First, read my previous post, “Planned Parenthood involved in sex trafficking cover-ups?,” because this is Part II.
Let’s agree with news reports that Lila Rose’s group Live Action apparently engaged in a sting of several Planned Parenthood abortion clinics around the country - at least 12 – from January 11-15. Here was that alleged sting, according to CBS:
[A] man alleging to be a sex trafficker sought to speak confidentially with a clinic employee and then requested information regarding health services for sex workers, including some who he said were minors and in the U.S. illegally.
What “information” was the trafficker requesting? How to get an abortion for that 12-yr-old Michigan runaway he kidnapped? What to do about the smuggled Asian 16-yr-old who has contracted syphilis? Would it be possible to bring the entire caravan of girls in for group Depo shots?
Lila pretty much admitted to the Associated Press that Live Action did conduct such a sting, and she has video:
“The story that speaks loudest will be in the evidence,” she said. “I can’t comment until we release the visual evidence.”
So the Big Question is how did the PP workers respond to the sex trafficking poser’s “requested information”? What’s on the video?
Time will tell.
Now imagine you’re Cecile Richards, PP’s CEO, who only learns way after the fact that several of her clinics have been punked. She’s not sure what goods Live Action has, particularly because she knows it’s quite possible the PP employees involved have been lying through their teeth about how they answered the pimp, hoping against hope they weren’t caught on tape.
But Cecile has been through this with Lila and Live Action too many times before than she’d care to recall, so she’s expecting the worst.
So Cecile and her legal team decide to rush a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder, belatedly notifying him of this sex trafficker, which is what each of the 12 PP mills should have done in the first place but didn’t.
So she did that, too, finding an obviously friendly reporter (and photographer whose previous job must have been at Glamour Shots) attempting to portray PP as the innocent victim of evil pro-life ne’er do wells who just won’t leave PP alone.
Now enter pro-abort bloggers, jumping in to cover for PP even if unsure what’s going on. Word to the wise: Blind trust is irresponsible and stupid.
But whatever, now we see how far the other side will go, which is to say, hey, sex slaves need PP, too. Jodi Jacobson, editor-in-chief of RH Reality Check, asked several good questions. The problem is she forgot the basic rule: Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to. We shall see if Jodi’s questions come back to bite her…
What purpose does such a hoax serve? Does it… [e]xamine the policies and conditions that might exacerbate sex trafficking of minors? Help get victims of sex trafficking shelter, legal help….urgently needed medical care?
If such a hoax were to expose PP as enablers of the sex trafficking trade, the answer to Jacobson’s questions would be yes, yes, yes, and yes. We shall see.
Jacobson continued, emphasis hers…
Victims of sex trafficking, after all, also need sexual health services because they are effectively being raped regularly and are more likely to contract sexually transmitted infections and experience unintended pregnancies.
So Jodi is arguing that secretly and illegally treating victims of sex trafficking only to hand them back over to their pimps is a good thing.
And that’s how far the other side will go to prop abortion.