Video: Two Phoenix PP clinics cover up statutory rape

posted at 12:29 pm on March 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Lila Rose and Live Action have a new video from their Mona Lisa project, investigating Planned Parenthood clinics and their evasion of laws designed to protect underage girls from sexual abuse. This time, though, Lila didn’t find one clinic in Phoenix that broke the law. She found two:

Two more Planned Parenthood clinics in Phoenix, AZ were caught on tape concealing statutory rape. In a developing multi-state child abuse scandal, these are the fourth and fifth Planned Parenthood clinics implicated. Employees deliberately neglect their legal obligations to report statutory rape, and instead offer secret abortions.

Lila Rose and Jackie Stollar, both college students posing as 15-year-old girls, entered two Phoenix Planned Parenthood clinics undercover and told employees at one clinic that Stollar needed an abortion because her adult “boyfriend” had impregnated her, giving his age as 27-years-old at the second clinic.

Arizona state law requires law enforcement to be contacted immediately if an adult-child relationship is revealed. Failure to report incidents of sexual abuse are punishable under this law.

After Stollar explains that her boyfriend is “a lot older than me,” a staffer at the first clinic states: “we don’t ask any questions.” At the second clinic, upon hearing that the boyfriend is 27-years-old, the employee reassures the girls that “everything is confidential.” She also tells the girls she will not intervene: “I can’t say ‘Don’t’ you know or ‘I’m gonna go and do this.’ I cannot be that way, it’s not me.”

At one point, the clinic worker assures Lila that Planned Parenthood has no problem with a 27-year-old man coming in to pay for a 15-year-old’s abortion, saying, “No, we don’t ask any questions.”  Of course not — as long as they get the money, they could care less about complying with state laws for reporting statutory rape.  As the entire Mona Lisa Project has proven, that’s Planned Parenthood policy, and not just isolated cases of malfeasance.

That’s why David Vitter tried to cut Planned Parenthood off from government funds in the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress this month.  Opponents dishonestly attacked it as an attack on family-planning funding, when in fact it didn’t reduce funds by a single dollar.  It made Planned Parenthood ineligible to receive them, and this is one of the reasons why.  An organization as either hostile towards or incapable of following the law should not get a single dime of taxpayer money.


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

AnAny private organization as either hostile towards or incapable of following the law should not get a single dime of taxpayer money.

FIFY.

lorien1973 on March 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM

At one point, the clinic worker assures Lila that Planned Parenthood has no problem with a 27-year-old man coming in to pay for a 15-year-old’s abortion

… and the proud Clinton legacy lives on.

Kent18 on March 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Funny how rats and roaches scurry when the lights are turned on. Keep shining that light, Live Action.

SKYFOX on March 18, 2009 at 12:35 PM

If the government stopped funding PP tomorrow, there are more than enough pro-choice activists to donate to the group, not to mention the profit that PP makes.

We shouldn’t be paying for this.

myrenovations on March 18, 2009 at 12:35 PM

these are the fourth and fifth Planned Parenthood clinics implicated. Employees deliberately neglect their legal obligations to report statutory rape, and instead offer secret abortions

Sounds to me like this is part of PP’s policy, covering up crimes is a criminal act, and could subject PP to RICO, just like ACORN and voter fraud.

rbj on March 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Who cares? It’s mostly blacks that are being murdered and it certainly is not Michelle’s kids.

Since Oslime-a is the great black Messiah, why should we question his support of a program that decimates his “people”?

csdeven on March 18, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Statutory rape, child abuse, blah blah blah. You go on and on about this and meanwhile the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse is losing half of its habitat. Typical.

Jazz Shaw on March 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Planned Parenthood is an integral part of America’s illicit sex and pornography industry–the final part in the chain–and their ethics confirm it.

RBMN on March 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Of course not — as long as they get the money, they couldn’t care less about complying with state laws for reporting statutory rape.

Sorry, Ed. It’s an OCD thing.

AubieJon on March 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM

lorien1973 on March 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Bingo

Vashta.Nerada on March 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM

I’ve honestly never really been a strong pro-lifer, although I personally am pro life. However, stories like this and the infaticide just go on and on, and are making me more prolife with each one.

