8mm
Posted on 05/16/2007 4:28:04 PM PDT by doug from upland
Planned Parenthood Threatens Lawsuit Against Pro-Life UCLA Student
By Doug Huntington Christian Post Reporter Wed, May. 16 2007 07:22 AM ET
Planned Parenthood, the leading provider of surgical abortions, has threatened to file a lawsuit against an 18-year-old student journalist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
Lilia Rose, who is the student editor and founder of the student pro-life magazine The Advocate, was contacted by the pro-choice organization after she recorded herself going into a clinic in Santa Monica, Calif., posing as a 15-year-old pregnant girl. She went in for an “abortion” with a man named James O’Keefe, who acted as her 23-year-old boyfriend, which would be considered statutory rape.
The tapes reveal that she was advised by employees to invent a birthday, so she did not appear to be 15, making her situation legal. A letter from Planned Parenthood expressed to her that she had no right to tape the incident, and that she did so without their consent.
“[You must] immediately relinquish to PPLA (Planned Parenthood Los Angeles) the original and any copies of all communications with PPLA employees you have recorded without their consent,” reported the letter which was signed by Mary Jane Wagle, CEO of PPLA.
According to PPLA, the lawsuit could cost Rose $5,000 or three times actual damages.
In the recorded conversation, the UCLA student found that PPLA encouraged her not to report her actual age to protect her “boyfriend.” Rose had done the undercover work to expose this practice.
“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,” explained the employee in the recording. “You could say 16…well, just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.”
Rather than threatening a lawsuit, Rose instead noted that the organization should make changes to their policies. According to Rose, Planned Parenthood has had numerous incidences in the past
One such example occurred when Life Dynamics, a Texas-based non-profit organization, hired an actress to make approximately 800 phone calls to abortion facilities across several states, acting as a 13-year-old girl. (Watch the video) She described herself as a victim of sexual assault, but 91 percent of the locations that admitted the action was a crime agreed to conceal it.
“This lawsuit threat is an example of Planned Parenthood using intimidation against those willing to expose its crimes,” explained Rose in an email to The Christian Post. “Planned Parenthood is a $900 million operation. Instead of threatening me with a lawsuit, Planned Parenthood should call a press conference condemning its staffers and promising major reform to protect young girls. Instead, they are threatening a college student.”
Rose has expressed her concern over the girls involved with Planned Parenthood and has also talked about the problems with organization since it is federally funded.
“Imagine a major corporation had been exposed for committing crimes in order to pad its bottom line. There would be a parade of congressmen demanding hearings and reform,” added the UCLA student. “Young girls are at risk and Planned Parenthood is receiving federal tax money. The federal government should investigate this and Planned Parenthood, like any other corporation, should be held accountable.”
Rose, who is currently majoring in political science, founded The Advocate in January.
See post 20.
What’s the saying - “What’s done in the darkness will shine in the light”?
I think they said O’reilly got sick last last night!
I do not think abortions are good. I beleive in the sanctity of life. However, making them illegal the way they were illegal, state by state before Roe v Wade was not good.
It was hypocritical. And the pro life movement ( here I will get flamed ) is also hypocritical. When abortions were illegal, only the doctors and clinics were at risk of being prosecuted. If people really believe we should have abortions be illegal everyone involved should be prosecuted. And that never happened. So it was just all about dangerous , illegal abortions. The whole problem was never solved or helped.
Then if you mete out “justice” fairly...what will happen if you also send a mother of three who has an abortion and her spouse who drives her to the clinic and pays for the proceedure to prison also?
This is not so simple as putting doctors in jail or prison and closing clinics.
It’s as simple as overturning bad law in the form of Roe V. Wade. Let the states decide the matter for themselves.
Fantastic thread, doug. Thanks for posting it.
No its not as simple as that.You have not responded with a an answer to the dillema we had before Roe v Wade, women just ran to whatever state they could and many were hurt by illegal abortions.
Again, the hypocrisy is unbeleivable...”let the states decide”...Who do you punish? the doctor, the patient, the spouse, the clinic? The pro life group does not answer the legal questions we will have to answer...and those issues are so ‘simple.” that is my point.
Oh yeah...its simple...just let the states decide.what a cop out to the real problems of abortions.
Have been told that Rose will be on tomorrow night. I watched O’Reilly tonight to see if she might be on. I was treated to Bill and Dennis Miller calling Falwell “hateful.”
We live in a representative government, “let’s the states decide” is just short handed for “let the peoples of the states decide”. Sure it’s a complicated issue, there are a lot of complicated issues, why should abortion be the only
“complicated” issue that is decided by fiat from judges. Why not trust that all you issue you bring up will be addressed in a fair legislative process honest debate takes place and where all sides to to voice their issues and concerns?
Your point is well taken re letting the states decide on issues that represent the peoples of that state.
Yet whether the states decide or the feds decide...no one has yet addressed...IF abortion becomes illegal in one or all states...How is punishment meted out. That is NEVER discussed and so becomes Hypocritical because its easy to make something ‘illegal” if only some of the participants involved are jailed.
It’s never debated *because* Roe v Wade makes it impossible to have such a debate.
As long a Roe stands the debate will always starts and ends with Roe. I agree with you that all you concerns you raised needs to be discussed, but that’s precisely why Roe must be overturned. We will never have a meaningful public discourse on this subject until Roe is reversed.
It is not always “personal stupidity” that results in pregnancy....there is a percentage of “failed birth control” , there are rapes and incest ( none of which are “personal stupidity of the woman”).
Now what do you do-—no one deals with this issue-—with a married woman with three children who choses not to have the child and her husband agrees. They certainly won’t give the child up for adoption ( and this is NOT the exception). I may not agree with this woman’s choice. but do you prosecute her and the spouse?
and to suggest that they should just run to a state or country that has legal abortions is also hypocritical...
My point is only that we could have this discussion NOW...and that the need to overturn R v Wade is needed first is a red herring.
We never had the issues dealt with before R v Wade, let alone even a discussion about the issues. My point is that it is hypocritical of the pro lifers to demand R v Wade be overturned yet never think through all the results and how we will deal with them.
Just put the docs in prison and that ends the problem.
Sure, any 2 people can have this discussion. But the public discourse will always end with the pro-abortion side saying “abortion is a consitutional right, end of discussion”.
That’s why Roe is such an abomination, it takes away any real meaningful discourse on this issue. We don’t need to deal with the issues before R v W is overturned, because even after R v W is overturned, abortions will still be legal *until* individual states pass laws through their legislatures, and that’s where the debate over the issues you brought up will take place, where they belong.
There is no immediate consequence of overturning R v W, so there is no need to discuss the immediate repercussions.
Your position is “let’s not overturn Roe until we discuss the possible consquences of the laws that Roe will permit”, that is a false standard. The proper time to discuss the the possible consequences of those laws should be when those laws are actually up for a vote, that how a representative government works. People propose laws, we discuss the pros and cons, and we vote on it afterwards.
Maybe it’s just me, but I have a feeling that if something like this had been done by Halliburton, it would be the lead story in the NYT, the LA Times, WaPO, on the net, and of course, on the 3 TV dinosaurs. But since it involves Planned Parenthood colluding in covering up a crime, it will appear only on websites like that cited above, and the MSM will spike it for their buddies over at PP. I hope I am wrong, but that is the usual outcome with a story like this.
We must pray for this bold and brave young woman!
I appreciate your thoughtful and articulate responses. I will now reflect on your comments. I had not thought of it this perspective before.
THANK YOU.
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.