What the “ISIS Bride” and Rachel Dolezal Have in Common
Monday night, BuzzFeed posted a lengthy investigative report by Ellie Hall about a young Christian-raised woman from Tennessee who became an “ISIS bride.” The woman, who tweets under the name Umm Aminah but who was christened Ariel Bradley by her parents, grew up in the Chattanooga area and now lives in an ISIS-controlled portion of Syria with her husband and children. From there, she has praised Mohammad Abdulazeez for his deadly attack on a Chattanooga military recruiting center. She tweeted, “Gifted this morning not only with Eid but w/ the news of a brother puttin fear n the heart of kufar [non-believers] n the city of my birth. Alhamdullilah [thanks be to God].”
BuzzFeed pieced together the 29-year-old Bradley's story through conversations with her friends and a brief interview with her mother. Her friend Robert Parker says that Bradley was raised by a fundamentalist mother who was intent on keeping “her away from materials that would make her question Christianity.” Not only was Bradley homeschooled; she didn't even learn to read until she was a preteen.
Bradley started rebelling against her parents in adolescence and spent her teens and early adulthood drifting from one identity to another, according to her friends. “It was like, when I first met her she was a Christian, and then she was a socialist, and then she was an atheist, and then a Muslim,” one friend explained. “As far as I could tell it was always in relation to whatever guy she was interested in, so if she meets a guy that’s an atheist then she’s an atheist, falls into that for a year.”
This search for an identity led Bradley to convert to Islam and swiftly become quite fanatical about it. She rushed into marriage with Yasin Mohamad, whom she met on Muslim “matrimony site” Half Our Deen. They married in Sweden, had kids immediately, and at some point, moved to Syria to join up with ISIS.
Though the two women are literally worlds apart, there are echoes between Bradley's story and that of former NAACP chapter president Rachel Dolezal. Dolezal became an object of national fascination a month ago when a reporter revealed she's been passing herself off as black, even though she was born to and raised by white people. (In an interview published over the weekend at Vanity Fair, Dolezal tried to explain: “I wouldn’t say I’m African American, but I would say I’m black, and there’s a difference in those terms.”)
Like Bradley, Dolezal was raised by home-schooling Christian fundamentalists, and like Bradley, she has major tensions with her family—tensions that apparently spurred her to transform her identity completely in order to disassociate herself from them.
Of course, though Dolezal's ruse hurt a lot of people, she's not advocating for war on nonbelievers or needlessly putting her children in harm's way. But these two stories raise many questions about the impact of fundamentalist ideas about child-rearing. TLC has finally canceled 19 Kids and Counting after revelations that the Duggar family shielded their eldest son after he was caught molesting girls as a teenager. Perhaps we're finally beginning to see that the Christian home-schooling movement, and the hypersheltering of children that's all the rage in conservative Christian circles, isn't cute and wholesome at all—that it has a sinister side.
Xena: Warrior Princess Is a Fantastic Idea for a Reboot
Genuinely exciting reboot alert: The Hollywood Reporter reports that NBC, along with producers Rob Tapert and Sam Raimi, are looking for a head writer to reboot the '90s-era cheeseball fantasy hit Xena: Warrior Princess. The original show was a 1995 spinoff of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys but quickly surpassed its predecessor in reputation, largely because of the onscreen charisma of New Zealand actress Lucy Lawless, who starred as Xena. (She went on to have a strong career in sci-fi and fantasy TV, playing characters on Battlestar Galactica and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
As with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the original Xena got a lot of attention not just for having female lead characters who kick butt, but for showing women who are actually friends, not catty rivals. Xena took it a step further by heavily implying throughout much of the series that Xena and her female friend and traveling companion Gabrielle are lovers.
The time is ripe for a Xena reboot. The popularity of Mad Max: Fury Road has shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that audiences will pay to see warrior women onscreen so long as the action and story is good. Game of Thrones has demonstrated that mainstream audiences can embrace a fantasy setting as well, even if fantasy isn't usually their go-to genre. Not every superhero story has to have some pseudo-scientific explanation for the hero's powers, as happens in the Marvel universe—maybe it's time for a little more out-and-out magic.
As Rob Bricken at io9 points out, advances in special effects since the first Xena and generally higher audience expectations for story complexity both mean that a reboot can enhance the franchise “as opposed to just trotting it back out because people remember the name.” Perhaps Xena and Gabrielle's relationship can be openly lesbian this time around. Maybe the storylines can be more complex or the world-building can be less lackadaisical. Maybe they could find a way to make it grittier without giving up the elements that make it fun. As shows like The Flash have demonstrated, you can pull off a campy all-in-good-fun tone without losing quality in storytelling or action. Let's just hope they nail the casting as perfectly as the 1995 show did with Lucy Lawless.