I wonder if Pelosi would just openly say that enforcing THESE laws are “un-American” as well?

JamesLee on March 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM

csdeven on March 18, 2009 at 12:38 PM

The Roe Effect.

lorien1973 on March 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Ah…. but who cares… its only the LAW…

The same type of LAW that our Speaker of the House says is unAmerican to enforce.

Romeo13 on March 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Who cares! We have military family’s with wounded that are soaking the taxpayers for health benefits! Let’s get our priorities fixed here folks! Good grief!!!

sabbott on March 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM

I hate the term “statutory rape”. There really is no such beast. It’s a sexual assault or an aggravated sexual assault, etc. I know that the term is used to generalize the varying penal classifications of the “statutory rape” offense between states, but I think the act is minimized when “statutory rape” is used. Call it what it is…

CapitalistPig on March 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM

The Bride of Monster is Personnel Manager at a sheltered workshop. If one of her employees tells her something that leads her to even suspect that some abuse has occurred, she is required by state law to “hotline” it. If she fails to do this, and the authorities find out, she can lose her job and go to jail.

But somehow, abortion trumps everything else. We had our state AG lose re-election because he had the audacity to question whether Tiller the Killer was covering up for statutory rapists.

The Monster on March 18, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Jazz Shaw on March 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM

You may be a lib, but you can be quite funny. Maybe we should call you gLib

Vashta.Nerada on March 18, 2009 at 12:44 PM

So…when do the prosecutions start. Can’t at least the individual clinic be shut down and investigated?

petunia on March 18, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Ut oh! You shouldn’t mess with the abortion topic as Da Bama is our new abortionist-in-chief.

I believe he was overheard saying at one of his White House socialist orgies, “Abortions for the World!” I wonder what he was smoking that night …

DannoJyd on March 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I hate to be this way, but no matter what junk comes out about PP, the liberals and government will continue to fund them and tout their glory, just like ACORN is still in business and continues to get funding, despite their junk during the campaigns.

Jus’ sayin’

ballz2wallz on March 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM

And another thing I live in Phoenix. This is the first I’ve heard of this. Where is the publicity?

petunia on March 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM

PP is all about exploiting self-absorption and making money off human sexual weakness. Their logo ought to be a giant metal screw.

whitetop on March 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM

I wonder how much money Da Bama gets from the abortionists. I’ll bet he got millions to date.

DannoJyd on March 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM

I hate the term “statutory rape”. There really is no such beast. It’s a sexual assault or an aggravated sexual assault, etc. I know that the term is used to generalize the varying penal classifications of the “statutory rape” offense between states, but I think the act is minimized when “statutory rape” is used. Call it what it is…

On the contrary, actual “statutory rape” is not assault, because no force is used. It is a consequence of the legal theory that a person under a certain age cannot give consent to sex.

The Monster on March 18, 2009 at 12:48 PM

That’s why David Vitter tried to cut Planned Parenthood off from government funds in the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress this month.

Oh yes, that will work with Barack “4th trimester abortions are ok” Obama in the white house.

BTW, isn’t it interested that the MSM is mostly uninterested in this even though PP keeps getting caught helping rapists? Or that PP will take money specifically allowed to eliminate black children?

18-1 on March 18, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that abortion is a sacred thing to liberals? It isn’t really about women having a choice because if it were, they would respect the choice not to have an abortion – in fact, they would see to it that women knew all the choices.

I’ve heard “religious anti-abortion zealots” say that liberalism is a religion and abortion is the sacrifice to the liberals’ god.

The longer I live and the more I learn of the gory details of the abortion industry, the more I’m believing this.

AubieJon on March 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM

If they commit crimes, prosecute those responsible. As it stands now, it’s clear that your agenda is to outlaw abortions.

P.S. I have no problem with Churches or Planned Parenthood run as private enterprises with no government subsidies.

radiofreevillage on March 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Funny how rats and roaches scurry when the lights are turned on. Keep shining that light, Live Action.

SKYFOX on March 18, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Wasn’t there a “right-of-center” pundit just a few days ago crying her eyes out over all the horrible injustices that will go unseen if the mainstream liberal media goes under?

How many decades do you think it would have taken the combined resources of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, The New York times, etc., etc… to unearth this particular child molestation ring?

