Althouse: "OK. I didn't hear the age. I don't want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that's child abuse."

April 26, 2009

"OK. I didn't hear the age. I don't want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that's child abuse."

A 20-year-old college student, Lila Rose, uses YouTube to expose Planned Parenthood.

173 comments:

MadisonMan said...: It would be far better to have the "child" get involved in the legal system and be put on trial in a rape case.; 4/26/09, 10:24 PM
paul a'barge said...: Are you suggesting that the legal system put on trial Planned Parenthood and its staff for knowingly engaging in support of a felony?

Because if so, bring it on.

Simply bring it on. It's time for Planned Parenthood to die the death of old age.

These people are nothing if not the murderers of babies.; 4/26/09, 10:29 PM
Christy said...: Planned Parenthood is caught between a rock and a hard place. The law is the law, however, and this looks really bad. Damn it! I long for yesteryear when what went on in a doctor's office stayed in the doctor's office and was not subject to referendum.; 4/26/09, 10:31 PM
hdhouse said...: someone tell me more about the 60 seconds of missing tape....this kind of hit piece nauseates me and after I hit that part of the story I just lost interest.; 4/26/09, 10:36 PM
traditionalguy said...: That would have been one a very fortunate 31 year old man, if he were real. Apparently the problem solving power of Planned Parenthood to un-plan any possibility for an inconvenient life form/evidential thingie living and evolving from a tissue mass, and later even walking around among us, has become the only unrestrained power over life and death. But we all knew that. If we started to call abortion of inconvevient offspring "Waterboarding", then we could instantly begin to legally protect every baby again.; 4/26/09, 10:39 PM
MadisonMan said...: What Christy said.

The contradictions in this case are interesting.

I think it is a bad idea to lie. Especially about being raped. Maybe it's because I'm of an age when I recall the difficulties of prosecuting rape crimes -- She asked for it!. I dunno. Maybe it's a generational thing. Lila Rose is very young. I wonder if she is lucky enough not to know any rape victims.

No one is going to accuse Lila of being mean, vindictive and harsh. Says the minister, backing up the woman bearing false witness.

Very interesting.; 4/26/09, 10:49 PM
John Burgess said...: hdhouse: You should have kept reading. Had you done so, you'd learn that the full, un-edited tapes are available at the young woman's website. Those are also the tapes she provided to legislators, not edited ones.; 4/26/09, 10:54 PM
Eric said...: Is rape a serious crime? Because, normally when a serious crime occurs you report it, you know, and punish the guilty.; 4/26/09, 11:04 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Next time, Lila should ask Peggy Noonan.; 4/26/09, 11:05 PM
Skyler said...: Did anyone really believe that Planned Parenthood wasn't doing this, after lobbying for years in every state to prevent parents from knowing their children were having abortions?

I guess some people need video to believe.; 4/26/09, 11:30 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: "They also found an unlikely source of inspiration: "Rules for Radicals," a handbook on grass-roots organizing by Saul Alinsky, a legendary left-wing activist who was an inspiration to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Among Alinsky's most famous admonitions is one that O'Keefe said he and Rose took to heart: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

Whether you are pro choice, pro life, Conservative, or Liberal, this was a hoot. She is using the wacko, radical libturds own methods against them.; 4/26/09, 11:46 PM
Penny said...: I wonder how many clinics Lila has to sting before she gets the result she was looking for? Twenty to one, ten to one?

With 30,000 employees and volunteers, any group could expect ill-advised counsel now and then. She is going to need one heck of a lot of tapes to prove that the organization itself is covering up for sexual exploitation of young girls.

Of course this isn't really about sexual exploitation, is it?; 4/26/09, 11:49 PM
lowercase said...: If the PP rep had filed all the paperwork and then it was revealed to be false, wouldn't the UCLA girl be in tons of trouble, like someone reporting a false crime, or would that also fall on PPs head?; 4/26/09, 11:51 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: “someone tell me more about the 60 seconds of missing tape....this kind of hit piece nauseates me and after I hit that part of the story I just lost interest.OK, you illiterate buffoon and poseur. The FULL, UNEDITED TAPES CAN BE VIEWED ON HER WEBSITE. I hope the caps were big enough for your blind ideology. If you knew how to read, you would not make such silly statements and accusations about hit pieces.

Now go and choke on your own vomit. Ya’ betcha, ya putz.; 4/26/09, 11:52 PM
Mark said...: Okay, I'm disgusted.

By Lila Rose.

Abortion makes me queasy, and I'm all for legislatures doing their jobs and working toward consensus on what is and isn't okay in that regard. That's why they get the big kickbacks.

But going in and laying moral good versus legal compliance traps for specific individuals who really don't want to see a 13 year old literally f*cked-up for life is pretty reprehensible.

Let's be clear. In that story, the counselor had zero good options. Zero. None. Only a person with zero compassion actually passes that test. And Ms. Rose knew it.

The best sociopaths are the ones who only play games that they can't lose.

I tend to give the "pro-life" crowd more benefit of the doubt than the "pro-choice" crowd, because I think the choice folks err too often on the side of the "screw it if it hasn't had ink on its feet" crowd. But the Roses of the world give me a creepy totalitarians in the making feeling.

Rose should do everyone a favor and have a couple of kids before she makes another video. Hopefully from a devout guy who said his name was Dave and who really loved her, and he'd marry her on his next flight in from London.; 4/26/09, 11:54 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: "Let's be clear. In that story, the counselor had zero good options. Zero. None."

She had options. She chose not to use them. Her personal agenda ruled out her legal responsibility.; 4/27/09, 12:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh, the counselor had good options. She just didn't have easy ones.; 4/27/09, 12:04 AM
former law student said...: In Indiana, physicians and other health care providers are mandated reporters of sexual abuse of children, and no privilege applies.

Don't give medico-legal advice over the phone, I guess.; 4/27/09, 12:12 AM
Dale said...: I LOVE how the hypocrites here that support Planned Parenthood don't give a shit about the clinics skirting the law.

You all got spanked!

Liberal mentality: change the subject, parse the wording, spew against others.

But you truly have no idea how ridiculous you look. Liberals are SOOOO caring!

I love it!!!!!

Pants down, you fools!; 4/27/09, 12:22 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: I think it shows how dedicated the Planned Parenthood staffers are. They're willing to break regulations and the law to help people, in their minds. I don't think they did this for personal gain.; 4/27/09, 12:25 AM
Buford Gooch said...: Well, if the goal of Planned Parenthood is killing babies with no repercussions, the woman was following the correct path. Cops use underage kids to arrest people at liquor stores for selling booze to kids. This was the same tactic.; 4/27/09, 12:29 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: Did I mention I used to think Planned Parenthood was an upright organization that assissted young couples plan their families like financial counceling actually assists financial planning? Is that stupid or what? I've only recently come to recognize it as a full-scale abortion industry.

The debate behind all this is beyond my iron grasp. I've see my own opinion change over time. Since I'm male, it would be arrogant to say I can see things through female eyes. I can not. But I do know what I like and what I do not like. I love babies and I adore young mothers. They both fascinate me. But those are not reasons to claim I have a stake in this dispute.

Have compassion for young women in genuine trouble, but also morn for those dear lives that were denied a chance. Be of good cheer, here, have yourselves an anim I call "pimp my pram."; 4/27/09, 12:36 AM
Eli Blake said...: I'd suggest that forcing an underage rape victim to carry a pregnancy to term is child abuse.

And as others have pointed out, there are many abortion providers, so sooner or later you will find one who does a poor job of it, that's the law of averages. Using her methods and logic, I could just as easily go ask 100 fast food workers on hidden camera whether they wash their hands before they handle food and then if one says 'no' I could paste it all over you tube. But if I started jumping up and down and hollering 'See? See? and infering that that behavior was typical.; 4/27/09, 12:37 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: Oh, I forgot the anim.; 4/27/09, 12:38 AM
Peter Hoh said...: If a 20 y.o. pretending to be a 13 y.o. showed up at one of those pro-life counseling clinics and offered the same story, would the counselor be obligated to report the case to Child Protective Services?; 4/27/09, 12:39 AM
jeff said...: "The contradictions in this case are interesting."

Which would be what?

"I think it is a bad idea to lie. Especially about being raped. Maybe it's because I'm of an age when I recall the difficulties of prosecuting rape crimes -- She asked for it!. I dunno. Maybe it's a generational thing. Lila Rose is very young. I wonder if she is lucky enough not to know any rape victims."

Right. Especially since we all know there are never 13 year old girls impregnated by 31 year old men. If she actually knew such a girl, she would never care to see how the planned parenthood handles such a situation. You understand your point makes no sense?

"Next time, Lila should ask Peggy Noonan."
Speaking of points that make no sense.

"I wonder how many clinics Lila has to sting before she gets the result she was looking for? Twenty to one, ten to one?"
What is your acceptable ratio for this sort of "mistake"?

"If the PP rep had filed all the paperwork and then it was revealed to be false, wouldn't the UCLA girl be in tons of trouble, like someone reporting a false crime, or would that also fall on PPs head?"
Of course not, and no.

"But going in and laying moral good versus legal compliance traps for specific individuals who really don't want to see a 13 year old literally f*cked-up for life is pretty reprehensible.

Let's be clear. In that story, the counselor had zero good options. Zero. None. Only a person with zero compassion actually passes that test. And Ms. Rose knew it."
Right. Because in Mark's world this never happens in real life. And if it does, well too bad for the 13 year old. Abort and send her back to her 31 year old boyfriend.

"But the Roses of the world give me a creepy totalitarians in the making feeling."
Christ. I don't think you understand the meaning of totalitarian then.

"I think it shows how dedicated the Planned Parenthood staffers are. They're willing to break regulations and the law to help people, in their minds. I don't think they did this for personal gain."
So sending a 13 year old kid back to her 31 year old boyfriend with no one the wiser is considering helping her? Or since there is no personal gain then it's ok.
About time for Luckoldson to argue that if the 13 year old girl was real, she clearly entrapped the 31 year old.

Agree or disagree on the broader question of abortion, its pretty naive to think this situation never comes up except during a sting. And if your argument is that it only happens in a sting, then there is no moral question for the pp person.; 4/27/09, 12:46 AM
jeff said...: If a 20 y.o. pretending to be a 13 y.o. showed up at one of those pro-life counseling clinics and offered the same story, would the counselor be obligated to report the case to Child Protective Services?

Of course. Why wouldn't they? What point do you think you are making?; 4/27/09, 12:47 AM
jeff said...: "I'd suggest that forcing an underage rape victim to carry a pregnancy to term is child abuse."

