Hannity: Planned Parenthood covered up statutory rape

posted at 5:45 pm on April 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Red meat doesn’t get much redder than this. Sean Hannity and Ainsley Earhardt revisit the calls where Planned Parenthood accepted donations specifically to abort black babies, but then add another issue: does PP follow the law in reporting suspected child abuse? Apparently not in the case of the Wallace family, whose 14-year-old daughter got pressured into an abortion by the child’s father — her 21-year-old soccer coach. In Ohio, sex with a 13- and 14-year-old girl would be statutory rape. The soccer coach paid for the abortion and later posed as the 14-year-old girl’s father to ensure that the clinic would perform the abortion:

Hannity and Earhardt fault the clinic for failing to notify the parents, but that charge seems a little thin. According to the reporting, they called the number provided by the girl for the parents. However, they have a duty to report child abuse, and this certainly had all the indications of that kind of situation. The family has sued the PP clinic, and the Ohio Supreme Court will rule on whether they can access the medical records at the clinic to determine whether they ever bother to do so.

One final thought: how many believed that the “What will you do when you see the baby in heaven” question was needlessly exploitive?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If you don’t have a problem with murder, then statutory rape is nothing, right?

jgapinoy on April 14, 2008 at 5:49 PM

Planned parenthood = Planned murder

aceinstall on April 14, 2008 at 5:51 PM

How many believed that the “What will you do when you see the baby in heaven” question was needlessly exploitive?

I don’t. If you believe that human life begins at conception and in a heaven that innocents go to, then it is a natural question.

bnelson44 on April 14, 2008 at 5:52 PM

“…P.P. earned more than $1B…”
Why is P.P. taxpayer subsidized?

jgapinoy on April 14, 2008 at 5:54 PM

One final thought: how many believed that the “What will you do when you see the baby in heaven” question was needlessly exploitive?

Haven’t watched yet, they asked that? Really? GTFO! Exploitative and I’d say nearing emotionally abusive.

doubleplusundead on April 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM

jgapinoy on April 14, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Go visit this site. They have been doing work to try and end that type of subsidy.

DCA on April 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM

PP not reporting statutory rape is sadly pretty much a dog bites man story. This behavior is endemic to the PP mindset and way of doing business. They believe that abortion is a good above almost all else, and anything that might reduce the number of abortions is therefore bad. So to their mind, reporting statutory rape might dissuade a small number of girls from coming in to get abortions and so should not be done. Protecting future rape victims, the current victim from continued abuse/exploitation, or the interest of justice in punishing the rapist are all insignificant to their mind.

Haven’t watched yet, they asked that? Really? GTFO! Exploitative and I’d say nearing emotionally abusive.

doubleplusundead on April 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Wrong.

First of all, people who have abortions, even children, are not victims and shouldn’t be coddled.

Second, the answer to the question has the potential to illistrate the secondary tragedy of children getting abortions; children are rarely fully cognizant of the ramifications and heft of their actions.

Nessuno on April 14, 2008 at 6:04 PM

This is the same thing that Phil Kline, the AG in Kansas, is getting beaten up over in the local press. Of course, the lefties have managed to convince the public that Kline wants to see the medical records of everyone who has ever had an abortion. he just wants to determine if PP has violated the law by failing to report child abuse.

Badger in KC on April 14, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Justifiable homocide.

cjs1943 on April 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Haven’t watched yet, they asked that? Really? GTFO! Exploitative and I’d say nearing emotionally abusive.

doubleplusundead on April 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM

They asked that the mother of the girl who had the abortion, which would be quite different from asking the girl or the “father”. Someone who had just lost a grandchild and found out their daughter had been raped and coerced in an abortion, would definitely be looking forward to some God-given justice, so the question was in keeping with that their faith would be saying to them. So not only was it not exploitative, it was actually a thoughtful and considerate question to put to a family that is probably praying about that issue already.

pedestrian on April 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Hannity and Earhardt fault the clinic for failing to notify the parents, but that charge seems a little thin. According to the reporting, they called the number provided by the girl for the parents.

No photo id required for a parent? Or some type of court document stating the adult is the legal guardian? Not flimsy at all, from my perspective!

Pam on April 14, 2008 at 6:08 PM

Apparently not in the case of the Wallace family, whose 14-year-old daughter got pressured into an abortion by the child’s father — her 21-year-old soccer coach. In Ohio, sex with a 13- and 14-year-old girl would be statutory rape. The soccer coach paid for the abortion and later posed as the father

Say what? Is or posed?

corona on April 14, 2008 at 6:09 PM

i’m… umm…. shocked?