Or an even better question: are any of them even going to cover this story after it’s been shoved in their faces?

logis on March 18, 2009 at 12:56 PM

radiofreevillage on March 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Are you pro-abortion because it’s legal, or are you pro-abortion because you truly don’t believe it’s murder?

AubieJon on March 18, 2009 at 12:56 PM

The Monster on March 18, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Correct. Hence the need for the “Romeo and Juliette” laws found in many states, including New York. Otherwise, an 18 year old guy and his 17 year old girlfriend can see the guy doing fifteen years hard time even if they were engaged to be married. Questions of who is able to give meaningful consent under what conditions quite necessarily are strung through all of these laws.

Of course, none of that comes into play when a 27 year old man is banging a 15 year old girl. That’s just pedophilia no matter how you try to slice and dice it.

Jazz Shaw on March 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM

On the contrary, actual “statutory rape” is not assault, because no force is used. It is a consequence of the legal theory that a person under a certain age cannot give consent to sex.

I hate to disagree. Check out Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULTof the Texas Penal code…

When a child is involved, there is NO CONSENT.

CapitalistPig on March 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM

CapitalistPig on March 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Unfortunately, I think you’re both arguing the same point but you just don’t realize it. The reason there is “NO CONSENT” is because a minor can not provide meaningful consent. Thus, even if the minor girl agrees to the act, or even initiates the entire thing, she is not considered sufficiently mature to provide meaningful consent. That is what qualifies it as statutory rape as opposed to forcible rape, not only absent consent but including denial and resistance.

Jazz Shaw on March 18, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Of course, none of that comes into play when a 27 year old man is banging a 15 year old girl. That’s just pedophilia no matter how you try to slice and dice it.

No, it’s ephebophilia. I’ve seen too many 14-15/yo girls who looked WAY older than their calendar age to apply that tag to such behavior.

The age of the guy is not relevant. If the girl in question is physically mature enough to become pregnant, then finding her sexually attractive is not “pedophilia”. That JonBenet Ramsey stuff, or Aisha the 6-year-old bride of Muhammad (he graciously waited until she was 9 to consummate the union) is pedophilia.

We have arbitrarily decided that you aren’t an adult until you’re 16 18 21, but traditionally someone with a functional reproductive system was considered to be an adult, and expected to act like one.

It is the unnatural prolonging of childhood, and teaching adolescents that they are not responsible adults, that produces irresponsible behavior.

The Monster on March 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM

The Monster on March 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Monster, you’re more than welcome to your own opinion, but I not only have the law on my side in most states but a very traditional respect for the relationship between parents and their children and the responsibilities of adults. I don’t care how much earlier girls’ hormones are kicking into play these days as opposed to 100 years ago. Having started one’s menstrual cycle and developed swelling glands does not translate into the experience and judgment to be considered an adult and shoved out into the world. A fifteen year old girl is still a child as I see it, and a 27 year old guy using her has his “girlfriend” is a pedophile.

I’ll toss you an extra 50 cent cookie for the use of “ephebophilia” but a child molester is still a child molester in my book. Some girls these days are hitting their reproductive cycles around ten years of age. Are they “women” also?

Jazz Shaw on March 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Are you pro-abortion because it’s legal, or are you pro-abortion because you truly don’t believe it’s murder?

I truly don’t believe that it’s murder.

radiofreevillage on March 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that abortion is a sacred thing to liberals? It isn’t really about women having a choice because if it were, they would respect the choice not to have an abortion – in fact, they would see to it that women knew all the choices.

I’ve heard “religious anti-abortion zealots” say that liberalism is a religion and abortion is the sacrifice to the liberals’ god.

The longer I live and the more I learn of the gory details of the abortion industry, the more I’m believing this.

AubieJon on March 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM

It is part and parcel with the philosophy of modern romance–everything must be perfect. Any flaw, hardship, or unexpected circumstance calls for immediately hitting the reset button and starting over. Hollywood is really the biggest proponent of the philosophy, and it shows in the divorce rate of those that work in the industry.
The default position that unplanned pregnancies should be aborted follows directly from this ideal (but, then, so do homosexual lifestyles and the concept of changing sexes).