Where in any of this do you find a suggestion that a underage rape victim is forced to carry to term?

"I could just as easily go ask 100 fast food workers on hidden camera whether they wash their hands before they handle food and then if one says 'no' I could paste it all over you tube."

Yes you could. So turning a 13 year old girl back over to her 31 year old boyfriend with no notification to law enforcement or her parents is exactly the same as the guy at McDonalds not washing his hands to you?
Interesting to know.; 4/27/09, 12:51 AM
Revenant said...: The pro-life movement has its own Michael Moore now, in other words.; 4/27/09, 1:16 AM
Dale said...: I'm waiting for every hypocrite Planned Parenthood Supporter to decry - right here - the lying tactics used by women who visited the Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Clinics claiming a problem pregnancy, in order to show tape on the evening news.

Put up. Right here.

Hypocrites.; 4/27/09, 1:17 AM
blake said...: I didn't see that she got in trouble at any point. Surely some Planned Parenthood employee somewhere obeyed the law and she was forced to explain her ruse.

I think some of you don't understand the rules: Laws broken in a leftist cause are not really bad and therefore need not be prosecuted. (See various assaults by PETA, ALF, et al., violence by leftist protesters, and so on.) Even exposing such lawbreaking is mean-spirited.; 4/27/09, 1:24 AM
Joan said...: It would be far better to have the "child" get involved in the legal system and be put on trial in a rape case.Yes, yes it would. Because the 13-year-old girl wouldn't be on trial, it would be the 31-year-old father of her child who would be on trial for statutory rape. Would there even be a trial? Sounds to me like the kind of thing the DA would plead out, but that's just speculation. 31-year-olds involved with 13-year-olds are child molesters and need to be treated as such.; 4/27/09, 1:54 AM
Revenant said...: Surely some Planned Parenthood employee somewhere obeyed the law and she was forced to explain her ruse.

How, exactly, would she be "forced" to explain her ruse? If the staff member refused to give in she could simply leave. They aren't cops; they can't force her to stay and file a criminal complaint for rape. And even if she did end up having to admit to being a 20-year-old, unless the folks at Planned Parenthood ALSO taped the conversation there wouldn't be any proof it ever happened.

Like I said above -- standard Michael Moore tactics.; 4/27/09, 2:17 AM
rhhardin said...: Combine abortion hysteria with child sexual abuse hysteria and see if anybody will watch.

It's a story line made for soap opera. ``Should a girl ..., can a girl be happy ..., etc etc''

It's good for the producers and entertains the viewers.

Everybody wins!

Too bad she didn't have flu-like symptoms as well, for a life and death sub-plot.; 4/27/09, 2:45 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: How is this woman like Michael Moore? Is someone faking the tapes? Is she not really talking to people at these clinics? Is she going in to the clinics saying, "Okay, I'm going to come in pretending to be 13 with a 31 year old boyfriend and you say this..." and then filming?

These people acted badly, and they got caught. I don't know why anyone bothers to defend them.; 4/27/09, 3:00 AM
TJ said...: Expose Planned Parenthood? Or expose a dumb, well-meaning PP staffer?

"The conversation in the uncut version is more nuanced than the edited five-minute version, and includes a staffer stating emphatically, "We have to follow the laws," and another urging Rose to tell her mother about the pregnancy."

Oh, well.; 4/27/09, 6:16 AM
Bissage said...: (1) I was astonished to see what Lila Rose looks like. She looks remarkably like one of my ex-girlfriends who got an abortion so the whole thing starts off kind of freaky. At least for me, anyway.

Total cost for the procedure in 1981 was $150. She called me on the phone and said, “I’m pregnant and you owe me $75 for your share of the abortion.” I said, “Wait a minute, shouldn’t we talk about this a little bit?” She said, “No.”

My friend had a car, so he and I drove her to the clinic three days later. My friend paid for the parking.

So you see, I got a full night of wild, unprotected sex for $75 bucks which turned out to be a real bargain, in retrospect.

And I learned a valuable lesson: My girlfriend wasn’t so in touch with her ovulation cycle as she boasted. Boy, was her face red! We all had a good laugh over that one!

(2) LIDA Rose. Close enough.

(3) Good thing those undercover cameras didn’t catch Planned Parenthood employees wiping the aborted babies down with bleach and putting them back out on the sales floor.

ABC’s “PrimeTime Live” might have to get involved.

We wouldn’t want to have to inconvenience the courts or anything.; 4/27/09, 6:39 AM
KCFleming said...: This tactic will change few minds about abortion, but will succeed in hurting PP economically, which is significant.

PP is a service industry, and their product is abortions. Their plea for funding rests on the appearance of being one of the good guys. But if they appear to be merely another profit center, that threatens their standing greatly.

But I think that effect will be transitory.

Lila Rosa is fighting a losing battle. If abortion is merely a health care choice like getting a nose job or breast implants, what difference does it make how old the girl is?

What moral basis -not legal, but moral- does PP point to that limits this service to anyone at any time?
There is none.
If it is not killing, then it shouldn't matter how old she is or who she slept with.

PP sells abortions to any willing customer. It's either a moral question or it isn't. Pretending that the issue is one of age of consent is merely a diversionary tactic, and might prove successful, albeit momentarily.

But people in the West are set on killing off their progeny, so this will have at most a marginal and brief effect. Their are workarounds to these obstacles. The suction aspirations, dilation and curettages, dilation and evacuations, salt poisonings, and prostaglandin chemical abortions will continue apace.; 4/27/09, 7:10 AM
hdhouse said...: to John Burgess and Peter the Putz,

I think I stated clearly enough that I read up to the point of the 60 seconds missing and lost interest.

I'm sure, Peter, with your decades of law enforcement service that when someone does something like edit a tape it makes things suspect....well maybe not in your mind...I'm sure you have other filters for what enters it if indeed anything ever does.; 4/27/09, 7:23 AM
hdhouse said...: Freeman Hunt said...
"These people acted badly, and they got caught. I don't know why anyone bothers to defend them."

Quite right but EVERYONE acted badly both the 'actor' and the 'clinic'. We got that.

I'm pretty sure that what the young woman did was not legal either...there are rules and regulations put out by most states that severely limit the use of recording devices in settings that are part of the health care system....but I don't see that discussed here. Did you?; 4/27/09, 7:27 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: "PP is a service industry, and their product is abortions. Their plea for funding rests on the appearance of being one of the good guys. But if they appear to be merely another profit center, that threatens their standing greatly."

Pogo, you left out something. PP is a not for profit service industry; getting state, local, and for all we know federal government grants. Their operations could be severely hampered, especially by pro choicers who also have other agendas- child abuse, exploitation, rape, incest, etc.; 4/27/09, 7:30 AM
Joseph said...: Cops use underage kids to arrest people at liquor stores for selling booze to kids. This was the same tactic.Um, no, Lila is not a police officer and is not working with law enforcement. It would be more like you sending your kid in to buy alcohol on your own.

Since this is a nationwide operation, I'd be curious to see all the videos, including the ones where these women going into clinics pretending to be young girls that have been raped who then have to report their "rapes" to the authorities.; 4/27/09, 7:35 AM
KCFleming said...: PP is a not for profit service industry...
Oh, there's plenty of profit in it. =)

"Non-profit" here is an abuse of a term which has the unstated meaning of "for the public good".

The PP abortion industry is quite alot like puppy mills; but carries none of the stigma.

Suction away, but don't hurt the puppies!

----------------------

...pretending to be young girls that have been raped who then have to report their "rapes" to the authorities"yes, because that lie, and not the PP lie, is the meaningful one.; 4/27/09, 7:38 AM
Unknown said...: In that story, the counselor had zero good options. Zero. None.

Bullshit, Mark. She had a single good, and legal, option.

there are rules and regulations put out by most states that severely limit the use of recording devices in settings that are part of the health care system....but I don't see that discussed here. Did you?

Are there, hdhouse? Can you provide evidence of this? Even one? Now we know that for telephone calls, some states require both parties to consent to recording, some require just the consent of one. So in the latter states, were this a telephone call, she'd be entirely within the law to record herself and the other party.; 4/27/09, 7:40 AM
Unknown said...: telephone recording laws by state hidden camera laws; 4/27/09, 7:43 AM
KCFleming said...: "rules and regulations put out by most states that severely limit the use of recording devices in settings that are part of the health care system."

Because the most important part of this story is the sting itself, not the actions of PP, right?

I fail to recall hdhouse standing up for McCain in his involvement with the the Keating 5 sting.

As always, the rules are different for the left; they vary with the topic; the goal supersedes all.; 4/27/09, 7:46 AM
knox said...: Whether you are pro choice, pro life, Conservative, or Liberal, this was a hoot. She is using the wacko, radical libturds own methods against them.I have mixed feelings about abortion, but it's been clear for a long time that Planned Parenthood is disgusting. I have no problem with someone exposing what they do.

However, the sort of tactics this woman used are dishonest and exploitative. I don't like seeing anyone use them. Revenant's right, it's Michael Moore-esque, and anyone who wants to see the pro-Life movement succeed shouldn't endorse them.

Through the years, we have all witnessed leftist political activists playing GOTCHA just like this, and it makes all of us even more skeptical of liberal politics, does it not? If they can make an honest case, they should not have to resort to underhanded methods.

What I'm trying to say is, this is how you turn people against your cause.; 4/27/09, 7:56 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Ethically, this is no different than those TV shows where they take hidden cameras into muffler chains and document how they rip off little old ladies by pushing unneeded front-end alignments on them. Except that no one defends the unscrupulous muffler store managers.; 4/27/09, 7:57 AM
Jason said...: How can she be a "known, anti-choice extremist?" How can she be an extremist about anything? She's not even a veteran?; 4/27/09, 8:05 AM
Jason said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/27/09, 8:05 AM
Big Mike said...: Dang, Peter V, I'm agreeing with you up and down the line. You're dead on the mark, my friend.

@knox, you wrote "Through the years, we have all witnessed leftist political activists playing GOTCHA just like this, and it makes all of us even more skeptical of liberal politics, does it not?" Given the results of the last election, where an Alinsky disciple got elected president despite unbelievably thin credentials, I think the answer to your rhetorical question is a firm "NO."

It might make you more skeptical and it might make me more skeptical, but across the voting public it seems to work just fine.; 4/27/09, 8:09 AM
Unknown said...: However, the sort of tactics this woman used are dishonest and exploitative. I don't like seeing anyone use them.

