Illegal Planned Parenthood Conduct

[preservanation]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200705/NAT20070516d.html


Lawmaker Expresses Dismay Over
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
May 16, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) said Wednesday she was "heartbroken" over recent controversies involving Planned Parenthood clinics in Ohio and California in which employees of the abortion provider are accused of ignoring or avoiding laws requiring that they report cases of rape.

"As a woman and mother, I am heartbroken when I hear of a young girl being victimized," Schmidt said in a statement. "When these young girls reach out for help from a group that claims to be pro-woman and get none, my feelings turn to outrage.

"This is clearly yet another case where young girls, who need our help, are instead being further victimized," she added.

As Cybercast News Service recently reported, Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles have come under fire from a pro-life activist who videotaped a clinic employee encouraging her to lie about her age to avoid reporting statutory rape.

Lila Rose, an 18-year-old UCLA sophomore posed as a pregnant 15-year-old and told a Planned Parenthood employee her boyfriend was 23. This should have prompted the employee to report the statutory rape to police.

Instead, the employee is heard on hidden video camera telling Rose to "figure out a birth date that works" so that she would appear to be 16, the age of consent in California. "I don't know anything," the employee added.

Last week in Ohio, a girl filed suit against Planned Parenthood alleging that clinic employees in 2004 failed to report to police that she was being raped by her father and that the baby she aborted was his.

The suit alleges that the clinic's failure to report the charges led to another year and a half of abuse.

Planned Parenthood officials maintain that the incidents are anomalies and that the organization's policy is to follow all laws regarding reporting sexual abuse.

"[I]n 99.9 percent of the time, our employees do follow the laws," Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California Kathy Kneer told Cybercast News Service. "It is our policy to completely comply with all reporting laws. We regularly train and retrain our staff on all aspects of reporting laws."

On Monday, Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles threatened to sue Rose if she didn't turn over the tapes and remove them from the Internet, citing California privacy laws which prohibit recording a confidential conversation without the consent of all parties.

The violations of policy and the law could pose big problems for Planned Parenthood, which received federal funding for family planning under Title X of the Public Health Service Act.

"That Planned Parenthood is covering up these cases is an outrage, but that they are using tax-payer funds to do so is equally disturbing," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List - a network of pro-life donors "dedicated to mobilizing, advancing and representing pro-life women in politics."

In a statement Wednesday, Dannenfelser encouraged Democratic leaders in Congress to investigate Planned Parenthood.I don't care how you feel about abortion, but PP employees covering up incestuous rape of minors cannot be on your list of "good things"

[Drocket]

I'm not really sure if I agree with that law. Its a complicated situation, but forcing doctors/abortion providers to inform police about these sort of things sounds like a good way to ensure that girls in these situations don't come forward for any sort of help at all.

[apdst]

Its a complicated situation, but forcing doctors/abortion providers to inform police about these sort of things sounds like a good way to ensure that girls in these situations don't come forward for any sort of help at all.

Let's allow hospitals tos top reporting gunshot victims, too. Just let the criminals walk.

[Go Fish]

I'm not really sure if I agree with that law. Its a complicated situation, but forcing doctors/abortion providers to inform police about these sort of things sounds like a good way to ensure that girls in these situations don't come forward for any sort of help at all.


You didn't really type those words, did you? One chance for a little girl to get out of a situation where she's being raped, and you want to take that hope away from her? YGBSM.......
The only person that wins in your world is the rapist. There's nothing "complicated" about it.

[Alonzo]

I don't care how you feel about abortion, but PP employees covering up incestuous rape of minors cannot be on your list of "good things"

The problem is that if they inform when the girl doesn't want them to she may go ahead and bring the baby into the world she's currently in, so now you'd have two people suffering instead of just one. That's more likely to happen if they're known for reporting things against a persons will.

I'm not really sure if I agree with that law. Its a complicated situation, but forcing doctors/abortion providers to inform police about these sort of things sounds like a good way to ensure that girls in these situations don't come forward for any sort of help at all.

I agree with the law in terms of doctors and such, but not with abortion. Abortion is about preventing the birth of what will be a person. So while there is much concern for the safety of the woman, doing so would reduce their likelihood of going there and increase the likelihood of bringing another person into a dangerous environment.

[apdst]

I agree with the law in terms of doctors and such, but not with abortion. Abortion is about preventing the birth of what will be a person.

Don't doctors and such perform the abortions? Hello?

[Alonzo]

I agree with the law in terms of doctors and such, but not with abortion. Abortion is about preventing the birth of what will be a person.

Don't doctors and such perform the abortions? Hello?


Yes they do, but I clearly said abortions were an exception. You are currently dealing with one person at that time, but failure to act will mean you have to deal with two people. Why put a baby at risk of growing up in that environment?

You're solution will likely save less girls than it will place babies and new children in harms way.

[Go Fish]

Let me simply say that I'm flabbergasted, yet not the least bit surprised, that some want to keep incest a "Family Matter".
I'm out of this thread, under protest.

[apdst]

The abortion takes priority over possibly catching the rapist? Naw, I say leave the law in place.

[Drocket]

You didn't really type those words, did you? One chance for a little girl to get out of a situation where she's being raped, and you want to take that hope away from her? YGBSM.......

First off, I didn't take away hope from her - she did that herself by refusing to report the crime to the police. The abortion center doctors should definitely encourage her to report what's going on to the police, and should help her if she wants to. I'd even give doctors legal protection for breaking confidentiality if they feel that its a situation in which law enforcement needs to be involved (if, for instance, they feel that the father/older male/whatever is forcing her to get an abortion against her will, or if they feel she's in immediate danger.)

Legally obligating them to contact law enforcement, though, quite possibly means that a half-dozen other girls won't get any help at all, and will quite possibly die trying to perform abortions on themselves.

Besides that, if the girl doesn't want to contact law enforcement, she's probably going to refuse to testify. Without testimony, conviction in a rape case is probably unlikely. You've probably just thrown gasoline on an already bad situation, and not improved it at all.

[Drocket]

Let's allow hospitals tos top reporting gunshot victims, too. Just let the criminals walk.

No problems there, either. Again, if the victim doesn't want to testify, odds are a conviction will be impossible anyway. By legally requiring law enforcement get involved, all you've probably accomplished is forcing some victims to forgo medical help.

[apdst]

By legally requiring law enforcement get involved, all you've probably accomplished is forcing some victims to forgo medical help.

But, that hasn't been the case. Has it?

[Drocket]

If someone chooses to not go to the doctor, how exactly would you know? That's rather backwards, anyway: doctors, much like lawyers, are required to treat their patients with confidentiality. I would say that if you want to require doctors to violate that confidentiality, you have to prove that doing so promotes the greater good. Otherwise you're essentially making the argument that lack of a right to privacy is/should be the default (AKA guilty until proven innocent.)

[cronic]

If someone chooses to not go to the doctor, how exactly would you know? That's rather backwards, anyway: doctors, much like lawyers, are required to treat their patients with confidentiality. I would say that if you want to require doctors to violate that confidentiality, you have to prove that doing so promotes the greater good. Otherwise you're essentially making the argument that lack of a right to privacy is/should be the default (AKA guilty until proven innocent.)


what if a drunk driver is brought in from an accident.. he crashes out his passengers and another car.. he is drunk.. shouldn't the doctor tell the cops?

[Drocket]

what if a drunk driver is brought in from an accident.. he crashes out his passengers and another car.. he is drunk.. shouldn't the doctor tell the cops?

Yes, because he's the criminal in that situation. That's different than if someone is brought in who was the victim of a drunk driver. The rights of a criminal aren't the same as the rights of a victim.

[cronic]

what if a drunk driver is brought in from an accident.. he crashes out his passengers and another car.. he is drunk.. shouldn't the doctor tell the cops?

Yes, because he's the criminal in that situation. That's different than if someone is brought in who was the victim of a drunk driver. The rights of a criminal aren't the same as the rights of a victim.


good answer...:peace:

Ok.. what if a victim from a drunk driver was brought in?..
knew who the driver was.. but had a throat injury and couldn't talk.. then she wrote the name of the driver on a peice of paper, then passes out..
the doctor finds the paper..
Should he take it to the cops?.. or no?

Yano im just messin with ya now right?...lol

[apdst]

doctors, much like lawyers, are required to treat their patients with confidentiality. I would say that if you want to require doctors to violate that confidentiality

A doctor's patient/doctor relationship doesn't cover ignoring a crime.

Yes, because he's the criminal in that situation. That's different than if someone is brought in who was the victim of a drunk driver. The rights of a criminal aren't the same as the rights of a victim.

What if the gunshot victim dies, or is a coma? Are his rights still flushed down the toilet?

[Drocket]

Ok.. what if a victim from a drunk driver was brought in?..
knew who the driver was.. but had a throat injury and couldn't talk.. then she wrote the name of the driver on a peice of paper, then passes out..
the doctor finds the paper..
Should he take it to the cops?.. or no?
By the act of writing it down, the victim is indicating that he/she wants other people to know who committed the crime. Therefore calling the police is the right action.

A doctor's patient/doctor relationship doesn't cover ignoring a crime.
Whether it does or not is something that we, as a society, decide. The question we have to ask is whether covering it or not is for the greater good. My belief is that requiring doctors to violate confidentiality in such a broad spectrum of cases does unnecessary harm. I believe that the best course of action is to leave it up to the discretion of the doctors involved to decide the best course of action based on each individual case is the best choice. There'll certainly be mistakes made that way, but overall, its better than trying to shove a one-size-fits-all solution onto such a big and complicated problem.

What if the gunshot victim dies, or is a coma? Are his rights still flushed down the toilet?
No, because the vast majority of victims chose to involve the police. Therefore its quite reasonable to assume that any given victim will choose to do so. Once a victim indicates that he desires something else, though, his wishes should be respected.

[Alonzo]

The abortion takes priority over possibly catching the rapist? Naw, I say leave the law in place.


No, protecting women from having unwanted children, and keeping new children from experiencing growing up with a rapist, takes priority over catching the rapist.

And, since you would be scaring some raped women away from the center, many women who need help in getting rid of their rapists baby wouldn't seek it out.

[Drocket]

What if the gunshot victim dies, or is a coma? Are his rights still flushed down the toilet?

Just to expand a bit here: you talk about the rights of the victim, yet you're not letting the victim have any choice at all here. If the victim has the right to report a crime, doesn't they also have the right to NOT report a crime? Instead of right, I think the word you're looking for is 'obligation', or 'burden'. 'Requirement', perhaps. Certainly not 'right', as rights, by their very nature, are a choice, not something that's forced on you whether you like it or not.

(Wait, why am I arguing the nature of rights with a Iraq war supporter...)

[preservanation]

Unbelievable, some want to leave the choice of whether or not to prosecute a raping pedophile up to a thirteen year old girl?
Are these the same people who don't think a 17 year old has the ability to choose a career in the military?...probably.

[PostmodernProphet]

keeping new children from experiencing growing up with a rapist, takes priority over catching the rapist

funny, I would have thought that the best way to keep new children from growing up with a rapist WAS to catch the rapist.....

[Alonzo]

keeping new children from experiencing growing up with a rapist, takes priority over catching the rapist

funny, I would have thought that the best way to keep new children from growing up with a rapist WAS to catch the rapist.....


Which won't happen if people don't go to receive the abortion due to fears they will be found out, or if people refuse to testify.

Do you really think getting a child to testify against a parent is easy? There's the conflict of "Well it is my mother/father!", the issue of increased violence, threats against others and so on. There are places where a doctor should report these things, but an abortion clinic is not one of them.

Unbelievable, some want to leave the choice of whether or not to prosecute a raping pedophile up to a thirteen year old girl?

How many girls will refuse to seek help by not getting an abortion if that becomes the policy? How many more kids will be born into that environment if that becomes an abortion? For every guy you catch, you may have made it worse for 2 or 3 others, plus their soon to be child.

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you really think getting a child to testify against a parent is easy? There's the conflict of "Well it is my mother/father!", the issue of increased violence, threats against others and so on. There are places where a doctor should report these things, but an abortion clinic is not one of them.

you have jumped to the situation where the rapist is the parent?.....the original suggestion was of a 15 year old coming to the abortion clinic accompanied by her 23 year old boyfriend....I would think that scenario would be much more likely than a situation of incest......requiring parental notification for abortions would solve the majority of problems.....

How many girls will refuse to seek help by not getting an abortion if that becomes the policy?

and how many 15 year olds will get an abortion at the insistence of their 23 year old boyfriend who has no concern for anyone but himself?.......

[preservanation]

I want to stick with the parent part...It should be reported by the clinic as the law requires...at that point a prosecutor can indite without the minors consent.
I would think the paternity test should suffice to convince the father rapist to plead out, thus no trial.
To me, this is a no brainer.

[Alonzo]

Do you really think getting a child to testify against a parent is easy? There's the conflict of "Well it is my mother/father!", the issue of increased violence, threats against others and so on. There are places where a doctor should report these things, but an abortion clinic is not one of them.

you have jumped to the situation where the rapist is the parent?.....the original suggestion was of a 15 year old coming to the abortion clinic accompanied by her 23 year old boyfriend....I would think that scenario would be much more likely than a situation of incest......requiring parental notification for abortions would solve the majority of problems.....

How many girls will refuse to seek help by not getting an abortion if that becomes the policy?

and how many 15 year olds will get an abortion at the insistence of their 23 year old boyfriend who has no concern for anyone but himself?.......


The issue being discussed was parent, so that was in my example.

As for the 23 year old boyfriend, show me that a significant amount of girls will testify to outweigh the harm you will cause by scaring away those who either won't cooperate, or simply will avoid the clinic.

[PostmodernProphet]

As for the 23 year old boyfriend, show me that a significant amount of girls will testify to outweigh the harm you will cause by scaring away those who either won't cooperate, or simply will avoid the clinic.


I see significant harm either way....in which situation is more harm caused ....by leaving the fifteen year old at the mercy of an abusive 23 year old who rapes her and forces her to abort to cover up his crime.....or having a fifteen year old giving birth to a child who could be released for adoption.....

[Drocket]

I see significant harm either way....in which situation is more harm caused ....by leaving the fifteen year old at the mercy of an abusive 23 year old who rapes her and forces her to abort to cover up his crime.....

Actually, we weren't discussing rape - we were discussing statutory rape, which is a different animal. If she was raped and the guy is now threatening her, its probably not going to be very hard to convince her to press charges. Point out that police protection is available, and that she'll be safe and free is/when he's sent to prison.

What we were discussins is, what if the girl WILLINGLY slept with a 23 year old, and is now WILLINGLY having an abortion? What are the odds she's going to testify against him? Even if you do manage to convict the guy without her help (which you're probably not going to get, as they're probably in **love** (need a floating heart smiley...)), she's still probably going to get the abortion anyway. All you've succeeded in doing is driving away other girls in other situations so that they potentially do something stupid and dangerous like try to self-abort (which a depressingly high number of teenage girls already do, often to their own harm.)

[PostmodernProphet]

there is no "willingly" in the case of a fifteen year old in states where that constitutes statutory rape.....

[Drocket]

there is no "willingly" in the case of a fifteen year old in states where that constitutes statutory rape.....


Legally, yes. In reality, though, we all know the difference.

[PostmodernProphet]

there is no "willingly" in the case of a fifteen year old in states where that constitutes statutory rape.....


Legally, yes. In reality, though, we all know the difference.


???....there is no "willingly" legally because there is an age at which the child DOESN'T know the difference......

[Alonzo]

prophet, the point is the child is willingly engaging in the action. It's like saying a child who sneaks out the house at night and runs away isn't doing so "willingly". They legally can't consent, but they can "willingly" do things. If you think children do not "willingly" do things you must have never been around one or had to argue with one.

Do you honestly think the childs willingness has no impact on the likelihood of them testifying?

[PostmodernProphet]

prophet, the point is the child is willingly engaging in the action

the point is, the child is too immature to form a legitimate "will" with respect to the issue......is it inconceivable to you that a 23 year old would be able to assert control over a fifteen year old girl so that she would not exercise her true "will"?........

[Alonzo]

That's why she cannot legally consent. But her will still plays a significant role in her actions, and that's the problem here. It's what will she do, and what will others do, if this is enforced, not what she is legally capable of.

[PostmodernProphet]

that's why the law chooses to protect her/him from their immaturity......