Count to 10 on March 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM

I truly don’t believe that it’s murder.

radiofreevillage on March 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Interesting. Where (when) do you draw the line, and how fuzzy is it?

Count to 10 on March 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Interesting. Where (when) do you draw the line, and how fuzzy is it?

Count to 10 on March 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM

I doubt he/she has actually ever thought it out that much, either because an actual decision would have to be made and a resulting moral position would be required, or because he/she is just parroting a liberal talking point and is incapable of independent thought.

AubieJon on March 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM

The more I think about the reasons that the PP workers reacted as they did, the more I believe that the laws need to be amended to protect these workers. I certainly would be willing to risk my job to keep quiet about something consensual–if I ever were in such a position. And I can say it plainly, because I’ll never work in a health or counciling field.

thuja on March 18, 2009 at 2:11 PM

The default position that unplanned pregnancies should be aborted follows directly from this ideal (but, then, so do homosexual lifestyles and the concept of changing sexes).

Count to 10 on March 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM

That the default position in an unplanned pregnancy should be an abortion is the logical conclusion from Ann Coulter’s discussion of the social ills that result from unwed mothers having kids. It’s sad to me that more conservatives don’t figure this out.

thuja on March 18, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Since the Leader of the HoR doesn’t think illegal alien laws should be inforced, why should this both us?

(I keed)

PappaMac on March 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that abortion is a sacred thing to liberals? It isn’t really about women having a choice because if it were, they would respect the choice not to have an abortion – in fact, they would see to it that women knew all the choices.
AubieJon on March 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Choice has nothing to do with it. “Tolerance” is an adult concept; it means to abhor something, but to put up with it anyway.

And no child or other liberal can ever do that. They can only worship or revile – absolutely nothing in between.

(BTW, that’s why I thought it was such a hoot back during the brief period when liberals tried to pretend that they “respect” US soldiers. All they could do was wildly vacillate between calling the troops “Nazis” and bragging about their own unquestionable “patriotism.” And they had no freakin’ clue why everybody kept looking at them like they were crazy.)

logis on March 18, 2009 at 2:21 PM

That the default position in an unplanned pregnancy should be an abortion is the logical conclusion from Ann Coulter’s discussion of the social ills that result from unwed mothers having kids.

I believe the logical conclusion is don’t get pregnant, either by abstaining from sexual intercourse or by using birth control. Birth control just isn’t that difficult to obtain or use properly.

mchristian on March 18, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Interesting. Where (when) do you draw the line, and how fuzzy is it?
Count to 10 on March 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM

I doubt he/she has actually ever thought it out that much, either because an actual decision would have to be made and a resulting moral position would be required…
AubieJon on March 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Did you see the movie Silence of the Lambs? Where the serial killer keeps saying “IT puts on the lotion; IT does what it’s told….” That’s actually what true sociopaths do. It is utterly impossible to justify their actions within any moral code that has ever existed — so they simply define away the conflict altogether.

Liberals don’t know – or particularly care – where the line is drawn; all they know is that they are unquestionably on the right side of it.

All but the very craziest moonbats realize that killing a “baby” is the most heinous crime imaginable. But letting an unfertilized egg pass is unavoidable. So, to any normal person there is a huge dilema there, and any sane person would want to err only on the non-baby-killing side of it — the point of decision; what any adult understands to be the act of “making babies.”

But the liberal doesn’t even acknowledge that there is any potential moral issue at all. Whether it’s first trimester, third, or (as per Barak Obama’s official position) very early into the fourth trimester of pregnancy… Where any individual liberal draws the line is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is that he knows that there IS a line, and he will always be on the right side of it. As long as the liberal doesn’t call whatever he’s killing “alive,” he can ever feel even the tiniest bit guilty of anything, ever.

logis on March 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM

That the default position in an unplanned pregnancy should be an abortion is the logical conclusion from Ann Coulter’s discussion of the social ills that result from unwed mothers having kids. It’s sad to me that more conservatives don’t figure this out.

thuja on March 18, 2009 at 2:14 PM

No, the conclusion of that would be that women should not get pregnant when unmarried, and should look to become married if they do.