Including the police? No more stings? Because that's exactly what this is. In fact, PP ought to consider themselves lucky a private citizen did this instead of law enforcement. Now they quite likely get a chance to shape up before they get the book thrown at them.; 4/27/09, 8:27 AM
KCFleming said...: Big mike, you're right.

Innuendo and smears are easier and more effective than truth and logic, something Alinsky recognized long ago.

How can the left complain about this tactic, except that now it's being used on them?; 4/27/09, 8:27 AM
Salamandyr said...: It would be humorous if it weren't so sad, that about the only private enterprise left in America is abortion. I wish firearms had the amount of legal protections that abortionists do.

This is just confirmation of what we knew was going on in the past. Doctors are required by law to report evidence of child abuse to the proper authorities. And a pregnant 13 year old is child abuse. For the Planned Parenthood creep to attempt to sweep that under the rug means a 13 year old child winds up staying with her abuser. With luck, this will engender greater scrutiny by the authorities and PP will be forced to clean up their act and comply with the law. I'd be satisfied if the panjandrums of Planned Parenthood showed half the remorse that Domino's did over their recent Youtube scandal.

As for laws against recording devices, they're there to protect patient privacy, not malpractice by medical practitioners. This was nothing different than actions taken by 20/20, local news, and police, all the time. The only difference is that this time it was a private citizen. I'm glad she did it, before this jerk at PP helped further ruin the life of a real child.; 4/27/09, 8:34 AM
hdhouse said...: Without naming names, I have a client who has clinics in 30 states. Each office in every state that is operated in (which includes the state in question) MUST have a clearly visible sign at the desk and in some cases in the corridor outside, forbidding recording devices and in some cases (florida among them) citing the state law that covers the authority.

Certainly the news broadcasts try this all the time and they generally get sued over it and they generally loose...I've been an expert media witness at 3 of them and 2 settled in arbitration and the judge in one stopped things at the point it was discovered that the 1. reporter had seen the sign and 2. ignored it.

good or bad, this kind of "home made sting" has no place anywhere and i can't really get past that to look at the rest... i have no interest once someone does this type of thing.; 4/27/09, 8:57 AM
Skyler said...: Mark wrote: Let's be clear. In that story, the counselor had zero good options. Zero. None. Only a person with zero compassion actually passes that test.

That is the most morally vacant statement I've read in a long time.

Bad option? Letting a rapist go free.
Bad option? Letting a child go back to a rapist.

Good option? Putting a rapist in jail.
Good option? Helping a minor, who has proven to have poor judgment, and legally is not allowed this judgment, get out of a very illegal relationship.

Even if you think sucking the brains out of children is a good thing, she is still legally allowed to suck the brains out of that child. She might still be able to get a judge to allow it without telling the parents (but I doubt it). But that decision is not for the brain sucker to make, it's for the judge. The important point is not to concentrate on sucking out a child's brains, but on putting a rapist in jail.

And thank goodness it's not for Mark to make the decision, either.; 4/27/09, 9:03 AM
Skyler said...: The amphibian wrote: This was nothing different than actions taken by 20/20, local news, and police, all the time. The only difference is that this time it was a private citizen..

I think one thing that many people forget is that 20/20 and the local news are private citizens. Having a fancy logo on your camera truck doesn't give you more status in the law.; 4/27/09, 9:08 AM
The Dude said...: All children should be aborted. Retroactively in the case of those who cannot distinguish between "lose" and "loose".; 4/27/09, 9:20 AM
former law student said...: So turning a 13 year old girl back over to her 31 year old boyfriend with no notification to law enforcement or her parents I'm surprised at the conservative commenters on this blog.

First, 13 year old girls do not have 31 year old "boyfriends." They have youth pastors or swim coaches: someone in a position of authority who used that position to gain the trust of a child and exploit it.

The proper standard should be what is in the best interest of the child. The child here has been raped, we all agree, because she is far too young to consent to intercourse with a man more than twice her age.

1. Do we want pubescent rape victims to have to carry their rapist's babies to term? Why?

2. Is it always in the best interest of the child to expose the name of her rapist?

3. The Indiana state legislature struck down the common law physician-patient privilege by statute. Good idea or bad? Note that this would prevent a fearful pregnant Seventh Grader from getting needed pre-natal care, as well.

4. Taking the rapist's age out of the equaltion: The most likely person to rape a child is her father -- do we really want some nurse's aide somewhere telling a man -- monstrous enough to have sex with his own daughter -- that his crime has been found out?

Personally I would welcome exposing some hypocrite of a self-professed "Christian" youth minister/child molester. But the rape victim's welfare comes first.; 4/27/09, 9:21 AM
KCFleming said...: yeah, fls, best keep mum about child abuse.; 4/27/09, 9:33 AM
Skyler said...: Former law student asked four questions, and implies very bad answers to them. Here are the correct answers:

1. Do we want pubescent rape victims to have to carry their rapist's babies to term? Why?

That's not our decision to make. It is the parent's decision to make, and they might still opt for sucking the child's brains out. If they're bad enough parents that they let their child have a boy friend at 13 years old, and a 31 year old at that, they probably prefer the brain sucking alternative. It's quite legal.

2. Is it always in the best interest of the child to expose the name of her rapist?

When the victim is 13 years old. Yes. Of course it is. That's because there are other 13 year old girls that would be next.

3. The Indiana state legislature struck down the common law physician-patient privilege by statute. Good idea or bad? Note that this would prevent a fearful pregnant Seventh Grader from getting needed pre-natal care, as well.

Name one, just one, seventh grader that knows what this is. If they're so smart, why would they be pregnant from a 31 year old?

4. Taking the rapist's age out of the equaltion: The most likely person to rape a child is her father -- do we really want some nurse's aide somewhere telling a man -- monstrous enough to have sex with his own daughter -- that his crime has been found out?

The nurses aide does no such thing. The district attorney does that.; 4/27/09, 9:45 AM
former law student said...: 4. Taking the rapist's age out of the equaltion: The most likely person to rape a child is her father -- do we really want some nurse's aide somewhere telling a man -- monstrous enough to have sex with his own daughter -- that his crime has been found out?

The nurses aide does no such thing. The district attorney does that.

Great. The same people who don't want government managing their health care want government managing people's family lives.; 4/27/09, 9:47 AM
Unknown said...: 2. Is it always in the best interest of the child to expose the name of her rapist? No, probably not. But when did you get all hyper-libertarian on us? When does the best interest of a child trump the best interest of society, which in this case would be to get a scum-sucking rapist locked up?

You seem intent on blaming everyone but the rapist for the hell that a child might go through following the act itself. The fact that she's pregnant, and might have to carry the child to term? The rapists' fault. The fact that she might be humiliated by having his name made public? The rapists' fault.; 4/27/09, 9:49 AM
Joan said...: do we really want some nurse's aide somewhere telling a man -- monstrous enough to have sex with his own daughter -- that his crime has been found out?
PP is supposed to notify the authorities, not the rapist.

Great. The same people who don't want government managing their health care want government managing people's family lives.
If a parent is abusing his daughter, yes. Do you really want to defend the parental rights of a father who impregnates his 13-year-old daughter? Is that really a position you want to defend?; 4/27/09, 9:50 AM
Unknown said...: The same people who don't want government managing their health care want government managing people's family lives.

Give me a fucking break. We are talking about rape, you idiot, not a parent deciding whether her daughter has to eat her vegetables or be home by 10pm.; 4/27/09, 9:50 AM
former law student said...: It is the parent's decision to make

So daddy gets to decide if his incestuous grandbaby is born.

Sick.

2. Is it always in the best interest of the child to expose the name of her rapist?

When the victim is 13 years old. Yes. Of course it is. That's because there are other 13 year old girls that would be next.

Then the standard becomes "Is it in the best interest of speculative future children?" I don't see how that helps a pregnant 13 year old.

Name one, just one, seventh grader that knows what this is. If they're so smart, why would they be pregnant from a 31 year old?

Seventh graders are sophisticated enough to realize that expectant mothers need medical care, while not being sophisticated enough to keep their youth pastor from demonstrating how they can get closer to Jesus in the hymnal storage room.; 4/27/09, 9:55 AM
former law student said...: Do you really want to defend the parental rights of a father who impregnates his 13-year-old daughter? Is that really a position you want to defend?

I'm not the one defending the parental rights of Rapist Dad.; 4/27/09, 9:57 AM
Unknown said...: So daddy gets to decide if his incestuous grandbaby is born. Sick.

No, what is sick is that you've chosen this topic to become an idiotic troll. If it is the father that impregnated the girl, then no, he doesn't get to decide, and Skyler certainly did not intend to suggest that. No reasonable person would believe it, only someone like yourself bound and determined to be a prick.; 4/27/09, 9:57 AM
Unknown said...: I'm not the one defending the parental rights of Rapist Dad.

Nobody is doing so, you fucking jerk.; 4/27/09, 9:58 AM
former law student said...: We are talking about rape, you idiot,

You could almost consider it a matter of life and death.

Why would the DA's office be immune from the defects of other government bureaucracies?; 4/27/09, 10:01 AM
Unknown said...: Let us know when you're interested in an actual debate and I'll answer.; 4/27/09, 10:02 AM
paul a'barge said...: Lila Rose ... doing the investigative journalism and criminal investigation that, you know ... neither the media nor law enforcement would do.

All those whose wails about "she went in there and lied" are the same mutts who cheered when Lib-tard media types do the same thing.

Not buying it.; 4/27/09, 10:09 AM
former law student said...: You seem intent on blaming everyone but the rapist for the hell that a child might go through following the act itself.

You seem intent on putting a chld through hell just to have more to punish a rapist for.

I'm not the one defending the parental rights of Rapist Dad.

Nobody is doing so, you fucking jerk.

Do you really think that a teen impregnated by her father is going to tell that to the nurse's aide at Planned Parenthood?

No, she's going to blame an imaginary 31 year old guy.

You're the one who wants PP to call the parents.; 4/27/09, 10:13 AM
KCFleming said...: Recall, fls, that the video charges PP with advising a 13 year old girl to lie about the father in order to get an abortion and avoid reporting it.

The goal is abortion. Everything must be be done to further that goal. It is the Prime Directive.

Even changing the subject, and trying to shift responsibility for this away from PP. Sure, sure, the abortion industry has the best interests of a 13 year old firmly in mind.

I don't buy it, but I'm sure many on the left will find your arguments convincing.; 4/27/09, 10:14 AM
Unknown said...: You seem intent on putting a chld through hell just to have more to punish a rapist for.

No, I'm intent on blaming and punishing the right people for said hell.

You're the one who wants PP to call the parents.