TheCulturalist on April 14, 2008 at 6:09 PM

You probably meant the 14-year old’s father, not “the father”.

corona on April 14, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Statutory rape? Child abuse?

Why the heck would Planned Parenthood ever give a damn about statutory rape or child abuse?

They suck unborn babies from their mother’s wombs… piece by little mangled piece.

SilverStar830 on April 14, 2008 at 6:14 PM

whose 14-year-old daughter got pressured into an abortion by the child’s father

I had to read this twice. I wasn’t sure if Allah ment the 14 yr old girl’s father or the aborted infant’s father.

Sad, very sad!

If this was my child’s soccer coach. I know two balls that he would have trouble playing with ever again. (Assuming he had any in the first place.)

PappaMac on April 14, 2008 at 6:27 PM

Sorry, Ed, not Allah

PappaMac on April 14, 2008 at 6:28 PM

I’m absolutely delighted that a fourteen year didn’t bear a child that she isn’t capable or raising. Obviously, the idea that the idea Planned Parenthood didn’t report known abuse is Pro-Lie propaganda. Planned Parenthood workers like any non-perverts are going to report a 14 year old having sex with a 21 year old. The workers just didn’t know what was going on.

thuja on April 14, 2008 at 6:32 PM

thuja on April 14, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Are you also absolutely delighted that the decision was left to a terrified 14 year old and the creep who raped her?

The workers just didn’t know what was going on.

So they thought it was no problem that the “father” was seven years old when his daughter was born.

pedestrian on April 14, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Say what? Is or posed?

Ed is saying that it should have been blatantly obvious that a 21 year old wouldn’t have a 14 year old daughter. The 21-year old obviously posed as her father to get the abortion and PP should have been paying attention.

Very sad all around. And no, that final question wasn’t exploitive.

raiderdav on April 14, 2008 at 6:42 PM

“Planned Parenthood” is quite the misnomer.

SouthernGent on April 14, 2008 at 6:52 PM

It’s all about money & power and whether PP can retain either over patient records – even if those patients are sexually assaulted children. Flippin crap makes me sick.

Here in the Mid West, we have a similar mud hole being wallered in with the Kansas A.G against PP and Tiller’s abortion clinic.

So far, the court has erred way, way over on the side of privacy – even records are redacted – despite all the smokin’ evidence of repeated violations.

Dead baby bloody money must speak louder than justice.

locomotivebreath1901 on April 14, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Um, couldn’t the 21 year old have adopted the 14 year old?

jim m on April 14, 2008 at 7:01 PM

One final thought: how many believed that the “What will you do when you see the baby in heaven” question was needlessly exploitive?

I don’t have sound but I find it to be rather exploitative.

I don’t. If you believe that human life begins at conception and in a heaven that innocents go to, then it is a natural question.

Um no. You don’t know what theological outlook of the other person holds and even if you did it’s not something to ask on the spot.

ninjapirate on April 14, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Why is P.P. taxpayer subsidized?

No federal tax monies can be used to pay for or support abortion procedures at PP clinics. I suspect the tax payer monies does end up supporting abortions, but it’s almost impossible to prove and I am not aware if anyone has ever been able to successfully prove this charge against PP. It’s my hunch.

However, the real reason PP receives so much tax payer money is because of their support for comprehensive sex education, handing out prophylactics such as condoms and birth control, and their programs to diagnose and treat sexually transmitted disease. Tax payers support PP because it’s usually the only shop in town with the facilities to support the promiscuous sexual activity of many Americans.

PP receives about 350 million dollars a year from the Federal government.

gabriel sutherland on April 14, 2008 at 7:02 PM

According to some sources, abortions are down-to 800,000 a year. Remember the left has to make room for all them immigrants who can vote now and not 18 years down the road.

Tom

marinetbryant on April 14, 2008 at 7:21 PM

A truly ghastly question that, among other things, distracted attention away from the important question of whether, in its zeal to supply abortion on demand to any and all applicants, PP is enabling child abuse.

I love Fox, and I love the way it infuriates the left, but I wish it would knock off that kind of thing. I also wish O’Reilly would stop with that body language nonsense.

Infidoll on April 14, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Apparently not in the case of the Wallace family, whose 14-year-old daughter got pressured into an abortion by the child’s father — her 21-year-old soccer coach. In Ohio, sex with a 13- and 14-year-old girl would be statutory rape. The soccer coach paid for the abortion and later posed as the 14-year-old girl’s father to ensure that the clinic would perform the abortion

Either he’s a really old-lookign 21 year old, or PP is willingly stupid.

its vintage duh on April 14, 2008 at 7:46 PM

They really helped plan that parenthood. How bout helping the real small people dems?

oakpack on April 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM

Without getting into the whole ‘should it be, or shouldn’t it be?’ legal debate, I find it absolutely ridiculous that parental notification is even debatable; especially in light of cases like this.
When I got my tonsils taken out at age 13 I couldn’t have done that without my parents even if I had cash money on the spot.
An abortion is a pretty involved procedure that can have complications and to allow it to be left up to a minor is absolutely ridiculous, IMO.
This whole cutting out the parents from a kid’s life ASAP thing in society has to stop.

