Planned Parenthood Aids Pimp's Underage Sex Ring

[Cavemonster]

Maybe I got the wrong impression, but from listening to the responses of the PP employee, it seemed as though she'd heard this before and knew exactly how to cover it up.

Doesn't that bother anyone?

Not the abortion issue...I am pro-choice after all.

But the underage prostitution angle of this which she appeared to be covering up as though it was routine practice at PP when faced with these situations.

See, I'm guessing they suspected a "sting" was taking place and so to cover their youknowwhats, they contacted the FBI.

now of course that's just my impression and I have no way of knowing.

I'm not one to string anyone up for their tone of voice and a hunch.

If the employee in the video reported the incident to her superiors, which seems to be the case, then they did not aid any sort of pimp in any way.

 

[TraneWreck]

And the videos were taken from the 11th to the 15th.

Yes, and by the time the FBI received the report, the PP employees had already talked to their legal team and local authorities.

They were in front of the public release of the videos. So they may have been several days behind the filming. Simple communications delays can account for corporate headquarters not acting for a few days, but if the individual offices didn't act faster than that (and we don't know yet if they did or didn't), that's a problem.

No, we do:

According to Planned Parenthood, the employee "immediately notified her supervisor, who subsequently notified members of Planned Parenthood's national security team, who are working with the FBI, which is investigating these visits."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102040026

Obviously PP isn't covering anything up, they already fired one worker.

Here's the letter to Holder on the 18th:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact_AG_Holder_011811.pdf

 

[TraneWreck]

As it happens, it isn't. (At least not in any jurisdiction of which I'm aware.) Speaking for BC, there is a mandatory obligation for physicians to report knowledge of statutory rape and also crimes of violence such as spousal assault. Failure to do so would risk loss of medical license.

First, that is not a settled issue. From the AMA:

Physicians have always had a duty to keep their patients' confidences. In essence, the physician's duty to maintain confidentiality means that a physician may not disclose any medical information revealed by a patient or discovered by a physician in connection with the treatment of a patient. In general, AMA's Code of Medical Ethics states that the information disclosed to a physician during the course of the patient-physician relationship is confidential to the utmost degree. As explained by the AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, the purpose of a physician's ethical duty to maintain patient confidentiality is to allow the patient to feel free to make a full and frank disclosure of information to the physician with the knowledge that the physician will protect the confidential nature of the information disclosed. Full disclosure enables the physician to diagnose conditions properly and to treat the patient appropriately. In return for the patient's honesty, the physician generally should not reveal confidential communications or information without the patient's express consent unless required to disclose the information by law.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/...o-revealshealth-workers-providing-health-care

Here's a paper on the issue from the military:
http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/downloads/sexual_health/Confidentiality.pdf

Second, I realize that there are specific laws that make health care workers mandated reporters. I'm arguing that this isn't necessarily a good idea. This is different than making a statement about what the law actually mandates.

The author at the blog I linked above says it well:

The point is this: Health care workers are there to guard individual and public health. In doing so, they face dilemmas on a daily basis. Anyone who thinks otherwise is neither interested in the health of minors nor of trafficked minors, does not understand either public health or medicine, and is not interested in ethical behavior.

The model is to move the victim into protection immediately.

I agree that this is the best course of action. My concern is whether mandatory reporting is the best means of obtaining such an end.

 

[BenBurch]

Because murder is the appropriate response? This must be part of that whole New Tone^TM Obama called for.

I wonder if you think murder would be the appropriate response if the person in question was an actual pimp.

Wouldn't be an appropriate response in either case, but it would make me feel good, and would suppress such crap in the future...

 

[Ziggurat]

No, we do:

No, we don't. The supervisor was immediately notified. That statement gives no indication of how fast that supervisor acted. And that statement only pertains to one case, and not even the first one.

Obviously PP isn't covering anything up, they already fired one worker.

I'm not claiming that PP covered anything up. But the fact that they fired someone suggests rather strongly that at least one person DID act inappropriately. Or are you accusing PP of unjustly firing employees who acted properly? I'm not sure that's really any better.

 

[TraneWreck]

According to the law, it is the job of the health care provider. It is a legal obligation.

I haven't argued against that point.

That's purely speculation on your part. If they don't want the person raping them to get caught, all they have to do is either lie (Planned Parenthood is not obligated to investigate) or just not say anything. Do you have any actual evidence that reporting requirements do more harm than good?

