(Prolifer)ations 2-22-11
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN
As always, we welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- Live Action reveals Planned Parenthood’s 2005 cover-up of the rape of an 11-year-old girl who didn’t want her parents to know. The girl’s letter was posted as a “testimonial” to PP’s help in a time of need, but was removed due to negative publicity. LA has the archive and screen shot.
- Vital Signs exposes Planned Parenthood for the Greater Rochester and Syracuse Region’s “Safer Sex Party” fund raiser – including an aphrodisiac bar, burlesque shows, and hors d’oeuvres – for $50 admission. Proceeds go to – what else? – “sexual education for young people.”
- Alex at ProLifeNZ notes NZ’s apparent concern that some methods of Down Syndrome screening could have a detrimental effect on mothers and their babies (even resulting in “unnecessary death”) while expressing no concern that 90% of babies diagnosed with DS are aborted – unnecessarily.
- The Passionate Pro-Lifer reports abortionist Savita Ginde, director of Denver’s Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, drove her car aggressively at regular sidewalk counselor Ken Scott, which surveillance cameras later revealed when Ginde asked police to ticket Scott.
- Albert Mohler writes that this week, the Obama administration “revoked nearly all of the conscience protections put in place by the administration of President George W. Bush.”
- SecularProLife follows the story of a terminally ill Canadian infant whose family wants a tracheotomy performed so he can spend his final days at home. The hospital, an example of socialized medicine, planned to instead remove life support, but most likely due to media attention, baby Joseph may now be transferred to a hospital in Michigan for the tracheotomy.
- At NRO, Michael J. New shares his thoughts on the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson.
- Wesley J. Smith reacts to Frances Kissling’s Washington Post editorial.
- Star Studded Super Step follows the story of a lawyer who is standing for the unborn child of a mother who is a meth addict.
- Stand for Life takes on pro-life “exceptions” such as, “Why should the unborn pay for the crime that the rapist committed? Can a 3-year old that was a product of rape be killed if he reminds his mother of the rapist?” and others. They also share a video from Choices4Life, founded by Juda Myers, who was conceived as a result of rape:
Feb.22, 2011 3:30 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Out of curiosity, do you think that victims of rape should have any rights at all to keep their victimization a secret? Or should those crimes always be revealed against the victim’s wishes?
Andrew MacKie-Mason says:
February 23, 2011 at 2:09 pm
That’s a good question. It’s up to the rape victim to decide to whom she will reveal the rape. I assume you are wondering about the pro-life position regarding the female rape victim who becomes pregnant and wants to abort in order to keep it “secret”. (Please tell me if I’m wrong in my assumption.) I don’t have any direct experience with this situation, but I’d say that committing a horrific act like abortion can’t take away the horrific act experienced by the rape victim. The baby conceived is innocent of any crime.
Janet, I was actually referring to the condemnation of Planned Parenthood for not outing a rape victim who didn’t want to come forward.
It’s up to the rape victim to decide to whom she will reveal the rape.
Hi Janet. Actually, it’s not always up to the victim. Well, of course she can choose to tell no one at all. But depending on state law, if she tells certain medical professionals, they may have an obligation to report to law enforcement and/or other agencies. For example, alleged sexual assaults of minors or disabled or older adults will likely be mandated reporting situations, but other factors can come into play too.
Andrew MacKie-Mason,
The rape victim in the case was 11 years old. Of course her parents should have been contacted about the rape. Eleven year olds shouldn’t have such “secrets” from their parents, IMHO.
Fed Up,
Thanks for the clarification.
Unfortunately, what the law says and what a parent’s wishes are, are not always the same. If I recall correctly (from watching the TV show ER), medical personnel are not allowed to tell the victim’s parents in some cases – I don’t know what the State of IL laws are and what factors are involved. That would somewhat contradict what I said in my last comment…..Oh well… long day!
Fed Up, that’s the state of the law, but do you think it’s a good thing?
Janet, you seem to be leaning dangerously close to the position that parents have some “right” to know about the assault independent of the child’s best interests. If that’s your position, where do you think such a right comes from?
If it’s an argument more based on the interests of the victim, then I think there are some interesting points on both side. Obviously, there are benefits to mandatory reporting to law enforcement and referral to any resources the victim may need. On the other hand, we need to be aware of the risk of deincentivizing seeking medical attention by youth (in many situations, not just sexual assault).
By the way, if an 11 year old couldn’t be convinced to voluntarily tell her parents that she was raped, the parent-child relationship obviously needs some work, and going around the child to report it would only exacerbate those issues. Parents really need to ask what they’ve done to make their children not trust them.
Hi again, Janet. Here’s the thing. If the medical staff make the notifications they are supposed to as mandated reporters, then other agencies such as law enforcement and child protective can further assess and intervene with the patient AND parents (if necessary) in a way that ER staff cannot. The ER’s role is to provide treatment. It isn’t to determine if a crime was committed. That’s for law enforcement and the courts to decide. The ER’s responsibility is to report the allegation or suspicion of a crime when such reporting is mandated by law or in some instances when it’s requested by the patient. If there’s a situation where the ER staff cannot speak with parents of a minor, that doesn’t mean that law enforcement or child protective staff will not. I can’t imagine an ER discharging an 11 y/o who alleged sexual assault without multiple notifications being made EVEN if parental notification was completed.
Fed up, your attempt to distract …
LOL. No attempt to distract on my part. I’m out of troll kibble this evening, so I’ll leave it to others to feed you if they wish. I’ve read enough of your comments on other sites to get a feel for the game you’re playing and I’m simply not interested.
Andrew,
I don’t just have a right as a parent, I have a responsibility as the primary care-taker of my child(ren).
You’re pulling the “attempt to distract” from another thread: I believe it was when you pulled my “you’re allowed to disagree” out of context or something. But out of curiosity, what “game” do you think I’m playing? If it’s “trolling” to enter a one-opinion echo box and disagree, then perhaps by your definition I’m a troll. All I’m trying to do is engage in some honest but vibrant debate; and as you have apparently noticed, I don’t hide behind pseudonyms online, like I would were I attempting to just cause trouble.
Janet, you have a responsibility to…what, care for your children? Yes. But how does that responsibility transfer into a right to invade your child’s desire for privacy? There are countless conceivable situations where it is better to keep information about a child away from the parents, and no blanket parental right to know everything that happens in their children’s lives.
There are countless conceivable situations where it is better to keep information about a child away from the parents
Andrew,
That’s ridiculous.
Maybe you could name TEN of the “countless situations”?
It won’t change my mind though, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
If you’ve already closed your mind, why are you discussing things? If nothing will change your mind, why talk?
Since you asked, though, I’ll give you five. If you think there’s any use, I’ll give you five more.
If there’s a chance that a child was sexually abused by his or her parent, the parent should not be notified that the child sought treatment.
If there is a risk that a child will be abused by a parent should that parent learn about sexual (or other) behavior, the parent should not be notified.
If notifying the parent would breach the trust between a child and doctor necessary for effective treatment, the parent should not be notified.
If the child would be discouraged from seeking important medical aid in the future because of the risk of parental reprisals, then the parent should not be notified.
If the parents are attempting to prevent the child from doing something they are entitled to do and that is important (procure and education, for instance) then the parent should not be notified.
As a former social worker in two states, the people who have knowledge of the rape have a duty to report it to the Child Welfare division and we have a duty to report to law enforcement. This is a crime. The parents would always be informed as they have a duty to protect their minor child. There is no scenario where it would be in the best interest of the child to hide the info from parents. If the parent is the perpetrator then alternate arrangements for her care is made and he is prosecuted. If the parents are failing to protect then alternate custody arrangements are made and they are prosecuted. There is no way that PP has the legal right to investigate and decide what happened and they do not have the right to remove the child to protect her. This is outrageous. If you are aware of abuse and fail to report, you have commuted a crime. Even psychologists who become aware of abuse in a private counseling session are obligated to report it. Where does PP get off thinking they are above the law.
Note the rest of the story…when the girl t urns 14 she comes back to PP for bc because she has decided to start having sex consensually. Not uncommon for victims of sex abuse. Again, PP has decided that they know better than the law or the parents. That is their goal…to insert themselves between the child and parent and they are so callous that they brag about it.