MannyT-vA on April 14, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Not willingly stupid, or anything similar.

Just never expected to be caught and/or questioned. No point in being a careful criminal if the cops aren’t concerned.

platypus on April 14, 2008 at 8:05 PM

One hopes that now the news is out, the 21 year old is looking at some time, and not just for the statutory rape.

TexasDan on April 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Shocking. /sarc.

Ed, I stopped giving Planned Parenthood the benefit of the doubt long ago. This behavior is par for the course for them. They’ll continue to suck in hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding, cover up the rapes of children, and slaughter child after child after child dealing countless damage to women and society in the process, and all for a quick buck and politically correct satisfaction.

You want to see pure evil on earth? Look no further than Planned Parenthood. Clean (sometimes), cold, exploitative, murderous, life-hating… and perfectly legal and subsidized. I don’t put much stock in high-level miracles or demons, but I know evil when I see it.

BKennedy on April 14, 2008 at 8:22 PM

First of all, people who have abortions, even children, are not victims and shouldn’t be coddled.

If you don’t think a 13 year old who was raped by her coach is a victim, I respectfully suggest that you never breed.

Tanya on April 14, 2008 at 8:25 PM

First of all, people who have abortions, even children, are not victims and shouldn’t be coddled.

If you don’t think a 13 year old who was raped by her coach is a victim, I respectfully suggest that you never breed.

Or vote.

raiderdav on April 14, 2008 at 8:28 PM

I’m absolutely delighted that a fourteen year didn’t bear a child that she isn’t capable or raising. Obviously, the idea that the idea Planned Parenthood didn’t report known abuse is Pro-Lie propaganda. Planned Parenthood workers like any non-perverts are going to report a 14 year old having sex with a 21 year old. The workers just didn’t know what was going on.

thuja on April 14, 2008 at 6:32 PM

You obviously believe the PP bullcrap. It doesn’t matter whether this guy was her father or not. A 14 year-old cannot legally consent to sex. If there is no report from this PP clinic to the police, as I think there is not, as there is a pattern of PP not properly reporting child sex abuse (including telling girls how to get around the reporting requirements, as in don’t tell us you are 14 and your 21 year old boyfriend knocked you up), then whoever was involved with this young girl’s case should be arrested and the clinic closed down, ASAP. When the abortion at all costs ideology trumps child welfare, there is absolutely no excuse.

RickZ on April 14, 2008 at 8:32 PM

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.” (Leviticus 18:21)
“The LORD said…’Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him….by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name…. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech…I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him.’” (Leviticus 20:1-5)

This was a practice of sacrificing children to a pagan god. PP is the Molech of the 21st century. Also King David in 2 Samuel 12: 16-23 stated clearly he would see his dead baby in heaven. So the question isn’t exploitive.

wepeople on April 14, 2008 at 8:33 PM

What’s shocking is how many women – underage and over – are coerced or feel coerced into abortions and would never willingly choose abortion on their own. The Elliot Institute has a lot of statistics and information on their Research page.

Rosmerta on April 14, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Either he’s a really old-lookign 21 year old, or PP is willingly stupid.

its vintage duh on April 14, 2008 at 7:46 PM

I’ll go with what’s beind door number 3: they’re soulless monsters who are concerned with one thing and one thing only: making money. This isn’t new or surprising. The PP operatives probably knew he wasn’t really her father and didn’t care. Anyone remember this?

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/17/undercover-at-planned-parenthood/

Darth Executor on April 14, 2008 at 8:45 PM

How many believed that the “What will you do when you see the baby in heaven” question was needlessly exploitive?

Exploitive of whom, do you mean? The gentle tone of the question (asked in two parts, go look) implied that it was sympathetic to the grandmother of the baby. Agree with those above who said that it is a natural question and not exploitive.

Um no. You don’t know what theological outlook of the other person holds and even if you did it’s not something to ask on the spot.

ninjapirate on April 14, 2008 at 7:01 PM

If you didn’t know the theological outlook and you’re asking in a live interview for the first time, ninjapirate does have a point. But watch the exchange again. The tenor of the questions and answers (two of them, as you see) sure looks like the mom mentioned heaven first (we don’t see that part of the interview). Doesn’t it?