The obscenely low rates of reporting for sexual crimes is a well known issue. It's been a decades long uphill battle to improve that situation. It's very easy to discourage victims, and making it known that just going for an STD check-up can involve someone in a court case will be a STRONG disincentive to maintain one's health.

And simply letting the rape continue... that's such a better solution.

There's one case of statutory rape I'm personally familiar with. A father raped two of his daughters, repeatedly. Got them pregnant, too. They had abortions. He was never caught. They're grown up now, both had severely screwed up personal lives, and one of them eventually committed suicide. The fact that they could get essentially no-questions-asked abortions prolonged the abuse, it didn't "solve" anything. "Medical help" was no real help at all.

Yes it did, it ended the pregnancies. Would it be better to require that those girls obtain parental permission for the abortion? Because that's one of the issues in these videos. How would that have turned out in your case study?

It would be illegal for you to give this information to the prosecutor, even though doing so could help insure that a guilty person gets punished for their crimes. You recognize that it's unacceptable for YOU to break the law for purposes of expediency. But you want Planned Parenthood to be able to do so?

What?

I'm arguing that the law should change based on a principle. I don't see how this paragraph remotely addresses anything I've argued.

Which is why it should outrage you that Planned Parenthood flagrantly violated the legal process. Curiously, it doesn't.

No, they didn't. It wasn't a flagrant violation, everything was reported. The woman who was fired didn't follow proper procedure. That is all. All of the other PP employees did follow proper procedure and there was no functional difference in the outcome.

I'm not arguing that she should be reinstated, I'm arguing that the technicality upon which she was rightly fired is a bad rule.

They aren't. They only report. They do not investigate, they do not prosecute. That in no way makes them law enforcement officials.

This is silly. Of course they become law enforcement officials. Their employment duties require them to report a certain set of crimes. This makes them responsible for upholding the law.

Now, if this is going to be some silly, semantic quibble about the meaning of "law enforcement," then let me be clear: that aspect of their job, the mandatory reporting, is a departure from their primary duty as health care providers that I do not think is a good thing. Whatever you want to call it.

What perverse morality thinks it's better to just let a girl continue to be raped?

Because it's idiotic to think more rapes will be prevented in this manner.

I, as an attorney, could stop a rapist from going free by revealing information he gave me during the course of our attorney-client relationship. This would incredibly powerful once. Or a couple of times or a hundred or ten thousand times around the country. It would be incredibly effective until criminals learned that their attorneys would rat them out, then it would have a success rate of 0.000005%.

Women in horrific circumstances are already afraid to seek help because of the repurcussions. They have a number of problems, eliminating someone's ability to care for their health will not solve the problem of rape. PP should offer counseling, promote reporting, and even actually report in certain circumstances. But the retarded notion on display in this smear campaign, that the second a PP worker learns of something illegal they have to hit the Pee-Wee Herman siren and start screaming, is a horrible policy.

The primary duty of health care workers needs to be the health of their patient. If other ends, like catching rapists, can also be achieved, great, but if the secondary goal threatens the primary goal, it should be ignored.

 

[bookitty]

More on the awful human being behind these absurd, vicious videos:

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/lila_rose_big_time_liar_and_all_around_horrible_person/

Again, sorry I can't include excerpts. The blog won't let me highlight passages to copy/paste.

It occurs to me that this trend of young, ******* right wingers maliciously editing videos to smear low-level employees is the Bizzaro version of Michael Moore.

Moore has obvious faults, but his targets were always wealthy, powerful people. There's something sickening about going to such extreme lengths just to ruin the career of people trying to do their job. Pathetic.

Wow. I well remember the passion I had for my causes in college but the worse thing that ever came of it was boring some people to tears with statistics on the poor quality of life for chickens.

This girl takes her cues from Paris Hilton, forcing her overly-entitled twitness into the spotlight through a series of attention-getting tactics. But at least Ms. Hilton is only harming herself.

 

[TraneWreck]

No, we don't. The supervisor was immediately notified. That statement gives no indication of how fast that supervisor acted. And that statement only pertains to one case, and not even the first one.



I'm not claiming that PP covered anything up. But the fact that they fired someone suggests rather strongly that at least one person DID act inappropriately. Or are you accusing PP of unjustly firing employees who acted properly? I'm not sure that's really any better.

