This undercover ruse seems to me to be not so much an attempt to help prevent unlawful sex but a low trick to hit at the Planned Parent organization.

Chessplayer on December 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM

So, you do not think that this shows a pattern.

What do you think the “naive” PP employee’s gameplan was here? Let’s examine the events;

– She doesn’t want to hear that the girl is 13.
My explanation is that this means she’s a minor and due to the laws of Indiana, parental consent is mandatory. She also isn’t helping this girl make a “choice”, she’s assuming that abortion is the only way to go. How do you see it differently?

– She doesn’t want to know about or report the 31 year old “boyfriend”.
My explanation is that she doesn’t actually give a gd about this “girl”, she is just trying to help her realize her goal of obtaining an abortion without the law interfering. Having a pedophile involved in the exploitation of a minor would mean that the authorities would (should) be brought in which would, again, bring the parents in on the decision about an abortion for the minor. The employee is allowing the continued exposure of the girl for the sake of an abortion, that isn’t naive, its heartless and inhumane. How do you see it?

– The employee is telling the girl how to get an abortion in Illinois to skirt the laws in Indiana and to avoid informing her parents.
Who leaves a small girl (13 year old) to get herself across the state line with a pedophile? Does this sound sympathetic to you?

I have friends that are nurses, and a mother that’s a psychologist (in Illinois, of all places) and I can assure you that there is no conflict about “betraying a confidence” in this woman’s mind. Training and experience makes it very clear, a child must be removed from those circumstances immediately and at all costs. The reason that minors do not get to have the same rights and responsibilities of an adult is precisely why a social worker/councilor/psychologist/etc. would not worry about betraying their trust. When my 6 year old says that she “loves” a boy named Tommy, do you propose that I should start making wedding plans? They are too inexperienced to understand.

I would suppose that a person in her position would actually see a higher incident rate of such crimes and would know exactly what was expected of her in such a case.
Do not portray the employee as some noble woman with interest in this “girl”, she obviously does not care one iota.

In society, it is the heroes and people that are most responsible for upholding the law and doing what’s right that we hold most accountable for their actions and hence their wrongdoings. Police officers or judges taking bribes, clergy sexually abusing their paritioners, engineers that that cut corners, star athletes cheating, etc. These women at PP are either there to help these young ladies or they are there for something else. If they are there to help, then the greatest help she could give would be to protect this girl, not send her back to the beast that is destroying her. This employee is not only *not* helping, she is actively participating in returning the girl to her situation and making it worse by allowing the child molester to continue unchecked.

She is criminal in her negligence of this “girl” and that is what I find so offensive about your apparent support of her and thus your (her) views on the imaginary pedophile. To forgive the actions of this employee is to condone her actions and to therefore support the continued abuse of this girl…all for the sake of getting her an abortion (because we all know how important *that* is).

You are incredibly hysterical to have twisted everything I wrote this way. Obviously by “exploited” I’m saying such girls are sexually abused and indeed I’m in favor of catching these deviant abusers as the next person. I never said or implied otherwise (for clear minds who can read calmly) and questioning methods & motives without having to endure stupid abuse from righteous hysterics like you is the right of any poster. I won’t try to explain all the reasons I consider the undercover ruse too close to entrapment – I don’t think you could comprehend – but to call me an “apologist for a pedophile” is not only unjustified by anything I wrote, it is downright libelous and despicable.

Your libelous post should be removed.

such as for exploited 13 yr olds who shouldn’t be discouraged from seeking such services.
Chessplayer on December 16, 2008 at 11:00 AM

So, the exploitation is OK? PP serves a purpose for you, that of getting an abortion for the girl. If your daughter were raped by a pedophile, I’m sure that would be your highest priority, “Make sure my daughter has access to an abortion clinic!”. Yep, no need to address the crime, no need to end the exploitation or imprison the rogue…no sirree Bob, I want my daughter to be able to go someplace where they will steer her to get an operation out of state without me knowing about it instead. When she gets back, you can invite over her “boyfriend” for a couple of drinks and then let your daughter spend the night over at his place?

You sir, are a joke. I don’t think you have a daughter, that is a fabrication. No sane person holds their child’s abortion rights above their safety. Any adult, and especially those in the social services and medical fields, have an obligation to protect the child above all else, even if the parents are negligent. The PP in question set up operations in Indiana (my home state, btw). They have to abide by the state laws regardless of what their thoughts about abortion are (parental consent for minors). But beyond that, first and foremost, the **child** has been raped by a predator, the police should have been notified immediately, whereupon a social services program would have leaped into action to serve the girl’s best interests (whether or not her parents were able/willing). Secondly, PP **must** inform the parents if there is going to be an abortion because the girl is a minor. Those are the rules, if you can’t abide by the rules, you can’t do business in that state.

There is a reason that minors are special cases, in case you hadn’t figured that out yet. Maybe when you actually do have kids, you’ll understand that kids will be emotionally scarred for life because of this incident, and not because of the PP employee breaking her trust, but because of the rape.

No one was “tricking” the PP employee into doing anything. It is an expose’ of how the PP operates.

