Planned Parenthood Threatens UCLA Pro-Life Advocate on Abortion Coverup (she now has legal counsel)

1918 dot com ^ | 5-16-07

[doug from upland]

NOTE: I just spoke for a moment to Lila Rose on the phone and will do an interview with her for FR when she has some time to talk. She was out the door heading to another studio for an interview. She told me that she now has legal representation.
==========================================

Planned Parenthood Threatens UCLA Pro-Life Advocate on Abortion Coverup   

div>

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

From LifeNews.com: Planned Parenthood is upset that a pro-life student at UCLA posed as a pregnant teenager and exposed it for advising her to disguise statutory rape. In an undercover investigative story for a student-run newspaper, UCLA student Lila Rose posed as a pregnant 15 year-old and entered a Santa Monica Planned Parenthood.

She told officials there that a 23 year old man had impregnated her and her article in The Advocate newspaper says PP staff assured Rose that if she said she was 16 or older, they wouldn't have to report the rape.

Unbeknownst to Planned Parenthood officials at the time, Rose taped the conversations and posted them on the popular web site YouTube.

The abortion facility staff encouraged her to "figure out a birth-date that works," to obtain the abortion and avoid getting the man in trouble with the police.

That isn't going over well with the abortion business and Mary Jane Wagle, the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles sent Rose a letter threatening to sue her.

According to the letter, which LifeNews.com obtained, Wagle claims the videos were made "through false pretenses and unlawfully" and that the conversations they contain "were surreptitiously recorded without the knowledge and consent of PPLA employees."

Wagle claims the videos violate the state's invasion of privacy laws and she demands that Rose remove the videos from YouTube and provide the original copies of them to PPLA officials as well as cease all communications with the abortion business.

"If you do not take these three steps, PPLA will seek appropriate legal remedies," Wagle wrote and threatened that failure to respond could be met with several fines at $5,000 each for violating the state law on privacy.

Responding to the letter, David French, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, told CNS News that Planned Parenthood is "engaging in a campaign...to bully an 18-year-old to distract attention from the fact that their employees were engaging in unlawful behavior."

French is providing legal counsel to Rose and told the news service that "Nothing changes the truth of what's contained in those videotapes."

"Planned Parenthood was advocating that a patient lie, advocating a way around mandatory reporting requirements for statutory rape, and nothing that Planned Parenthood does as far as trying to bully her regarding the tapes themselves can change those facts," he said.

French said that Rose doesn't want to wind up in court and that she will comply with Planned Parenthood's demands.

After releasing the videotape, Rose told LifeNews.com that "California's mandatory reporting laws for statutory rape are supposed to protect pregnant minors."

"Underage girls are being targeted by predators, and Planned Parenthood is busy covering up the evidence. How many other rapes has this one clinic covered up?" she asked.

The story appears in the second issue of the newspaper and the first one had details about the UCLA case.

In that situation, the counselor told Rose, who again claimed to be pregnant, that the college has no resources available for students keeping their babies. The counselor also encouraged the student to get the state health system to pay for the abortion.

The advice came from Ann Brooks, nurse practitioner and counselor at the UCLA Health Center.

Rose said the counseling was entirely aimed at encouraging an abortion -- thinking that was the only option to help her stay in school.
The student said Brooks also advised her to use Medi-Cal to fund her abortion with taxpayer funds.

"I have a place I can send you where they will get you signed up for Medi-Cal coverage and they just don't ask," the counselor reportedly said.

Brooks allegedly said Rose should have an abortion because of a lack of support for pregnancies on campus and the discomforts of pregnancy.

"Most of the students I talk to terminate their pregnancies," Brooks said, describing the unborn child as "a collection of cells."

She added that Rose could expect "physical difficulties" during pregnancy and the "embarrassment of your classmates" as a pregnant student living in the school dorms.

Brooks said "UCLA doesn't support people who are pregnant and make things easier for them necessarily."

[doug from upland]

Does Planned Parenthood really want their records subpoenaed in a civil lawsuit? They are baby killers. Are they also stupid baby killers?

[gidget7]

Kudos dfu!!

We will be waiting for that interview! This is a brave woman, and I pray this will get a lot of coverage.

[Grunthor]

Heard about this on Glenn Beck. I love that kids like this exist in this nation.

[gidget7]

I knew of a nurse who at one point couldn’t find the position she wanted and took a temp. position with PPH, believing at the time they gave medical exams to the poor. What a shock she was in for. She wouldn’t go public with what she learned, but confided in some of us that they performed some “abortions” on unsuspecting girls who were not even pregnant. What they go was actually an ordinary D and C, but were told otherwise. These people have absolutely no scruples of ANY kind.

[moonman]

There is no way she can be sucessfully sued for video or audio taping an organization or agency which takes taxpayers money. There is no ‘privacy’ issue when given illegal advice.

[outofstyle]

French said that Rose doesn't want to wind up in court and that she will comply with Planned Parenthood's demands.

I suppose it does not matter now.

[ComputerGuy]

French said that Rose doesn't want to wind up in court and that she will comply with Planned Parenthood's demands.
So that's the advice he's giving her - just cave in ?

[Kimmers]

Thank you and we will be looking forward to the interview. She is an amazing young woman.....

[doug from upland]

You are correct. They are digging a very big hole for themselves. Whose privacy was violated here? Her own? She chose to violate it. I believe that this case is going to have women coming out of the woodwork to sue Planned Parenthood. It should also get them investigated across the country for felony violations. Any parent who had an underage child impregnated by a predator, had their child undergo a secret abortion, and not had the clinic turn in the predator as provided by law should be suing. OPEN THE FLOODGATES!

[RobbyS]

Planned Parenthood has a “moderate” reputation, but they are actually as fanatical as the KKK.

[17th Miss Regt]

Planned Parenthood has a “moderate” reputation, but they are actually as fanatical as the KKK.

Why shouldn't they be as fanatical? They have many of the same racial goals as the KKK and the Nazis. Look up Margaret Sanger and her involvement in the eugenics movement.

[Nachum]

Does Planned Parenthood really want their records subpoenaed in a civil lawsuit? They are baby killers. Are they also stupid baby killers?

No, I do not believe that they are stupid at all. They have the confidence of knowing that public institutions, politicians, and lots of liberals in the media have their backs. They can hammer this girl as much as they want and no one will hit them back hard enough to make them blink. It's business as usual for the nasty people at PPLA.

[RobbyS]

Well, Sanger worked hard to sell the black clergy on abortion and the result is that the black population of the United States may be half of ehat it would be without abortion on demand.

[doug from upland]

I didn’t say she had good legal counsel. I want to see what she has to say about this. Perhaps Pacific Justice Institute should be representing her.

http://www.pacificjustice.org/

[CA Conservative]

Whose privacy was violated here? Her own? She chose to violate it.

Actually, here in California it is illegal to video tape or audiotape a "confidential" conversation unless both parties agree - unlss you are the police, of course.

I had a close friend who was having problems with CPS. Her ex had made some ridiculous claims to CPS and so she was having to deal with the social worker. She would talk to the social worker on the phone and when she would read the social worker's report of the conversation that was submitted to the court, it was completely different than the actual conversation. She finally taped her conversation with the social worker, and when the social worker submitted another false report of what was said, my friend produced a taped copy of the conversation, proving that the social worker was lying. Rather than discipline the social worker, the court required my friend to turn over the tape, and threatened her with civil and criminal penalties for taping the conversation.

We later discovered that the social worker was a friend of the ex-husband's new girlfriend, and the court never did anything about that either. Just one of the many reasons I have nothing but contempt for the CPS system.

[doug from upland]

I understand. In this case, PPLA apparently claimed this violated medical privacy.

[CA Conservative]

Actually, in the article I read on this case yesterday, PP specifically cited the privacy statute that covers confidential communications. Although medical communications are included, it also covers any communication in which either party has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[Neidermeyer]

Actually, here in California it is illegal to video tape or audiotape a “confidential” conversation unless both parties agree - unlss you are the police, of course.
************************************
PP has video surveilance in all public and semi public areas of all their clinics , exterior , interior waiting areas , front desk etc. the PP employee had agreed to be taped by accepting a job there , she has ZERO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY ,, what she does have is the expectation that if she does something illegal PP will have her back to whatever extent they can do so ...

[Tall_Texan]

I knew a young woman who once went to Planned Parenthood for a pregnancy test. She was a nice girl but not terribly smart or world-wise. When the PP “advisor” came back into the room with the results, she began asking Linda some questions.

“What are you going to do if the results come back positive?”

“Have you thought about how difficult it will be for you to raise a baby?”

“Do you really want to have a baby when you’re single and not able to afford one?”

After other such leading questions, Linda got mad and yelled “If I’m pregnant, I’m going to keep the baby. Now, give me the damn results!”

The results were negative.

So why, if the “advisor” knew the results were negative, did she continue to pepper Linda with what-if questions as if the results were positive?

To sell her an abortion she didn’t need, of course. When I told her this, her eyes got as big as saucers. She had no idea how close she came to getting conned.