They fired one employee that I know of.

They made a report to the FBI less than a week after the event. That's pretty quick, especially given all the intermediate law enforcement groups they notified before.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wouldn't be an appropriate response in either case, but it would make me feel good

And if someone has to die just to make you feel good, well, it's a small price, I guess.

and would suppress such crap in the future...

Why don't you go out and kill some real pimps? That would "suppress such crap in the future" too, wouldn't it? And since real pimps are doing much more damage than fake pimps, wouldn't that make you feel even better? Or do you just like fantasizing about killing your political enemies? Does your vigilante lust include actual criminals, or does it only extend to ideological opponents?

And here I was, thinking that it was supposed to be the right wing which is filled with hateful violent rhetoric. I guess Krugman was wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

The obscenely low rates of reporting for sexual crimes is a well known issue.

That wasn't my question. My question was whether a reporting requirement would make any difference. The fact that reporting rates are already too low doesn't mean that they would change in response to a change in reporting requirements. Nor does it even make much sense to decry the low reporting rate, and then turn around and provide another mechanism to keep it low.

It's very easy to discourage victims, and making it known that just going for an STD check-up can involve someone in a court case will be a STRONG disincentive to maintain one's health.

Except that it's trivially easy to avoid that: don't talk about the father.

Yes it did, it ended the pregnancies.

Which let the abuse continue. Are you not paying any attention?

Would it be better to require that those girls obtain parental permission for the abortion?

It would have been better if someone, anyone, had reported the possibility of sexual abuse to authorities. And yes, if they had not sought abortions at all, that could very well have happened, because the pregnancies would have become commonly known, whereas the abortions made it possible for the most obvious sign of sexual abuse to remain hidden forever.

I'm arguing that the law should change based on a principle.

You're doing more than that. You're also arguing that Planned Parenthood should be excused for not having followed the law.

No, they didn't. It wasn't a flagrant violation, everything was reported.

Not in the 2008 cases it wasn't.

Now, if this is going to be some silly, semantic quibble about the meaning of "law enforcement," then let me be clear: that aspect of their job, the mandatory reporting, is a departure from their primary duty as health care providers that I do not think is a good thing. Whatever you want to call it.

Let's remove the requirement to report potential child abuse too, since that might just keep abused children from getting medical care.

Because it's idiotic to think more rapes will be prevented in this manner.

No, it isn't. Your logic for why it wouldn't falls flat on its face. You are arguing that covering up the results of abuse is the best way to protect women. And that is, frankly, *$%^#.

Women in horrific circumstances are already afraid to seek help because of the repurcussions.

What, that their rapists might get in trouble? 1) that's not a bad thing for them, and 2) they can avoid it while seeking an abortion (and don't confuse an abortion with help), by simply not saying anything about the father.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The PP employee did not do the right thing, thus she was fired.

What is "the right thing," and how do you know she did not do it?

 

[blutoski]

Which is interesting--not trying to start a political argument here, I genuinely find this interesting--since you would assume that doctor-patient privilege would extend to an organization that provides medical services. I'm ignorant of the law on this--is it because it's a clinic?

The expectation of privacy in this sense is that a physician does not have to report everything, but there is a short list of crimes that have to be reported to the police.

From that point on, there is still some expectation of privacy in the sense that the patient's information would not become publicly available. The GP cannot talk to journalists about the patient's details even if the charges or a trial is announced.

 

[TraneWreck]

That wasn't my question. My question was whether a reporting requirement would make any difference. The fact that reporting rates are already too low doesn't mean that they would change in response to a change in reporting requirements. Nor does it even make much sense to decry the low reporting rate, and then turn around and provide another mechanism to keep it low.

From the Florida Bar Association:

Mandatory reporting can actually discourage battered women from seeking medical care or from confiding in their physicians. Moreover, some batterers, who already actively prevent their victims from seeking medical attention until the victim promises that she will not reveal the source of her injuries, will disallow medical treatment altogether if mandatory reporting becomes the norm. As a result, more victims may suffer from untreated injuries.

In addition, a law that mandates reporting of all patients who present with domestic violence injuries invokes basic professional, ethical, and moral questions for health care providers whose tradition has recognized that trust is essential to the process of healing.