Count to 10 on March 18, 2009 at 2:41 PM

thuja on March 18, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Dude. A 15 year old girl lacks the maturity to make decisions of that sort, which is why no man should ever, regardless of attraction, have sex with someone of that age.

The choice to do so is a choice to prey upon another’s vulnerability and innocence … which is why we have mandatory reporting laws. It’s not consensual at all – it’s an adult manipulating a kid.

TheUnrepentantGeek on March 18, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Did you see the movie Silence of the Lambs? Where the serial killer keeps saying “IT puts on the lotion; IT does what it’s told….” That’s actually what true sociopaths do. It is utterly impossible to justify their actions within any moral code that has ever existed — so they simply define away the conflict altogether.

Liberals don’t know – or particularly care – where the line is drawn; all they know is that they are unquestionably on the right side of it.

All but the very craziest moonbats realize that killing a “baby” is the most heinous crime imaginable. But letting an unfertilized egg pass is unavoidable. So, to any normal person there is a huge dilema there, and any sane person would want to err only on the non-baby-killing side of it — the point of decision; what any adult understands to be the act of “making babies.”

But the liberal doesn’t even acknowledge that there is any potential moral issue at all. Whether it’s first trimester, third, or (as per Barak Obama’s official position) very early into the fourth trimester of pregnancy… Where any individual liberal draws the line is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is that he knows that there IS a line, and he will always be on the right side of it. As long as the liberal doesn’t call whatever he’s killing “alive,” he can ever feel even the tiniest bit guilty of anything, ever.

logis on March 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Bingo. Define away the conflict.

I’ve heard it said that only the mother gets to decide when the fetus becomes a baby. That idea should be abhorrent to anyone who loves liberty and respects the basic human rights.

TheUnrepentantGeek on March 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM

That the default position in an unplanned pregnancy should be an abortion is the logical conclusion from Ann Coulter’s discussion of the social ills that result from unwed mothers having kids.

I believe the logical conclusion is don’t get pregnant, either by abstaining from sexual intercourse or by using birth control. Birth control just isn’t that difficult to obtain or use properly.

mchristian on March 18, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Congratulations on proposing the one social engineering scheme with more empirical evidence against it than socialism! People just don’t seem to be built for abstinence. And isn’t the entire idea of Conservatism to accept people as they are and not propose some unattainable, utopian scheme?

thuja on March 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Bingo. Define away the conflict.

I’ve heard it said that only the mother gets to decide when the fetus becomes a baby. That idea should be abhorrent to anyone who loves liberty and respects the basic human rights.

TheUnrepentantGeek on March 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Lots of parents have smothered their own children rather than take care of them. I’d go so far as to say that it must have crossed the mind of nearly every parent at one time or another.

I don’t really know how any of them “defined” their murders, and I could not possibly care less. With the possible exception of cancer, children are the biggest pain in the ass that God ever created.

Killing children is like robbing banks; the fact that it’s so incredibly tempting makes it MORE important to punish it, not LESS.

logis on March 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM

People just don’t seem to be built for abstinence. And isn’t the entire idea of Conservatism to accept people as they are and not propose some unattainable, utopian scheme?

As I also said, birth control is easy to get and easy to master. Nice the way you just ignored that whole part. Very liberal of you.

mchristian on March 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM

An organization as either hostile towards or incapable of following the law should not get a single dime of taxpayer money.

This goes for PP and ACORN.

jgapinoy on March 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM

People just don’t seem to be built for abstinence. And isn’t the entire idea of Conservatism to accept people as they are and not propose some unattainable, utopian scheme?

thuja on March 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM

So lets go back to crapping in the fields, beating women with clubs, and letting the weak and afflicted die a slow death of starvation. God forbid, we certainly don’t want a Utopian society.

You liberals surly are psychologically damaged.

csdeven on March 18, 2009 at 4:51 PM

If they commit crimes, prosecute those responsible. As it stands now, it’s clear that your agenda is to outlaw abortions.

P.S. I have no problem with Churches or Planned Parenthood run as private enterprises with no government subsidies.

radiofreevillage on March 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Yes, it is.

tcn on March 18, 2009 at 5:17 PM

And isn’t the entire idea of Conservatism to accept people as they are and not propose some unattainable, utopian scheme?

thuja on March 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Isn’t liberalism by its very definition some unattainable, utopian scheme?

