A pro-life college student went undercover to show Planned Parenthood allegedly breaking the law and now the abortionist plans to file a lawsuit against her.
Lila Rose is an 18-year-old student journalist at UCLA. She’s editor-in-chief of Live Action’s The Advocate. Rose recently went undercover at a local campus Planned Parenthood clinic, posing as a 15-year-old minor seeking an abortion after being impregnated by a 23-year-old man. California’s mandatory reporting laws require abortion providers to report statutory rape involving girls under the age of 16. Rose secretly captured video of her visit.
Here’s a partial transcript of what transpired:
Planned Parenthood staff “If you’re 15, we have to report it. If you’re not, if you’re older than that, then we don’t need to.”
15-year-old “Okay, but if I just say I’m not 15, then it’s different? So I could just say…”
Planned Parenthood staff “You could say 16.”
15 year old “I could say 16.”
Planned Parenthood staff “Yes.”
15 year old “Okay, yeah. So I would just write 16?”
Planned Parenthood staff “Well, just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.”
The worst thing Planned Parenthood could do here is file a lawsuit against someone who has no assets. All it does is provide the David in the David & Goliath scenario with much needed publicity.
PPLA’s self-justification is just too precious as well: “Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California President Kathy Kneer criticized the undercover investigation as ‘manipulative,’ …” Not unlike Planned Parenthood itself. Pot, meet the kettle. It’s black.
Of course, this is nothing new. Life Dynamics of Denton, Texas, ran this expose on Planned Parenthood throughout the United States and has documented the results on its web site, ChildPredators.com.
Technorati Tags: abortion | Planned Parenthood | pro-life |
Laura Ingraham on her show yesterday said that if PP does this she will do everything she can to both contribute and to get others to contribute to her defense. PP will probably back down, but some ways I hope they won’t since the publicity will only expose them more.
Are PP’s lawyers funded by taxpayers, too?
Since when is undercover reporting manipulative? I know for sure that we have a freedom of the press. THAT one IS in the Bill of Rights (unlike that right to privacy thing).
What is manipulative is PP advertising at elections.
But look at the cockroaches run when the light gets turned on.
the PP lawyers in a way are funded by tax dollars as part of their operating costs.
How is what this reporter did any different than the Dateline NBC reporting of “to catch a preditor” where the cops/NBC pose as a teenager and lure men in for sex. I see nothing different, I see nothing illegal (well, I have no credentials to actually make that statement) and I’m glad she had the courage to do it.
Good for Laura Ingrahm also!!
How is what this reporter did any different than the Dateline NBC reporting of “to catch a preditor” where the cops/NBC pose as a teenager and lure men in for sex. I see nothing different, I see nothing illegal (well, I have no credentials to actually make that statement) and I’m glad she had the courage to do it.
I don’t know if it’s illegal, but I do think it is immoral to lie and deceive, even to expose the truth.
*I should add, I don’t know if she did lie and deceive. It sounds like she may have only asked questions, without saying she was thinking about having an abortion or something similar. I do think “To Catch A Predator” is immoral however, if they are enticing others to lust in a chat room.
Planned Parenthood needs to be exposed as the murder factory that it is. I cannot see much difference between it, the Chinese or Soviet communists abortion mills, and the Nazi eugenics machines. They all smack of the scent of hell itself.
While I am no longer, I suspect Planned Parenthood could in fact win. It is illegal in many states to record someone without their knowledge and that is what happened in this case.
Actually most of those state laws are “two-party” consent laws, meaning that at least one of the two parties to the conversation must consent to the recording of an oral communication (telecommunications recordings are handled separately).
Since the student doing the taping presumably consented to recording herself, the law was satisfied.
However, I am not familiar with California’s exact statute so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that almost all states are two-party consent.
Dom,
I don’t practice law anymore, but Massachusetts is (or at least used to be) a two-party consent state; you can’t record here without both parties agreeing… so beware, Bay Staters.
But you’re right that in most other states, one-party consent is enough.