Planned Parenthood: Problem-solvers

Sorry for the diversion, but I was inaccurate when I wrote that "the only age that counts is the age the person asking for sex thinks the victim is." In most cases, such laws bar soliciting someone who the solicitor believes to be underage or who is actually underage.

In the Planned Parenthood case, the notification statute would only apply if it covered cases in which the "victim" was not actually underage.

Be careful about demanding prosecution. An even not-so-creative prosecutor could prosecute the anti-abortion activist for attempting to file of a false police report (or conspiracy to do that). If the report had been filed, drop the "attempt."

Private citizens engage in criminal sting actions at their own risk. Cops are frequently allowed to lie, the rest of us generally aren't. "Good police work" for a cop might be called "fraud" when done by someone else.

It may indeed be that because of the deception, no prosecutable crime was committed by the counselor. But shouldn't Bloomington's law enforcement at least consider doing SOMETHING to increase scrutiny on the local PP, given the indicated willingness to break the law? At least make a STATEMENT that if such really is going on with real victims, it won't be tolerated? Internet stings are set up for less. That their ONLY response is to come to PP's defense is troubling.

What, Planned Parenthood doesn't care about the welfare of children and is willing to cover up statutory rape? After the kind of business that they operate? How shocking!

I lived in Bloomington, Indiana for four years. It's a wonderful town. But politically the city is dominated by liberal Democrats. The city government is very supportive of Planned Parenthood's abortuary, including unfortunately with funding. Pro-lifers have repeatedly complained about how their tax dollars are used. Bloomington's liberals , however, don't listen and don't care. From my experience with these folks, they probably wouldn't give a damn if Planned Parenthood had actually helped covered up a case of statutory rape. If it was a case of animal abuse, they would be pretty upset. But unborn children and the willingness to cover up statutory rape? Nah, they can't be bothered.

Luckily, the town's orthodox Christian churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, non-denominational) are very supportive of the pro-life cause and give very generously to the town's crisis pregnancy center.

rr

I'm not sure what to make of this story, Rod.

First of all, we can all think of laws that are on the books but not generally enforced, and hence, frequently not followed.

I can also imagine a slightly different version of this story in which the heated topic of abortion is not part of the equation....say a teen comes in to a doctor's office to receive medical attention because she has been infected with an STD by a 25 year-old boyfriend, whom she dearly loves. The teen begs the nurse and doctor not to report her involvement with the boyfriend and threatens that if they do report, next time, she will simply NOT come get the medical attention she needs.

Now, what does the compassionate and ethical person due? Do we really want to discourage teens from getting needed medical attention because they know their boyfriend will get prosecuted? Of course, we'd all rather the teen not date a 25 year-old, but we have limited control over what a teen consents to.

I THINK A LOT OF US WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME REPORTING THE STATUTORY RAPE IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Nothing so illustrates the divide in this country as the response to this particular story. Each side, both Planned Parenthood supporters and Crisis Pregnancy supporters, believe they are doing the correct thing to the complete exclusion of any possibility of error. Obviously both sides cannot be correct.

It's been more than twenty-five years since Roe v. Wade, and I don't see the anti-abortion movement building any kind of consensus behind efforts to restrict access to abortions. I suppose if you can't persuade others to your side, you can always coerce behavior with the law. We do it all the time, but every time we do we take another hit at what it means to be free and self-governing.

"Saving these young women's lives is more important than following the letter of a law which the pro-lifers happen to be in favor of because it suits their cause in these instances."

Help me out here, ossicle -- how does an abortion save her life? If she was in a life-threatening situation, she'd be at the ER, not PP. At any rate, PP's not equipped to deal with high risk situation, I don't believe. How does allowing her to continue to be subjected to what the law recognizes as a sex crime protect anybody from anything?

I meant they both can be correct in their positions. There is always going to be room for error.

Heather,

Pregnancy is NOT a disease.

JLF,

The whole Roe v Wade schema was thrust upon the country 35 yrs ago by 7 people in black robes....is that indicative of self government? Before Roe v Wade, abortion was decided by each state with some states having more liberal policies while most were fairly restrictive.

If you look at any polling about 60% of the country for the last 30 yr has believed that abortion should only be legal to save the life of the mother, rape or incest. Is that setiment reflected in any law? Abortion is legal for 9 months of pregnancy. There are 1.5M abortions in the US every yr. I think the prochoice side is much better at using law in order to coerce behavior. They have coerce entire generations into a culture of radical individualism, convenience and death.

Ossicle,

I was at a movie theater once where a women suddenly yelled out "Oh my God!!" which wouldn't be that abnormal until you realize it wasn't a horror film. The movie was a comedy and the only thing on the screen was a picture of an 8 wk old unborn child. I bet at that moment she believed PP had done anything BUT save her life.

"If you look at any polling about 60% of the country for the last 30 yr has believed that abortion should only be legal to save the life of the mother, rape or incest. Is that setiment reflected in any law?"

Except that's not what the polling says. Most Americans support keeping Roe legal. Most Americans support the right to an abortion, but with more restrictions. When asked what restrictions, they are often quite vague or mention late-term abortions. They are not so absolutist as to say life, rape or incest. This year, two laws that followed that exact language were rejected by voters because they were considered to extreme.

Clarification on polling: While a majority of Americans seem to support Roe on its face, their actual positions on abortion favor a less liberalized regime than the one imposed by Roe and Casey.

I think I've heard that about 36% of Americans can really be said to be "pro-life" in the solid sense of the word. Of course, the distinctions b/t pro-life and pro-choice can be pretty fluid, and of course there's the middle spectrum that takes a more mixed view of the whole thing.

Silver,

I absolutely loved my days at IU. And Bloomington is a wonderful place to live. But almost all of the graduate students and professors in my doctoral program were liberal. This was especially the case with things such as abortion and gay marriage. I did hang out with them in both social and academic settings. They are very nice people and I remain friends with many of them to this day. But I was often the only conservative at gatherings where they seemed to assume that everyone in the room was on the left. It's amazing what liberals will say sometimes when they don't think any conservatives are around. I heard some pretty extreme remarks when it came to abortion and pro-lifers, including in the classroom from professors, one of which indicated that opposing government funding for abortion was totally unacceptable and in the 2004 election urged all of the students in the classroom to get out and vote for the Democrats because of the abortion issue. We also read a book in her class that equated the ideas of pro-lifers to policies of totalitarian dictators.

I'm not going to name any names on all this as I still have professional ties to IU and don't see what purpose it would serve to possibly become involved in this dust up. All I can say is that my experience on this issue in Bloomington were very different from yours.

rr

"A lot of them seem to support a less liberalized regime than the one they've invented in their head, like the person above who thinks abortion is legal for all 9 months of a pregnancy."

I've read the entire opinions and dissents--as well as studied them. The trimester approach was weakened somewhat by both Casey and Gonzalez, but not by much.

Furthermore, the approach of Roe is pretty liberal. Up until recently, the health exception completely swallowed any government interest in the latter trimesters. The corresponding Dalton decision interpreted the health exception so broadly as to be for any reason.

Glad you want it overturned. I agree--it is the only way to allow any form of dialogue on the issue.

I'm not sure overturning Roe would create dialogue. There's so much distrust that overturning it would merely amplify the disagreements. I think most pro-choicers would support a limit on late-term abortions, for instance. But they distrust the pro-life movement and fear that any limitations would be used as bludgeon to make even more restrictions.

And neither side really wants to give the other side a "win." Overturning Roe would mean there would 51 new battles over the ability to access abortion. While there is a nice, academic argument that the issue should have never been decided by SCOTUS, you can't unring that bell and expect niceties and compromise.

This is what liberalism has brought us to: Law-breaking is okay, as long as it leads to the intentional death of an innocent baby, and our desire for public validation of this type of behavior is fulfilled. C'mon, isn't that what they're really saying, here?

Some christians still have not figured out that abortion is hugely wrong. They are basically unsettled in their mind about it, and confused by the culture. But look (and this is for christians, now)--who makes life? God. So why is killing this child a "choice"? God didn't create that life to have him/her killed before seeing the light of day, did he?

Some Christians also realize that the are hypocritical Christians who avail themselves of a safe, private abortion. I have never had an abortion but I went to school with the self righteous types who did.

Planned Parenthood should comply with the law, of course, but there's nothing "funny" about Bloomington's response. No crime occurred. Failing to report something that didn't actually happen is not a crime.

JLF: It's been more than twenty-five years since Roe v. Wade, and I don't see the anti-abortion movement building any kind of consensus behind efforts to restrict access to abortions.

Few Americans believe that abortion should be legal all the time for whatever reason, which is what Roe allows. Few Americans believe that abortion should always be banned. The majority of Americans come down somewhere in the middle -- a philosophically untenable position, probably, but that's where most people are.

The problem is, Roe doesn't allow for compromise. It mandates unrestricted access to abortion (the "health of the mother" exception SCOTUS insists on has been interpreted to include mental health, which effectively obviates any meaningful restriction on abortion). So as long as Roe is the law of the land, no compromise is possible. In Europe, which is not as religiously observant as America, there are more restrictions on abortion. But not here. You want to see compromise on abortion? Overturn Roe, and let the states work out their own abortion laws. They'll generally be more pro-choice than I like, and more restrictive than committed pro-choicers like. But that's what compromise is, no?

Your name at 1:23 is me.....ARRRGGHHH

The question then isn't whether a fetus is life, it's whether it's human life.

Say what?

It's easier to believe that it's human and not a life (like a chunk of my skin) than a life that's not human.

It's life from the get-go, but not human? Does it pass through the evolutionary sequence from plankton to salamander to cow before becoming human?

It has 23 pairs of chromosomes. It's human.

"Of course, that part of Roe has already been eroded by Casey and the other, post-Roe Supreme Court rulings. Roe merely stands for the constitutional right to an abortion. "Unrestricted access" has been narrowed to the point it's an almost meaningless phrase."

The Casey plurality really didn't do much to whittle away anything (except for minors). It allowed the state to pass out some brochures and have a 24 hour cooling off period. I doubt that anything approaching a sonogram requirement would be upheld under the Casey standard.

The broad health standard still applied. Practically speaking, Casey did nothing to whittle away the trimester conception. And Gonzalez was extremely narrow (though a step in the right direction).

Rod. As I said earlier, I don't see where compromise is possible, given the two positions. Those who oppose abortion as murder can't accept any compromise that allows abortion, except in the rare case where the life of the mother is in actual danger. Those who see abortion as a legitimate reproductive right can't accept any compromise that might require carrying a pregnancy to term. Any compromise will have to ignore these extremes, neither of which will go quietly into the night.

Under such conditions, and with the current constituency of the Court, I doubt if you'll see Roe overturned. In the event the Court does change, I doubt if a future Court would overturn Roe without carving out some parameters applicable to all states under some kind of equal protection rubric that guarantees access but limits the time to early in the pregnancy. That isn't really a compromise, though, since the fundamental position of the pro-choice side - no pregnancy carried to term unwillingly - is satisfied while the fundamental position of the anti-abortion side is not. This solution, I'd bet, would satisfy most Americans though.

"It obliterated it. It said the state had an interest in the life of the fetus upon viability, recognized changing medical advances on viability, and furthered Webster's rejection of the trimester conception."

But retained the Goliath health exception as outlined in Dalton. And only allowed a state interest as long as there was not a significant burden upon the woman having an abortion. That's hardly an evisceration. As I said before, at most what it did was allow a cooling off period (it upheld the 24 hr. period by a hair) and a few brochures to be passed out.

"Webster, Casey, and Gonzales all allowed significant restrictions on abortion, making the concept of "unrestricted abortion" and "abortion on demand" largely fundraising phrases for the pro-life movement but little else."

Gonzalez was pretty narrow, b/c the federal partial birth abortion law was much more narrow than the previous Nebraska law in Carhart (ie. it made sure it only covered abortions much, much later). So you can't shove a knife through the skull of a third trimester child. Whoopie!

"When people say they want more restrictions, there is plenty of evidence that they don't realize how much abortion is already restricted."

A good start point would be 15-20 weeks. Gonzalez or Casey doesn't even touch that.

Planned Parenthood should comply with the law, of course, but there's nothing "funny" about Bloomington's response. No crime occurred. Failing to report something that didn't actually happen is not a crime.

Yes there was, the PP employee was conspiring to obstruct justice.

Some Christians also realize that the are hypocritical Christians who avail themselves of a safe, private abortion. I have never had an abortion but I went to school with the self righteous types who did.

Really? I've never met a single person like that.

I have, however, met many courageous women who had abortions but who were so traumatized by the experience that they then BECAME ardently pro-life and anti-abortion.

After all, who better to understand how abortion victimizes women than those who have had them.

"Since the activist never intended to seek justice but was instead attempting to trick the PP employee, it's likely there would be conspiracy."

The conspiracy is defined as a "criminal conspiracy." Undercover reporters do this all the time with private enterprises--doctors' offices even. Any criminal conspiracy here was to cover up the statutory rape (or even child abuse) of a minor.

I think this story is just that a story. A PP nurse would never do this. It was a good try though for a framing. If this were true there would be many more details in this article.

Although Dreher doesn't mention it in the summary, according to the article, Planned Parenthood suspended the worker without pay for violating their policies pending further review of the case. That sounds like how a responsible organization would deal with a rogue employee. Remember, we have no idea how many times this "sting" was attempted before this happened.

And as to other comments, police and prosecutors may be wary of encouraging private sting operations. Those can go badly wrong, and, as I said above, what's good police work for a cop often is fraud or worse when done by the rest of us.

"we have no idea how many times this "sting" was attempted before this happened."

We have no idea how many times it happens when there's no camera rolling.

Yep. Want "we have no idea" plus the desire not to encourage freelance amateur police work are two reasons why the police might stay away. A third is that Planned Parenthood is apparently taking this very seriously.

The response is not always cut and dry.

Which is why the legislature in every state that I'm aware of has removed the decision from the hands of those providing care. It is not an option to report suspected child abuse, including the rape of a child.

I immediately knew when I saw the video that it was another fraudulent attempt by pro-life activists to set a trap. The "girl" was obviously not 13 years old as anyone can plainly see.

Many women seeking abortions have also faced harassment, interference, and intimidation at abortion clinics.

Since 1977, there have been more than 45,000 reported cases of picketing, 400 cases of stalking, 150 cases of arson, and 40 bombings.

As we are all too well aware, abortion has been at the heart of a political and cultural storm for over 3 decades it has been legally available in the United States—a particularly deadly, ugly situation.

It has left dead in its wake Dr David Gunn, Dr John Bayard Britton, Dr Bernard Slepian, James Barrett, Shannon Lowney, and Leanne Nichols. At least 6 other people have been shot and seriously wounded.

fbc
If you are open about your pro-life views, then it is unlikely that those who've had an abortion would tell you about it.

What about an undercover vice officer soliciting prostitution, David? Or the beauty queens who pose as thirteen year old girls on the internet willing to have sex with adults where the stings are televized on CNN? They're not who they pretend to be (a john, a thirteen year old, etc.) so ya think the perpetraters get off sky free? Think again!

And, while Daniel is partially correct, it's worth pointing out that officers 'soliciting' prostitution are not only committing entrapment and likely to get any busts thrown out of court, but are also breaking the law and likely to actually be charged with a crime. I don't think 'soliciting' means what you think it means.

But even more relevantly, various positions are required to report, as I said, actual abuse. Not imaginary abuse. If they turn on their TV and watch a TV show about abused children, they don't have to call that in.

The 'stings' you're talking about, Tom, happen when the person besides the police officer actually crosses the line into illegal behavior, which the police officer is very careful not to suggest, or it's entrapment.

All 'must report abuse laws' have, at the minimum, actual abuse of actual underaged people, so by definition no one involved can actually break the law. (Unless it's the person running the 'sting', as it's sometimes illegal to provide false information to get medical treatment.)

But I'm tired of talking about this. Why don't you find some law under which the Planned Parenthood person's behavior would be illegal?

'The "girl" was obviously not 13 years old as anyone can plainly see.'

No, no one can look at another person and "plainly see" her age. There are people who look much older and younger than their ages. It wasn't impossible that a 13 year old could look like this young lady. f9You might have a point that someone ought to have been suspicious, but you can't say that someone can "plainly see" another person's age.