No, we want PP to call the DA.; 4/27/09, 10:16 AM
Joan said...: Do you really think that a teen impregnated by her father is going to tell that to the nurse's aide at Planned Parenthood?

No, she's going to blame an imaginary 31 year old guy.
OK, so PP can't figure out that Lila is lying about being 13 and pregnant, but they can figure out that she's actually pregnant by her father, and so she invented the 31-year-old to shield herself from having to admit the shame of being sexually abused by her own dad.

That's FLS's theory, anyway.

A 31-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old needs to be made to stop. If the 31-year-old is the girl's father, it's even more imperative to do something to protect the child. There is no defending the actions of the PP staffer who pretended she didn't hear the age of the "boyfriend."; 4/27/09, 10:21 AM
former law student said...: the abortion industry has the best interests of a 13 year old firmly in mind.

These situations may be purely hypothetical to you, but not to me.

Back in the good old days, one of my Eighth Grade classmates, an early developer, got knocked up and we never saw her again -- I guess the family moved away out of embarrassment.

Later, at a high school friend's wedding, I noticed his dad wasn't there. It turned out that my friend's sister, then around 20, had finally told their mother that Dad had had intercourse with her from age 8 to 13, stopping only after fearing she would get pregnant.; 4/27/09, 10:26 AM
Unknown said...: I weep for you, FLS.

No I don't. Doesn't give you an excuse to act like a stupid troll. You don't think that a few of us could recite similar stories of friends and family devastated by such crimes?

But again, whose fault is it that that girl's life was ruined? Determined to blame some sort of societal ill or bureaucracy instead of the fact that her father was a sick bastard?; 4/27/09, 10:30 AM
KCFleming said...: Not hypothetical at all. Teenage pregnancy isn't exactly uncommon, fls.

No anecdote changes the fact that PP is an abortion mill, one that was started as a form of eugenics, to keep the poor and minorities from reproducing.

But if you feel better telling your PP Just So stories, go right ahead. Such myths are inherent to humans, and the modern ones are no less fanciful than those the Greeks entertained.

But here, the State has replaced Mt. Olympus.; 4/27/09, 10:54 AM
T Hatch said...: What would *you* do in these circumstances?

You have learned that a very serious crime has been committed. But you also have a frightened, panicked 13-year-old in front of you. What I would do is first do whatever I could to calm her down and maybe build a little trust. And later on -- maybe 15 minutes, maybe 2 hours, maybe the next day -- I'd contact the authorities and report the situation. It would all depend on the actual situation with the girl. But I wouldn't immediately pick up a phone and start dialing the cops right in front of her. If nothing else, that could be highly counterproductive, as she clearly wants to defend the 31-year-old, and could easily become completely uncooperative, which would make it difficult to catch the guy. I agree that saying things like "I didn't hear that" is unfortunate, but people often don't use the most precise language, especially in difficult situation -- it certainly doesn't mean that they were prepared to cover the whole thing up. I might not speak that way, but I would probably say something like, "Let's not worry about that right now".

Incidentally, if you actually read the article, you'll find on page 2 that the actual discussions are much more nuanced, and staffers do in fact say things like "We have to follow the laws" and encouraging her to tell her mother. Is that so outrageous?

So again, everyone who thinks this is a slam-dunk, I ask you: how exactly would you handle this situation?; 4/27/09, 11:18 AM
T Hatch said...: What would *you* do in these circumstances?

You are informed that a very serious crime has been committed. But you also have a frightened, panicked 13-year-old in front of you. How do you handle the situation? What I would do is first of all try to calm this person down, and perhaps try to build some trust. And then at some point -- maybe in 30 minutes, maybe in a few hours, maybe the next day -- I'd contact the authorities and report the situation. But I wouldn't suddenly pick up the phone and start dialing the cops in front of the kid. If nothing else, on a purely pragmatic level that could easily backfire, because she could quickly become completely uncooperative. So, yes, I agree that the cops have to be called in, but there are a lot of different approaches as to how you actually do that.

It's easy to have complete moral certainty when you're hanging out online, but in the real world things are a lot messier, and even when you have clear sense of what the right thing is, it's often much more difficult to have a good sense of how to implement that.

Incidentally, if you actually read the full article, you'll find that the issue is much more nuanced, and that staffers did in fact say things like "We have to follow the laws" and encouraging the girl to report this to her mother. I agree that statements like "I didn't hear that" are unfortunate, but you don't actually know that that wasn't just an attempt to calm the girl down.

So, again, if you're so sure of yourself, I'd love to hear how you would actually handle the situation.; 4/27/09, 11:22 AM
Unknown said...: And later on -- maybe 15 minutes, maybe 2 hours, maybe the next day -- I'd contact the authorities and report the situation. It would all depend on the actual situation with the girl.

I think that's reasonable. So if PP was as reasonable as you are, then I'm sure they will produce evidence that they contacted the authorities later!; 4/27/09, 11:32 AM
Joe said...: I'm confused; according to several posters here, a 13-year-old who has sex with a 31-year-old was raped because the 13-year-old lacks the maturity to make that decision. She does, however, have the maturity to decide to have an abortion. Make up your minds.; 4/27/09, 11:45 AM
Skyler said...: I-guess-we-know-why-he's-a-"former"-law-student wrote:

So daddy gets to decide if his incestuous grandbaby is born.

Sick.

You see, if you had finished your family law class, you would know that usually a daddy that impregnates a daughter has his parental authority taken from him, as is just and right and in the best interests of the physical health and emotional well-being of the child.; 4/27/09, 12:05 PM
Skyler said...: Later, at a high school friend's wedding, I noticed his dad wasn't there. It turned out that my friend's sister, then around 20, had finally told their mother that Dad had had intercourse with her from age 8 to 13, stopping only after fearing she would get pregnant.

Oh, I get it now. Now-we-know-why-he's-a-former-law-student really thinks that HE's the victim, being deprived of the presence and companionship of his friend's father -- who coincidentally liked to have sex with his daughter.

Tell me, Now-We-Know-Why-He's-A-Former-Law-Student, are you upset that your buddy and pal wasn't there, or are you more upset that the girl who wouldn't date you in high school had her come uppance because her daddy was having his way with her instead of you?

I don't lose my temper on line very often, but you, sir, are a sick and demented man.; 4/27/09, 12:13 PM
Skyler said...: T Hatch asked: So again, everyone who thinks this is a slam-dunk, I ask you: how exactly would you handle this situation?

Um, I would call child protective services at once, in front of the girl. I don't give a rat's patooey what the girl thinks. She wouldn't get out of the room without the police or CPS knowing what had happened.

What a child of that age thinks is not important. The crime is not mitigated at all if she has consented or enjoys the crime. It doesn't matter if the girl wants to protect the rapist at all. It doesn't matter if she wants to clam up. Whether she cooperates with the police or not is of no interest to me. My interest is in catching the rapist.

For an analogy, let's consider a different crime. What if a 13 year old girl is killed in the planned parenthood office? Should the PP staff pretend it didn't happen even if the 13 year old girl doesn't want the murderer punished? It's "true" love to her, after all, and she's Juliet. It's all so romantic, you know.

The 13 year old is the victim, but the crime is against society as well. The nature of the crime does not permit her to object to its being prosecuted.; 4/27/09, 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Um, I would call child protective services at once, in front of the girl. I don't give a rat's patooey what the girl thinks. She wouldn't get out of the room without the police or CPS knowing what had happened.She wouldn't get out of the room? What, you're going to keep her against her will for an hour while you wait on hold with CPS?; 4/27/09, 12:53 PM
Revenant said...: How is this woman like Michael Moore? Is someone faking the tapes? Is she not really talking to people at these clinics?

Michael Moore doesn't fake tapes, nor does he pretend to have interviewed people he hasn't.

What he does, is interview people and then edit the tapes to make them look as bad as possible. Just like this young woman has.; 4/27/09, 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Man, it's not often that the very first comment sums up everything wrong.

MadisonMan,

It would be far better to have the "child" get involved in the legal system and be put on trial in a rape case.And echoed by fls:

Is it always in the best interest of the child to expose the name of her rapist? If it were actually the "child" put on trial for having been raped, of course not. But so far as the PP staffer knew, there was an actual man out there who had victimized at least one child. It's in the interests of other children that such a man be caught and punished.

Surely neither of you really think that no rapist of a child ought ever to be punished, because the process of the trial would harm the child. What makes this case different from any other?

Most people whose jobs involve working with children are madatory reporters; they have to report evidence of child abuse (including statutory rape) if they see it. Suppressing it because the victim wants you to isn't allowed, for the very good reason that generally there's more than one victim. The PP staffer here was, to the best of her own knowledge, covering up for a pedophile. It's possible to color that "compassionate," but only if you don't allow for the possibility of other victims.

As for "bearing false witness," no one seems to object to other private "stings," like the one a few years back that involved submitting resumes with stereotypically "black" and "white" names to firms with job openings, even though the people "applying" for the jobs were purely fictional. People object to this or that aspect of the study, but not to the very idea of fictional resumes.; 4/27/09, 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: But I wouldn't suddenly pick up the phone and start dialing the cops in front of the kid. If nothing else, on a purely pragmatic level that could easily backfire, because she could quickly become completely uncooperative. So, yes, I agree that the cops have to be called in, but there are a lot of different approaches as to how you actually do that.Exactly. There's also the question of how much verifiable information the girl has actually provided--I'm guessing very little since the young woman in question got away with posing as a 13 year old to begin with. Likewise, you have to balance the likelihood of CPS actually doing anything with your report vs. the likelihood of the girl freaking out, running, and maybe being subject to further abuse when her 'boyfriend' finds out he's been reported to CPS. And like you said, the fact that the staffer didn't make the call right then and there doesn't mean they weren't going to ever (for instance, after examining the girl to ensure that she's actually pregnant/having intercourse), or weren't going to consult with a superior on how to handle it.

And for those who mentioned it before, yes, PP has explicit rules against videotaping in their facilities.; 4/27/09, 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Also I can't help but suspecting that a good percentage of the people lauding this as a victory for the anti-abortion movement would be happy if CPS was dissolved entirely, and likewise throw fits when it's suggested that the same laws be applied to clergy in confessionals.; 4/27/09, 1:15 PM
Skyler said...: And for those who mentioned it before, yes, PP has explicit rules against videotaping in their facilities.

How awfully convenient for them.; 4/27/09, 1:22 PM
Anonymous said...: How awfully convenient for them.Yes, because it's obviously a measure aimed at covering up their own misdeeds, and not at all about protecting their patients and staff.; 4/27/09, 1:31 PM
Revenant said...: "PP has explicit rules against videotaping in their facilities".

