Planned Parenthood closes 5 FL clinics over $ shenanigans

by Valerie Jane and Jill Stanek

Thumbnail image for financial problems.jpgUsually MSM is all over any story having to do with shady financial shenigans within a large corporation. Enron anyone?

But when it's Planned Parenthood, MSM's eyes avert.

In this case, national PP shut down its FL Planned Parenthood of South Palm Beach and Broward Counties affiliate about 2-1/2 weeks ago, according to the March 21 Sun Sentinel.

This meant closing 5 clinics in Boca Raton, Deerfield Beach, Oakland Park, Pembroke Pines, and Tamarac to make "necessary service upgrades," quoting a PP prepared statement provided to the SS.

But former board members and a worker who has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit told SS of deeper problems...

... of the pressured resignation of the affiliate's CEO, of "concerns about management and about the financial stability," of the affiliate's resistance to merge with the Orlando or West Palm Beach affiliate, of "allegations... that money may be unaccounted for," of "concerns over the proper documentation of medical procedures," and of "undisciplined spending and poor decision making."

PP's VP of operations and affiliate relations, Karen Ruffatto, responded in her statement that "[t]he federation has no knowledge of unaccounted money at the agency," the proposed merger was "not unusual," the examination of the affiliates finances was "routine[]," and any "problems were being addressed."

What "problems"? For how long? Former board members said they complained to national PP about smelly books for 18+ months with no response.

This affiliate has a $3.9 million annual budget, according to SS, including $441,000 in government funding.

This is apparently the end of the story as far as MSM is concerned, a big business financial problem being internally handled, something MSM would never walk away from if any other big business.

Also of note, PP only self-ceases operations when its own pocketbook is threatened, never for charges of racist fund-raising, bilking taxpayers, or creating false front companies and building mega-mills under false pretenses.


Comments:

This is great news!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:09 AM


Great news? How is it even news at all? Apparently their doing their job, founds some issues, and are addressing them. And, IF something shady was going on, why is that good news at all?

Posted by: hal at March 25, 2008 9:21 AM


The attack du jour on PP by Jill. Gosh, has it been 72 hours since the last one?

Good thing this stuff never gets stale!

It is certainly good that Jill's sycophants never tire of the same old, same old...

Posted by: anonymous at March 25, 2008 9:54 AM


Apparently the feeling of warm sand in your ears makes a body want to stand up and justify.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 9:55 AM


OOPS, sorry. I committed one of my worst sins. EDIT EDIT EDIT It's "they're" not "their." I don't know how I did that.
Should read "They're doing their job."


Posted by: hal at March 25, 2008 10:00 AM


"..It is certainly good that Jill's sycophants never tire of the same old, same old..."
-----------------------------------

Anon...I wouldn't mind being called a sycophant or any variation thereof IF PP abortuaries continue to close...and THAT's always news I will be glad to hear everyday!!!

Posted by: RSD at March 25, 2008 10:02 AM


We could start an "Adopt a Sycophant" drive!

I'll adopt RSD.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 10:20 AM


I have to agree with Anon, here. ((yawn))

Some real news, please?

Posted by: Leah at March 25, 2008 10:22 AM


Hooves in Maw, WELCOME BACK!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:25 AM


Hooooooooooooves: Welcome back!!!!

Posted by: Carrie at March 25, 2008 10:27 AM


HOOVES IN MAW!!!!! YAY!!!!!

Posted by: Carla at March 25, 2008 10:28 AM


This is apparently the end of the story as far as MSM is concerned, a big business financial problem being internally handled, something MSM would never walk away from if any other big business.

Silly Jilly, a Planned Parenthood affiliate is NOT a "big business." It's a non-profit organization.

Also of note, PP only self-ceases operations when its own pocketbook is threatened, never for charges of racist fund-raising, bilking taxpayers, or creating false front companies and building mega-mills under false pretenses.

If PP closed down every time some anti-choice nutcake told another ridiculous lie, they would've all shut down decades ago.

Posted by: reality at March 25, 2008 10:30 AM


reality, I suggest you try to get a grip on reality.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:35 AM


*LOL* at Hooves in Maw...

"some real news, pls?"...

This is a Pro-Life blog...this is "real news" to us!

If you want MSM news...go to CNN.com

Posted by: RSD at March 25, 2008 10:37 AM


It is amazing how everyone reacts to these stories. You all act like it is Jill that is doing something wrong! She is reporting the truth, something no one in the media is doing, and you all think it is "yawn".

I guess you don't care that tax money is going to an organization that has multiple problems in multiple locations. I guess you can just look the other way while dogs and cats in animal hospitals are treated better than women. However, I won't.

Hal - you said that they are doing the right thing. Why did it take them over 18 months to do it? Why are they not releasing why they CLOSED the clinics? An organization doesn't just close its doors because of embezzelment! They close their doors when the conditions are not up to proper code. Not because their accounting is missing some numbers.

Everyone here needs to get a clue and realize what is going on here. The religion of Planned Parenthood is lying and stealing and will have to explain themselves sometime. Why not sooner rather than later? Why continue to cover up for their failings? The sooner all this comes to light, the sooner the cult followers realize the truth, the sooner women will be actually treated like human beings at these clinics.

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 10:38 AM


Hal just seems to think that everything about the abortion industry is just so peachy.@@

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 11:03 AM


I'm willing to support improvements. You, however, don't want better abortion conditions, you enjoy the stories of scandal and malpractice.

Posted by: hal at March 25, 2008 11:12 AM


Hal, that's because I don't support the murder of children!!!!!!!! I'm going to expose the truth.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 11:16 AM


How do you make abortion conditions better? Murder is murder!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 11:17 AM


Hal,
Yes I do want better abortion conditions. Stop killing the unborn children, maiming women and bilking taxpayers by handing out devices and information that hurt women (and men, although to a much lesser degree) kill children and breakup marriages.

The media didn't mind having a field day over Conrad Black, but PP is untouchable as are abortionists like Tiller.

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 11:22 AM


The attack du jour on PP by Jill. Gosh, has it been 72 hours since the last one?
*
Good thing this stuff never gets stale!
*
It is certainly good that Jill's sycophants never tire of the same old, same old...
Posted by: anonymous at March 25, 2008 9:54 AM

And you're here becaaaauuuse....?????

Posted by: mk at March 25, 2008 11:22 AM


Hooves-in-Maw!!!!! Welcome Back!...

Posted by: mk at March 25, 2008 11:27 AM


Thank you, thank you….you are all too kind.

Actually thank heather….she’s the one who rustled me up and informed me that FF was booted. I’ve lurked for a few days and felt that the level of civility had seen a definite improvement. Figured I’d put my toes back in.

And I’m offering free g’miballs to all fellow Syncophants.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 11:31 AM


Also at http://www.lifenews.com/state3044.html last week...

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at March 25, 2008 11:46 AM


mk 11:22 a.m.

I am here because I do research on anti-choice, anti-gay etc. extremist hate groups, and this website is a very efficient way to monitor their activities.

It is much more current and far better maintained than Army of God, ChristianGallery, etc. websites. Frankly, the average wing nut is very lazy about maintaining their website.

My compliments to you and Jill.

Posted by: anonymous at March 25, 2008 11:51 AM


She is reporting the truth, something no one in the media is doing, and you all think it is "yawn".

Umm, quoting the MEDIA when she blogs obviously means the MEDIA must be doing SOMETHING otherwise Jill would have NOTHING to write about.

And honestly, there's a really big chance that nothing is going on whatsoever, and the media looked into it and saw nothing was going on, so they just decided not to write some big controversial story like Jill is trying to make it out to be.

Which it's not. So who cares?

Posted by: Edyt at March 25, 2008 11:52 AM


Wow! I am part of an extremist hate group! Who knew??

Posted by: Carla at March 25, 2008 12:00 PM


And you're here becaaaauuuse....?????

I am here for the fun, mk. And from my observation, it would be awfully boring around here (except, perhaps, for the evangelicals picking nits with the catholics) without a few of us pro-choicers to poke holes your anti bags of gas. Anyone recall the construction fence around an empty lot being equated to Auschwitz? Sorry Jill, you'll never live that one down.

Posted by: Ray at March 25, 2008 12:02 PM


mk 11:22 a.m.

I am here because I do research on anti-choice, anti-gay etc. extremist hate groups, and this website is a very efficient way to monitor their activities.

It is much more current and far better maintained than Army of God, ChristianGallery, etc. websites. Frankly, the average wing nut is very lazy about maintaining their website.

My compliments to you and Jill.

Posted by: anonymous at March 25, 2008 11:51 AM

Better to be a wing nut than an abortion nut!

Posted by: proudtobeawingnut at March 25, 2008 12:06 PM


anon,

If you honestly think this is an extremist site you either can’t read or can’t think in the first place….knee jerk reactions and regurgitation of tired old labels does not constitute rational thought.

Get a grip.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 12:11 PM


I'm proud to be a wing ding!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 12:16 PM


Let me get this straight - the fact that they are correcting issues from within - caught them, addressed them, and are working on correcting them - all from within.... builds your case against them HOW exactly?

Enron? yeahhhhhh nice try. The MSM jumps all over stories like that when there are cover ups, or when stuff like this (which happens within EVERY large corporation) needs to be dealt with or fished out by an outside party. You know... an ACTUAL scandal?

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 12:17 PM


Interesting fact on abortion:

Did you know that there were NO abortions in NYC for TWO WEEKS after 9/11/01!!!!!!

Planned Parenthood there offered FREE abortions to get their business back to "normal".

(Per Fr. John Corapi, Relevant Radio, March 25, 2008)

Posted by: proudtobeawingnut at March 25, 2008 12:20 PM


Hahahahahahahhaa

Nice try Wingnut, but I'm afraid thats just not true.

First of all, PP NYC only offers abortion services on Saturdays. Which means "2 weeks" is actually only 2 service days.

Second of all, two of the girls who worked at PP Brooklyn when I interned there were working there during 9/11. When the anniversary came around when I was there on 06, we had a very lengthy discussion about it, including the fact that while there were indeed a higher number of cancellations than normal, it was not as significant as they expected.

Thirdly - Kinda funny you mention they provided abortion services for free in a post thats trying to portray them as greedy and money hungry. Truthfully though, there has never been an offer of free abortion services at PP NYC.

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 12:28 PM


For the record though - I have plenty of issues with PP, which I've stated here in previous posts, and would not work for them again.

But villainizing them (Jill) or making up complete lies (Wingnut) only feeds in to THEIR propaganda that all people who oppose abortion are a bunch of sex fearing, woman hating, neocons with a grudge and an agenda that has nothing to do with helping people in need.

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 12:35 PM


Let me get this straight - the fact that they are correcting issues from within - caught them, addressed them, and are working on correcting them - all from within.... builds your case against them HOW exactly?

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 12:17 PM

I don't think you meant to say they "caught them", I think you meant to say "THEY GOT CAUGHT" this time.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Enron? yeahhhhhh nice try. The MSM jumps all over stories like that when there are cover ups, or when stuff like this (which happens within EVERY large corporation) needs to be dealt with or fished out by an outside party. You know... an ACTUAL scandal?

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 12:17 PM

I agree, you can hardly compare Enron to Planned Parenthood. Enron doesn't make money killing babies.


Posted by: proudtobeawingnut at March 25, 2008 12:36 PM


Hey PRTBAWN,

The other interesting thing about 9/11 (or maybe poignant) is that there were so many women who had a husband die in this tragedy, who were pregnant or shortly thereafter found themselves pregnant.
Likely PP was hoping to prey on those women and their "dire situations".

I think the pro-aborts keep coming back in an attempt to ease their conscience (those of you that have one anyway) or strike out at those who prick their conscience. You need to be constantly affirmed that the "choice" you made or led others to make was okay.

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 12:40 PM


And the good news is that minus 5 PP clinics helps to make my state a tad bit safer for the little ones.

Fetus Fascist gone? Why am I not more depressed?

Posted by: carder at March 25, 2008 12:49 PM


Patricia -

The girls I spoke to there about 9/11 both said they couldn't recall anyone coming in after who had lost a boyfriend/husband and were aborting because of that. And I'm fairly certain they would have remembered something like that.

So you are right about that being poignant... but there were most certainly and assuredly abortions in NYC in the 2 weeks, and following weeks after 9/11 that were unrelated to the disaster or at least not THAT related.

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 12:54 PM


Umm, quoting the MEDIA when she blogs obviously means the MEDIA must be doing SOMETHING otherwise Jill would have NOTHING to write about.

And honestly, there's a really big chance that nothing is going on whatsoever, and the media looked into it and saw nothing was going on, so they just decided not to write some big controversial story like Jill is trying to make it out to be.

Which it's not. So who cares?

Posted by: Edyt at March 25, 2008 11:52 AM

Um - one media outlet and pro-life organizations doesn't mean that the "media" is running the story. Think about it, when two abortion clinics in NJ closed with no warning the media was all over it - wanted to know why. The national media even picked up on it. I was able to quote from 4 news stories on my blog in one day over just one of the clinics closing. Now we have 5 PP closing with little attention given. The story is the same, but PP gets a free ride.

You really think nothing is going on? Answer this: Why are they closed?

"But the decision follows a recent audit that found problems with the agency's clinical programs and finances, said Marlene Passell, spokeswoman for the Children's Services Council of Palm Beach County."

www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flpplanned0320pnmar20,0,1561729.story

That is one story from the sun sentinel on March 20. The Sun Sentinel is the only non-pro-life organization (barely) reporting the story. This story spans how many cities?

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 12:59 PM


Amanda -

"Let me get this straight - the fact that they are correcting issues from within - caught them, addressed them, and are working on correcting them - all from within.... builds your case against them HOW exactly?"

Here is the case: What problems were found? Why did they close? Why did the board file complaints 18 months prior? What is going on? If there is nothing to hide, why isn't PP being more forthcoming? Being a non-profit organization that receives government funding they are suppose to be required by federal law to answer those questions and have those answers available to the public. How do you think Jill gets all the court documentation and salary letters? It is a matter of public record. Yet, once again, no one is making PP comply with the laws.

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 1:05 PM


I'm sorry, but the media doesn't make enough money to become your own personal investigators and pro-life advocates.

FOIA requests only work for government institutions, not non-profits. If there is no source to be found, if no one is talking about it, if their press people are being vague and no matter how hard we press we can't get them to be open about it, there is NOTHING the press can do. And there is NO point in writing more than a short blurb about the PPs closing. If you can't find proof there's a controversy, you can't write about it. Why? Because we're looking out for YOUR best interests by not sensationalizing journalism. Isn't that what you want?

Besides ... all those top secret investigations that led to a big exposure existed because SOMEONE came out of the woodwork and told their story.

So I'm sorry if you think the media's role is to expose every little business nuance, but it's not and I don't really care to investigate something like that unless I'm going to see an increase in paycheck or at least some sort of recognition.

You want to know why they're closing? Why don't YOU call PP yourself!?

The press only has access to information that EVERYONE ELSE HAS. So if they're not telling the press, they won't tell you. Get over yourself.

Posted by: Edyt at March 25, 2008 1:09 PM


Gee, I wonder if all "reporters" are as noble as Edyt....

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 1:13 PM


carder, welcome back to you too. I almost asked about you yesterday.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:19 PM


Welcome back carder.

Posted by: Carrie at March 25, 2008 1:22 PM


Hey, just thought I'd share something with you all. I e-mailed a comment to NOW, and here was their response. Check it out.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:23 PM


Dear Heather,

We are the National Organization for Women do not “kill babies,” we do however support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her life and her body. We feel that no woman should be told what is right for her life and her body, who knows her body better that she does? Every woman should have the right to make their own educated decisions, women should not be forced either to have or not have an abortion. I know that my reasoning won’t change your feeling about abortion, but it’s always good to listen to arguments from both sides of the table and get a wider perspective on issues that are important to us.

In Equality,

Mari

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:24 PM


"Being a non-profit organization that receives government funding they are suppose to be required by federal law to answer those questions and have those answers available to the public. "

No - they don't have to answer every single question about their internal management. They have to provide their financial records, which they do - as you know, because Jill posts them and refers to them regularly. Lawful disclosure of information does NOT mean they have to give you every single detail about internal affairs.

Trust me - if there was some big conspiracy to cover up information that should be disclosed, you know perfectly well Bill O'Reilly and all the other sensationalist windbags at Fox News would be yelling about it and creating bright flashy graphics with sound effects.

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 1:24 PM


Edyt:

Explain how the Freedom of Information Act comes into play? It doesn't.

I'm referring to the Office of Managment and Budget Circular A-133 which is "issued under the authority of sections 503, 1111, and 7501 et seq. of title 31, United States Code, and Executive Orders 8248 and 11541" (quote from whitehouse documents)

I'm also referring to the IRS final regulations IRC 6104(d) for 501(d) and 501(c) - non profit organizations Public Disclosure Regulations.

Why do I believe the media should get these answers? Because it is their job. My job is raising my children (both with special needs), anothers job is being a nurse, doctor, teacher, pilot, assistent, secretary etc. We don't have time to do the investigation because it isn't our jobs. It is the media's job to get us the information. Without us, you have no job. The media, as seen on the 24 hour news channels, devote stories to what the people want even though you can tell they don't want to report it. This is because the people have asked them to do their jobs.

oh - and SOMEONE did come out of the woodwork. And they are talking. But these people don't have the answers because they are just the wistleblowers. You know what wistleblowers are right? They are people that only have part of the story and it takes an investigation to get the rest of the story. The American people rely on the media to do that job, because it is their job.

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 1:26 PM


ODD, I had aked NOW about Dr. Hodari. They had no comment.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:28 PM


*oops* should read ASKED

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:29 PM


Here is my NOW letter translation..... NOW does not actually kill babies, but they support a woman who chooses to kill her baby.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:31 PM


"Why do I believe the media should get these answers? Because it is their job."

In all fairness Valerie, without specific mention of THIS case, no, it isn't the medias job to be investigating corporate fraud. Its their job to REPORT on it without bias.

I think we've all gotten too comfortable with the idea of the lines blurred between ACTUAL authority and the authority some media outlets seem to give themselves.

The media is NOT a legal authority, they do not have authority to be conducting investigations, and they certainly don't have the level of expertise needed to "answer" the questions you are demanding of them.

That is the job of people who actually are HIRED to investigate corporate fraud. When the media does the job FOR those people, it usually just turns in to a circus.

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 1:36 PM


Well, Heather, NOW is not associated with Dr. Hodari, so they really have no reason to. It's no one's fault but his own that he violated the HIPAA Privacy Act and he disgraced himself by creating a health hazard with his improper disposal of aborted fetii.

You read MUCH too much into their lack of comment, which you wouldn't have if you had paused to give it a moment's thought.

Posted by: Leah at March 25, 2008 1:37 PM


Heather,
Maybe you could ask Mari, from NOW, about why they don't support their unborn sister's right to make a choice about their body and their LIFE. After all, it's their life that the born sister wants to snuff out.
Some equality! Apparently, some women are more equal than others.

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 1:38 PM


Ted Neely is extraordinarily attractive. In case anyone was wondering. OT I know... but it had to be said. Rawr!

Posted by: Leah at March 25, 2008 1:39 PM


Leah, You aren't very pro woman at all.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:41 PM


Leah, your outrage is expressed at the wrong people. Look at the women being raped and molested in America's abortion clinics. You always make excuses for them. THEY ABORT BABY GIRLS TOO! That's not being pro woman!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:43 PM


*them-meaning the abortion clinics*

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:44 PM


Patricia, right!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:46 PM


Heather, what does Dr. Hodari have to do with NOW? I know NOW has partnered with PP for events in the past, but I have never heard of any connection between NOW and Dr. Hodari's clinic.

Considering there are legal proceedings going on with Dr. Hodari, how would anyone from NOW even be qualified or have the authority to respond to it?

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 1:46 PM


Um, where is their outrage?

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:47 PM


Leah, 1:37PM

Concerning you comment on violation of privacy laws. I read an account that several employees, around 13 of them, of the hospital where Brittany Spears spent time recently for psychiatric evaluation were fired for peeking at her medical records. Privacy laws are taken very very seriously by hospitals, as these employees should well have known.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 1:48 PM


Prominent Abortionist Pleads Guilty to Child Porn – Many Abortionists Involved in Sexual Abuse

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

SEATTLE, November 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A well-known Washington state abortionist, faced with charges of possessing and advertising child pornography, has pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Tacoma.

Dr. George E. Kabacy was indicted earlier this year after investigation revealed Kabacy's e-mail address was a source of the pornographic material and contained links to several hard-core sexual images of prepubescent children on the Internet.

Numerous well-documented cases of persons involved in the abortion industry succumbing to pedophilia, child pornography, and suffering other psychiatric disorders have connected the development of these degenerative behaviors and conditions to participation in the sordid business. Reports of abortionists being convicted of sexual assault, malpractice or negligence have been common and said to be logically associated with the lack of respect and care not only for the child in the womb, but also for the women undergoing the abortions.

New York city abortionist William Rashbaum revealed that he has recurring nightmares "of a fetus trying to hold onto the walls of a uterus by its tiny fingernails," and commented that with the nature of his work, "what kind of dreams do you think you are going to have?"

An inquest into the suicide of Australian abortionist Dr. Peter Bayliss revealed that he had been suspended for malpractice, had a violent temper which "terrified his patients" and had left a patient tied to a bed with a sanitary pad stuffed in her mouth to "shut her up."

U.S. abortionist Brian Finkel was convicted in 2003 of 24 counts of sexual abuse while on trial for 60 counts of sexual assault and abuse of 35 women in his abortion clinic since 1986, while Canadian abortionist Dr. Mark Walter Stewart was sentenced to four years in prison for twice raping a vulnerable and emotionally fragile woman, and nine other counts of sexual assault.

In California, abortionist Laurence Reich was reported as still in business despite his convictions on sexual abuse charges. Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue said in her complaint to the Medical Board regarding this situation, "I told them that was absolutely outrageous and that they were placing women at risk for sexual assault by this reckless behavior with a known sex offender."

Abortionist John Biskind was indicted on manslaughter charges in the death of patient LouAnne Herron who bled to death after Biskind punctured her uterus during the abortion procedure, left her without medical attention for three hours and then left his clinic.

Abortionist John B. Hamilton, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder of his wife Susan on Valentine's Day, while abortionist Neville W. Duncan was convicted of assault for beating his wife and being in possession of crack cocaine. The judge expressed his concern over Duncan's drug addition, considering his occupation involves performing surgery.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews, psychologist Len Gignac said the psychological implications for those involved in the destruction of innocent human life are a lessening of the fundamental respect for life and the dignity of the person at any stage in life, which can lead to other serious crimes against life.

See full LifeSiteNews.com articles:

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:49 PM


Amanda -

"The media is NOT a legal authority, they do not have authority to be conducting investigations, and they certainly don't have the level of expertise needed to "answer" the questions you are demanding of them."

Acutally the laws give them legal authority to do investigative work. Sometimes the only people who can investigate a cover up is a private detective or the media - most of us would be sued if we did it. The law gives them special rights. This is why the media can get information to us without it being considered harrassment. Freedom of the press means they have freedom to investigate something that looks like a cover up...etc. This kind of story just came up in California - It is illegal to record a phone conversation if the other person doesn't know about it being recorded. However, someone in the media has the legal right to do that kind of recording and then report on it. They do have to follow the laws of entrapment - meaning they cannot lead the person to give the information.

If you feel this is a non-story, answer me this: Why did the media cover the NJ clinic stories? These clinics closed down after inspections and the media was all over it. The media investigated the story, went to court, demanded that they receive copies of the inspection and released that information to the public. This is something the media can do....go to a judge and have information release - actually anyone can do that - but we work and don't have the time, it is the media's job to do this. This is how they get stories. If they didn't do this the newspapers and news shows would have nothing to report.

The reason for freedom of the Press was so the people can get information on stuff like this. Our press cannot be held back from getting a story - many people have got themselves in trouble when they try to cover up camera's because the press has the right to use the camera. (they cannot invade private home, but public venues are fair game - just think of any court trial seen on TV.)

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 1:50 PM


Leah, you always talk about how "terrified" you are of some people. Look at the industry that you and Amanda support. Don't you see what's going on? AND YOU'RE SCARED OF JASPER?????

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 1:51 PM


Jasper is a Patriots fan....everyone should be scared of him.

(19-1)

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 1:55 PM


Amanda,

I have certainly heard NOW express their outrage any number of times, however selective it may have been. They were only too happy to go after Clarence Thomas, however they maintained a deafening silence over Bill Clinton.
Where is their outrage over Hodari? Anyone of us, organization or otherwise, has a right to express outrage over a situation i.e. a drunk driving fatality, and routinely do, whether legal proceedings are going on or not.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 1:57 PM


Patricia,1:38PM

You might also ask the the lady from NOW about the deliberate abortion of unborn females for being unborn females.
Certainly they view all women as equal and would be equally outraged whether this occurs in an Asian village or an American community.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 2:00 PM


valerie --

I guess you don't care that tax money is going to an organization that has multiple problems in multiple locations. I guess you can just look the other way while dogs and cats in animal hospitals are treated better than women.

Good Lord, why don't you try actually going inside a Planned Parenthood clinic before lobbing baseless accusations at them? I've been going to Planned Parenthood for years, and they treat me even better than my old, for-profit OB/GYN. Their office is immaculate, their waiting times are short, and their staff and volunteers are friendly and supremely competent. They've never steered me wrong, and prevented countless unwanted pregnancies for me by providing me with excellent birth control at a reasonable price.

You need to get a clue, Valerie:

Anti-choicers only hate Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood is pro-choice. You'll never be successful in shutting them down because they're not doing anything wrong.

Posted by: reality at March 25, 2008 2:03 PM


If any one could find an example of NOW expressing outrage over the improper disposal of medical waste and information from ANY medical facility, I'll eat my words.

But unless I see that, what does the organization expressing outrage over completely unrelated incidents have to do with Hodari?

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 2:04 PM


Valerie - have you ever been in a PP clinic, or is that an assumption based on anecdotal accounts from this blog and "lifesite", etc?

When I lived in NYC I actually switched from my regular GYN to the one at PP -and this was long before I interned there- had absolutely nothing to do with abortion - just for my annual pap smear, STD test, and refil of my BC - because the office was more convenient to get to, it was open later, and I didn't need to wait as long for an appointment.

I have some issues with their politics and media - but in terms of just the offices, I never had a single complaint. A lot of Moms in my area seemed to be using PP for their post-natal checkups. Probably to avoid trekking to Manhattan with their babies in tow on the subway, which is not easy. Every time I went the place was packed with moms with their babies in the waiting room.

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 2:10 PM


Uh, wow Heather. I don't even know where to begin. First of all, my dear sweet love, I am expressing no outrage, nor did I give any indication that I was outraged at all. Dr. Hodari embarrassed himself. Woohoo. Me, I'm having a pleasant day, leaving for NYC tomorrow.

Next, you're absolutely correct. I am not pro-woman. I am pro-person. I am pro-man and pro-woman... and I never claimed to be pro-woman, so I don't know why you would even say that.

And finally... I don't "always" talk about how people terrify me. I said one time that Jasper scared me because of his a-okay attitude towards people who kill abortion doctors and bomb clinics, etc. But whatever. I stand by that. And that's far from "always."

Settle. Look up Ted Neely. It'll calm you right down. :)

Now this: Leah, your outrage is expressed at the wrong people. Look at the women being raped and molested in America's abortion clinics. You always make excuses for them. THEY ABORT BABY GIRLS TOO! That's not being pro woman!

Ok, sweetie. I actually had to laugh out loud at that because you went a little spaz on me there.

Number 1: Again, no outrage... you're the one that seems to be angry.

Number 2: Cite reliable and unbiased sources that it is commonplace for women to be raped and molested in abortion clinics. Actually, let me save you the trouble--you won't be able to. Because, while it has probably happened before because there are always going to be sickos in the world, IT IS NOT COMMON. You silly, silly girl.

Number 3: I have NEVER made excuses for rapists and molesters. Again, take your pills, crazy.

Number 4: Yeah... obviously female fetii are aborted too. Male and female. Okay, that's obvious and me being alright with that does not make me anti-woman.

Posted by: Leah at March 25, 2008 2:13 PM


My post got all screwed up somehow. Obviously, the part that says "finally" was supposed to go at the bottom... no idea how that happened.

Posted by: Leah at March 25, 2008 2:14 PM


Leah, Dear sweet love? Knock it off!!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 2:16 PM


Reality -

I need to get a clue?

You are aware that there are more than one Planned Parenthood clinic right?

Cincinnati - two lawsuits filed against PP for doing abortions on minors without proper notification. One pregnancy was from incest - the girls father was the father of the baby - and the other was satutory rape. Both were too afraid to stop it, but both tried to talk to PP employees to try to get help - PP just gave them abortions and contraception and had them leave with the preditors.

Indiana - 4 PP clinics sued for violating abortion laws - including minor notifications - still in court trying to get documentation.

Kansas & Missouri - I believe it is something like 107 charges against them for violating abortion laws.

California - woman suing because she was misdiagnosed and didn't get appropriate treatment for cancer. Also, lawsuits for allegedly overcharging for contraceptions.

This is just what I remember off the top of my head. Imagine how much I could post if I go through my files? Wish I had time because that would be a good post. I believe this meets the criteria for "multiple problems in multiple locations".

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 2:17 PM


Leah -

That was no accident! Its a conspiracy! And the vast mysterious leaders of the intarnets are covering up the website's mistake!

GO!! ALERT THE MEDIA!!! Don't just accept that mistakes happen, DEMAND ANSWERS!!! Why isn't there an investigation in to why this happened? Clearly this is a leftist commie satanist cover up to mess with the web-blog of a good Christian conservative!

And we can't forget, you are a woman and it messed up YOUR text!!! ANTI WOMAN!! ANTI WOMAN!!!!

Posted by: Amanda at March 25, 2008 2:19 PM


Settle. Look up Ted Neely. It'll calm you right down. :)

Nah, I'll take Jeff Goldblum or Rob Lowe. Thanks anyway.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 2:20 PM


Amanda,

I would think that perhaps the local Michigan chapter of NOW would have some very serious concerns about the conditions and standards of care that exist in a clinic like Hodari's that treat biomedical waste so haphazardly, creating a huge health risk, and so flagrantly violate patient confidentiality.
This doesn't sound to me like a facility that operates under the highest standards of patient care and safety and yes, I think this should be a matter of very great concern to an organization that supposedly advocates for women.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 2:21 PM


Valerie, heather, et.al (that means “and others” for those of you on the PA side) you guys are doing a commendable job (back pats) of proving my point that you cannot hear with warm sand in your ears. Which I think is why the PA crowd loves so much to keep their collective heads there….

So far I’ve only seen the fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la thing from any PA advocate on this entire thread. Oh, Edyt’s holier-than-thou “investigative reporter” grandstanding was worth a laugh…but other than that I haven’t seen one intelligent rebuttal to Jill’s article. Call this one a bust…there isn’t enough intelligent discourse from the other side to fill a thimble. See you guys on the next thread…I have something more interesting to do: wash my dog.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 2:26 PM


Amanda -

Yes I have been to a PP. I wrote about it before but maybe you weren't here then.

Long story short - I was misdiagnosed, repeatedly, and this may have been the reason behind my son being born prematurely, having 3 miscarriages and not being able to have more children.

Is my hatred somewhat personal? Yes - but I learned the truth about them and began my campaign against them BEFORE I found out that they screwed up.

I do know many people who have been to PP and have had no problems. So did women at the NJ clinic that had 100+ pages of state violations including no place to sterilize their equipment. Since less than a handfull of women were hurt and hundreds were not hurt does that mean they shouldn't have been closed down and held accountable?

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 2:27 PM


Valerie 2:17PM,

Wasn't there also a case in Connecticutt where a 15y/o girl and her "father" showed up at PP for an abortion. No questions asked. It turns out the girl was a runaway being held captive and sexually abused by this animal and a couple of other women at the house. Detectives finally found her but did not offer PP any thanks for doing so.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 2:28 PM


Hooves, LMAO! Well put!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 2:28 PM


Heather, honey baby sugar cookie... I can't trust you if you choose those men over Ted Neely.

And... in any case... did you bother reading what I wrote or couldn't you get past my partonizing pet names? I think maybe if you take a step back and look at yourself spazzing you'll... never mind. I've never had much luck with teaching an old dog new tricks.

Posted by: Leah at March 25, 2008 2:29 PM


Leah, you seem a little too condescending for me. You are also a drama queen.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 2:33 PM


Mary -

Yep, that was another.

They were able to prove paternity because they still had access to the fetus. I never did find out why.....?

Leah -

Being a State Certified Dog Trainer I find I must correct your mistake. You CAN teach an old dog new tricks - you CAN'T teach an old dog tricky tricks.

;-)

(just trying to lighten things up)

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 2:34 PM


Leah, one day you seem to be on the pro life side. When your PC pals are present, you turn into a show off. Sorry. This is what I see.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 2:35 PM


Okay. End of my rant.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 2:36 PM


Leah, don't worry, I've never thought you were on the "pro-life" side.

Posted by: hal at March 25, 2008 2:37 PM


Hal, you may be right.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 2:37 PM


Valerie:

What state are you certified in? Any advice for a newbie that would very much like to CDX her 7 month old Cavalier King Charles? (We are currently working with Joel McMain's "Dog Logic" and are having fabulous sucess with it!)

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 2:42 PM


Oh, I DO love doggies!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 2:44 PM


Has anyone seen John McDonnell? Is he okay?

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 2:50 PM


Heather:

Condescending? I can see that. Drama queen? Get over yourself, babe. Even when I was in high school I was never a drama queen--even when I was 13, PRIME drama queen age, never got into it. You seem to be trying to think up annnnything that would insult me... but it won't work. And I think it's a bit silly that you're judging me based on our incredibly intimate internet relationship.

I haven't been "pro-life" in years--certainly not since I was posting on this site. You are mixing up my religious convictions with my politics--a dangerous thing to do. You'll notice that even though Jesus lived in a politically volatile time, the only reason he was ever politically involved was because he was forced. Separation of church and state is there for a reason--NEVER mix religion and politics.

Valerie:

Oh, I'm sure you could teach an old dog new tricks... not me, though. I don't like dogs, so I can't even be bothered to try. That's right--I'm Leah, crazy cat lady. :)

Posted by: Leah at March 25, 2008 2:51 PM


KITTIES! YES!

I'm way more a cat person too, Leah. As soon as I get my own place, I'm getting two full black cats. They will be named Castor and Pollux and they will be my babies.

I've had my kitties planned out longer than I have anything else about my life, lol!

Posted by: Erin at March 25, 2008 2:57 PM


Oh god...cat people.

No wonder....that explains everything.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 3:01 PM


Lol...Hooves, when the cats rise up and take over the world, which I'm pretty sure they will at some point, you're going to be in big trouble!

Some people just don't like having pets that are smarter than them ;-)

Posted by: Erin at March 25, 2008 3:06 PM


Hooves -

I'm certified in Indiana. I haven't been teaching lately though - but I kept up the certification (which is nothing but a quick 20 question test). I haven't read anything by McMain but I know that he is a bit controversial - however the people I know have had success using his methods. Training is really about the owner being comfortable with whatever method is chosen unless you want to do heavy training like for agility. What I told my students was to not get "stuck" on one method because your dog hasn't read the book. Sometimes dogs needs a combo of methods.

Training a Cavalier King Charles? good luck! They are about as stubborn as a dog can get.

Erin -

Get a black kittie with green eyes! My black cat that lived for 17 years had beautiful green eyes! I miss him! :-( I'm actually more of a cat person, but I'm allergic to them. That is why I went from being a vet tech to training.

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 3:07 PM


I love cats and dogs. Actually, I love all animals. My son and I did volunteer work at a zoo many years ago.

Posted by: Carrie at March 25, 2008 3:15 PM


Valerie,

I appreciate what you're saying about not getting stuck in one method. The only thing contriversial about McMains is that he's too practical for touchy-feely new age crap...my experience it those are the only types who have a problem with him...much like the PA crowd...they don't actually READ him, they just "hear" that he's this or that and decide he's not worth listening too...sound familiar?!

I don't know about most CKC's, but mine thrives on the work.

Erin--it's actually not cats I have a problem with...it's cat people...particularly the lovely folks who insist on letting thier "babies" run wild killing songbirds and crapping/digging in the neighbor's flower beds. Domestic cats have no more business "running free" than domestic dogs do. Any any "cat lover" who thinks it's cool has never seen one mauled in a fight/squished by traffic/poisoned by a pissed off neighbor who's had enough.

So that's my rant. Dog's almost done soaking in conditioner. See ya'll later...

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 3:15 PM


Hooves, very true regarding cats. That's why I have always kept my pet cats inside.(don't have one now,but used to)

Posted by: Carrie at March 25, 2008 3:21 PM


Mary,
It would seem that NOW and most other Western feminista organizations do not care a whit about the fact that 10 to 40 million of their sisters are missing in the Third World. Apparently, the only thing that matters to these narrow-minded, navel gazing women is the Western woman's right to ABSOLUTE body autonomy. In their wake they leave millions of dead babies, millions of dead sisters, wounded spouses, fragmented families and damaged women.
I doubt NOW spares even a moment to consider female genocide.

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 3:26 PM


I NEVER let my cat outside. I love her so much, I flip out when anyone in my family even hints at letting her out. She is a spoiled indoor kitty.

Posted by: Erin at March 25, 2008 3:35 PM


narrow-minded, navel gazing women

I must admit, I have no idea what a "navel gazer" is...but I laughed anyway! Great post, Patricia...I like how silent NOW is on Honor Killings, FGM and other atrocities that they apparently could care less about...as long as they get THIER face time in the press....

Carrie: I knew I liked you!

Erin: You just moved up a notch in my estimation.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 3:49 PM


I decided to look up some of the things that NOW has been outraged about and what they list as Hot topics and action alerts.

Hollywood producing "Torture Porn". (Torture Porn are movies like - Hostel, Saw, Wolfcreek and The Passion of the Christ.)

World Wide Child Marriage

Diversity in Media Ownership

The Home Foreclosure Crisis

Wanting Substance and not Sexism in the election coverage

Lack of support for International VAWA (If you don't know what VAWA is, look it up - there should be support for this.)

Outrage at Imus (I guess what Imus did is worse than Hodari according to NOW)

Money going to the war

Demand for National Health Care

Hate Crimes

Voting in Ohio

The media and sexism

Superbowl commercials

If you go to their search and type in abortionist you get 8 year old articles on anti-abortionist behavior

searching for "abortion clinic" gets information on pro life demonstrations on clinics

searching for "abortion" gets information on Bush being anti-abortion, the laughable idea of men having abortion rights, and abortion bans

Absolutely nothing about the mistreatment of women that have actually made it in the news. Yet the foreclosure crisis seemed to be of great importance.

Nothing about the several abortion clinics in the last 12 months that have been doing abortions in conditions comparable to a barn.

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 4:19 PM


Oh Valerie....

Why do I find that I am not suprised.....

The sad thing is that to some twisted and stunted minds suckled at the Berkley breast, those priorities make sense.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 4:30 PM


Valerie
One interesting development in reproductive rights is the situations that have occurred over the past year or two regarding frozen embryos hereafter referred to as "embryos on ice".
In all the legal cases I've seen so far (most British I believe) a woman wanting to implant and carry surviving embryos can only do so if her former partner agrees to it.
The embryos, of course, have absolutely no say in whether they get to live or die.
What a topsy-turvy world we live in!

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 4:32 PM


Patricia -

However, if the woman wants an abortion the embryo means nothing to the man. So allowing a child to live needs to be approved by the man, but killing a child is a no no in male approval.

Oh - and I also found that the California NOW actively opposed a bill that would allow a pregnant woman to be considered "temperarily disabled" so she could get a parking space closer to the door. It would have been for the last 3 months of pregnancy and first two months after birth.

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 4:49 PM


well you know what I think Valerie,
I think that many of these men won't give permission for the frozen embryo to be implanted because this means they will be on the hook for child support!
I think, once again,it's a case of navel gazing!

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 4:58 PM


The fact of the matter is antichoicers are happy to see 97 women denied health care if they can make it more difficult for 3 women to obtain an abortion. Thats how many women go to PP for other health issues - contraceptives, STD testing or treatment, cancer screening, pap smears, etc - 97 out of every 100. Only 3 go for abortions. Antichoicers insist that 3 isnt honest - that they also count contraceptives given to a woman after an abortion in their figures. So that means what? 90 women out of 100 instead of 97? The fact of the matter is MANY MORE women go to PP for reasons OTHER than abortion and antichoicers dont really CARE about them. Their focus is controlling those few women who go to PP for abortions, and if they can prevent those abortions they couldnt care less about the other 97 women.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 25, 2008 5:00 PM


Oh goodie...our resident genius just chimed in.

TR obviously isn’t following the contraceptive-bilking scandal out here in sunny CA.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 5:07 PM


It's always good to see Planned Parenthood clinics going down!

Hooves in Maw, it is SO good to see you back!!!!! I missed you!!

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2008 5:14 PM


Hi Bethany!!
What is the ratio of Pregnancy Help Centers to Planned Parenthood Clinics? Do you know?
Well minus 5 for PP!! :)

Posted by: Carla at March 25, 2008 5:28 PM


It's always good to see Planned Parenthood clinics going down!

Hooves in Maw, it is SO good to see you back!!!!! I missed you!!


Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2008 5:14 PM
**********************
As I said - antichoicers are overjoyed to see 97 women do without health care as long as it makes it more difficult for 3 women to have an abortion. Those 97 women couldnt matter less to antichoicers.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 25, 2008 5:29 PM


Where's Sally??!!

Posted by: Carla at March 25, 2008 5:31 PM


TR--put down the crack pipe and slowly back away...

Hi Bethany! Good to be back!

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 5:51 PM


Not that TR would actually pay attention to this...but in my city there is a clinic called "The Birthing Center" who offers free/low cost BC of ALL types, STD and pap testing (men are also served for STD testing), pre/postnatal care and just about any other reproductive service you could want or need...

EXCEPT ABORTION.

Note to TR: I have NEVER, not even ONCE seen a sidewalk counselor or prayer warrior outside The Birthing Center. Nor would any PL'er EVER take the time. See, PL stands for PRO-LIFE not ANTI-CONTRACEPTION...or ANTI-WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE.

So do us all a favor and try to limit your posts to something that at least makes a modicum of sense.

My god...I must be loosing it, look who I'm trying to talk to...

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 6:01 PM


Posted by: TexasRed at March 25, 2008 5:29 PM
As I said - antichoicers are overjoyed to see 97 women do without health care as long as it makes it more difficult for 3 women to have an abortion. Those 97 women couldnt matter less to antichoicers.

+++++++++++

Just like pro-aborts are so quick to dismiss 50 women who experience post abortion stress Syndrome, just as long as the other 50 can get their abortions without sitting through an additional 10 minutes of pro-abortion counseling and disclosure.

Posted by: PajamaMama at March 25, 2008 6:15 PM


typo correction:

PRE-abortion counseling and disclosure.

Posted by: PajamaMama at March 25, 2008 6:16 PM


Ooooooo PM--

Nice one.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 6:27 PM


PS--I don't think that was a typo.

That was a Freudian Slide!

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 6:29 PM


TR -

I will try to spell it out again. It is really very simple math compared to the other statistics that I have.

PP provided 10,112,642 services to 3,051,144 clients (unduplicated). The 3% is assuming that women who had abortions had absolutely no other services at all. No PAP, no BC, no after abortion check up, no pregnancy tests. You see, that is impossible. Considering PP won't do an abortion without confirming pregnancy with a positive test, they always try to provide BC, the majority of women go back for check ups and the majority go back for their next PAP etc.... The math is actually quite simple. Over 3 million clients recieved over 10 million services. There is alot of duplication going on. PP will not provide the number of duplicated clients who had abortions. Why won't they if it really is just 3%?

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 6:32 PM


Nice one PJMama! Your fingers were helping your brain!!!
God bless you!!

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 7:56 PM


That was a Freudian Slide!

What? Sex? Where?

:)

Posted by: Leah at March 25, 2008 9:45 PM


Hooves-in-Maw

HEY YOU!

Glad to see you back. I'm going to a family reunion tomorrow in Florida for 4 or 5 days and next week my wife and I are going to Argentina for our 8th anniversary but please stick around. I ask that on the basis of liking you.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at March 25, 2008 10:40 PM


Acutally [sic] the laws give them legal authority to do investigative work. Sometimes the only people who can investigate a cover up is a private detective or the media - most of us would be sued if we did it.

Valerie, I don't really want to make you look bad, but you don't have a clue what the media does and how they do it. After three years of school for journalism (yes, I graduated in 3 years, deal), and several years of internships, working for actual newspapers and magazines ... I have to tell you that no, we do not have legal authority to do "investigative work."

In fact, going "undercover" as a journalist is HIGHLY unethical. I even dislike the practice of quoting unnamed sources. It's a very thin line.

The press, for years, has the same rights as the public. Therefore, if the public has access to government documents, then the press has access to those documents. No, the common man or woman would not get sued for seeking out information. Therefore, the media is actually just doing the same work the public could do but will not.

The law gives them special rights. This is why the media can get information to us without it being considered harrassment.

Sometimes certain journalists DO harass others to get information, another unethical practice. However, I can't tell you how many times I've hounded a local city official for information they probably would have handed off to the common person without a thought. Sometimes that harrassment is necessary to get the information we need so that the PUBLIC is informed.

Freedom of the press means they have freedom to investigate something that looks like a cover up...etc.

Actually... no, it doesn't. Freedom of the press is lumped into the first amendment with freedom of speech, just like everyone else. So we have the same rights everyone else does with regard to voicing our opinions.

Basically, freedom of speech means that the government can't decide to censor what we write -- for example, the British government made deals with their newspapers and several American presses to not cover the story about Prince Harry participating in the war.

Of course, that's not actual censorship, but you should get the picture, right?

The press is not above the public. There are very few laws protecting the press, and those are mainly related to things like protecting unnamed sources.

Posted by: Edyt at March 25, 2008 10:48 PM


Damn.... Edyt, you're a force to be reckoned with.

Posted by: Doug at March 25, 2008 11:38 PM


Hi Bethany!!
What is the ratio of Pregnancy Help Centers to Planned Parenthood Clinics? Do you know?
Well minus 5 for PP!! :)

Carla, I think it's two to one!

Posted by: Bethany at March 26, 2008 6:23 AM


As I said - antichoicers are overjoyed to see 97 women do without health care as long as it makes it more difficult for 3 women to have an abortion. Those 97 women couldnt matter less to antichoicers.

There's no "health care" that PP does that can't be taken care of elsewhere, in a much safer environment.

Posted by: Bethany at March 26, 2008 6:25 AM


Where's Sally??!!

Posted by: Carla at March 25, 2008 5:31 PM----------------- Carla, I think she bailed along with FF.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 8:24 AM


Haha - Edyt, I came back this morning to respond to Valeries post and found you did a wonderful job responding to it for me.

Laughed my BUTT off at this line "Freedom of the press means they have freedom to investigate something that looks like a cover up...etc. "

Thats not AT ALLLLLL what Freedom of the Press means, but I wont get in to it more as you covered that all quite nicely.

And I completely agree with you about the thin line between reporting and investigating - especially with citing unnamed sources. And what Valerie said is a perfect example of how this line has been blurred so badly that people actually believe that reporters have special rights and authority to conduct investigations in to legal matters. They don't. End of story.
=)

Posted by: Amanda at March 26, 2008 8:30 AM


Edyt -

Obviously, three years wasn't enough.

"I have to tell you that no, we do not have legal authority to do "investigative work."

The US Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees with you.

www.bls.gov/oco/ocos088.htm

In covering a story, reporters investigate leads and news tips, look at documents, observe events at the scene, and interview people.

Exactly how many people do you know would be interviewed by someone who is not a reporter? I wouldn't. That is called Gossip.

"In fact, going "undercover" as a journalist is HIGHLY unethical. I even dislike the practice of quoting unnamed sources. It's a very thin line. "

Well, the Society of Professional Journalist disagrees with you.

www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity.

hmm....using anonymity is okay as long as motives are questions. Nothing about being unethical.

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story

Where does it say it is highly unethical? It only says that it should be a last resort and explained to the public. This means it can be done.

Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.

Who exactly is the "voiceless"? That's right, its the public that is the voiceless. I wonder why that is if we have the same abilities of the journalists?

Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

A special obligation for reporters to do exactly what I was saying should be done. Imagine that. The oldest and most respected organization representing journalists agrees with me. Where is your documented proof of your claims?

"Therefore, if the public has access to government documents, then the press has access to those documents."

I believe I said that didn't I?

I said: "Why do I believe the media should get these answers? Because it is their job. My job is raising my children (both with special needs), anothers job is being a nurse, doctor, teacher, pilot, assistent, secretary etc. We don't have time to do the investigation because it isn't our jobs."

Yep, sure did.

"I can't tell you how many times I've hounded a local city official for information they probably would have handed off to the common person without a thought. "

Why? Why would you have to "hound" a local official if that official is willing to give the information up? Sounds a bit fishy to me, or you just aren't doing something right. Again - it is the reporters JOB to do this, the average person doesn't get paid to "hound" local officials to get information like reporters do. But the average reporter makes a living on it.

"Freedom of the press is lumped into the first amendment with freedom of speech, just like everyone else. So we have the same rights everyone else does with regard to voicing our opinions. "

Yes, I believe I said that as well. I just love how you attempted to take something out of context and Amanda just jumped right on it didn't she. How cute is that? Oh - and I also presented an example of how the media does have special rights to obtain a story. Where is your example or proof that I am wrong? hmm...I just love it when no documentation is provided yet, we are suppsoe to believe you anyway. How adorable that Doug fell for that one.

oh, and here is more from the Society of Professional Journalists:

"Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy."

hmmm....do you really think the average Joe could say the intrusion was justified? Or does the average Joe go to the reporter to do the intrusion? Why would the average Joe do this? Because we would get in trouble when the reporter has freedom of press and insurance to cover these things.

"Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable."

how can the average Joe do this? hmm....they can't. Again, we go to the media.

oh, and if you go to the National Association of Broadcasters you will find this:

www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search§ion=Benefits&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=192

It is the application for liable insurance for reporters. hmmm...Does the average Joe get to have this kind of insurance? Nope.


So, explain to me again how I was wrong?

Maybe Amanda can explain in further detail with documentation how I blurred that fine line.


Posted by: valerie at March 26, 2008 11:39 AM


Haha - Edyt, I came back this morning to respond to Valeries post and found you did a wonderful job responding to it for me.

Where did she do that? I couldn't find anything wonderful.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 12:26 PM


How adorable that Doug fell for that one.

Dang, Valerie, what'd I do now? ; )

Posted by: Doug at March 26, 2008 12:33 PM


Just like pro-aborts are so quick to dismiss 50 women who experience post abortion stress Syndrome, just as long as the other 50 can get their abortions without sitting through an additional 10 minutes of pro-abortion counseling and disclosure.

Posted by: PajamaMama at March 25, 2008 6:15 PM
********************************
Pro aborts dont exist. Its only used in an attempt to insult and offend. And are you saying 50% of women who have abortions experience PASS? Are you really wanting to pretend that? And would you like to provide some objective research from unbiased sources to support your assertion?

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:33 PM


Hal, that's because I don't support the murder of children!!!!!!!! I'm going to expose the truth.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 11:16 AM
****************
Gibbering hysteria and misogyny arent 'the truth' heather. And murdering children is against the law.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:35 PM


TR--put down the crack pipe and slowly back away...

Hi Bethany! Good to be back!

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 25, 2008 5:51 PM
**********************
Back and looking like a fool - same as always

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:38 PM


PP provided 10,112,642 services to 3,051,144 clients (unduplicated). The 3% is assuming that women who had abortions had absolutely no other services at all. No PAP, no BC, no after abortion check up, no pregnancy tests. You see, that is impossible. Considering PP won't do an abortion without confirming pregnancy with a positive test, they always try to provide BC, the majority of women go back for check ups and the majority go back for their next PAP etc.... The math is actually quite simple. Over 3 million clients recieved over 10 million services. There is alot of duplication going on. PP will not provide the number of duplicated clients who had abortions. Why won't they if it really is just 3%?

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 6:32 PM
****************
So that increases the percentage to what? Maybe even 10%? Then that still leaves 90 women who come to PP for other reasons.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:41 PM


patricia youre the one who insists that rape and incest really arent "good enough" reasons for a woman or a girl to have an abortion - its hard for me to take any of your delusions and fantasies and fabrications about the pro choice side too seriously. Your attitude towards women who are the victims of brutal crimes honestly and truly sickens and disgusts me.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:45 PM


There's no "health care" that PP does that can't be taken care of elsewhere, in a much safer environment.


Posted by: Bethany at March 26, 2008 6:25 AM
***************************
Safer? According to whom? Why is it more 'dangerous' to get a prescription for birth control pills at a PP than at a doctors office? Just what is "dangerous" about a PP clinic? Are you aware of the fact that the vast majority of PP clinics dont perform abortion?
And I notice you said nothing about affordability.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:47 PM


TR,
Are you sickened and disgusted enough to stop posting? Give it a rest.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 12:52 PM


TR,
Have you read AZ Grandmas story yet? She was raped and had the support of her mother to carry her daughter to term. Life affirming.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 12:55 PM


Doug:

Ya know I love ya more than my luggage!


;-)

Posted by: valerie at March 26, 2008 1:03 PM


Valerie 11:39am

Remind me to never get on the opposite side of an issue with you! :)

Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 1:32 PM


TR -

You must have missed the latest news on PAS. Jill posted on it and you even commented on it:

www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/03/abortion_unhing.html#comments

From The Royal College of Psychiatrists (the main professional organisation of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, responsible for representing and certifying psychiatrists, psychiatric training and providing high quality public information about mental health problems.) has reported this:

extras.timesonline.co.uk/abortion.pdf

The Royal College of Psychiatrists is concerned to ensure that women’s mental health is protected whether they seek abortion or continue with a pregnancy.

The current research evidence base is inconclusive – some studies indicate no evidence of harm, whilst other studies identify a range of mental disorders following abortion.

Healthcare professionals who assess or refer women who are requesting an abortion should assess for mental disorder and for risk factors that may be associated with its subsequent development.

Consent cannot be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information regarding the possible risks and benefits to physical and mental health. This may require the updating of patient information leaflets approved by the relevant Royal Colleges, and education and training to relevant health care professionals, in order to develop a good practice pathway.

It looks like this whole mental health issue isn't as resolved as the Choice side would like it to be.

I believe this qualifies as objective research from an unbiased source, don't you?

Posted by: valerie at March 26, 2008 1:34 PM


Ergg....

The 4 paragraphs after the link are from the Royal College statment.

For some reason everything isn't getting in italics.....

Posted by: valerie at March 26, 2008 1:44 PM


Safer? According to whom? Why is it more 'dangerous' to get a prescription for birth control pills at a PP than at a doctors office? Just what is "dangerous" about a PP clinic? Are you aware of the fact that the vast majority of PP clinics dont perform abortion?
And I notice you said nothing about affordability.

Birth control pills are not health care when simply used to prevent pregnancy.

It's called a "luxery". Pregnancy is not a disease.

People can find ways to pay for them just like they can find a way to buy cigarettes. I've known tons of poverty stricken people who can seem to afford their cigarettes. And I do mean DIRT POOR.

Oh and thanks for reminding me about the guise of "affordability" Planned Parenthood likes to hide behind. Planned parenthood makes a killing off of birth control pills and overcharges for them big time. I believe the last time I heard it was 15 dollars of PURE profit per pack. Except that first pack they "give" away. (actually, it's more like they "regift" it.) As for the source, I can't remember where I got it. I'll have to do a google search to see if it hasn't gone up since then.

Plus, they only give out the low dose stuff. They don't ever give out good pills or good condoms.
It makes sense though... that way when the women turn up pregnant, they can always come back for a convenient, laid back abortion! $$$$ Cha Ching! $$$$

If you need pills for health reasons, you can get them for free from the doctor, if you've got insurance. If you don't have insurance, Medicaid will cover it.

Medicaid will also cover sterilization, in many cases, I believe.

As for "what is dangerous" about PP? Well, all you have to do is search Jill's archives to figure that one out. :-) That's a no brainer!

Posted by: Bethany at March 26, 2008 2:16 PM


Back and looking like a fool - same as always

Thank you!!!! *blushing*

Posted by: Bethany at March 26, 2008 2:19 PM


Bethany,

I hate to steal your blush, but I think TR's love note was addressed to me!

I can't decide if it's a compliment to have someone who lives in a world with a purple sky call me a fool....but I believe I will take it that way!!

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 26, 2008 2:28 PM


Birth control isnt health care? You just lost any shred of credibility you may have had.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 3:15 PM


TR,
Are you sickened and disgusted enough to stop posting? Give it a rest.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 12:52 PM
***************************
You dont like the truth. No big surprise. That attitude towards women who have been brutalized and victimized is enough to make any decent person sicken.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 3:17 PM


I can't decide if it's a compliment to have someone who lives in a world with a purple sky call me a fool....but I believe I will take it that way!!

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 26, 2008 2:28 PM
******************
Its that kind of deliberately stupid comment that robs you of credibility. No ones sky is purple. Pretending someone has to be 'on crack' because you dont agree with them simply shows you dont have an intelligent counter to their argument. Ive made the observation that you appear to be stupid. You do nothing to change that opinion.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 3:19 PM


You make no sense TR.
Seriously.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 3:22 PM


I believe this qualifies as objective research from an unbiased source, don't you?

Posted by: valerie at March 26, 2008 1:34 PM
********************
This is from the web page - and it doesnt say what youre trying to pretend it said - it DOES say this though:

The current research evidence base is inconclusive – some studies indicate no evidence of harm, whilst other studies identify a range of mental disorders following abortion.


Position Statement on Women’s Mental Health in Relation to Induced Abortion
14th March, 2008
In the Government Response to the Report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967, the following request was made:

“In view of the controversy on the risk to mental health of induced abortion we recommend that the Royal College of Psychiatrists update their 1994 report on this issue”

The College has undertaken a literature review to inform the following position statement, which includes the recommendation that a full systematic review around abortion and mental health is required.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists is concerned to ensure that women’s mental health is protected whether they seek abortion or continue with a pregnancy.

Mental disorders can occur for some woman during pregnancy and after birth.

The specific issue of whether or not induced abortion has harmful effects on women’s mental health remains to be fully resolved. The current research evidence base is inconclusive – some studies indicate no evidence of harm, whilst other studies identify a range of mental disorders following abortion.

Women with pre-existing psychiatric disorders who continue with their pregnancy, as well as those with psychiatric disorders who undergo abortion, will need appropriate support and care. Liaison between services, and, where relevant, with carers and advocates, is advisable.

Healthcare professionals who assess or refer women who are requesting an abortion should assess for mental disorder and for risk factors that may be associated with its subsequent development. If a mental disorder or risk factors are identified, there should be a clearly identified care pathway whereby the mental health needs of the woman and her significant others may be met.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists recognises that good practice in relation to abortion will include informed consent. Consent cannot be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information regarding the possible risks and benefits to physical and mental health. This may require the updating of patient information leaflets approved by the relevant Royal Colleges, and education and training to relevant health care professionals, in order to develop a good practice pathway.

These difficult and complex issues should be addressed through additional systematic reviews led by the Royal College of Psychiatrists into the relationship between abortion and mental health. These reviews should consider whether there is evidence for psychiatric indications for abortion.

Further information on how the College came to this view.


Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 3:26 PM


TR,
Have you read AZ Grandmas story yet? She was raped and had the support of her mother to carry her daughter to term. Life affirming.


Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 12:55 PM
*****************************
There is nothing 'life affirming' about being the victim of rape. I seriously doubt of 'support' from her family made the experience any less horrific and I seriously doubt if AZs grandmother had any choice.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 3:29 PM


You make no sense TR.
Seriously.


Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 3:22 PM
**********************
Your problem with reading comprehension isnt my fault.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 3:30 PM


I think you are really funny. What I mean is I laugh whenever I read your comments. I don't think you mean them to be funny though do you?

Now that Sally is done with her research I guess you are stepping up to the plate.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 3:33 PM


I did NOT say rape is "life affirming!!" Rape is a horrific act of control and rage against a woman. LET ME BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT!!
Did you read her story??
You seriously doubt a woman's own story of carrying a pregnancy to term and having the love and support of her own family?

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 3:37 PM


*headdesk* OK. How many times must I explain this. PAS doesn't exist. PTSD does. That's what women with 'PAS' have. It's a common disorder that springs from any massive number of stressful situations, including surgical procedures other than abortion.

Posted by: Erin at March 26, 2008 3:59 PM


I hate to steal your blush, but I think TR's love note was addressed to me!
I can't decide if it's a compliment to have someone who lives in a world with a purple sky call me a fool....but I believe I will take it that way!!


Aww darn, Hooves, I'm so jealous! I thought that was for me! :)

Posted by: Bethany at March 26, 2008 4:10 PM


Its that kind of deliberately stupid comment that robs you of credibility. No ones sky is purple. Pretending someone has to be 'on crack' because you dont agree with them simply shows you dont have an intelligent counter to their argument. Ive made the observation that you appear to be stupid. You do nothing to change that opinion.

Texasred, are you saying that you think that Hooves in maw made a deliberately stupid comment that robbed her of her credibility?

Do you feel that she thinks her sky is purple?

Do you feel that Hooves in maw pretends to think people are "on crack" just because she doesn't agree with them?

Do you think that this proves she does not have an intelligent counter to anyone's argument?

Have you made the observation that Hooves appears to be stupid?

Will hooves probably never do anything that could change your opinion?

If there's something you want to tell us, don't be worry about holding back, just to be polite. We're here for you! Let it all out! ;-)

Posted by: Bethany at March 26, 2008 4:16 PM


Erin,
So you and I have PTSD and not PAS since we have both had abortions?

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 4:17 PM


*shrugs* I don't have it because of the abortion. I had it already anyway so I doubt it would make a whole heap of difference anyway. I'm sure the simple trauma of discovering an unplanned crisis pregnancy could induce it. It's not a very biased disorder. It affects anyone from soldiers to witnesses of crimes to people who are going in for minor surgery. From what I can tell, and I'm not a psychologist, you probably do have a mild form of PTSD, Carla. That's another issue though- because from what I can tell about 'PAS', it's pretty much a very mild form of PTSD. These women aren't having the serious effects of a major psychiatric disorder, they're having mild ones.

Posted by: Erin at March 26, 2008 4:23 PM


Just like PTSD doesn't affect everyone who's experiences a trauma, so too you can probably assume it doesn't affect everyone who has an abortion.

Posted by: Erin at March 26, 2008 4:24 PM


Just like PTSD doesn't affect everyone who's experiences a trauma, so too you can probably assume it doesn't affect everyone who has an abortion.

Posted by: Erin at March 26, 2008 4:25 PM


You mean there is hope for us? :)
Are you healing well from your car accident?

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 4:25 PM


Just like PTSD doesn't affect everyone who's experiences a trauma, so too you can probably assume it doesn't affect everyone who has an abortion.

Posted by: Erin at March 26, 2008 4:27 PM


Arg, stupid grandparents house internet. Geh. Sorry mods.

Anyhow, I'm sure there is, Carla. I'm not really sure about your 'symptoms'- but personally I've been in therapy for a few years and it's helped, though not eradicated, a lot of my symptoms. I don't know if you were here when I talked about the time I got shot, but that's what mine's from. I wake up screaming and have flashbacks and that kind of exciting stuff. But yeah, I'm sure there's hope ;-)

Posted by: Erin at March 26, 2008 4:30 PM


Hi Erin -

What is the difference what it is called? PTSD or PAS? What we are fighting is the PC complete denial that some women do not feel relief. Who cares what it is called, we just want people to freakin' understand that some women regret their "choice" so much that symptoms of PTSD appear.

I couldn't give a rats behind what it is called. Call is blue haired splint end syndrom - who cares about that. The FACT is that many women are having mental health issues because of this and they are told they are the "outcasts" and no one else feels that way.

Posted by: valerie at March 26, 2008 4:41 PM


No, I have never heard about that. I am so sorry.
You don't have to share it again, if you would rather not.

PTSD-some women may have it after an abortion, some may not. Are we safe in saying that? :)

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 4:43 PM


TR -

"This is from the web page - and it doesnt say what youre trying to pretend it said - it DOES say this though:"

What am I pretending it says?

It says that there is enough evidence that some women experience mental health issues after an abortion. That this evidence is strong enough to have an organization rethink their original conclusions and want Doctors to start informing their patients of the possible problem.

Again I ask - What am I pretending?

Posted by: valerie at March 26, 2008 4:45 PM


Anonymous,

mk 11:22 a.m.
*
I am here because I do research on anti-choice, anti-gay etc. extremist hate groups, and this website is a very efficient way to monitor their activities.
*
It is much more current and far better maintained than Army of God, ChristianGallery, etc. websites. Frankly, the average wing nut is very lazy about maintaining their website.
*
My compliments to you and Jill.
Posted by: anonymous at March 25, 2008 11:51 AM

I hope you're still reading...that's awesome. Thank you for the compliment. We certainly try, although Jill gets all the credit for staying current...I just do the staying.

You're always welcome here. Feel free to post more often...

Posted by: mk at March 26, 2008 5:35 PM


Hi Valerie,
I hear you. Acknowledging that some women have suicidal thoughts, nightmares, alcoholic tendencies, drug problems,guilt and regret etc. after their abortions, would be a start but so far all I have heard is that I was mentally unstable before my abortion anyway. :)
Seriously doubt that any of that is told to women before they abort? That they may have these experiences?

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 6:21 PM


Carla -

It is so funny that they all say the women were probablly unstable before the abortion. Especially in a time when more people are on antidepressants and being treated for depression than ever recorded. (according to the CDC). Well, duh, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that some of these women will have an abortion and how convenient of them to say women who regret their abortions are nutjobs. Aren't we all just one step away from being nutjobs in today's society? ;-)

Posted by: valerie at March 26, 2008 6:29 PM


Anything to deny a woman's regret I guess.
My kiddoes think I am a nutjob. That counts I think.
Thank you for your thoughtful posts by the way!! :)

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 6:36 PM


I KNOW I'm a nutjob!

And I never want to find my sanity, that would make life too serious!

Posted by: valerie at March 26, 2008 6:43 PM


that's a good one, Valerie!!!

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 7:11 PM


The reason there is a problem calling it PAS is because it implies a separate disease, which there isn't. Soldiers, victims of accidents or crimes, and surgical patients all fall under the same category. It's simply nonsensical to characterize it in it's own little special place. Plenty of people who undergo surgery experience PTSD. It's rare, but it happens. Generally people aren't warned that it could be a side affect of their procedure.

Carla- yes, I think it's plenty safe to say that. And my little incident was my sophomore year of high school, a little less than 4 years ago, and I was out on a date with a boy who took me to the opera. It was late when it got out and we'd parked a while away because we both knew the city. We got mugged on our way back to his car, and the guy got nervous, shot the guy I was with in the chest and me in the leg. I survived, he didn't. Overall, not real pleasant.

Posted by: Erin at March 26, 2008 7:29 PM


Erin -

You are right that people aren't warned about PTSD for most surgeries because of how rare it is. However, we are seeing more and more cases of abortion causing PTSD so this would clasify itself in its own category - Like it was in the (I think third edition)of the DSMR. It was removed because of other people agreeing with you and this is why the PL side gave it a seperate name. Because it is the PL side that runs all the post abortion counsling, we knew the studies were flawed. And now the psychiatric community has been faced with so much documentation from regular everyday people they were forced to re-look at their stats.

An example is written and hand signed affidavits from over 1,500 women that Norma McCorvey presented to the judiciary committee in 2005 and Sandra Cano presented over 1,000 different written and hand signed affidavits to the judiciary committee in 2005. These affidavits were from women who were suffering from PTSD because of abortion.

The Royal College is now recomending that the possibility of depression be told to women obtaining an abortion, but they are not saying that about many other surgical procedures. Why? Because there is just too much documentation. The PL calls it PAS so we can get it recognized, get the attention it needs. When it comes down to it, it will be recognized as a PTSD and nothing more, but these women will get the help they need and will not longer be shunned from the community who told them everything would be okay.

WHEW! I've been so long winded lately. I think it is because I can't be on everyday anymore!

Also, Erin, I know I've said this before - but no one should have gone through what you did. It is horrible how violent our society is and it is horrible that you became a victim of it. You may not feel it, but you can be a role model for many people who are suffering like that. You are a strong person and you continued with your life. Bravo!

We love ya babe!

;-)

Posted by: valerie at March 26, 2008 8:03 PM


Whew, I'm going to take some time to carefully answer your statements Valerie since I feel like I should try to communicate with you like I communicate with my 10 year old brother. You know, so you understand. Since you don't.

"In covering a story, reporters investigate leads and news tips, look at documents, observe events at the scene, and interview people."

Yes. By investigate, what we mean is... we do a little research. We look up information online, in the library or public offices, call people, ask questions. We do not go undercover or break into research banks or whatever you think we do to get information. We get the information the SAME WAY anyone else would... by asking questions and looking for answers. Okay? That's not just a "reporter" thing. ANYONE can do it. And you don't have to be part of the society of professional journalists or have a journalism degree to be a journalist. You just have to be willing to do the work.

Exactly how many people do you know would be interviewed by someone who is not a reporter? I wouldn't. That is called Gossip.

I don't understand what you mean by interview... When I interview someone, I often record the interview (for accuracy, and so that if they try to say they didn't say something and sue me for it, I have proof they did), the person knows they are being interviewed, and they know I may publish some of the things they say in a particular magazine or newspaper I tell them I am pitching the story to. However, I have "interviewed" people without recording them or without intending to write about them or publish it anywhere. This kind of interviewing is called "conversation" and "getting to know someone" and "learning more about a certain topic" or whatever else. Believe it or not, some people ask questions for their own personal reasons, not to gossip about other people. WOW!

By the way, I like to tell my freelancers, staff writers and assistant editors that the best journalist is someone who is curious. Curious people ask questions and find answers. They ask enough questions to be skeptical too. Guess what? You don't have to be a journalist to find answers to questions you are curious about! Cool, isn't it?!

I said: "In fact, going "undercover" as a journalist is HIGHLY unethical. I even dislike the practice of quoting unnamed sources. It's a very thin line."

Your response: Well, the Society of Professional Journalist disagrees with you.

www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

"Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity."

hmm....using anonymity is okay as long as motives are questions. Nothing about being unethical.

Hon, I didn't say quoting unnamed sources was unethical. I said I didn't like it and it's not good for journalists to do because the readers don't have the ability to judge the source's opinion. For example, say an anti-vaccination doctor is quoted in an article saying vaccinations lead to cancer, but the doctor is not named, nor is his organization named, so the reader does not know that the doctor is anti-vaccination. When the reader knows the person's name, they are able to discern whether or not the person is biased.

Again, quoting unnamed sources is not unethical. I have done it before (I wrote a piece about egg donors and one woman asked that only her first name be used) and I have no doubt that I will do it again. Oh yes, and I wrote a piece about children affected by gangs, in which I did not name the children for their own protection. BUT... journalists must be very careful as to when and why sources are not named.

"Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story."

Where does it say it is highly unethical? It only says that it should be a last resort and explained to the public. This means it can be done.

Well, this is a tricky subject and that is a really REALLY vague answer. In fact, I really cannot even address this because it is so vague as to the "methods." And I can easily say that the majority of journalists do not use surreptitious methods to get information.

Journalists prone to doing "undercover" work should be kept close under the magnifying glass, because if you do something illegally, you could lose your job, your credibility, and be sued for a lot of money. Most journalists err on the side of caution in that regard.

"Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid."

Who exactly is the "voiceless"? That's right, its the public that is the voiceless. I wonder why that is if we have the same abilities of the journalists?

Oh please. The public is FAR from voiceless, especially in this digital media age! I mean, look at you now, chatting away with people from all over the place on one site. What that phrase is saying is that just because your source is not a public figure or spokesperson, doesn't mean they aren't quoteworthy. A document doesn't have to have a stamp on it to be worth the information that's on it.

I understand you're not a journalist, but this really just requires a bit of reading comprehension, not a BA in journalism.

"Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection."

A special obligation for reporters to do exactly what I was saying should be done. Imagine that. The oldest and most respected organization representing journalists agrees with me. Where is your documented proof of your claims?

"Therefore, if the public has access to government documents, then the press has access to those documents."

I believe I said that didn't I?

I said: "Why do I believe the media should get these answers? Because it is their job. My job is raising my children (both with special needs), anothers job is being a nurse, doctor, teacher, pilot, assistent, secretary etc. We don't have time to do the investigation because it isn't our jobs."

Public businesses and government records are NOT private companies, so journalists, obviously, have less access to the kind of information that deals with private companies. For example, there are private jails in the U.S., some of which have been questioned for inhumane practices. Unfortunately, because they are not government-owned, journalists trying to get information from the jail is much much harder -- in fact, the jail can refuse information completely. Ditto with private companies being used overseas in the war. Those private companies are contracted out by the government BECAUSE the government KNOWS the media cannot access private information. This should be a really big "duh" moment for you... but I'll wait.

Yes, it is the media's job to seek out answers, yes, that's what we get paid for... but again, the press does not have access to any more information than the common citizen. The reason the press is more successful at attaining information is because a) we have been trained in how to do so, b) we are persistent whereas many others give up, and c) we know how the system works and how to work with the system to get as much info as we can.

I have to hound local officials because they are NOTORIOUS for not returning phone calls to the media. The average person has better luck because people like aldermen realize those people are constituents of their ward and are likely to vote for them in the next election, and the average person doesn't really investigate all sides of an issue the way a critically-minded, skeptical journalist would be.

And not all officials are like that either. I've talked to great aldermen, state representatives, congressmen and women and CEOs of companies who go so far as to give me their home phone numbers or cell numbers so I can reach them when necessary. Again, the press does these things not because the average person cannot do it, but because the average person will not do it.

Compare to eating at a restaurant versus cooking at home. More people like to eat out because they don't have to cook or clean up afterward. This doesn't mean they CANNOT cook, it simply means they don't have the WILL to do it.

I said: Freedom of the press is lumped into the first amendment with freedom of speech, just like everyone else. So we have the same rights everyone else does with regard to voicing our opinions.

To which you responded: Yes, I believe I said that as well. I just love how you attempted to take something out of context and Amanda just jumped right on it didn't she. How cute is that? Oh - and I also presented an example of how the media does have special rights to obtain a story. Where is your example or proof that I am wrong?

But... I don't believe you said that. To quote yourself in two separate occasions where you proved you did not know what freedom of the press actually is....

The reason for freedom of the Press was so the people can get information on stuff like this. Our press cannot be held back from getting a story - many people have got themselves in trouble when they try to cover up camera's because the press has the right to use the camera. (they cannot invade private home, but public venues are fair game - just think of any court trial seen on TV.)

Freedom of the press means they have freedom to investigate something that looks like a cover up...etc.

Well...? What do you have to say about that?

Clearly, you did not state what freedom of the press is REALLY about (freedom of speech, the same first amendment right that *gasp* you, yourself have!)

Val, sweetie, like I said, anyone can be a journalist. It's not like being a doctor where you have to go to med school and have certification. My BA just proves that I've studied it and have done work in my field already, but it doesn't mean that someone with a BA in social studies couldn't also be a journalist.

Because of THAT fact, anyone, yes, anyone, has the rights the media does to acquire information. Like I said before, the press just has more experience in doing so and is thus more successful.

And to address your last statements...

"Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy."

hmmm....do you really think the average Joe could say the intrusion was justified? Or does the average Joe go to the reporter to do the intrusion? Why would the average Joe do this? Because we would get in trouble when the reporter has freedom of press and insurance to cover these things.

The average Joe could intrude, yes, and I'm sure he wouldn't suffer the same consequences a trained journalist would for the intrusion. For example, the media does not have the right to look at a person's medical record, no matter what the circumstances. If the average Joe looked at medical records, he could be sued, but the journalist who knows better would get sued for more and possibly lose his or her job for lack of professionalism.

Also, like I said earlier about private companies who can withhold information, private persons (not public figures) have the right as well.

Oh, and the paparazzi are not journalists, in case you thought they were.

"Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable."

how can the average Joe do this? hmm....they can't. Again, we go to the media.

They can, actually, by paying attention to what those with power say and do. That is essentially what the media does when investigating public figures. We look into their public documents (things like where they spend money and on what, and if their voting record is what they promised it would be) and then give this information to the public on a silver platter in easy to understand language. If you think about it this way, the average Joe could do the same, if they were willing to put the effort into it and actually interpret public documents. Like I said earlier, anyone can do it.

I'll be honest, I don't entirely understand this liability insurance form because of ONE reason. I can't figure out if you have to be affiliated with a network or not, because it asks about NAB membership, but at the top you can check a box for individual and independent, so that could mean that a freelancer could apply for the insurance as well.

So it's either one of two things:

1. To get the insurance you would have to be part of a network, meaning all that is necessary is that the average Joe apply for a job there and if he happens to get a reporter position, cool! He's covered. (Wow, no need for actual training? Nope. He's covered.)

2. Anyone can get it, usually meaning freelancers. Let me explain freelancers. These are non-affiliated people, or they are writing/reporting a piece that will not be published somewhere they are actually employed. ... it's sort of like contract work. Guess what? These people don't have to have journalism degrees or have any sort of training either! Average Joe CAN be a journalist too! Cool!

Do you feel like you're still right?

Let me explain one last thing. Call this the history part of this lesson.

Journalists were intended to be members of the public, and members of the public were the people who started journalism. Over time, they learned how to be better journalists, and the corporations and government learned how to better hide things, but because of the checks and balances that we have in place, certain information is public domain and thus the press has access to it. When something is public domain, anyone, and I do mean anyone, can access that information.

There has been some debate over whether or not journalists should be certified, like doctors or lawyers, or ministers even! But that idea has always been shot down, because we journalists are not elitists who believe that we are the only ones who can research, report and write. We believe anyone can do this, and since the Internet has become such a hub of communication, more and more people are doing journalist-like practices every day, without any certification or training. Some of these people are even picked up by major broadcast networks or publications! Journalism is and always has been by the public, for the public.

Posted by: Edyt at March 26, 2008 8:30 PM


Also, I'm sorry the HTML did not come through for all of that massive body of text, but I hope you understand which statements were yours even though they failed to be italicized.

Posted by: Edyt at March 26, 2008 8:37 PM


Hi Erin,
I am so sorry. I cannot even begin to imagine the terror you must have felt that night. I have no words, sweetie. I thank you for telling me.


Hey Valerie,
The affidavits you were talking about? The ones that were presented to the US Supreme Court by Norma and Sandra? Mine was one of them. It is now part of Supreme court doctrine that abortion can have serious effects on women.(and men)
http://www.operationoutcry.org

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 8:47 PM


Valerie- then it should be given a subset diagnosis- more along the lines of Gulf War Syndrome- it's still the same disorder, but it occurs more frequently in Gulf War veterans than any other population demographic. The problem is that there isn't sufficient psychiatric research on that subject. Either way, a clinical diagnosis and adequate support can still be given to PTSD patients without any subcategorical classification.

Lol, I know WAY too much about therapy.

Posted by: Erin at March 26, 2008 11:38 PM


Doug: Ya know I love ya more than my luggage! ;-)

Uck uck uck uck uck. (Popeye laugh)

Yeah, Valerie, that big old ripped bag that most airlines charge extra for now or won't even take..... = P

Posted by: Doug at March 27, 2008 8:56 AM


We got mugged on our way back to his car, and the guy got nervous, shot the guy I was with in the chest and me in the leg. I survived, he didn't. Overall, not real pleasant.

Wow, Erin... Uh, wow.....

Posted by: Doug at March 27, 2008 8:58 AM


Carla: PTSD-some women may have it after an abortion, some may not. Are we safe in saying that?

Mos' def.
......

Valerie: What we are fighting is the PC complete denial that some women do not feel relief.

Val, that sounds like baloney to me. Who do you see saying that every woman sees relief? Do you really think there is some "PC position" there, in any monolithic way?

Personally, I am sure that Carla, etc., are being truthful about their experiences. If the question is, "Do some women suffer after having an abortion and end up regretting it on balance?" then obviously the answer is yes.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at March 27, 2008 9:05 AM


Edyt:

"Do you feel like you're still right? "

Yep. I am right because I remember the reason this conversation started and you obviously got to close, or took something too personal.

Let's review: (not being rude, just obvious that something is way off track here)

I said that the media should get the information as to why PP closed. You (or someone said) that the media doesn't do this, or cannot do this, or shouldn't do this......and I said that it is their job to get us this information. I also said freedom of Press is the reason for this.

I said:

"The reason for freedom of the Press was so the people can get information on stuff like this. "

"Freedom of the press means they have freedom to investigate something that looks like a cover up...etc."

for some unknown reason you took this as I was saying the publics freedom of speech is different from freedom of press. I don't recall ever saying that, so some sort of miscommunication obviously happened. I used the words freedom of press because it is the press we are discussing. Freedom of speech is, of course, freedom of press. I thought that was a given, but obviously I was wrong on that.

How many times did I say: The average Joe can get this information but it is the media's job to do it? Obviously I am aware that the people can get that information too...since I said it about 5+ times I thought that was a given that I understood that, obviously that too was misunderstood (although it is beyond me how that happened, I'm not sure how many times or how many different ways I could have said it.)

"Public businesses and government records are NOT private companies, so journalists, obviously, have less access to the kind of information that deals with private companies. "

umm....I don't believe that I am wrong on this, we are discussing a public, nonprofit organization that receives tax money. Where did this get switched to a private company?

"The reason the press is more successful at attaining information is because a) we have been trained in how to do so, b) we are persistent whereas many others give up, and c) we know how the system works and how to work with the system to get as much info as we can. "

Again, I never said that the media can get more information than the public, however I did say that journalists do have laws to protect in certain situations whereas the public doesn't. I used California as an example. The reason PP could not sue The Advocate for taping the conversation with PP without PP knowledge (something illegal in California) was because they were there as journalist and used the information received for news purposes. There is a fine line here, I understand that. Now, how they did get in trouble was posting the video on YouTube - this is where PP could have got them, that is not a "news" organization. This was all explained on FoxNews - on one of the news shows not a commentary show.

"But... I don't believe you said that. To quote yourself in two separate occasions where you proved you did not know what freedom of the press actually is....

The reason for freedom of the Press was so the people can get information on stuff like this. Our press cannot be held back from getting a story - many people have got themselves in trouble when they try to cover up camera's because the press has the right to use the camera. (they cannot invade private home, but public venues are fair game - just think of any court trial seen on TV.)

Freedom of the press means they have freedom to investigate something that looks like a cover up...etc.

Well...? What do you have to say about that? "

Where do you see the discrepency?

Where did I say freedom of press and freedom of speech are seperate? I didn't. I was pointing out that our press cannot be stopped on a story like this PP story. No one can say they cannot report on information and the press cannot get put in jail for doing so. That is it. I was keeping the idea that we were talking about PP and the press getting information as to why they closed. This idea was from the fact that this is what this thread is about and what we are discussing.

"Val, sweetie, like I said, anyone can be a journalist."

Edyt, honey, I never said we can't be. I said it over and over and over and over and over and over.......... It is the media's job to get the information, not the publics. The public doesn't have the time to get this information, nor do they have the outlet (I'll get to blogging in a minute) to report their findings. A reporter *gasp* does have the time because that is what they are paid to do and A reporter *gasp* does have an immediate outlet to get that information out. Get it now?

"The average Joe could intrude, yes, and I'm sure he wouldn't suffer the same consequences a trained journalist would for the intrusion. For example, the media does not have the right to look at a person's medical record, no matter what the circumstances. If the average Joe looked at medical records, he could be sued, but the journalist who knows better would get sued for more and possibly lose his or her job for lack of professionalism. "

This is where I messed up in my explainations. Sorry about that. Yes, I'm aware of what you are saying.....I meant to change the private idea to the public idea because that is what we were talking about, however I did not make that distinction....you are right on this one.....

"They can, actually, by paying attention to what those with power say and do. "

The average Joe cannot hold a public official accountable in the same way the media can. Even you have to admit that. Once again, we do not have an outlet like the media does to get the information out.

"I'll be honest, I don't entirely understand this liability insurance form because of ONE reason."

If you go to the bottom of the application you will see where you have to explain what venue you are reporting from. TV, radio, newspaper...

"so that could mean that a freelancer could apply for the insurance as well. "

You know, I'm not sure about that one....I would say the freelance would be just as screwed on the insurance idea as the self employed. You dont' have anyone to "back you up" so to speak. But then, that is just a guess.

Okay, now for blogging. It is only a very select few that get recognized and considered legitamit. However, in the news that is different. If a blogger writes a piece and gets it published in a newspaper than that blogger is taken more seriously on that paper than if he just blogged it.

Okay - here is the confusion...I think.

I said that the media should find out for the public why PP closed its doors. I believe I have shown proof to back up my belief that the media has every right and the capablity to do this. Yes, the public could get this information but it is very rare for the average Joe to get the information out to the public. The average Joe also doesn't have the ability to have insurance or a company to fall back on.....Kinda like that guy at the NY Times that did all the plagerism. Yes, he got in trouble but it was the NY Times that had to do the explaining and the consequences...not really him. If he was a freelance or an average joe that published the pieces somehow, he would have been screwed.

Am I making myself clear yet? I think the problems we are having is I was keeping my ideas based on this thread, and you were thinking as the media as a whole.

In reality, we are both saying the same things......

Posted by: valerie at March 27, 2008 10:05 AM


Actually, we're not. You keep trying to say that Freedom of the Press means that journalists can investigate, and I keep telling you, it doesn't.

Freedom of the Press has nothing to do with how or when or why we attain the information we attain. It has everything to do with what gets published.

Freedom of the Press is about CENSORSHIP. It has NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING to do with the news we gather.

For example, we could go out and make up a bunch of information and publish is and WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO. Because free speech is protected by the first amendment, regardless of whether the speech is right or wrong.

BUT we journalists understand our credibility is on the line so we try to report as accurately as possible. Again, this fact has nothing to do with the first amendment.

Let me restate:

The first amendment guarantees writers the ability to publish whatever they want to publish. The first amendment does not give reporters the right to investigate, nor does it provide a method for appropriate investigations.

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 12:26 PM


You are really twisting your words around with the Average Joe scenario and it's irritating me. You're trying to prove me wrong and when I say you're wrong, you say you were saying that the whole time. Let's examine your words again.

You said:

hmmm....do you really think the average Joe could say the intrusion was justified? Or does the average Joe go to the reporter to do the intrusion? Why would the average Joe do this? Because we would get in trouble when the reporter has freedom of press and insurance to cover these things.

"Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable."

how can the average Joe do this? hmm....they can't. Again, we go to the media.

LOOK! You explicitly said the Average Joe could NOT do the same work the press can!

I proved you wrong. And then you twisted it around to make it sound like you were agreeing with me the whole time, when in reality, you're just coming to see the truth.

You said: Obviously I am aware that the people can get that information too...since I said it about 5+ times I thought that was a given that I understood that, obviously that too was misunderstood (although it is beyond me how that happened, I'm not sure how many times or how many different ways I could have said it.)

Show me exactly where you said in your previous statements that you understood the average Joe could do the same work the press can. Because I can't find it. I agree you made points that the average Joe may not have time (you'd be surprised how much free time people have), or they may not get paid (that hasn't stopped some people) YET you closed off your statements by saying the press is protected in ways the public isn't.

Let me bring up the liability insurance form again. Maybe freelancers and the public cannot access it. Maybe they can. But even if they do get the insurance, that doesn't prevent bad things from happening. Like flood insurance -- just because you have it doesn't mean your house won't get flooded. Just because you have it doesn't mean your insurance company may decide not to cover you.

Journalists don't make a lot of money. So when super-rich, power hungry politicians sue them for millions of dollars for making the politicians "look bad" ... that could kill someone's way of life. So the insurance is in place to help out someone and provide company support. Small presses, like community newspapers, have to be very careful for that reason because a $1 million lawsuit could put them out of business indefinitely. EVERYONE loses their jobs.

Okay, so I pulled out my old Mass Media Law textbook (Don Pember, Clay Calvert, 2005/2006) just to check to see if there were laws to protect the press.

The first three chapters are about the first amendment... (oh, doesn't anyone have that?!) The next three are about libel lawsuits, which again, is just about how to win or lose them and what libel is legally. I'm sure you wouldn't understand this since you can't understand the first amendment so I'll move on.

Invasion of privacy...again, this is all stuff that applies to both the public and the press. You do understand that if you invade someone's privacy and publish information while doing so, you could be charged the same as a journalist would?

Moving on ... Gathering information! Here's something that might help.

This chapter is about how the law affects the efforts of reporters and ordinary citizens to gather information about what is going on in the nation and their communities. And until about a dozen years ago the text focused almost exclusively on federal and state statutes that either permit or limit the gathering of information from government records or from meetings of government agencies. But times have changed, and today the law regarding news gathering is also focused on efforts by the government and others to stop the press from collecting data about a wide range of persons and activities.

Do you still think the media has more ability to get information than the average Joe? It looks like we're the ones who get limitations put on us...

Later in the chapter: The Constitution and News Gathering

Surprisingly, perhaps, the First Amendment plays a rather insignificant role in definining the rights of citizens and journalists in the news-gathering process.

Isn't it odd how often the authors of this book say citizens and journalists, as if the rules apply to everyone and everyone has the same amount of access?

The congressional records of the drafting and adoption of the First Amendment fail to support the notion that the protection of the news-gathering process was to be included with the scope of freedom of the press.

Didn't I say that?

James Madison, its principal author, said himself freedom of expression means nothing more than "the people have a right to express and communicate their sentiments and wishes."

In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled (in a non-press related case) that the constitutional right to speak and publish does not carry the unrestrained right to gather information. The text explains that later cases allowed the public and press transparency of government.

Here's a good passage about the rights journalists have!

American journalists and their allies have attempted to defend themselves against charges of illegal news gathering by arguing the press has a responsibility to bring the news to the people if the democratic system is expected to function. And to brign the news to the people, journalists sometimes have to bend the rules a little bit, use information-gathering techniques that would result in a civil or even criminal liability if used by nonjournalists. These news-gathering techniques must be protected by the First Amendment, they argue. But American courts have been largely unswayed by this argument.

I think that pretty much sums up the rights journalists have. I can't find anything in this book about exclusive rights journalists have the public does not, although I am reading a lot about how journalists have been limited more than the public. Interesting, that.

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 1:03 PM


And if you need any further proof... since I know you pro-lifers are big on the "personal" stories and all...

Yesterday I was having a conversation with one of my sources ... He's an organizer for an group that advocates for human rights, and I've been following one of the organizations within their umbrella as it develops.

Anyway, we had a conversation about how he didn't want me attending certain meetings because he didn't want certain information leaked out too soon, and he realized some of the members were a bit media-shy/media-naive and did not know what they should and should not say in the presence of a journalist.

While "off the record" are common phrases to some, other people are not accustomed to watching their every day statements.

Needless to say, this conversation never would have happened if I had just been a member of the general public.

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 1:32 PM


Edyt -

Are just trying to play stupid, or is just something you can't help?

Here are some definitions for ya:

Libel: a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

Now here is a section in the dictionary.law.com definition of libel:

dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1153

Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie.

Now, lets look at what you said:

"For example, we could go out and make up a bunch of information and publish is and WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO. Because free speech is protected by the first amendment, regardless of whether the speech is right or wrong. "

"The first amendment guarantees writers the ability to publish whatever they want to publish."

What part of all this are you not understanding? You do not have the right to make up information. Slander is illegal, Libel is illegal. You cannot make something up. You will go to jail or be fined or both.

The first amendment does not allow you to make things up....

I suggest you look up:

New York Times Co Vs Sullivan
Victor Feazell
Robert Crinkley
Carol Burnett and the National Enquirer

If something is clearly wrote as an opinion or satire then it is more difficult to succeed in a libel lawsuit, however it has been done. Conclusion: you can't just make anything up and claim first amendment rights.

And now for this statement:

"Actually, we're not. You keep trying to say that Freedom of the Press means that journalists can investigate, and I keep telling you, it doesn't. "

Definition of Investigate:

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=investigate

S: (v) investigate, look into (investigate scientifically) "Let's investigate the syntax of Chinese"
S: (v) investigate, inquire, enquire (conduct an inquiry or investigation of) "The district attorney's office investigated reports of possible irregularities"; "inquire into the disappearance of the rich old lady"

dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=41848&dict=CALD

to examine a crime, problem, statement, etc. carefully, especially to discover the truth:
Police are investigating allegations of corruption involving senior executives.
[+ question word] We are of course investigating how an error like this could have occurred.

encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/investigate.html

1. transitive and intransitive verb carry out official inquiry: to carry out a detailed examination or inquiry, especially officially, in order to find out about something or somebody
The local police are investigating a murder.


2. intransitive verb take look: to take a look or go and see what has happened
We heard noises downstairs, so Fred went down to investigate.

So, what exactly does freedom of press mean then? It means that the press can write out information and publish in a public forum, but how do they get that information? They have to investigate it first. How else would there be anything to write about to claim freedom of press if there is no investigation?


"Freedom of the Press has nothing to do with how or when or why we attain the information we attain. It has everything to do with what gets published."

And how do you get information to publish it?

"Freedom of the Press is about CENSORSHIP. It has NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING to do with the news we gather. "

Here is what the first amedment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is about freedom of expression. Not censorship.

I just love your contridiction above: "news we gather". How do you gather the information? Right back to that whole investigation thing huh?


Posted by: valerie at March 27, 2008 1:37 PM


The first amendment does not allow you to make things up....

Nor does it say you can't.

You conveniently disregarded that libel and slander have to do with harming a person's reputation which I didn't say anything about. I understand your confusion though and I allow that yes, in that circumstance making up information is wrong and illegal.

However, a journalist could make up information like... oh, say, that German Shepherds were bred for nazis to torture people in camps. It doesn't hurt anyone's reputation, but it's not correct information.

I'm not excusing people for making things up. I'm not saying they should. I'm not saying the law will not come down on people for making things up... but the Constitution protects your right to say it.

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 1:47 PM


"Needless to say, this conversation never would have happened if I had just been a member of the general public. "

Isn't this what I've been saying?

Quotes from me:

Exactly how many people do you know would be interviewed by someone who is not a reporter? I wouldn't. That is called Gossip.

Who exactly is the "voiceless"? That's right, its the public that is the voiceless. I wonder why that is if we have the same abilities of the journalists?

do you really think the average Joe could say the intrusion was justified? Or does the average Joe go to the reporter to do the intrusion?

The average Joe cannot hold a public official accountable in the same way the media can. Even you have to admit that. Once again, we do not have an outlet like the media does to get the information out.

______________________

Do you like contradicting yourself or do you even realize you are doing it?

Posted by: valerie at March 27, 2008 1:49 PM


Little history lesson for you here...

Censorship and the press have a long long long connection. The Founding Fathers knew that. In English law (not the language, but the people over in the UK), starting in 1476, the king required that anyone wanting to print something had to get his approval. This started because... the printing press was invented in 1439, making it easier for people to publish information and spread it widely. Compare to the Internet today!

That system of censorship ended in the 1600s, but up until 1720, the king could still execute you for writing something nasty about him. Man, would I hate to be a journalist in those days!

The first index of prohibited books was drawn up in 1559 by the Catholic Church and since then books are still censored or banned in various countries around the world. The Catholic Church claimed rights to ban books if they wanted in 1543. (The popes stopped this practice in 1966.)

When America was being colonized, they were still under British influence and thus still censored. In the 17th and 18th centuries, however, (the age of reason), people started questioning censorship of the press.

And then, Sweden became the first country to allow freedom of the press in 1766, 10 years before America declared independence and 21 years before the Constitution was first drafted.

So no, the Constitutional right to freedom of the press has nothing to do with investigation or acquiring information, but has everything to do with censorship.

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 2:02 PM


I guess I just don't see it. Maybe you can point it out to me?

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 2:04 PM


Duh, duh duh....

"LOOK! You explicitly said the Average Joe could NOT do the same work the press can! "

What I've said repeatedly and I'll say again since you can't comprehend.

It is not illegal for the average Joe to do the investigation or obtain information however...

"Needless to say, this conversation never would have happened if I had just been a member of the general public.

duh...duh...duh.....

doh.

That is exactly what I've been saying.

Posted by: valerie at March 27, 2008 2:11 PM


"I guess I just don't see it. Maybe you can point it out to me? "

Comprehension: Get some.

It's really simple considering I did point it out to you already.

Posted by: valerie at March 27, 2008 2:13 PM


Did you know that some of history has been changed because of Supreme Court Rulings?

Posted by: valerie at March 27, 2008 2:15 PM


1. No, Valerie, it's not. You were arguing that the average Joe could not do the work a journalist could. I very easily and accurately proved that not only could he do the work a journalist can, but he will have fewer limitations upon him because he is not a journalist.

2. History cannot be changed.

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 2:20 PM


3. You're drawing at straws because you're consistently failing to prove any of your points.

Why don't you accept the fact that maybe, since I went to school for it and work in the field and all, maybe I know more than you do about the press, it's rights, limitations, and the laws regarding it?

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 2:22 PM


*points at Edyt's post* John Peter Zenger!


Val, do you know how difficult it is to prove a libel case?

Posted by: Erin at March 27, 2008 2:32 PM


Let's recap.

You started off by saying Jill was just reporting the truth, something the media wasn't doing.

I countered: She's using the news to report this so-called truth, so you can't say the media isn't doing it. (One point for me)

You said: Well, it's only in one newspaper and one pro-life organization and more journalists should cover it.

I said: This might not be a big story. The media is not a personal investigator. If you're interested, you can do the work.

You said: It's the media's job to do it.

Amanda brought up the excellent point that it's not the media's job to investigate corporate fraud and that there are people who are trained to do that sort of work. She also said when the media attempts to do the work they're not actually trained to do, it ends up as a circus. (One point for Amanda)

You countered Amanda by saying: The media does have investigative authority. The media has special rights. Freedom of the press exists so the media could investigate. The media can not be held back from a story. Journalists are allowed to harass people.

A bit later, I said: The media does not have investigative authority or special rights. Going undercover is unethical. I dislike not identifying sources as well. The common person can do the work a journalist can. Sometimes journalists harass people and it's not nice but sometime's it's necessary. Freedom of the press does not say anything about investigating or reporting. It means freedom to publish. There are no special laws to protect journalists. (One point)

You said: Actually the press can investigate and interview people too. Regular people can't do that because that's GOSSIP. Not identifying sources is not unethical. Using "alternative" reporting means should be explained in a story. The public is voiceless. The media is obligated to expose the public's business and government records are open to inspection. Reporters get paid to harass people, but why should you have to do it if people aren't giving up certain information? You must not be doing something right.

Then you attempted to say that you did know freedom of the press was freedom of speech.

The average person would get in trouble for doing the work journalists do, especially when it comes to invading privacy. The average person cannot hold big businesses and government accountable. Reporters have liability insurance so they're protected. (One point for actually looking up information, negative one point for twisting words on freedom of the press)

I replied: Anyone can investigate and interview people, including regular people. Not identifying sources is not unethical but it is not good practice.

I admit to not being sure about undercover work because the quoted statement is too vague. It is not good in practice.

The public is not voiceless. You misinterpreted the quote. Private companies/persons are different than public companies/persons with regard to the information that can be attained. Sometimes harassing people is necessary because they don't respond well to the MEDIA (not the public). If the public wishes to know information but does not do work, they are lazy.

I then point out how you don't understand what freedom of the press is.

Anyone can be a journalist. Average people can do the same work. Liability insurance forms don't count as laws protecting journalists. Journalism is by the public for the public. (Plus one point for finding your misinterpretation, plus one for clearing up freedom of the press.)

You replied: I am still right because your feelings got hurt. (minus one point for logical fallacy)

You then twisted your words around again about freedom of the press by trying to say that was what you were saying all along. (Minus one)

You then say the public can do what the average journalist can do. But journalists are protected by laws the public is not. You say it is the media's job to do it. And the average person can not hold a public official accountable. You say you have been agreeing with me the whole time. (Minus one)

I correct you, yet again, by saying freedom of the press is about censorship, not about reporting. (plus one)

Then I prove you're twisting the average person scenario around. I restate the public can do the same work journalists can do. Then I pull out the book for extra credibility, where I prove:
Ordinary citizens and journalists can do the same work. The First Amendment does not protect the way journalists get the news they publish. The American courts have not protected journalists above citizens for how they gather news. Journalists are more limited than the average person. (Plus one for research)

Then I tell a story about how I have been limited as a journalist but the average person could have gotten the same information without limitation.

You then try to call me stupid and bring up libel in a dictionary definition. (minus one for personal attack) This is to prove that a journalist cannot just make up any information and publish it. (plus one for actually catching me in error!)

Again, you try to prove the First Amendment gives reporters the freedom to investigate and that is proven because they have to investigate to get information out there. (minus one for misunderstanding a Constitutional amendment after it has already been explained)

Then you say the First Amendment is not about censorship.

I clarify that libel and slander have to do with reputation, not making things up, but I concede that you were right about making up ANY information. I clarify that information can be made up and published, the law can prosecute, but the Constitution protects the right to have said it.

You try to prove I'm contradicting myself.

I give you a history lesson about how censorship led to the creation of the First Amendment. And then say I don't get the contradiction you stated. (Plus one for proving the First Amendment is about censorship)

You again try to prove I'm contradicting myself and that I have reading comprehension problems. Then you say history has been changed.

I prove that I am not contradicting myself, that history cannot be changed. (I won't give myself a point because that was a cheap shot and I'm sorry for it)

Erin brings up John Peter Zenger, who was one of the influential people leading up to the First Amendment because... of CENSORSHIP! (plus one!)


So if we tally up the scoreboard... that's....

Me: 7
You: - 4
Amanda: 1
Erin: 1

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 3:18 PM


2. History cannot be changed.

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 2:20 PM
*********
Obviously you have never watched DR WHO

Posted by: TexasRed at March 28, 2008 11:22 AM


Their riches or poverty depend upon the abundant or sparing supplies which http://idisk.mac.com/dukebluedevilsfreewe/Public/0/free-christian-layouts-for-myspace.html >free christian layouts for myspace gold, the diminution, however, being greater in some pieces than in others, the measure of

Posted by: Heather at March 30, 2008 3:34 AM


Their riches or poverty depend upon the abundant or sparing supplies which http://idisk.mac.com/dukebluedevilsfreewe/Public/0/free-christian-layouts-for-myspace.html >free christian layouts for myspace gold, the diminution, however, being greater in some pieces than in others, the measure of

Posted by: Heather at March 30, 2008 3:34 AM


frugality and economy, will maintain, through the year, the same http://idisk.mac.com/christianbackgroundl/Public/0/pink-and-brown-john-deer-myspace-layouts.html >pink and brown john deer myspace layouts town, is limited by the demand of that town and its neighbourhood. The fvwrjutois

Posted by: Linda at March 30, 2008 6:48 AM


frugality and economy, will maintain, through the year, the same http://idisk.mac.com/christianbackgroundl/Public/0/pink-and-brown-john-deer-myspace-layouts.html >pink and brown john deer myspace layouts town, is limited by the demand of that town and its neighbourhood. The fvwrjutois

Posted by: Linda at March 30, 2008 6:48 AM


those manufactures, and direct towards them a greater quantity of http://idisk.mac.com/christianbackgroundl/Public/0/free-backgrounds-and-layouts-for-myspace.html >free backgrounds and layouts for myspace metals in Spain and Portugal, but by detaining there a certain fvwrjutois

Posted by: Anna at March 30, 2008 7:04 AM


behold the power of cheese

Posted by: Down with PD Sk8tr at April 1, 2008 8:33 PM