Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape again

Deja vu deja vu deja vu . . .

Yep, they got caught on video again.

Pro-lifer Lila Rose, 20 years old, went to a PP clinic in Alabama, posed as a 14 year old girl who became pregnant by her 31 year old boyfriend.  When Rose asks for an abortion, the PP worker she talks with says she needs parental consent.  Ok, so far so good…that’s a better start than the other clinics that have been caught willing to break the law.

But then Rose balks, saying her parents can’t know.  She reveals the reason: her boyfriend is 31.  Alabama state law requires health care officials to disclose cases of adult-child sex to the proper authorities.  The PP worker assures Rose, “as long as you consented to having sex with him, there’s nothing we can truly do about that.”


Wait, it gets better.  Tanisha, the PP worker, then proceeds to tell Rose that the clinic manager, Dr. Desiree Bates, “sometimes bends the rules a little bit…whatever you say stays within these walls…we can’t disclose any information to anybody.”

But they are getting smarter (?).  They posted Lila Rose’s picture so clinic counselors would know when she is coming in.  That is classic. I wonder if the caption says, “Do not hide statutory rapists for this girl.  But keep up the standard practice for the rest of the underaged victims.” 

Remember, this is your tax $ at work.  And to think, many Christians (must . . . resist . . . urge . . . to use . . . scare quotes) support Planned Parenthood.  Pathetic.

Oh, and once again the mainstream media ignores this.

P.S. Remember when Planned Parenthood was pro-life?

29 thoughts on “Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape again”

  1. That’s just it, they are the proper authority. I’m beginning to think that certain organizations that fall under “the political protection umbrella”, such as PP, can do as they please, laws be damned. They know that not enough people will care for it to be a big bother for them, why else would they continue? We all worried about the future; it is now upon us.


  2. Speaking of political correctness, it’s been noted that Associated Press have neglected to mention that this child molester is not only gay, and cohabitating with his homosexual partner, but also that the child he molested was his adopted African-American son!

    Y’think that if this was a clergyman doing this that the media would have picked up on that?


      1. Ah, yes … forgotten from where I was directed to that article from!

        But maybe we should give AP the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it just escaped their noticed or they forgot? Hmmm?

        Back to this article, however, PP sure seem to have their bases covered to remain operational after repetitive gigs like these. Wonder on who’s payroll the MSM are? I’m certain George Orwell’s novel 1984 is only 25 years off the mark …


      2. Clergyman is a profession, and they did work his profession into the article. You just like to smear homosexuals. This is not a case about being gay. It’s a case against being a molester.

        And what on Earth could the race of the child have to do with this case? You are seriously sick if you think that matters.


      3. Ryan,

        Once again, less hyperbole would help you understand the issue.

        Both blacks and gays are part of a left leaning coalition that provides massive voter and financial support to the democratic party. However, in America blacks are overwhelming against gay marriage and deep cultural prejudices towards homosexual activity run in the black communities throughout America.

        Further, black individuals as a group tend towards having deep objections to white individuals raising black babies.

        A well covered and hyped story about a gay man adopting a black baby and then molesting that child and pimping that child on the internet could quite literally shatter that coalition in states like California (where it is the black community that forced through prop 8 overwhelmingly, even though they voted for Obama).

        Neil’s comments are spot on and relevant.


      4. I wouldn’t call it a coalition, since Obama’s platform (and actions) are no more for gay rights than McCain’s, but you’re right about the rest.

        So you think that naming the race of the child for the sole purpose of making the blacks hate the gays and breaking up the “coalition” is the right thing to do? Or was the media right about the race of the child being irrelevant?


      5. Let the people decide.

        The media should provide all the facts. The refusal to indicate the ethnicity of the child reveals a pro-democratic bias precisely because they are aware what impact such a story could and would have.

        It’s a case of ideology trumping journalism.


      6. Also Ryan, I find it quite telling that most Obama supporters often talk about what Obama “Really” stands for as being different from what his stated positions are. This is very prevalent in the homosexual commun

        When his biggest supporters in that community are insisting “his real position is X, and once it’s popular enough or he has enough political capital he will work for that goal.”

        To be clear, I am saying that Obama has been disingenuous about his position on homosexual issues precisely to hold a coalition together and to get elected.


      7. Ah the old “let the people decide” trick. So should the new report the race, religion and sexual preference of every person involved in the news?

        “…In other new, Jerry T. Carstealer, a white, Buddhist homosexual was caught stealing another car. Now to Linda, an asian heterosexual Christian, reporting from the scene…”

        You just want to have it reported to smear certain people.

        I agree with you on Obama. I think he made it seem like he would be an advocate for the gay community, but now has appeased the right by doing nothing. It’s politicians – they all do it, and it sucks.


      8. How is asking for full information that is entirely relevant to the story a trick? Ryan, you’re really making significant mental contrortions to maintain your positions.

        A simpler approach would be correcting the logical errors in the foundations.


      9. The fact that the man was homosexual and the child was black are not relevant to the story.


      10. Why not?

        This is just a typical example of the white patriarchy exerting its oppressive forces over minorities.

        I for one think the media should report patriarchial oppression that has ethnic components. Don’t you?

        If gender and sexual orientation isn’t important in this story than I find it difficult to come up with ANY story that it is relevent. Realisticly, this should be a hate crime because we can’t ascertain for certain that there was not a ethnic based sexual fetish involved.


      11. I think it certainly makes sense.

        Two white men adopting a black boy, and then one of them being involved in sexually abusing that boy?

        And possibly doing so for profit?
        I’m not sure if this situation could be any more oppressive. And I think the media should report ethnic oppression, and patriarchial oppression. Do you disagree?


      12. The issue is that a child was tragically abused, and you are trying to use the situation to suite your purpose.

        Your logic is disgraceful. You actually think that something should be considered a hate crime because we can’t prove for certain that it was not? That’s what you said, and it’s incredible that I’m the only one here that has the guts to challenge you on it.


      13. Why isn’t the media reporting the race of the child when they did with the fake rape case? Why isn’t the media reporting the sexual preference of the molester? Do you think the public wouldn’t be interested.

        Don’t be such a tool.


  3. Far as I’m aware, you can be a child molester no matter what your profession, so profession oughtn’t come into the argument in a clergyman’s case then, either, right?


    1. I’d agree with that. I think the news agencies offer the profession to help the public know who the person is, especially in the case of an offense against children.


  4. I ❤ Lila Rose.

    I look younger than my age – I often get mistaken for being a college student, even in a skirt and heels – but, if I could pull off looking sufficiently underage to nail PP, I would be taking her place. With hats and wigs, so posting photos of me wouldn't do any good.

    We need more college pro-lifers (and high school pro-lifers!) to step up and keep doing this. Pretty soon, PP might actually report statutory rape, rather than just killing a baby and sending a scared girl back to her rapist boyfriend or stepdaddy.


    1. That would be a great adventure!

      What amazes me is how unrepentant PP is. Other than putting up Rose’s picture they don’t appear to be changing anything. The previous phone call recordings at 90% of their clinics didn’t stop them either. They really, really don’t care about statutory rape. Reporting it would cut into their business.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s