Personally I’d like this question asked, in perhaps a less charitable tone, of the 21 year old father of the baby.

inviolet on April 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM

but that charge seems a little thin.

Don’t be ridiculous Ed, PP knew his age because they saw his driver’s license. They just didn’t care.

Darth Executor on April 14, 2008 at 8:54 PM

“Planned Parenthood accepted donations specifically to abort black babies…”
Margaret Sanger was a racist and eugenicist. PP is fulfilling its mission. Jail bait laws should be enforced.

Feedie on April 14, 2008 at 9:42 PM

The workers just didn’t know what was going on.

thuja on April 14, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Really? A 14 year old girl walks in to get an abortion and they didn’t figure out she had to have had sex to need one?

PP knew she was pregnant and knew she was 14. That’s enough to notify the authorities.

Gimme a freakin break.

BacaDog on April 14, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Planned Parenthood rewards neither planning nor parenting. More appropriate would be Unplanned/wanted Pregnancy.

fourstringfuror on April 15, 2008 at 12:12 AM

This is par for the course with PP. WND has ran quite a few investigative articles over the past couple years where employees at PP coached what they thought were young girls to not say certain things because then they’d be required to notify the police.

Afterimage on April 15, 2008 at 12:24 AM

“But if I think that almost the first thing I did after twelve years in prison for killing two babes was to kill the baby in me…”

-Mary Bell

Reaps on April 15, 2008 at 12:55 AM

why you people insist on beating this dead horse, when you know you’ll never get anywhere with it, I’ll never know… I suppose you would much rather little girls be getting back alley abortions. because no matter what you say or do, abortions will keep happening. you cannot and should not enforce law on the human body. you open pandora’s box, if you do…

Kaptain Amerika on April 15, 2008 at 1:51 AM

When liberals get frustrated, they cling to their abortions.

km on April 15, 2008 at 1:57 AM

Kaptain Amerika on April 15, 2008 at 1:51 AM

So you think laws against pedophilia are useless and shouldn’t be enforced?

Quisp on April 15, 2008 at 7:05 AM

why you people insist on beating this dead horse, when you know you’ll never get anywhere with it, I’ll never know… I suppose you would much rather little girls be getting back alley abortions. because no matter what you say or do, abortions will keep happening. you cannot and should not enforce law on the human body. you open pandora’s box, if you do…

Kaptain Amerika on April 15, 2008 at 1:51 AM

Ridiculous talking points.

We already enforce laws on the human body. Ever hear of prostitution being illegal? How about illegal drugs? Selling your own organs is also illegal.

What about the body of the baby? Isn’t that supposed to be protected?

Isn’t it true that half the babies aborted are females? Aren’t they future women? What about their bodies? Don’t they have a right to say what happens to them?

What about the FACT that scientists have determined that the baby is NOT part of the mother’s body?

If a mother has a male fetus in her womb, is she now part female and part male?

Don’t spout talking points, it only makes you look stupid when they are exposed as folly.

fossten on April 15, 2008 at 9:15 AM

You know, America is never going to agree on abortion and a variety of other topics.

Why shouldn’t we just break the United States apart into several countries like the EU which provides for a common defense, a common currency and business flows and little else?

jim m on April 15, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Wepeople, perhaps it’s because it’s not clear that the Bible considers the fetus as a child or considers the death of a fetus to be the death of a person:

New American Standard Bible (NASB), Exodus 21:22-25:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

jim m on April 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Why shouldn’t we just break the United States apart into several countries like the EU which provides for a common defense, a common currency and business flows and little else?

jim m on April 15, 2008 at 9:47 AM

We used to have this setup. It was called “The United STATES.” Now it’s just one big fedgov.

fossten on April 15, 2008 at 10:01 AM

It is amazing to me that people who stand outside prisons to protest the death penalty for vicious criminals have no problems with killing innocent children in abortion clinics.

Think_b4_speaking on April 15, 2008 at 10:06 AM

jim m on April 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM

1. There is no indication in the Hebrew that the baby was miscarried

2. Even if miscarriage is what is meant, the intent was not to abort baby but harm woman

3. Literal translation: “Child brought forth”

4. Notice that the fetus is referred to as a “child” second most common word for child in OT cf: of Moses in Ex 2:3-10

Your knowledge of the Bible is lacking.