People who are injured need medical attention, emotional support, and nonjudgmental information about their options. Over time, the victim who receives that support from her physician and others will integrate it into her own thought processes and reach her own conclusions about what she is capable of achieving given what she knows about the abuser’s potential for hurting her.

http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/B1EA37227988F5D585256ADB005D62CE

Except that it's trivially easy to avoid that: don't talk about the father.

So, report the crime and hope the investigators are too ****** to learn the source of the abuse? WOnderful system.

Which let the abuse continue. Are you not paying any attention?

Yes, I am. It is ridiculous to think the birth of the child would have ended the abuse. There just would have been one more life to destroy.

It would have been better if someone, anyone, had reported the possibility of sexual abuse to authorities. And yes, if they had not sought abortions at all, that could very well have happened, because the pregnancies would have become commonly known, whereas the abortions made it possible for the most obvious sign of sexual abuse to remain hidden forever.

Yes, it was a failure of the system that abuse was allowed to go on for so long. The people to blame, however, are not the medical professionals that focused on the girls' health.

You're doing more than that. You're also arguing that Planned Parenthood should be excused for not having followed the law.

BS. WHere did I say that?

You're constructing a strawman.

Not in the 2008 cases it wasn't.

Are you talking about the earlier attempts by Rose to smear the organization? This BS:

Over the summer, The Advocate investigated the financial dealings of Planned Parenthood and made some shocking discoveries about the clinic-owning "nonprofit." We obtained the information by having an actor call clinics across the country and pose as a donor. The actor who called, The Advocate's advisor, communicated to them a very racist agenda--the one that Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's founder, had envisioned. He then asked to donate money specifically for the abortions of African-American babies in order to "lower the number of blacks in America.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201102010048

Let's remove the requirement to report potential child abuse too, since that might just keep abused children from getting medical care.

Children don't have the ability to seek care on their own. At some point that changes. Mandatory reporting for kids 12 or 13 and under is undeniably a good idea. As they gain autonomy, however, that changes.

No, it isn't. Your logic for why it wouldn't falls flat on its face. You are arguing that covering up the results of abuse is the best way to protect women. And that is, frankly, *$%^#.

Please, this is just sad.

First of all, the Planned Parenthood workers in this example DID report the crimes. People are mad that they didn't do it in front of the fake pimp, or something.

Second, You're just being glib about an issue that tortures endless health care workers every day of their life. This is not an easy decision. Sometimes reporting will greatly benefit a victim, even save their life. Sometimes the mandatory reporting does just the opposite.

The leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder. Forcing young women to notify their parents (often the source of the abuse) can be and often is more damaging.
http://www.now.org/issues/violence/043003pregnant.html

Forced reporting eliminates people's ability to analyze the situation and determine if they're hurting or helping. It's also a terrible idea to put this burden on doctors and health care workers.

I'm all for increasing the budget to put more social workers in hospitals and PP clinics. People who can look into the situation professionally and determine the right course of action.

You're childish histrionics is a mockery to this debate. These are not small matters, and believe me, these are issues I deal with on a weekly basis, albeit from a different perspective.

What, that their rapists might get in trouble? 1) that's not a bad thing for them, and 2) they can avoid it while seeking an abortion (and don't confuse an abortion with help), by simply not saying anything about the father.

This statement evinces a total ignorance of the subject.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

The expectation of privacy in this sense is that a physician does not have to report everything, but there is a short list of crimes that have to be reported to the police.

From that point on, there is still some expectation of privacy in the sense that the patient's information would not become publicly available. The GP cannot talk to journalists about the patient's details even if the charges or a trial is announced.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

 

[bookitty]

No, it isn't. Your logic for why it wouldn't falls flat on its face. You are arguing that covering up the results of abuse is the best way to protect women. And that is, frankly, *$%^#.



What, that their rapists might get in trouble? 1) that's not a bad thing for them, and 2) they can avoid it while seeking an abortion (and don't confuse an abortion with help), by simply not saying anything about the father.

Covering up the results of abuse? Is that what you call an abortion precipitated by rape? So, in order to merely increase the possibility that the abuser will get caught (the lie that the pregnancy is the result of a teen boyfriend is too easy) you would have an abused child carry the pregnancy to term and live with that as well as the abuse. That is obscenely cruel.