Dads Can Also Flaunt Their Post-Baby Bods, According to Science
Is there any way to put this delicately? Men, when they have children, get fatter. We’ve known this for a while, and now the first nationally representative sample confirms it. In a study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health, researchers at Northwestern tracked the body mass index of 10,623 fathers and nonfathers over several years. The typical 6-foot-tall man gained an average of 4.4 pounds in the years after having a child; the new dad who did not live with his child gained about 3.3 pounds. During the same age period, the typical childless man lost 1.4 pounds. Thank you, science, for explaining the dad bod.
The researchers did not interview any men, but in the press release for the study, they made layman guesses about why fathers gained weight. The men were now busy with babies, so they didn’t have time to themselves. Maybe the dads are on the night shift and wake up with an insane craving for Doritos. (Lead researcher Craig Garfield admitted his personal weakness was eating cheese pizza off his kids’ plates.) Maybe they’re too tired to wear anything but sweatpants, so why bother? Maybe they’re temporarily off the dating market, so why bother? Maybe we don’t need a whole lot of explanation for why an infinitely demanding little being is incompatible with maintaining your fitness routine.
The researchers highlighted the study as an opportunity to think about men and obesity. Men often talk about the arrival of children as a chance for self-improvement: a moment when they will quit smoking or exercise more. Instead, their BMI inches up about 2 percent. Since a new father is making regular doctor visits with the baby anyway, the researchers suggest that perhaps the pediatrician should talk to him about his own health and mention the likelihood that his weight will creep up.
What’s more interesting to ponder is the politics of this social science. Why, all of a sudden, are we so interested in how fatherhood transforms men? We’ve recently learned that after babies, men—like women—go through hormonal shifts. Their testosterone levels, which are associated with aggression and libido, fall while their prolactin levels, associated with care-taking, rise. We’ve learned that men with children make more money and that they are less depressed. We’ve learned, from a corollary body of work, all about how marriage transforms men: It makes them better employees, richer, happier, and healthier. If they have heart attacks, they are likely to make it to a hospital half an hour sooner, and in general, they're much less likely to die. They even report more sexual satisfaction (eat it, bachelors).
In one sense, feminists should cheer all this new research. It’s long been thought that marriage and childbirth are momentous occasions mostly for women. The man shows up at the altar, and then the hospital, but then generally floats off to work to confront his real identity. The new studies show otherwise: that biology is also preparing their bodies for fatherhood. (One survey showed that men gained 10 pounds while waiting for the baby to arrive). They also show that men in fact are the ones who need marriage, that without it they are floundering and lost.
That’s where the politics get tricky. It’s often the pro-marriage crowd picking up on this research. In Slate, for example, researcher Brad Wilcox made the point that men mostly benefit from fatherhood and family if they live with their children, not if they don’t. The new BMI study picks up on this distinction as well, pointing out that while the live-in fathers may have gained more weight, they also tend to be richer and better educated.
The subtle message to men is that they are much better off married and living with their children. Proving this with data has taken on some urgency now because fewer men are doing that—in the study, 20 percent of the fathers they tracked were not living with the child at the time of birth. But the subtle message to women is that it’s their duty to civilize the men, to keep them sane and productive and get them to the hospital on time. How long before magazines like Mothering start suggesting five tips to keep your man trim after childbirth?
Ashley Madison Got Hacked. Now 37 Million Would-Be Cheaters Might Get Exposed.
For months, my Slate colleague Jordan Weissmann has been saying that online affair-facilitator Ashley Madison was going to get hacked. “It just seems like an obvious choice,” he would say. And he was totally right! On Sunday, KrebsonSecurity reported news of an extensive breach.
With a slogan like “Life Is Short. Have an Affair” and 37 million users, you can see why Ashley Madison's data might be tempting for hackers looking to wreak some havoc. The culprits are calling themselves “the Impact Team” and say that if Avid Life Media, which owns Ashley Madison, doesn't take the site down, they'll leak all of the data they collected on the service's servers.
But this isn't (just) about a moral objection to cheating. The Impact Team hackers assert that Ashley Madison's “Full Delete” feature, which claims to remove all identifying data from company servers for $19, doesn't actually work. Krebs reports that the Impact Team wrote in a manifesto, “Full Delete netted ALM $1.7mm in revenue in 2014. It’s also a complete lie. Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real name and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.”