I really don’t give a flip whether you are pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-violin…but being an apologist for a pedophile is not going to sit well with me and I will attack you for that point of view even if it makes me look like an ass.

Having two daughters does not excuse you from acting like an ass.

Ad hominem would be to say that a priest can’t argue fairly or factually about abortion because he’s a priest.

Sorry then. I might have misused “ad hominem”, I think of it as having the approximately the same definition as dictionary.com (see below) although I hesitate to lean on an online source, so that might enlighten as to my mistaken use. Although you’re probably right, there is sufficient evidence for me to make a reasoned determination that the poster is a moron and to expose that trait.

Ad Hominem
1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

Please forgive my ad hominem attacks on the jerkweek above, I have two young daughters and I can get a little testy on this matter.
Geministorm on December 16, 2008 at 9:21 AM

Actually, it was not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be to say that a priest can’t argue fairly or factually about abortion because he’s a priest. All you did was expose idiotic reasoning, which is not ad hominem but a service to humanity.

This undercover ruse seems to me to be not so much an attempt to help prevent unlawful sex but a low trick to hit at the Planned Parent organization.
Chessplayer on December 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM

Wow, that’s just ignorant.

Well, you know that sting operation to entrap that pedophile was just a ruse to trick a loving man who was trying to help out a troubled youth…./idiot

Trapped by anti-PP forces?!? I think the majority of people would call that *EXPOSED*. The PP employee doesn’t want to know that she is 13 and that the “father” is 31 because that would mean she would have to knowingly break the law, which she is because she obviously heard Lila say she was 13 and the man was 31. So, because she doesn’t want to “betray a confidence” that makes it OK to break the law…Newsflash: when a child tells you that a 31 year old is having sex with her, that adult is abusing and exploiting the child and it is your *duty* to report that (even a doctor or psychologist will not keep confidentiality in the case of a crime such as). I don’t know what kind of whacked world you grew up in, but most humans try to protect children from the predators of the world.

And, what makes you think that the PP employee is naive? She’s accustomed to being sympathetic? Let me get this straight, she’s being sympathetic to the *girl* by allowing her to, (a) continue being exploited and abused by a pedophile, (b) sending her out of state secretly to have an operation and (c) kill the fetus that resulted from the rape? The only one that the imbecile (not you, the employee) is being sympathetic to is the perp and her own social ideology that abortion is a good thing.

You may not be pro-life, but if you’re pro-pedophile then you need to be put away. The laws that protect children are in place for a reason, even if morons like you don’t agree with them. The dipshit in the video should be prosecuted for her illegal actions and if this is a common occurrence in PP, then they need to be penalized or shut down.

Ed, people are threatened with being banned for being OT, while here this dope is advocating violence w/o a peep (unless I missed it.

As with any sting operation, the person doesn’t have to be pregnant or underage in order for PP to be in trouble. An analogy would be having a 23 year old female police officer set up a sting operation for a pedophile. What the perp thinks is “real” and their intent due to that belief is what gets them in trouble.

The reason that the PP employee is trying to get her out of state is due to the parental consent law in Indiana because she’s “13″. If the girl would let someone know that a 31 year old man is the father, than that is statutory rape and the decision is removed from the girl, her parents make the decision. Since the goal of PP is to abort every child that enters their building, that would be counter to their agenda. PP can manipulate the child much more easily by circumventing the law and pressuring her to abort the child. Its like the police policy in some cities where they can’t ask the citizenship status of the person they pull over, thus the perpetrator is free to continue committing crimes in order for the social agenda of the libs to be secure….sickening.

Well, I’m not. Again, she was neither a minor nor pregnant. Therefore, there was no crime. And since no crime was being investigated, there was no obstruction.

I’ll point out that the police run internet sting operations all the time posing as 14 year olds to suck pedophiles in.

They ARE arrested and procecuted and sent to jail so this is a very legal tactic.

Blake on December 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Health care providers are mandated reporters. They have a legal obligation to immediately report any crimes against children they become aware of, even if it’s only a suspicion of child abuse. That threshold was clearly crossed in this video, and the PP employee violated the law by not immediately reporting this to law enforcement. The fact that this was in reality an undercover sting does not relieve the PP employee of her obligations under the mandated reporter law; it would only provide a means to unfound the allegations of child abuse.

You can’t give a child an aspirin without the parent’s position, but you can perform surgery without informing the parents.

Ridiculous. Planned Parenthood deserves to be sued to the point that they can’t fund a box of condoms and the pieces of garbage who work for them become hobos.

The ones who want to protect their sexual predator, pervert boyfriends, that is, let’s think of their feelings.

That’s what is so sickening! How many child rapists have these people aided? IF this is as it appears (and this has actually happened to <14 year olds), that woman is equivalent to a child rapist in my eyes since she not only allows them to get away with doing what they’re doing, she aids in covering it up.

She’s supposed to be the adult looking out for the best interests of her child-patient. Instead she tells the child to do what’s in the best interests of the rapist, keeping her in the same situation where she can continue to be abused.

Simply disgusting!

hmmmmmm…….maybe all the democrats would move out.

How skewed does your moral compass have to be to think this is acceptable?