See: Gen 25:21-22; 2 Ki 19:3; Ruth 1:11; Job 3:3; Gen 5:3,4,28-30; 12:12; Lk 1:43; Rev 12:5; Rom 9:11; Lk 1:41,44; Lk 1:36; Acts 7:29; Lk 1:36 and 1:57 together

fossten on April 15, 2008 at 10:07 AM

why you people insist on beating this dead horse, when you know you’ll never get anywhere with it, I’ll never know… I suppose you would much rather little girls be getting back alley abortions. because no matter what you say or do, abortions will keep happening. you cannot and should not enforce law on the human body. you open pandora’s box, if you do…

Kaptain Amerika on April 15, 2008 at 1:51 AM

The answer is that it is not a privacy issue, it is a human rights issue – the child has a right to life just like you. Go back into contemporaneous reports on slavery before the civil war, and you will see all kinds of arguments for why slavery is ok. The republican party was formed to argue for human rights for everyone, and are not doing their job if they continue to allow this killing to continue.

Think_b4_speaking on April 15, 2008 at 10:09 AM

fossten on April 15, 2008 at 10:07 AM

I hate it when people try to quote scripture to support horrible things.

pedestrian on April 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM

That makes much more sense. I haven’t watched the video, and I was assuming the question was aimed at the child.

The workers just didn’t know what was going on.

thuja on April 14, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Come on. The girl is 14.

Um, couldn’t the 21 year old have adopted the 14 year old?

jim m on April 14, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Doubtful, but I suppose remotely possible.

Even so, the warning signs were all there, and Planned Parenthood did nothing and actually helped erase the evidence of rape.

A 14-year-old girl cannot legally consent to sex. Even if PP assumed she got pregnant from a teen her own age, it’s still suspicious enough to report.

Esthier on April 15, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Actually, fossten, your knowledge of the Bible is lacking. Go read several different translations of that verse (Revised Standard Version, in particular.

jim m on April 15, 2008 at 10:41 AM

jim m on April 15, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Actually, jim m, your knowledge of Bible versions is suspect. Go read up on the history of the RSV and get back to me. It’s a flawed text.

Note that you’ve hung your entire belief on one verse, and you have to stretch and twist your interpretation of the translation of it in order to make it work.

I, on the other hand, have listed a HOST of verses upon which to rest my case that the Bible is against killing unborn children. Your argument is thin and weak at best, and is nowhere near convincing.

fossten on April 15, 2008 at 12:32 PM

jim m on April 15, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Let me get this straight. You’re telling someone who can read the Hebrew version that he needs to read “several different translations” of the Bible?

That’s a good way to announce you’re a troll.

Al in St. Lou on April 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM

If Fossen’s Hebrew knowlege is so good, why are the Jewish denominations divided about abortion, Al (with the most prevalent view, in terms of numbers, being that a baby is not a person until it is born)?

But I guess you’re a good Christian because you insult people with different views, Al. Or don’t you believe those parts of the Bible?

And Fossen, the problem with the verses you quote is that they don’t specifically address the point we’re discussing. “Before you were born, I knew you”, for example, doesn’t say anything about abortion but only that God has a plan at some point in pregnancy.

You might call it thin, but it is what I believe. I also believe you and your pastor are adding words to the Bible–and we all know what the Bible says happens to people who do that.

jim m on April 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Also King David in 2 Samuel 12: 16-23 stated clearly he would see his dead baby in heaven. So the question isn’t exploitive.

wepeople on April 14, 2008 at 8:33 PM

It’s also pertinent that David was referring to a child who had been born, then died, rather than an aborted/miscarried fetus.

I don’t think God or the Bible supports abortion or infanticide. However, it is pretty difficult to conclusively prove that the Bible indicates that life begins at conception. Some of the above referenced verses seem to make a distinction between the value of a born person and fetus (or even a slave or free, for that matter).

The principle of valuing human life is easier to promote than the dogmatics of current conservative prolife rhetoric.

And yes, I’m prolife, FWIW.

cs89 on April 15, 2008 at 2:52 PM

You might call it thin, but it is what I believe. I also believe you and your pastor are adding words to the Bible–and we all know what the Bible says happens to people who do that.

jim m on April 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Funny. I never added one word to the Bible. I simply listed references. But you keep on projecting, big guy, it’s amusing.

You’re just like every other person who tries to fit the square peg of the Bible through the round hole of his beliefs – you will fall short in the end.

fossten on April 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM

You might call it thin, but it is what I believe. I also believe you and your pastor are adding words to the Bible–and we all know what the Bible says happens to people who do that.

jim m on April 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM

You’re still showing your ignorance. “The bible” never said anything about adding words to “the bible” because “the bible” wasn’t “the bible” as we know it back then. The book of Revelation (not “the bible”) says not to add or take away anything from the book of Revelation (not “the bible”).

Darth Executor on April 15, 2008 at 7:06 PM