How awfully convenient for them.

Oh, yes, of course. Obviously Planned Parenthood bans videotaping out of some sinister motive and not, for example, because basic ethics requires respect for patient privacy.; 4/27/09, 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: mdis29a,

[Y]ou have to balance the likelihood of CPS actually doing anything with your report vs. the likelihood of the girl freaking out, running, and maybe being subject to further abuse when her 'boyfriend' finds out he's been reported to CPS.

No, you don't; no, you can't. You're legally obligated to report evidence of a crime against a minor -- not, I think, necessarily to CPS, unless the girl says she's been impregnated by her father, but surely to the police if, as this woman claimed, she was a minor impregnated by a 31-year-old.

Is there any evidence that PP staff at clinics where she tried this "sting" ever made an attempt to do this? Did they get her name, her address, her phone number? Try to find out anything about the "boyfriend," of a sort that would be useful in catching what they must assume to be a sexual predator? Do anything at all pursuant to their mandatory-reporting obligation?; 4/27/09, 1:37 PM
Skyler said...: Oh, yes, of course. Obviously Planned Parenthood bans videotaping out of some sinister motive and not, for example, because basic ethics requires respect for patient privacy.

That's why it's only convenient. I didn't say it was contrived.; 4/27/09, 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant,

Oh, yes, of course. Obviously Planned Parenthood bans videotaping out of some sinister motive and not, for example, because basic ethics requires respect for patient privacy.If that's the motive, then obviously every hospital, clinic, outpatient office, &c. would have the same policy. Very likely they do, of course. It would seem an obvious thing to do, and certainly a benefit to the patients. No one looks best when ill; and few really want everyone to know exactly what they're being treated for.

But if the "video" in the YouTube clip here is representative of what this woman actually collected, the visual component of it is nil. You can't see much of anything, and the audio is the point.

Does PP ban audiotaping at its facilities? Because that's really what we're talking about here.; 4/27/09, 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Does PP ban audiotaping at its facilities? Because that's really what we're talking about here.I'm fairly certain they do. IIRC, cell phone use is prohibited as well.; 4/27/09, 1:56 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: So, a policy to prevent patients from taping their own consultations is there to protect patients?; 4/27/09, 1:58 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Michael Moore doesn't just edit his stuff to make people look bad. That's unfair but true of almost any documentary. He fabricates situations and pretends to have exchanges that he isn't having, for example the pleading with Heston as he walks away in Bowling for Columbine. Any evidence that that's going on here?; 4/27/09, 2:02 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: And I agree with others who've pointed out that this is no different than a news show doing a ripoff report with hidden cameras.

Planned Parenthood is upset because their misdeeds were captured on tape? Cry me a river.

Sort of ironic though that we're all in a tizzy over this when their most horrendous misdeeds, killing babies everyday, are habitual, well-known, and part of their business plan.; 4/27/09, 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: mdis29a,

Most medical facilities prohibit cell phone use -- mainly, I think, because it annoys other waiting patients, NOT because OMG some patient might be recording what we say to her. Ordinary medical facilities are only too happy to have you make absolutely certain you've understood what was said to you, and want you to take away as full a record of your medical advice as possible.

Then again, ordinary medical facilities aren't trying to skirt mandatory reporting laws.; 4/27/09, 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Most medical facilities prohibit cell phone use -- mainly, I think, because it annoys other waiting patients, NOT because OMG some patient might be recording what we say to her. Ordinary medical facilities are only too happy to have you make absolutely certain you've understood what was said to you, and want you to take away as full a record of your medical advice as possible.Actually I believe the concern at PP and other facilities is that you're recording information about other patients. In any case, I doubt very much that most practitioners would be happy about having their conversations recorded without their knowledge or consent.; 4/27/09, 2:13 PM
Unknown said...: You'll have to excuse me, I just can't seem to shed a tear over Lila Rose's disregard for Planned Parenthood policy. I mean, I'm trying to construct the moral equivalence in my head to Planned Parenthood's disregard for the law, but I just can't. I'm weak that way.; 4/27/09, 2:16 PM
Salamandyr said...: To those defending the actions of the Planned Parenthood operator (or concocting some vague scenario that is not part of the original "sting" to justify said actions" I have a question, is the best option in this case, really, to quietly perform the abortion, inform no legal authority or the parents of said child, and send the child back to the arms of her abuser? Because that's the end result here. Thanks to the nice lady at Planned Parenthood, the 13 year old gets to continue fucking her 31 year old "boyfriend".

Something similar to this actually happened in my family, a 13 year old cousin of mine was diagnosed with gonorrhea. Turns out she was quite sexually active, having gotten her start at age 6 with her adult uncle (another cousin). Fortunately the doctor didn't have the "ethics" of this Planned Parenthood operator and informed the proper authorities. That uncle, who I might add had and was abusing other children, is now in prison. (She wouldn't identify the puke who gave her the clap; I would have preferred he go to jail too.); 4/27/09, 2:22 PM
blake said...: If abortion is merely a health care choice like getting a nose job or breast implants, what difference does it make how old the girl is?No one's arguing that a girl shouldn't need parental permission for rhinoplasty or implants.

would be happy if CPS was dissolved entirely, and likewise throw fits when it's suggested that the same laws be applied to clergy in confessionals. Well, I don't know if it's a victory or not, but I would be happy if CPS were eliminated, I think.

And, yes, I would throw fits if the law tried to reach into confessionals.

I don't see either of those views--both small government-based--as contradictory.

I also don't see how this particular act relates. Is it now anti-libertarian to want rape to be prosecuted?; 4/27/09, 2:33 PM
Revenant said...: So, a policy to prevent patients from taping their own consultations is there to protect patients?

It is there to protect the other patients. Otherwise you'd have Operation Rescue members coming in and pretending to be patients so they could tape the real patients and harass them.

They've done it before, after all.; 4/27/09, 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: mdis29a,

Actually I believe the concern at PP and other facilities is that you're recording information about other patients. In any case, I doubt very much that most practitioners would be happy about having their conversations recorded without their knowledge or consent.Well, this woman doesn't seem to have recorded information about other patients -- or, at least, if she did, she has not made it public, as indeed she should not.

And no one wants his/her conversations recorded "without [his/her] knowledge or consent." If you are prepared to say that no private citizen trying to uncover illegal activity of any kind can be excused for making audio recordings without some participants' "knowledge or consent," I will be the first to salute your magnificent consistency.

(Full disclosure: I once foiled a pack of bullies on my school bus by taping one morning ride's humiliations, making a full and accurate transcript, and submitting it, along with the original audio, to the principal of my high school the following morning. Did I tell them they were being recorded? Hell no.); 4/27/09, 2:37 PM
former law student said...: Skyler said...
Did anyone really believe that Planned Parenthood wasn't doing this, after lobbying for years in every state to prevent parents from knowing their children were having abortions?

I said:

So daddy gets to decide if his incestuous grandbaby is born.

Sick.

Skyler said...
You see, if you had finished your family law class, you would know that usually a daddy that impregnates a daughter has his parental authority taken from him, as is just and right and in the best interests of the physical health and emotional well-being of the child.

And how long does this adjudication process take? Within the first trimester? God forbid the wheels of justice turn slow enough that only a late-term abortion is possible.; 4/27/09, 2:43 PM
Revenant said...: I have a question, is the best option in this case, really, to quietly perform the abortion, inform no legal authority or the parents of said child, and send the child back to the arms of her abuser? Because that's the end result here.

No, it isn't.

The parts of the conversation Ms. Rose deigned to show you feature a Planned Parenthood staffer reassuring a supposed 13-year-old that her boyfriend won't be reported to the authorities. That's all.

You don't know what happened in the parts of the tape Ms. Rose refused to make public, and -- most importantly -- you don't know what the actual intentions of the staffer were. All you have is an edited tape in which the staffer *tells* the distraught "underage" patient that she intends to disregard state reporting laws.; 4/27/09, 2:43 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: It is there to protect the other patients. Great! If that's the real concern, then I guess no one is upset about her recording since it features no other patients.; 4/27/09, 2:44 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: You don't know what happened in the parts of the tape Ms. Rose refused to make publicThe rest of the tape is public. That's how we know the rest of what was said. You can get listen to it on her site.; 4/27/09, 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant,

I haven't seen the unedited tapes, but I understand that Ms. Rose has made them available.

You don't know what happened in the parts of the tape Ms. Rose refused to make public, and -- most importantly -- you don't know what the actual intentions of the staffer were. All you have is an edited tape in which the staffer *tells* the distraught "underage" patient that she intends to disregard state reporting laws.But can't we guess the "actual intentions of the staffer," or at least try to find out what they were? We can start with whether she actually tried to report anything. We can follow up with whether she attempted, however gently, to find out anything about this "boyfriend." Or, come to that, anything about the patient. Was a report filed? Were the police in fact notified of a clear (from the facts as the staffer knew them) case of statutory rape?

Look, if PP did well by this case, it ought to be child's play for them to prove it. All they'd have to show is that after they comforted the (supposed) juvenile, they did contact the police and alert them to what was apparently a sexual crime against a minor.; 4/27/09, 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Great! If that's the real concern, then I guess no one is upset about her recording since it features no other patients.You do realize that our opinions about this specific recording are distinct from PP's motivations for banning recording in general in their facilities, yes?; 4/27/09, 2:55 PM
blake said...: You do realize that our opinions about this specific recording are distinct from PP's motivations for banning recording in general in their facilities, yes?

Then why bring them up or bother to address them in this specific case?; 4/27/09, 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: But can't we guess the "actual intentions of the staffer," or at least try to find out what they were? Well, let's see. Thus far, the options presented are that the staffer was a) in a really tense situation trying to build some trust with the girl for the time being and would have made a report after confirming her age/pregnancy/sexual activity with an actual exam, or b) bound by some pedophile-abortionist pact or blinded by abortion-lust.; 4/27/09, 3:03 PM
Revenant said...: The rest of the tape is public. That's how we know the rest of what was said. You can get listen to it on her site.

The complete Indianapolis tape is available, but I'm talking about the Bloomington incident that opens the article. I can't find any reference to the full contents of that tape.; 4/27/09, 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: mdis29a,

You do realize that our opinions about this specific recording are distinct from PP's motivations for banning recording in general in their facilities, yes?Well, yes, in the sense that once a policy is in place, even if the specific reasons it was put in place aren't implicated in a particular breach of the policy, the fact that there was such a policy is in itself sufficient reason to deplore a breach of it.