Not that the hackers are exactly on the side of Ashley Madison's users. “Too bad for those men, they’re cheating dirtbags and deserve no such discretion,” the group wrote. There's some irony in outing the injured parties whom you're simultaneously trying to defend, but the hackers seem more interested in making a general point about services that claim to erase user data.
In a statement, Avid Life Media said:
We apologize for this unprovoked and criminal intrusion into our customers’ information. ... We have always had the confidentiality of our customers’ information foremost in our minds, and have had stringent security measures in place ... At this time, we have been able to secure our sites, and close the unauthorized access points. We are working with law enforcement agencies, which are investigating this criminal act. Any and all parties responsible for this act of cyber–terrorism will be held responsible.
Ashley Madison's data is even more valuable than what comes out of the usual hack because it's identity theft fodder plus information about who has cheated or considered cheating on a partner and what people's sexual preferences/fantasies are. But the site's privacy setup wasn't exactly stellar before. As developer Troy Hunt showed on his blog, the forgot password feature of Ashley Madison returned a slightly different screen depending on whether an email address was registered with the site. If you wanted to check whether your spouse was on the site, you just had to enter some of his or her addresses.
Of course, if Ashley Madison's users were smart enough to make special dummy email addresses for digital indiscretions, you wouldn't be able to catch them this way, but it's still a big privacy hole, and let's be honest, most people aren't that wily. Hunt told Motherboard that the password reset mistake is a privacy oversight on a lot of sites. “Unfortunately it's all too common. ... I would have been surprised if they'd done it right. I'm saddened, but not surprised,” he said.
Though the Impact Team may have gone about making its statement in a contradictory and, you know, illegal way, it's a good reminder that when a company says it will delete your data, you don't exactly get to watch its physical destruction. It's hard to check that your info has actually been removed. So if it's something that your reputation can't survive, you might not want to trust a service with it in the first place.
In One Thread, Everything That’s Awesome and Awful About Reddit
Reddit's leadership is drawing a lot of fire for claiming to take their harassment problem seriously, even though they've moved toward protecting some of the uglier and more hateful content on the site. Under the circumstances, it can be hard to keep in mind that much of Reddit—as explained by Tamar Hiram Arisohn on Slate—is actually devoted to normal people having decent conversations about interesting stuff. One such forum is /r/TwoXChromosomes, where regular women can reach out to a feminist-minded community for discussion, support, and advice about personal and political issues.
One recent thread, for instance, was started under the headline “I like kissing again! (Kissed a guy for the first time since being sexually assaulted, and I feel damn near invincible).” In it, a sexual assault survivor explains how she was “messed up” for about a year after being “sexually assaulted at a party,” unable to kiss anyone, and having panic attacks. But recently she “hit it off with a cute guy” at a dinner party and, after talking for an hour or so, she “leaned in and kissed him.”
“I had a semi-romantic interaction with a guy, and he was in my personal space bubble, and he held my hand, and I genuinely enjoyed it,” she adds. “I didn't feel anxious or broken or afraid.”
Underneath, the entire thread is largely support and encouragement, with other survivors—and their spouses or friends—explaining that recovery isn't just possible, but manageable. People tell their own stories and share tips about how to have sexual interaction without pushing any of a survivor's buttons. Despite the ample media and political attention on sexual assault these days, there's not a whole lot of discourse about the surviving part of being a survivor—the part where you piece your life back together and start regaining the happiness and control that your attacker tried to take away from you. Unfortunately, the prevalence of rape denialists and skeptics means that most of the discourse is still focused on the trauma of sexual assault. This focus might send the signal that rape victims will never have a normal life, and that's both inaccurate and dangerous.
That context is part of the reason why this post was such a breath of fresh air, even if Reddit's well-known underbelly of trolls soon appeared to do their worst. “That guy could rape you at any time. He may choose not to, but he could,” one troll remarked. “Wow! congratulations. No one gives a shit,” another sneered.
The trolls are in the minority, but they illustrate the problems Reddit is up against. On one hand, Reddit is a place where smart people can advance the discourse about sexual assault and other important issues. But they risk being drowned out or put off by the site's ongoing tolerance for trolls and haters. For its own good, Reddit needs to get faster and smarter about hitting the trolls with the ban-hammer. Otherwise, those important conversations are going to move somewhere else.
Bill Cosby’s Deposition Reads Like a Nightmare “Field Report” From the World’s Worst PUA
A few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported on a 2005 deposition in which Bill Cosby admitted to procuring drugs in order to have sex with multiple women—an admission in line with dozens of rape and sexual assault allegations against Cosby over the years. On Saturday, the New York Times published excerpts from the entire text of the four-day deposition, which involved a basketball manager at Temple University who accused him of sexual abuse.* (The case was settled out of court in 2006.)
Reading the Times piece by Graham Bowley and Sydney Ember is a deeply disquieting experience. Cosby comes across as arrogant to the point of parody. Although he was supposedly defending himself against very serious charges of sex abuse, Cosby can't resist the opportunity to brag about what a ladies' man he is. Reading his testimony is eerily reminiscent of the far-fetched “field reports” that self-stylized pick-up artists post online. You can tell Cosby wants his audience—which consisted primarily of lawyers who believe he abused their client—to admire his talents for the art of seduction. From the Times:
Early on in his courtship, he arranged an intimate meal alone with [the accuser] at his Pennsylvania home, complete with Cognac, dimmed lights and a fire, he said. At one point he led her to his back porch, out of sight from his chef. “I take her hair and I pull it back and I have her face like this,” he said. “And I’m talking to her ...And I talked to her about relaxing, being strong. And I said to her, come in, meaning her body.”
But the two remained inches apart, he said, and he did not try to kiss her because he did not sense she wanted him to. Nevertheless, at the next dinner he said they had what he described as a “sexual moment,” short of intercourse. He described her afterward as having “a glow.”
Like many a creepy pickup artist, Cosby imagines himself a philosopher when it comes to that tricky creature, the human female. Of his policy of avoiding sexual intercourse, he said, it “is something that I feel the woman will succumb to more of a romance and more of a feeling, not love, but it’s deeper than a playful situation.”
Cosby took great pains to portray himself as a chivalric hero. “I am a man, the only way you will hear about who I had sex with is from the person I had it with,” he explained. What a rare and exciting opportunity this deposition afforded him! For this consummate gentleman, lady-luring techniques included “seducing a young model by showing interest in her father’s cancer” and “casting himself in the role of an experienced guide and offering [his accuser] the benefit of his contacts, fame and experience.” In a pinch—if, say, you're being accused of sexual abuse—pressure your accuser to tell her mother that she had orgasms with you. Yes, Cosby really did that, and admitted to it.
Researcher David Lisak has found that when interviewing rapists, as long as you avoid calling it rape, you can get them to admit to a whole lot. “In fact, they are eager to talk about their experiences,” he told NPR in 2010. “They're quite narcissistic as a group—the offenders—and they view this as an opportunity, essentially, to brag.”
In this deposition, Cosby doesn't admit to rape. But he does show that same tendency toward self-puffery and braggadocio, and the same inclination to treat sex as a conquest instead of a mutually agreeable situation.
Of course, that's not proof he's a rapist. Better evidence is the 36 public accusations made so far against him, as well the 13 women (many of whom are now public accusers) who offered sworn statements that he had assaulted them.
*Correction, July 20, 2015: This post originally misstated that the New York Times article was published on Sunday. It was published on Saturday.
How the Planned Parenthood Video Was Used to Attack Breast Cancer Funding
The timing of the latest Planned Parenthood “sting” was awfully fortuitous. The video—which purported to show a Planned Parenthood senior director offering to sell fetal tissue to undercover agents who were pretending to work for a biotech firm—came out the same week that Congress was going to vote on a bill to help raise money for breast cancer research. Even though the lurid accusations in the video were quickly debunked, the furor provided congressional Republicans enough cover to pull the breast cancer bill over “concerns” about some of the money going to the Komen Foundation, which has a program making breast cancer screenings available to Planned Parenthood patients.
The bill eventually passed, but the furor over the video gave Republicans an opportunity to pander to their anti-choice base by cutting Komen from the list of funding recipients.
Now Roll Call is reporting that at least two high-level Republican congressmen were tipped off about the video some time back. Rep. Tim Murphy, who chairs the energy and commerce subcommittee, says he saw the video weeks ago. Rep. Trent Franks, a Judiciary Committee member, says he saw it about a month ago.
Why the time lag? “The hope was to have as much information as possible so that the authorities could be notified effectively before the media,” Franks told Roll Call. Which authorities were notified and what is being done beyond posturing about the perfectly legal behavior on display, however, is an open question.
While the video exposed no wrongdoing, the goal of cutting Komen out of breast cancer research funding was well-met. Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy of Yahoo Health suggests that the timing was not a coincidence. She points out that, in 2011, Live Action ran a similarly discredited video just as the House “was debating two antiabortion bills headed by Reps. Mike Pence and Chris Smith, one of which, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, would have prevented any federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood for any kind of health services.”
Despite the name of the bill, the funding it was trying to kill was solely devoted to cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and contraception. None of it, by federal law, went to abortion. But the 2011 furor over Planned Parenthood gave the House cover to pass this anti-contraception bill. (It died in the Senate.)
There's a pattern here: Raise some (false) alarm about abortion, which becomes a front for attacking funding of other kinds of women's health care. It's a savvy move—get everyone talking about a nonexistent black market in fetal body parts, and you'll have all the cover you need.
Marlene Sanders’ Feminist Legacy
Pioneering television journalist Marlene Sanders passed away on Tuesday at the age of 84. Her prolific, decades-long career comes with a litany of “firsts”: she was the first female television correspondent in Vietnam, the first female anchor on a U.S. network television evening newscast, and the first female vice president of ABC News.
These successes weren’t without struggle. As a woman breaking into news in the 1960s, Sanders found an industry not entirely welcoming to her. Female journalists were pigeonholed, expected to cover a limited range of topics, such as style, society, entertainment, food, and family. She was told a woman couldn’t anchor a news program because “a woman’s voice is not authoritative.” ABC gave her an afternoon show with the cringe-worthy title of “News With the Woman’s Touch.”
Bill Moyers, her colleague at CBS, told the Los Angeles Times that Sanders “caused the first tinkling of the glass ceiling.” Among her many achievements, one of Sanders’ most important legacies is her reporting on the women’s liberation movement. At the time, male journalists covering the burgeoning movement were often dismissive. Sanders described their tone: “Women’s lib was treated with humor at best and contempt at worst.”
Sanders understood the movement’s potential and importance, and the need to cover it with respect. Determined to make the subject a central focus in mainstream media, she reported and produced “Women’s Liberation” for ABC News in 1970, the first of her seven documentaries on the topic.
She wrote of her accomplishments: “As I look back on my career, the women’s movement provided an exceptional point when time, place and position all came together to give me the power and focus to contribute to the country’s awareness of the status of women.”
During her career, Sanders produced award-winning documentaries on topics including the right to die, women’s health, and religion. After leaving CBS in the late 1980s, she continued her work at WNET in New York and taught journalism at New York University. (Among her survivors is her son, Jeffrey Toobin, the New Yorker writer and CNN commentator.)
While Sanders made inroads in the industry, she knew there was more work to be done: “Until women are in top management positions in large numbers, we will never have our fair share of the jobs. That may take years to happen. How long probably will depend on the progress women make in our society as a whole. Until many more women occupy positions of authority in industry and government, it is unlikely that women will be seen as authoritative and fully competent in this business of broadcast news.”
What Was the Campaign Against Ellen Pao Really About?
When Ellen Pao resigned as interim CEO of Reddit, it didn't seem like there'd be much sympathy for her. Her detractors, whose online petition against her garnered more than 200,000 signatures, accused her of incompetence and focused on the firing of Victoria Taylor, the popular community manager who helped run the “Ask Me Anything” series. Much of the criticism of Pao took the form of racist and sexist harassment, but Taylor's firing was, empirically, a massive misstep.
But the decision to fire Taylor was not Pao's doing but that of Reddit's board chair, Alexis Ohanian. Ohanian, a white man, has not (yet!) gotten a harassment campaign in response. It seems unlikely that he will. The outrage over Taylor's firing, it turns out, is mostly a pretext—a way to attack a woman while using “but we're defending a woman” as a cover story.
Observers pointed out that Pao's attackers had another, less savory reason to hate Pao: She was spearheading an effort to clean up the website, making it harder for hate groups and harassment campaigns to use Reddit as their organizing grounds. Earlier this year, Pao started those efforts by removing revenge porn and banning five subreddits, including /r/FatPeopleHate and /r/ShitNiggersSay. “In a move that surprised no one, these particularly odious forums became martyrs for the cause of ‘free speech’ on the site,” Katherine Cross at Feministing writes.
Pao herself, writing on Thursday in the Washington Post, makes a clear connection between her cleanup campaign and the harassment she received—the exact same strain of harassment she was trying to scrub from the site. “After making these policy changes to prevent and ban harassment, I, along with several colleagues, was targeted with harassing messages, attempts to post my private information online and death threats,” Pao writes. “These were attempts to demean, shame and scare us into silence." Pao calls the siege on her "one of the largest trolling attacks in history.”
Sam Biddle at Gawker also painstakingly laid out the case that the anti-Pao attacks were not sincere complaints about competence but the result of “the toxic praetorian guard of the men’s rights–Gamergate axis” who believed “a common-sense policy against sexual harassment and violation was nothing less than the trampling of liberty.” It's hard to get someone fired for declining to host /r/NeoFag at your website. You need a cover story, and Taylor's ousting provided it.
A lot of Reddit is used for good purposes—I enjoy some fan sites there myself—but the site is overrun with childish straight white men who use the site to throw an ongoing temper tantrum over their declining sovereignty over women, gay people, and racial minorities. Of course they'd hate any Asian woman taking over “their” website, especially one who's best known for standing up for herself against sexism.
Biddle, among others, wonders if Pao was “set up to fail by her male board of directors.” Chief engineer Bethanye Blount quit in protest, arguing that Pao was a victim of the “glass cliff.” Former Reddit CEO Yishan Wong agrees: Ohanian should have admitted that he fired Taylor the minute “the hate-train started up against Pao,” Wong says, but instead he “sat back and let her take the heat.”
Despite all this turmoil, the new CEO of Reddit, Steve Huffman, swears up and down that the site will follow through on the Pao-era plan to clean up the site. “There is also a dark side, communities whose purpose is reprehensible, and we don’t have any obligation to support them,” Huffman wrote. “And we also believe that some communities currently on the platform should not be here at all.” For the sake of Reddit and the overall health of the Internet, let's hope he makes good on that promise. But what will the trolls do now that they don't have a woman to blame for their problems?
What Is the Center for Medical Progress, the Group Behind the Latest Viral Abortion Video?
On Tuesday, Live Action burned up the Internet with a video making misleading accusations that Planned Parenthood sells fetal body parts on the black market. Run by anti-choice activist Lila Rose, Live Action is already notorious for its attempted “stings” on Planned Parenthood. So why is Live Action giving credit for making the video to a group called the Center for Medical Progress, which the New York Times calls “a little-known activist group”?
A better phrase would be “completely unknown.” The group's head is former Live Action worker David Daleiden, an associate not just of Lila Rose but apparently of James O'Keefe, who's himself a machine for churning out sting videos attacking various liberal organizations and politicians. CMP has a strong whiff of the fly-by-night organization. Its blog started on July 6. Its Twitter page started sending tweets on Tuesday. Its Facebook page is only a couple of months old. Its URL does go back at least a couple of years, but as Gawker notes, the history appears to be wiped. On the Wayback Machine, you can see a cached version of some of what was going on there. The old “about us” page reads:
The Center for Medical Progress is a non-profit organization dedicated to informing and educating both the lay public and the scientific community about the latest advances in regenerative medicine, cell-based therapies, and related disciplines. We take a special interest in the lab-to-clinic translational dynamic and tracking its implications for academics, advocacy, private sector players, and the individual patient.
The videos on the site consist mostly of a bunch of dry interviews with researchers at an International Society for Stem Cell Research meeting, and they go to the same YouTube channel used to distribute this Planned Parenthood video. (Those interview videos have been removed from the front page of CMP's website and are only available if you click through the Wayback Machine links.)
The ruse CMP used get the meeting with Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services, Deborah Nucatola, was to present themselves as agents working for a biotech firm. In its statement, Planned Parenthood noted that CMP “created a fake medical website as well as a fake human tissue website that purports to provide services to stem cell researchers.”
The amount of effort put into this elaborate kabuki is stunning—and confusing. Why not publish these videos under the Live Action name and let the Center for Medical Progress exist as nothing more than the phony organization created to trick Planned Parenthood? Live Action is a real organization with a real staff, and Live Action did all the promotion. It doesn't seem to add up.
But consider this: Making the video a CMP production instead of a Live Action joint means that Live Action's name is dropped from much of the coverage. The New York Times doesn't mention Live Action at all. The Washington Post only mentions it once, way down in the story, and only to note that Daleien used to (?) work for it. Despite years of effort, Lila Rose and her crew have never been able to prove any of their accusations of illegal behavior. The organization has a credibility problem, one that might have interfered with getting mainstream media traction for a video with its name on it. But the Center for Medical Progress didn't have the same name recognition problem—or it didn't until now.