 

[blutoski]

First, that is not a settled issue. From the AMA:

the physician generally should not reveal confidential communications or information without the patient's express consent unless required to disclose the information by law.

I dunno... sounds pretty settled to me.

Having said that... AMA does not have authority (I think only about 30% of US MDs are members - the AMA represents them as an association)

The College of Physicans and Surgeons does have the authority to terminate a license. As do the legal authorities.

In any case, their rulings are the same. Foster patient trust with assurance of privacy within the law.

I agree that this is the best course of action. My concern is whether mandatory reporting is the best means of obtaining such an end.

As you can expect, it's a robust topic in medical ethics, with a history showing how the current laws evolved. Probably goes back to Hippocrates.

 

[TraneWreck]

I dunno... sounds pretty settled to me.

Having said that... AMA does not have authority (I think only about 30% of US MDs are members - the AMA represents them as an association)

The College of Physicans and Surgeons does have the authority to terminate a license. As do the legal authorities.

In any case, their rulings are the same. Foster patient trust with assurance of privacy within the law.

The legal requirement is clear. The ethical obligation isn't.

As you can expect, it's a robust topic in medical ethics, with a history showing how the current laws evolved. Probably goes back to Hippocrates.

No doubt.

 

[blutoski]

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

It's my wife's personal hell, because the patient has no restrictions and can call a press conference and give their version of events - true or invented.

The MD does not have the right to set the record straight.

Obviously, they are required to provide all information demanded by a court, but this is not a public disclosure.

 

[blutoski]

The legal requirement is clear. The ethical obligation isn't.

Understood. I do think this is something people can disagree about in good faith.

For myself, it comes from living in Vancouver which is a multicultural environment. It's simply become necessary to bulid a framework here that tells physicians that their cultural judgements are not an excuse to look the other way.

Too many cases of "Well, yeah, I knew he burned his wife's face with acid, but that's what we do in our culture, so I let it go."

I'm sort of jaded because my first wife was a child protection officer. She used to testify against GPs who would, say, have treated a 6mo old infant with a broken femur that was probably rape, but accepted the parents' lame story about the baby falling down stairs and so failed to report. I find it hard to entertain counterarguments.

 

[Travis]

My thought was that we don't know enough, but if the office had security, they could have been summoned to detain these visitors until the situation is clarified.

It would be quite justifiable since the guy seems to have admitted he's comitting a felony or two that in particular appear harmful to children.

I'm thinking it's only lucky that this guy didn't get turned over to security who might have wanted to 'soften him up' before the police arrived.

So you detain him and his cronies simply take the other girls and disappear with them. How does that really help things?

You see it's the fact that there is a ring of other girls out there that throws a monkey wrench into all of this. If it were just a matter of a guy coming in with one girl he pimps out I would agree with you. But that there are other girls out there who's identity and condition is unknown makes that response probably not the most prudent.

As such I think what they did do was the most appropriate response. Let the guy leave and then inform the right people (like the FBI) and let them decide if they want to run a sting to find out where the other girls are. Until then you simply make like you are the Pimp's friend in the hope that you get more info on the other girls.

Maybe I got the wrong impression, but from listening to the responses of the PP employee, it seemed as though she'd heard this before and knew exactly how to cover it up.

Doesn't that bother anyone?

That is entirely subjective and irrelevant.

Not the abortion issue...I am pro-choice after all.

But the underage prostitution angle of this which she appeared to be covering up as though it was routine practice at PP when faced with these situations.

See, I'm guessing they suspected a "sting" was taking place and so to cover their youknowwhats, they contacted the FBI.

now of course that's just my impression and I have no way of knowing.

You have no way of knowing and yet you speculate the worst possible interpretation.

As it happens, it isn't. (At least not in any jurisdiction of which I'm aware.) Speaking for BC, there is a mandatory obligation for physicians to report knowledge of statutory rape and also crimes of violence such as spousal assault. Failure to do so would risk loss of medical license.

The model is to move the victim into protection immediately.

I disagree with this to a degree. Why? Because it discourages people from seeking help. Battered women will often not seek medical attention for injuries if they think it will lead to the arrest of their batterer (who they are often still committed to). So what to do? Just keep these measures in place and let them not seek any help and suffer alone?

On the whole I think it's better to have "no questions asked" medical treatment available than to engage in crusades to punish the wicked.