(I'm trying to imitate Sir Humphrey of the BBC's "Yes, Prime Minister," but I fear I haven't been wordy enough.)

Look, I accept that PP doesn't want recordings because they may impact the confidentiality of other patients. Here we have recordings that seem to indicate obvious violations of law by PP staffers. If police had done these recordings without warrants, they would be inadmissible as evidence. I think that the same recordings, done by a private citizen in violation of clinic policy, may be admissible as evidence. But IANAL.; 4/27/09, 3:06 PM
Revenant said...: But can't we guess the "actual intentions of the staffer," or at least try to find out what they were?

Certainly you can guess. And in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing that's all you can do.; 4/27/09, 3:13 PM
Revenant said...: I find it amusing that some of the same people who are saying "well of course sometimes it is OK to break the law against secret recording of conservations" promptly turn around and adopt a "THE LAW MUST ALWAYS BE OBEYED WITHOUT QUESTION" position regarding the reporting laws themselves.; 4/27/09, 3:19 PM
Anonymous said...: mdis29a,

Well, let's see. Thus far, the options presented are that the staffer was a) in a really tense situation trying to build some trust with the girl for the time being and would have made a report after confirming her age/pregnancy/sexual activity with an actual exam, or b) bound by some pedophile-abortionist pact or blinded by abortion-lust.Look, it really isn't difficult. Either the PP staffer took steps to find out who the girl was, who the man was, &c., or she didn't. If she didn't, she wasn't in a position to do her duty after the fact, because she would not have had enough information.

Can I repeat that anyone dealing with children is a mandatory reporter? If a teacher or a school nurse waited a day or so before reporting that a child had been abused, would anyone be placated by the assurance that a full report would've been lodged after the school had "confirm[ed] her age/pregnancy/sexual activity with an actual exam"?

Any school that withheld evidence of abuse like that would, as you very well know, be sued into smithereens.; 4/27/09, 3:22 PM
Skyler said...: We-now-know-why-he's-a-former-law-student asked:

And how long does this adjudication process take? Within the first trimester? God forbid the wheels of justice turn slow enough that only a late-term abortion is possible.

Temporary orders take a couple hours.; 4/27/09, 3:25 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: And in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing that's all you can do.

Except that we do have evidence of wrongdoing here.

I find it amusing that some of the same people who are saying "well of course sometimes it is OK to break the law against secret recording of conservations" promptly turn around and adopt a "THE LAW MUST ALWAYS BE OBEYED WITHOUT QUESTION" position regarding the reporting laws themselves.

Is arguing that reporting the statutory rape of a 13 year old by a 31 year old is the right and necessary thing to do the same as arguing "THE LAW MUST ALWAYS BE OBEYED WITHOUT QUESTION?"; 4/27/09, 3:25 PM
Revenant said...: Can I repeat that anyone dealing with children is a mandatory reporter?

Does that law apply to absolutely anyone at all? E.g., if a child came up to you on the street, told you she'd been raped, and then ran away, can you go to prison if you don't make a good-faith effort to find the child's identity and report the crime?

Any school that withheld evidence of abuse like that would, as you very well know, be sued into smithereens.

Yes, but this is an abortion clinic, not a school. Abortion clinic staffers aren't child-care professionals like teachers and school nurses are. Are their legal obligations as stringent?

Any school that withheld evidence of abuse like that would, as you very well know, be sued into smithereens.

Which is good reason to suspect Planned Parenthood has a policy of not doing that. There are, after all, many millions of people who dream of destroying them. It is hard to believe they'd still exist if they made a habit of leaving themselves open to multimillion-dollar lawsuits.; 4/27/09, 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant,

I find it amusing that some of the same people who are saying "well of course sometimes it is OK to break the law against secret recording of conservations" [conversations?] promptly turn around and adopt a "THE LAW MUST ALWAYS BE OBEYED WITHOUT QUESTION" position regarding the reporting laws themselves.No, you're quite wrong. I think both laws may be broken, by all who are willing to pay the legal penalty for doing it. If Ms. Rose has broken the law in recording this material, she ought to pay the penalty for it. Of course, no one has actually alleged that she's broken the law; evidently she's broken a clinic policy against recording, and maybe that is a legal violation. If it is, she certainly ought to pay the legal penalty. She's also misrepresented herself, and there are probably legal penalties for that too. Let her pay what she owes, by all means.

And let the PP staffers who have a positive duty to protect minors from the sort of scum who prey on them pay what they owe, too. I have yet to see any evidence that anyone followed up on this woman's claims, as it was their obvious duty to do.

It wasn't even a question just of putting her back, non-pregnant, in the hands of her abuser; it was letting the supposed abuser free to do the same to other girls.; 4/27/09, 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Look, it really isn't difficult. Either the PP staffer took steps to find out who the girl was, who the man was, &c., or she didn't. If she didn't, she wasn't in a position to do her duty after the fact, because she would not have had enough information.Oh, is it as simple as that? Well, shame on the PP staffer for making the wrong call on how to extract from a cagey, abused, possibly love-struck or brain-washed pregnant 13 year old the information necessary to put her 'lover' in jail. I'm sure it's an even simpler matter when the 13 year old in question is actually a 20 year old semi-professional child impersonator hell-bent on catching someone in a mistake.; 4/27/09, 3:41 PM
Revenant said...: Except that we do have evidence of wrongdoing here.

No we don't, Freeman. We have an (edited) conversation between two people. In fact, in the unedited Indianapolis tape the staffer repeatedly states that Planned Parenthood can't take actions that violate the law. The only actual wrongdoing would be if the staffer (a) believed that a 13 year old really had been the victim of statutory rape, (b) knew who she was, but (c) failed to report it. We have no evidence of (b) or (c) and can only guess as to (a).

Is arguing that reporting the statutory rape of a 13 year old by a 31 year old is the right and necessary thing to do the same as arguing "THE LAW MUST ALWAYS BE OBEYED WITHOUT QUESTION?"

Of course not. But people aren't just arguing that reporting the statutory rape is the right thing to do. Some, like mcg, are attacking PP for allegedly breaking the law even while celebrating a woman who definitely broke the law.

Saying "sometimes you have to break the law to reveal that people are doing bad things" is a sentiment I'd agree with. "Sometimes you have to break the law to reveal that people are breaking the law", on the other hand, is not a position I can have any respect for. :); 4/27/09, 3:43 PM
Revenant said...: Of course, no one has actually alleged that she's broken the law.

From the article:

"Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles accused Rose of breaking state privacy laws when she secretly taped her interactions. It demanded she remove the videos from her website, which she did, though they are still easily found on YouTube".

So yes, people have alleged that she broke the law, and her response to the allegations suggests that the law was, at a minimum, not obviously on her side.; 4/27/09, 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...: mdis29a,

Oh, is it as simple as that? Well, shame on the PP staffer for making the wrong call on how to extract from a cagey, abused, possibly love-struck or brain-washed pregnant 13 year old the information necessary to put her 'lover' in jail. I'm sure it's an even simpler matter when the 13 year old in question is actually a 20 year old semi-professional child impersonator hell-bent on catching someone in a mistake.

Look, I don't know how to make it clearer to you. On the evidence the staffer had, a hideous crime had been committed. So far as I understand the law, it was her legal duty to report the crime. So far as I can tell, she didn't do so, or indeed take any steps towards doing so.

You don't have to work hard to "catch someone in a mistake" if they're avid to make it. And the evidence here seems to be that PP, forced to choose between alerting authorities of statutory rape and letting its clients' "boyfriends" go free, isn't always on the side of the law.; 4/27/09, 3:57 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Rev, it's pretty normal for someone who makes a bad choice to wrestle with it first. Just because the woman at the clinic said that she couldn't do anything illegal doesn't change the fact that she then DOES do something illegal by advising that yes, the girl can lie about the age.

"Sometimes you have to break the law to reveal that people are breaking the law", on the other hand, is not a position I can have any respect for.Really? I certainly can. Say it was illegal to record conversations without the other person's knowledge no matter who it was, but you had the chance to get a human trafficker making a sale on tape. Wouldn't you do it? Wouldn't that be respectable? Isn't it worth weighing the relative harms of making a recording versus what the recording will expose?; 4/27/09, 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Revanant,

So yes, people have alleged that she broke the law, and her response to the allegations suggests that the law was, at a minimum, not obviously on her side.You are right here; I apologize.; 4/27/09, 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant,

Saying "sometimes you have to break the law to reveal that people are doing bad things" is a sentiment I'd agree with. "Sometimes you have to break the law to reveal that people are breaking the law", on the other hand, is not a position I can have any respect for. ;-)

Well, you'll have to elaborate, I'm afraid. There are lots of wicked actions that aren't illegal, and possibly a few illegal actions that aren't wicked, but there's really a surprising degree of overlap. So are your hypothetical lawbreakers uncovering lawbreaking that you don't think is wrong? And does it matter if they agree to suffer the penalty for their own lawbreaking?; 4/27/09, 4:09 PM
Revenant said...: And the evidence here seems to be that PP, forced to choose between alerting authorities of statutory rape and letting its clients' "boyfriends" go free, isn't always on the side of the law.

No.

The apparent choice the PP staffer was faced with was between (a) having the "child" flee the interview, and thus presumably continue to be raped (and bear the rapist's child), or (b) reassure the "child" that her boyfriend wouldn't be implicated.

In that scenario, the situation that would be MOST likely to result in continued rape is the exact one people are outraged that the staffer didn't take -- i.e., firmly insisting on reporting.; 4/27/09, 4:11 PM
Unknown said...: I'm fine with scenario (b) as long as the reporting still happened.; 4/27/09, 4:16 PM
KCFleming said...: Shit, cops lie to people they are questioning all the time, saying they have evidence on hand when they don't, or saying their friend rolled them when they didn't.

Look, what PP did is either wrong or it ain't. If it ain't then no problem. Tell the anti-abortionists that PP thinks it's okay to lie about the actual parent.

But don't pretend teenagers having sex bothers you, or that you think consent laws are meaningful. The goal is abortion. So get it done!; 4/27/09, 4:16 PM
Revenant said...: Say it was illegal to record conversations without the other person's knowledge no matter who it was, but you had the chance to get a human trafficker making a sale on tape. Wouldn't you do it? Wouldn't that be respectable?

That would fall into the former category I mentioned:

"Saying "sometimes you have to break the law to reveal that people are doing bad things" is a sentiment I'd agree with".

The reason I would try to expose slavers is that slavery is wrong. That it is illegal is merely a happy coincidence.; 4/27/09, 4:20 PM
Revenant said...: Look, what PP did is either wrong or it ain't. If it ain't then no problem.

If it ain't, then isn't Ms. Rose's own violation of the law a problem?; 4/27/09, 4:23 PM
Revenant said...: I'm fine with scenario (b) as long as the reporting still happened.

How exactly does one go about reporting the rape of a nonexistent person by another nonexistent person?; 4/27/09, 4:24 PM
former law student said...: Does that law apply to absolutely anyone at all? E.g., if a child came up to you on the street, told you she'd been raped, and then ran away, can you go to prison if you don't make a good-faith effort to find the child's identity and report the crime?

You must immediately report whatever you know, according to www.childwelfare.gov

Reporting Procedures -- Indiana

Reporting by Other Persons
Citation: Ann. Code § 31-33-5-1

Any person who has reason to believe that a child is a victim of abuse or neglect must report.

Individual Responsibility
Citation: Ann. Code §§ 31-33-5-1 to 31-33-5-4
A mandated reporter who has reason to believe that a child is a victim of abuse or neglect shall immediately make an oral report to the Department of Child Services or a local law enforcement agency.

Content of Reports
Citation: Ann. Code § 31-33-7-4
The department shall make a written report of a child who may be a victim of child abuse or neglect no later than 48 hours after receipt of the oral report.
Written reports must be made on forms supplied by the administrator. The written reports must include, if known, the following information:

The names and addresses of the child and the child's parents, guardian, custodian, or other person responsible for the child's care
The child's age and sex
The nature and apparent extent of the child's injuries, abuse, or neglect, including any evidence of prior injuries of the child or abuse or neglect of the child or the child's siblings
The name of the person allegedly responsible for causing the injury, abuse, or neglect
The source of the report
The name of the person making the report and where the person can be reached
The actions taken by the reporting source, including the following:
Taking of photographs and x-rays
Removing or keeping of the child
Notifying the coroner
The written documentation required by § 31-34-2-3 if a child was taken into custody without a court order
Any other information that the director requires by rule or the person making the report believes might be helpful; 4/27/09, 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant,

In that scenario, the situation that would be MOST likely to result in continued rape is the exact one people are outraged that the staffer didn't take -- i.e., firmly insisting on reporting.Seriously? You don't think leaving things as they were, only with the minor girlfriend not pregnant, would not result in more statutory rape? Why ever not? What's to stop him? Or her, come to that?

Hell, if she left the clinic still preggers, there's just the off chance that there would be fewer statutory rapes in her own immediate future, though probably more in someone else's.

Can you understand that the point of mandated reporting isn't just to protect the current victim, but all possible future ones?; 4/27/09, 4:29 PM
former law student said...: Ms. Rose should realize that while failing to report child abuse is a Class B misdemeanor (up to 180 days in jail/up to $1000 fine), making a false report of child abuse is a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail/up to $5000); 4/27/09, 4:36 PM
Revenant said...: Seriously? You don't think leaving things as they were, only with the minor girlfriend not pregnant, would not result in more statutory rape? Why ever not? What's to stop him? Or her, come to that?

You are, again, presenting this as a choice between "reporting the rape" and "performing the abortion".

The REAL choice the staffer was presented with was between "having the child leave and return to the rapist" and "promising to perform the abortion without informing the authorities". The latter choice allows future opportunities to convince the child to do the right thing, as well as opportunities to gather the necessary information about the child so that the report can be filed. The former choice -- the one the staffer is being condemned for not making -- is the choice that offers the LEAST chance of preventing future rape.; 4/27/09, 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant,

How exactly does one go about reporting the rape of a nonexistent person by another nonexistent person?

One doesn't, if one knows the people both to be fictional. On the other hand, if one is confronted with a distressed young woman who says that she is a minor and is pregnant by a man twice her age, one might think, "Oh, gee, looks as though a crime has been committed here; possibly I should talk to the police."

Once again: This is not complicated. No one has claimed that PP tried to contact authorities after any one of Ms. Rose's "stings." They themselves have not claimed it. It would be nice to think that they were waiting to contact authorities until the impressionable young woman wasn't present, but it doesn't seem to be true.; 4/27/09, 4:40 PM
Revenant said...: making a false report of child abuse is a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail/up to $5000)

That's raises an interesting point. If the Planned Parenthood staffers reported these phony statutory rapes, wouldn't that have the effect of reducing the resources available for investigating real child abuse?; 4/27/09, 4:42 PM
KCFleming said...: "If it ain't, then isn't Ms. Rose's own violation of the law a problem?"

Somewhat of a small side issue, unless under-age consent laws are not a concern. Where abortion mills are concerned, that issue is clearly of very little import. Then her behavior is terribly shocking, oh my yes.

"reducing the resources available for investigating real child abuse??"
That's hilarious.
PP pushes abortion.
There is little evidence, if any, that they address abuse, a point this young woman was trying to raise.

No need to obfuscate here.
PP thinks underage sex is treated by abortion. otherwise, it's not their concern.; 4/27/09, 4:45 PM
Revenant said...: One doesn't, if one knows the people both to be fictional.

No, that's not what I'm asking. It is a fact that the victim didn't really exist; there was no 13-year-old with whatever contact information she gave. It is also a fact that the 31-year-old rapist didn't exist.

My question, which was not rhetorical, is: how do you go about reporting a "crime" when you can't identify a victim, a perpetrator, or an actual crime? Do you call up Child Protective Services and say "I'd like to report that a girl I can't identify was raped by a man I can't identify, but I don't know when or where"? Would it be cynical for me to suspect that the person on the end of the line would respond by swearing at you and hanging up?

No one has claimed that PP tried to contact authorities after any one of Ms. Rose's "stings."

Nobody has claimed that they didn't, either. So why are you presuming guilt? The only person in this case that we know for certain routinely lied and broke the law is Lila Rose. So why is Planned Parenthood presumed to be the guilty party?; 4/27/09, 4:50 PM
former law student said...: Can you understand that the point of mandated reporting isn't just to protect the current victim, but all possible future ones?

Commenters urging others to sacrifice for the good of the tommunity are always surprising and gratifying here. Universal healthcare should be a cinch to pass.; 4/27/09, 4:51 PM
Revenant said...: Somewhat of a small side issue, unless under-age consent laws are not a concern.

Violation of an innocent party's privacy by publicity-seeking activists is not "a small side issue". That sort of thing can be forgiven if and ONLY if the party in question is, in fact, guilty of a more serious wrongdoing.

Your position can be summarized as "if violating the staffer's privacy revealed illegal activity then that's great, but if not then fuck 'em because I don't like Planned Parenthood anyway".; 4/27/09, 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant,

The REAL choice the staffer was presented with was between "having the child leave and return to the rapist" and "promising to perform the abortion without informing the authorities". The latter choice allows future opportunities to convince the child to do the right thing, as well as opportunities to gather the necessary information about the child so that the report can be filed. The former choice -- the one the staffer is being condemned for not making -- is the choice that offers the LEAST chance of preventing future rape.

But that's silly. Why wouldn't the child return to the rapist even if she weren't pregnant? I would think, frankly, that she'd be more likely to go back if not pregnant. Whereas if she knew that her accusation had been given to the police, the first place she would go is home, and while she might have a very difficult time, rape by her erstwhile boyfriend wouldn't be among her worries.

You're assuming, of course, that she'd have fled if there were any hint that her boyfriend would be prosecuted, and maybe you're right. But you're arguing that the clinic would have gotten round to presenting evidence against her boyfriend evendually. I don't believe it. I have never heard of any abortion clinic presenting evidence against any man for statutory rape. So far as PP & co. figure in such cases, it's as destroyers of evidence: If the fetus is gone, there's no possible way to prove who might have fathered it.; 4/27/09, 4:55 PM
Revenant said...: Commenters urging others to sacrifice for the good of the tommunity are always surprising and gratifying here. Universal healthcare should be a cinch to pass.

Only if one were ignorant enough to think that universal healthcare would be a net good for the community.; 4/27/09, 4:55 PM
Revenant said...: But that's silly. Why wouldn't the child return to the rapist even if she weren't pregnant?

Ok, I'll explain this to you one final time. If you don't get it this time then I give up, because I don't know how else to say it.

Your scenario -- the no-longer-pregnant child returning to the rapist -- can only happen after the abortion is actually performed. Does this videotape show an abortion being performed on a 13-year-old? No? Then your scenario doesn't apply, now does it. What the tape does show is a staffer negotiating with a supposedly distraught 13-year-old. That's all. There was, at the point the tape ends, still a huge window of opportunity to get the child to do the right thing. The important thing was to prevent her from doing the WRONG thing, i.e. immediately fleeing back to the rapist.

You're assuming, of course, that she'd have fled if there were any hint that her boyfriend would be prosecuted, and maybe you're right.

She comes right out and says as much. If her claims aren't to be taken at face value then why report the rape at all? She could be making that up too.

I don't believe it. I have never heard of any abortion clinic presenting evidence against any man for statutory rape.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.; 4/27/09, 5:08 PM
KCFleming said...: "Violation of an innocent party's privacy by publicity-seeking activists is not "a small side issue."

I don't believe the privacy of PP staffers extends to neglecting their duty to report child abuse.

And compared to life and death issues like abortion, it is a very very small concern.

It's funny, but this practice has long been suspected and claimed as commonplace at PP. Now that it's been exposed, the major complaint is that the information was obtained illegally.

Good luck with that meme nationally.

Personally, I detest sting operations. I suspect this one has a bit of bullshit too. I just find it fun to see the left squeal when their Alinsky tactics are used against them.

All of a sudden, they talk about integrity and rules. Funny stuff.; 4/27/09, 5:10 PM
Anonymous said...: fls,

Commenters urging others to sacrifice for the good of the tommunity are always surprising and gratifying here. Universal healthcare should be a cinch to pass.I would sacrifice all I had for the good of the tommunity. The word alone deserves the kind of praise that it would take a great mystic to put into words.

I thought what I was saying was fairly obvious. It's on the order of saying that it's not a good idea to leave someone you know has committed murder running around free w/o any punishment.

In this case, we have someone electing not to pursue a supposed pedophile who has gotten a supposedly young girl pregnant. (I don't doubt that a proper investigation would've made it clear that the girl was shamming and the man didn't exist. But there was no investigation.)

The point is, fls, that we have criminal law not only to redress those harmed by crime, but to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to repeat their crimes.; 4/27/09, 5:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant,

Your scenario -- the no-longer-pregnant child returning to the rapist -- can only happen after the abortion is actually performed. Does this videotape show an abortion being performed on a 13-year-old? No? Then your scenario doesn't apply, now does it.No, of course not. But let me lay this out: Either the clinic staff thought Rose was actually a teenager impregnated by an adult man, and therefore a victim of statutory rape that they had to report as such, or they didn't.

If they didn't, either they thought she was an adult, or else they thought she was not pregnant.

Since they seem to have made no report, we have to conclude that they didn't think she was a minor made pregnant by an adult.
But there seems to be no evidence that they tested either whether she was pregnant or her age.; 4/27/09, 5:30 PM
Skyler said...: This is classic leftist argument tactics.

1. Radical leftist gets caught doing something wrong.
2. Instead of discussing the guilt and the impact of the wrong, the fellow radical leftist instead either:
a. Says that the politcal opposition is just as bad, or
b. Says that the person that caught the radical leftist also did something wrong.

Sorry folks. It's not too hard to wrap your head around that we're in scenario b here and that the person making the video may have violated a law in making the video.

Yeah, so? That's a diversion from the topic. If she committed a crime in making the video, then prosecute her. Who cares? That's not the importance of what was learned.

It's immaterial to the baby killing organization's guilt whether or not their conspiracy to abet statutory rape and making false statements to a judge was learned through a ruse that may or may not have been lawful. The important point is that they were caught.

It may be lawful to suck the brains out of children, by fiat of the Supreme Court, but it has never been lawful to abet statutory rape and making false statements to a judge in the lust for sucking out more children's brains.

Yeah, if appropriate, prosecute the woman making the tape. Let's get past that and on to the important issue of what to do about an organization that by its nature shields itself from scrutiny and as a result has become, if it wasn't always, corrupt and criminal.; 4/27/09, 6:02 PM
former law student said...: It's on the order of saying that it's not a good idea to leave someone you know has committed murder running around free w/o any punishment.

...
The point is, fls, that we have criminal law not only to redress those harmed by crime, but to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to repeat their crimes

Name another crime victim who has no choice but to go to the police. Fingering a criminal may well be harmful to your health Then explain why child victims are uniquely capable of carrying this burden.

Or is your position that no child molestor has ever killed his victim?; 4/27/09, 6:51 PM
former law student said...: the person making the video may have violated a law in making the video.

Yeah, so? That's a diversion from the topic. If she committed a crime in making the video, then prosecute her. Who cares? That's not the importance of what was learned.

This is just the same old tired "situational ethics," that "the end justifies the means," that it's OK to violate the law in the interests of a higher morality.

Pot. Kettle. Black.; 4/27/09, 6:55 PM
Unknown said...: "Sometimes you have to break the law to reveal that people are breaking the law", on the other hand, is not a position I can have any respect for."

Someone notify the ghost of Martin Luther KIng Jr.. Revenant would have preferred he user other means to achieve his ends.

I actually don't have a problem with true nonviolent civil disobedience. Never have. The key here is "true", which means that the offender actually is willing to pay the penalty for his crime. Not like this modern bullshit version where people seem to think they are immune from consequences or wield extra power simply because they were speaking truth to power. (Witness, e.g., the NYU cafeteria squatters.)

So if it does indeed prove that Lila Rose violated the law, and she is prosecuted for it, I think she ought to plead guilty and be proud of what she did.

Now, do we know she broke the law? It's certainly possible; and Revenant offered this:

So yes, people have alleged that she broke the law, and her response to the allegations suggests that the law was, at a minimum, not obviously on her side.

Now of course, it could be argued, "at a minimum", that she was in danger of getting sued, not prosecuted. But Revenant apparently chose her actions as tantamount to admission. That's cool, but if we're going to apply that standard fairly, what does that say about the various firings, resignations, and suspensions that have occurred as a result of her investigations?; 4/27/09, 7:13 PM
Revenant said...: "Violation of an innocent party's privacy by publicity-seeking activists is not "a small side issue."I don't believe the privacy of PP staffers extends to neglecting their duty to report child abuse.

What you said was this:

what PP did is either wrong or it ain't. If it ain't then no problem.

I'm simply pointing out that IF PP did nothing wrong -- the "ain't" in your scenario -- then Ms. Rose's behavior was reprehensible as well as illegal.

The fact that you think what PP did IS wrong is of no interest to me. I'm more interested in the fact that you think there is "no problem" with violating a person's privacy even IF the person is innocent of wrongdoing.; 4/27/09, 7:15 PM
KCFleming said...: "The fact that you think what PP did IS wrong is of no interest to me""

The fact that you see nothing wrong with letting counselors ignore child abuse is beyond my ken.; 4/27/09, 7:27 PM
Revenant said...: Since they seem to have made no report, we have to conclude that they didn't think she was a minor made pregnant by an adult. But there seems to be no evidence that they tested either whether she was pregnant or her age.

There are two main reasons why your argument is invalid.

The first is that you're falsely limiting the choices to three: "either they thought she was lying, or they filed a report, or they committed a crime". You're ignoring at least one other possibility which I've mentioned earlier, that being that they weren't able to file a report because of lack of information.

The second major flaw in your argument is that, having wrongly limited the choices to three options, you assume that two of the options (filing a report or thinking she was lying) must be false because you don't have positive proof that they are true.; 4/27/09, 7:31 PM
Unknown said...: You're ignoring at least one other possibility which I've mentioned earlier, that being that they weren't able to file a report because of lack of information.That assumes they don't have to file a report just because they didn't have all the facts. The Indiana law FLS cited, for instance, doesn't require that. It requires reporting whatever is known.; 4/27/09, 7:42 PM
Revenant said...: Someone notify the ghost of Martin Luther KIng Jr.. Revenant would have preferred he user other means to achieve his ends.

My comment:

Saying "sometimes you have to break the law to reveal that people are doing bad things" is a sentiment I'd agree with. "Sometimes you have to break the law to reveal that people are breaking the law".

A person would have to be pretty damned stupid to think that Martin Luther King is an example of the *second* sort of person instead of the first. But one can always count on mcg when the situation requires a particularly stupid remark to be made by one of the local conservatives.; 4/27/09, 7:42 PM
Revenant said...: The fact that you see nothing wrong with letting counselors ignore child abuse is beyond my ken.

I'm not sure if you're illiterate or just trolling.; 4/27/09, 7:45 PM
Revenant said...: That assumes they don't have to file a report just because they didn't have all the facts. The Indiana law FLS cited, for instance, doesn't require that. It requires reporting whatever is known.

"An unknown girl was raped by an unknown man at an unknown time in an unknown location". Your position is that not filing such a report amounts to criminal activity?

Ok.

Well, I know for a fact that a girl is currently being raped by her father. I just don't know her name, how to find her, or who her father is. But now that I've told you, you can either

(1): Pick up the phone and call the cops, or

(2): Admit that you're a reprehensible criminal.

Well, admittedly, there's a third possibility, which is

(3): Use your brain for something other than head stuffing, and concede that filing a report makes no sense unless you have a certain minimum set of data to work with.; 4/27/09, 7:50 PM
Anonymous said...: fls,

Name another crime victim who has no choice but to go to the police. Fingering a criminal may well be harmful to your health. Then explain why child victims are uniquely capable of carrying this burden.

Well, I suspect that if you showed up at a hospital with a bullet wound, you might end up telling the police how you got it whether you wanted to or not. But in this case, what would you do instead? Would you prefer a situation in which an abused child could swear every adult she came to for help to secrecy, so that in the end the abuser went free?

If you want to argue that there shouldn't be mandatory reporting laws -- that responsible adults who know about a hideous crime against a child ought to be able to keep silent about it at their own discretion -- go ahead. But if you're prepared to let the legions of [now] mandatory reporters off the hook of alerting authorities when they see a child obviously abused or traumatized, you're going to cede the right to sue them if they don't ... right?

Or is the idea that people who deal with children will have none of the formal responsibility of reporting harm to children, but all of the legal liability if they don't? Part of the point of mandatory reporting is making a responsible adult's duty in such a case crystal clear.

Revenant,

I think even PP would not schedule surgery on a child without getting her name first. If she has actually arranged for an abortion, there has got to be contact information of some kind.; 4/27/09, 8:10 PM
Unknown said...: Revenant, I did indeed misread you, and I apologize!; 4/27/09, 8:33 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: The reason I would try to expose slavers is that slavery is wrong. That it is illegal is merely a happy coincidence.I believe that's probably the position of pretty much everyone arguing the other side of this as regards statutory rape of 13 year olds.; 4/27/09, 9:42 PM
T Hatch said...: I have a question. This is not a rhetorical stunt; it's really quite genuine. I just don't know the answer and I'm hoping that some enlightened folks can help me out.

The interactions between Rose and the PP staffers seem to have been about 1 hour long; at least that's the length of one of the unedited tapes, as far as I can recall. As far as I understand, no actual abortion was performed. So at some point after the initial 1 hour interview the deception must have ended. How long did it take for this to happen? This has a substantial impact on how we think about this situation -- for instance, suppose Rose had jumped up and said "Ha! I've got you baby-killers on tape now! Fooled ya!" Then there would never be any reason for PP to report anything, because at that point they would know that the whole thing was a fiction. Or suppose she just jumped up and ran out the door. Then again, it would be difficult to report anything, since the person had just run away. On the other hand, if Rose had actually gone through the operation and a month later no report had been filed, that would be a quite a different matter, and it would fair to say that PP had acted improperly. But I can't find any description of this in any published reports.

So, what actually happened?; 4/27/09, 9:47 PM
KCFleming said...: I'm not sure if you're illiterate or just trolling.

More like talking past each other, I think.; 4/27/09, 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: T Hatch,

It's a good question, and I don't know the answer. I think we can assum that she didn't reveal the hoax, because she seems to have done this at several clinics, and it wouldn't have suited her purposes to have one clinic tip off others.

I think she must have left, possibly promising to come back. So you're quite right that we can't know what PP would have done had she actually had an abortion there. All we do know is that the staff in this clinic or that promised not to turn in her "boyfriend" and encouraged her to lie about her age or his age or both so that mandatory reporting wouldn't be triggered. Whether they would have reported anyway, despite having promised not to, we can't know.; 4/27/09, 9:58 PM
Revenant said...: Has anyone managed to watch the "unedited" Indianapolis tape? On both IE and Firefox it makes it to the 18 second mark and then glitches back to the beginning again.

So far as I can tell, the only Rose videos on YouTube are the Moore'd versions; I can't find functional uncut versions anywhere.; 4/27/09, 10:26 PM
Unknown said...: I can't either; 4/28/09, 6:44 AM