAs of reporters covering the organization” then why does Planned Parenthood have a blank NDA document on file that can be and apparently has been “mistakenly sent” to reporters.

Why would planned Butcherhood need NDas that funny never apply to leftists?

Does the democrat party or democrat campaigns require NDAs too?

Proof positive they’re not journalists, but that they’re in business with Abortion Inc.

Should be called the David Daleiden NDA.

You write that the first amendment only applies to the government. That is so. Courts, sheriffs, marshals are the only ones who can enforce an NDA. They are also part of the government and so the first amendment applies to them. Therefore, how can an NDA be enforced?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend