Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Planned Parenthood concealing crimes? Investigation says sex by men with underage girls 'epidemic'
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, May 21, 2002 | By Jon Dougherty

Posted on 05/20/2002 11:36:54 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last
To: Steve0113
I went to the website & signed us up.
61 posted on 05/22/2002 6:04:48 AM PDT by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Gophack; Diago
One of the things that bothers me most about PP is their chronic lack of forthrightness. I didn't know much about birth control, because I never could use it. (Allergic to it). I found out what the Depo-Provera shot did to an embryo. My limited understanding is that it thins the lining of the uterous, keeping a fertilized egg from attaching.

My sister was on the shot, thinking it's "just birth control". She had NO IDEA what it did. I told her what it did, and she and her husband were shocked. No one told her, she could be spontaneously aborting every month. Planned Parenthood never told her.

62 posted on 05/22/2002 7:10:35 AM PDT by SpookBrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Planned Parenthood knows their market. Men who need help with the upkeep of their underaged concubines.

One reason for PP's support by middle-class Democrat women is that they do not like the idea of their wayward husbands being sued for child support by some teen, or (worse) having their meal ticket transported to jail for having gotten a minor pregnant

63 posted on 05/22/2002 7:27:30 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
No, and I'm pretty well-versed in modern feminist ideology, in which a primary theme is that most heterosexual activity is part of a huge patriarchal conspiracy to oppress women and girls. Any "power imbalance" whatsoever (such as an older man with a younger woman or girl; or a boss, teacher, professor, with a subordinate or student; an employed husband with a stay-at-home wife who relies on his financial support) is viewed as absolute proof that the relationship and/or act is not consensual. This is the sort of reasoning that underlies wild feminist claims like "2 out of 3 women will be raped at some point in their lives".

Another big theme is that every woman (and they would classify a 12 or 13 year old as a "woman") must make her own choices about all aspects of her life. So while they would not want to notify parents or authorities about a relationship that the girl is saying is consensual, since those parties might FORCE her to discontinue it, they will eagerly fill her mind with ideology designed to get her to "DECIDE" that she wants to discontinue the relationship.

It's all pretty loopy, but most feminists adhere to this ideology, and they are quite eager to convert young girls and women to their belief system.

64 posted on 05/22/2002 8:01:54 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
Personally, I think the RICO statutes should be used to prosecute those who perpetrated the cover-ups by transferring the guilty priests from parish to parish. But I don't think this scandal is particularly relevant to the article above, since few, if any, of the boys involved described the acts as consensual. Furthermore, when the boy victims sought help from other priests in the church (usually through their parents), the other priests routinely arranged payoffs to hush up the victims, and transfers to enable the guilty priests to continue molesting.

I'm sure that in most cases like the one described in the article, PP advises the girl to get counseling from someone who would recommend reporting the relationship to authorities, and/or advises her that the police would be interested in hearing about the relationship. However, like most organizations and individuals who provide counseling to victims of various sorts of abuse, they are wary of contacting authorities against their client's wishes, because word of such policies gets around quickly, and is likely to discourage other victims from going to the organization or individual for help. This tends to cause victims to continue viewing their abuser as an ally or protector, which in turn enables the abuse to continue. This article also seems to assume, without evidence, that such girls are 1) telling the truth, and 2) willing to identify the man. In fact, some girls may well be using the "I was raped" or "An older man did this to me" ploy in hopes of getting free services, and those who are telling the truth have probably been warned by the man (with accompanying threats) not to identify him. PP staffers no doubt have plenty of experience with both of these scenarios.

Some years ago, a friend of mine was a volunteer counselor at an independent PP-like clinic, and related a number of stories to me about pregnant adolescent girls. When accompanied by a parent (almost always the mother), the girls usually claimed they had been "raped", but when taken into a room alone with a counselor, the rape story always fell apart. It appeared that the parents were skeptical of the rape story too, since they had brought the girl to PP, but had not contacted police. Thus bringing parents into the picture is not necessarily helpful in getting to the truth.

65 posted on 05/22/2002 8:30:11 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
Planned Barrenhood outrage alert...
66 posted on 05/22/2002 11:25:22 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Well, well, it's time to enforce the law and get these [fill-in-the-blank] out of business.
67 posted on 05/22/2002 4:38:04 PM PDT by pray4liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Any "power imbalance" whatsoever (such as an older man with a younger woman...an employed husband with a stay-at-home wife who relies on his financial support) is viewed as absolute proof that the relationship and/or act is not consensual.

I must laugh. You have just described my 19-year marriage. Does that count?

68 posted on 05/22/2002 4:42:07 PM PDT by pray4liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: pray4liberty
To the hard core feminist ideologues, it sure does count. The institution of marriage is part of the great patriarchal plot to oppress women -- by binding them one-on-one to their oppressors, thus preventing them from joining with their sisters to fight their oppression. Seriously, I had professors in college who drummed this stuff into their students with perfectly straight faces; and the required books for the courses backed them up verbatim. Although I've never had any interest whatsoever in marriage for myself, I couldn't quite figure out how "binding" women to men "one-on-one" could be oppressing to women without being just as oppressing to men. This is probably why I only got a C+ in my Feminist Political Theory class -- I just didn't get it.
69 posted on 05/22/2002 5:28:36 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
You're joking... PP doesn't get tax money, does it?
70 posted on 05/22/2002 7:28:50 PM PDT by Kwilliams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kwilliams
Yes, but not to pay for abortions, if I remember correctly. If not, someone will correct me.
71 posted on 05/23/2002 12:53:30 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: rnmomof7
Have you seen this yet?
72 posted on 05/23/2002 6:54:48 AM PDT by constitutiongirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: constitutiongirl
Thanks for the flag..no surprises here. Did you hear on Fox last night that Washington DC was the 1st place to have kindergarden to grade 12 sex ed classes and they have the largest teen abortion rate in the country...a little race control by the liberal dems...nawwwwwwwwwww
73 posted on 05/23/2002 7:28:15 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Well, I guessed right.

You want to call down the RICO statutes on Catholic church leaders who didn't report priestly criminal abuse of young teen boys, but you defend PP clinics who don't report heterosexual criminal abuse of young teen girls.

At least with a young teen girl seeking an abortion who has been statutorily raped by an older man, there is irrefutable evidence of the crime. In a priestly abuse case, it might be much more difficult to establish guilt.

In both cases, I believe that it is against the law for the organization (Catholic Church or PP) NOT to report the crime.

The consent of the victim is irrelevant in both cases. The abuser will use every psychological trick in the book to be able to continue his abuse of the victim. How else can you account for the fact that many of the priestly abuse victims allowed the abuse to continue for years, just as the young girls allowed the older men to continue to abuse them? That's why we have laws against such things. Young teens are unable to protect themselves from evil, crafty older perverts.

74 posted on 05/23/2002 9:02:03 AM PDT by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson