Posted on 05/15/2007 12:12:02 AM PDT by Lorianne
A hidden camera hit-piece on Planned Parenthood is quickly making the rounds on YouTube. The first of two videos captures a staff member at a Los Angeles Planned Parenthood clinic appearing to obliquely guide a pregnant 15-year-old on how to lie about her age in order to have an abortion without the clinic's being required to report a statutory rape to the police. In the second video, a worker at a different clinic counsels the girl and relates that she'd given birth at the age of 17 and later came to regret it. But, as it turns out, the 15-year-old is actually 18-year-old Lila Rose, a UCLA student doing undercover work for the Advocate, an antiabortion magazine.
There isn't exactly news here -- this is just the latest attempt by antiabortion activists to entrap Planned Parenthood workers by posing as underage girls. In the video, Rose takes on a childish, wavering tone and explains that her 23-year-old boyfriend got her pregnant, then pauses, and asks whether they have to report it. The Planned Parenthood worker leaves the room to double-check the age of consent and returns to tell her, "If you're 15, we have to report it ... If you're not, if you're older than that, then we don't need to." Rose asks, "OK, but if I just say I'm not 15, then it's different?" The worker then says, "You could say 16." Later, the worker says, "Just figure out a birthdate that works. And I don't know anything."
There's no question the Planned Parenthood worker was going against official protocol. I called up Kathy Kneer, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, who said, "It is our absolute policy that we do not counsel patients in that fashion. We regularly train our staff on how to comply and how to report suspected child abuse." She added: "She controlled the situation and that was her goal and intent. Ideally, our staff would have handled it differently." Since then, they've retrained their staff on reporting guidelines.
As much as it rocks that PP is being exposed for the ridiculous construct it is, I have to wonder - is the hidden camera technique legal for stuff like this? That’s all the libs would need to completely discredit this.
I can’t imagine that it would not be...
As long as one party to the conversation knows about it.. it would seem to be a method of more accurate note taking.
That’s how phone conversation recordings are allowed in Texas for example.
Dateline, 20/20, 60 Minutes, etc. haven’t seem to have run into problems doing the same thing.
There have been hidden camera investigations of all kinds of organizations, including pro-life orgs that help pregnant women keep their babies. Doesn’t Sixty Minutes do lots of hidden camera type investigations?
Liberal judges make rules that only conservatives can break.
That all falls under wiretapping laws, I believe. Not sure how applicable such a thing would be when the conversation takes place in person.
Hmm.. trying the Salon link to the video, I get:
“This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please make sure you accept the sender’s friend request.”
The abortion industry is a multi-billion dollar business, as well as being a laundromat for Democrat campaign funds. More importantly, they have a data base of “dirt” on politicians and their families that’s to die for. Nothing is ever going to happen to Planned Infanticide.
You have to watch a 30 second ad first to get in to Salon free.
However, you don’t need to do this as I’ve posted the article in it’s entirety.
Uh huh. Sounds like your "training" is about as effective as PP people say abstinence education is.
[Kneer] added: "She controlled the situation and that was her goal and intent. Ideally, our staff would have handled it differently."
Kathy Kneer is echoing Marion Barry: "That bitch set me up!" It wasn't an good excuse then, and it's not now.
Memo to Salon's Tracy Clark-Flory: Nice balance with the headline "Undercover attack..." What attack, you disingenuous dim bulb? Did Lila Rose hit the law-breaking PP staffer with a pie?
Ask your j-school instructor, dumbelle -- investigative journalism isn't an "attack" just because someone on your side has been caught breaking the law. And if something "isn't really news," why are you writing a story about it? You're nothing but a PR shill for a dishonest industry with the blood of untold millions of pure innocents up to its collective neck.
Sleep tight, you two-bit hack.
I got in, but the link in the article to the youtube clip had the message I posted, and I was unable to view it.
saving
It's only legal if the "target" is a conservative group or business.
Wait and see. Liberals will be coming out of the woodwork to condemn these tactics and exonerate the real culprits.
Here is an old FR thread I have linked on my about page.
Most of it is Standard Operating Procedure now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.