Troika37 on March 18, 2009 at 5:18 PM

People just don’t seem to be built for abstinence.
thuja on March 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM

We are not brutes. We have free will. The choice to have sex outside of marriage carries consequences, not just pregnancy but also disease. Still, it is a choice.

If you want to be a slave to your basest urges, then by all means have sex with whomever and whenever you like, but don’t expect murder to solve the problem later without more consequences.

I find it very silly that liberals are all about “self-esteem” (as opposed to dignity) but also think we should do as we please, when we please, with whomever we please. Nothing kills one’s dignity as fast as acting like an animal. Self-control is directly linked to dignity, which is much superior to narcissistic “self-esteem.”

I cannot claim that thuja thinks this way from that statement above, but it appears to be the rationale behind trying to normalize bad behavior.

tcn on March 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM

If they commit crimes, prosecute those responsible. As it stands now, it’s clear that your agenda is to outlaw abortions.

P.S. I have no problem with Churches or Planned Parenthood run as private enterprises with no government subsidies.

radiofreevillage on March 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM

At least there’s consensus here — in this particular case, a crime was committed.

As for the rest of it, sure — we want to outlaw abortions just as 150 years ago we wanted to outlaw slavery. Anything whose business plan depends on classifying a human as less than human should be outlawed.

So there we are.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2009 at 5:37 PM

It makes me very sad that “health care professionals” who are supposed to look out for and protect the health of children are allowed to be complicit in the rape / molestation of a child. They should be in jail and lose their licenses immediately. PP needs to be shut down the whole lot of them should be in prison. To profit from the rape of children is inexcusable.

kringeesmom on March 18, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Great work, but nothing will come of this.

After all, we live in Bizarro World©

omnipotent on March 18, 2009 at 7:14 PM

I truly don’t believe that it’s murder.
radiofreevillage on March 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Interesting. Where (when) do you draw the line, and how fuzzy is it?

Count to 10 on March 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM

The line is easy to draw because ‘murder’ has a clear
definition, namely: premeditated unlawful killing.

Abortion is killing and it is premeditated but so long as it is done as the law permits it to be done then it is not unlawful and therefore, by definition, cannot be murder.

This has no bearing, of course, on whether abortion is moral or immoral, good or evil, etc … ‘murder’ is a legal term, not a moral term.

YiZhangZhe on March 18, 2009 at 7:20 PM

As long as the liberal doesn’t call whatever he’s killing “alive,” he can ever feel even the tiniest bit guilty of anything, ever.

logis on March 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Beautiful analysis. Well done, Sir.

Funny, the Amish don’t seem to have any trouble keeping their children from understanding that Abstinence before marriage is best for creating a family, that if you were going to “have a Baby” (notice it’s not “have a fetus”) you got married and raised the child. It is the destruction of this moral imperative, the feeling that living growing children in the womb are disposable, that has killed respect for life. Also a loss of respect for Chasity, Innocence, Chivalry, Duty, Honor, Loyalty.

GunRunner on March 18, 2009 at 7:38 PM

I’ve said it before, by covering for child rapists, they’re aiding and abetting in the continued sexual abuse of minors.

taznar on March 18, 2009 at 9:06 PM

I am getting tired of Hot Air covering up for these men. If you know who they are you need to report it. and stop using victimized young girls to do your reports. This sort of thing is an outrage. I want to see those men escorted to jail in handcuffs, and the girl put in foster care.

Observation on March 19, 2009 at 1:37 AM

I am getting tired of Hot Air covering up for these men. If you know who they are you need to report it. and stop using victimized young girls to do your reports. This sort of thing is an outrage. I want to see those men escorted to jail in handcuffs, and the girl put in foster care.

Observation on March 19, 2009 at 1:37 AM

WTF?

Fuquay Steve on March 19, 2009 at 7:33 AM

Fuquay Steve on March 19, 2009 at 7:33 AM

They didn’t read the post thoroughly, or they are a lib troll trying to make a point about how it was a “sting” operation and there were no actual men involved. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the PP employees would have behaved the same regardless.

thecountofincognito on March 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM