http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200506030803.asp June 03, 2005, 8:03 a.m. Planned Parenthood Perversity A cautionary tale of abortion-rights extremis,. Can you say “perverse”? Planned Parenthood in Indiana and Kansas is effectively fighting to protect child rapists from potential prosecution in two high-profile legal fights. That an organization devoted to the interests of women finds itself in this position is a cautionary tale of abortion-rights extremism. In Indiana, the attorney general is seeking the records of girls under the age of 14 who have visited Planned Parenthood clinics. Let that sink in: We’re talking about 12- and 13-year- old girls. It is a crime to have sex with a child under 14 in the state. Under law, individuals with reason to believe a child is a victim of sex abuse are required to report it to the proper authorities. In Kansas, the attorney general is carrying on the same fight (he is also looking for evidence of illegal late-term abortions). An Indiana judge has just upheld the Indiana attorney general’s request, although the case is under appeal. “The great public interest,” the county superior judge wrote, “in the reporting, investigation and prosecution of child abuse trumps even the patient’s interest in privileged communication with her physician because, in the end, both the patient and the state are benefited by the disclosure.” The loopiest free-sex advocates might imagine that after sex-ed courses on how to put a condom on a banana, 13-year-old girls blissfully explore their bodies with 13-year-old boys. Put aside that this vision will make most parents gag — it’s not how it works. Teen sex often involves adult men exploiting teen girls. Estimates are that in 60 percent or more of teen births, the father is an adult. A California study found that the fathers in births to junior-high-school mothers were on average nearly 7 years older. Why would a feminist organization not be eager to cooperate in a fight against the sexual exploitation of young girls? Well, Planned Parenthood represents that wing of the feminist billed as “sex positive.” Although that phrase doesn’t quite capture it. Planned Parenthood is developing the “statutory rape-positive” wing of feminism. These feminists are unwilling to pass judgment on any sex in any circumstances, don’t care if parents are cut out of the equation entirely, believe the right to an abortion trumps any other consideration, and embrace a notion of privacy so sweeping it includes men who have, under law, raped their young sexual partners. If only Michael Jackson were interested in girls instead of boys, he might, in the right circumstances, have a friend in Planned Parenthood. Privacy is a mere excuse not to provide the records. It is not at all unusual for criminal prosecutions to involve medical records. And no one is going to make public the names of the girls involved, which are being provided to the authorities, not the news media. “We’ve been doing these investigations since the 1970s, and there’s never been a case where we have not maintained the confidentiality of records,” Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter told a local columnist. In Kansas — where the case is pending before the state supreme court — Attorney General Phill Kline authored the state’s rape shield law when he was in the legislature. It is not the girl in any of these cases who will be in jeopardy, but her adult abuser (if there is one). This fight is so important because our culture relentlessly sexualizes children. The message, for instance, of Britney Spears’s act before she came of age was “teen girls are hot.” Pop culture won’t change, but the law can at least try to send an opposite signal. Key Democrats from Hillary Clinton to Howard Dean have of late said their party needs to become more moderate on abortion. They could add substance to the rhetoric by opposing Planned Parenthood’s position in these cases. Of course, that will never happen. The abortion absolutists control the Democratic party, a sad fact for those Americans who have moral qualms about abortion, but a happy one for men who impregnate 13-year-olds. — Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
No, it's perverse because it involves minors who have been raped by statute, I believe. It is perverse because with great distorition it places more value on the privacy of the little girl's sex life than her overall well-being and safety... or so it would seem to me.
This is an issue of doctor-patient confidentiality and patient privacy. It could be any doctor anywhere. You obviously posted it because it is an attack on Planned Parenthood. It is so transparent and weak. Carry on Christian Stormtrooper...
uhmm, i'm not a christian storm trooper, not even a christian (can you be an agnostic storm trooper? maybe if you're batman...), and i'm certainly "sex positive"...but i am a father. i have no problem with the attorney generals action, and i think planned parenthood's actions here are reprehensible. the op-ed is perhaps over the top, but, assuming the democrats give a fig about the overwhelming majority of americans who have quals about abortion, howard dean or some other prominent dem needs to have a sister souljah moment. just because a republican supports it, doesn't mean it's wrong.
If the article is true, then Planned Parenthood should probably acquiese and cede to the court's requests. Just because one may think that way doesn't make them a Xtian, pro-life extremist.
This article is from nationalreview.com. We know they are already biased against planned parenthood and we know why. That is why this is newsworthy to them. It's another attack. I hear no true concern for these girls at all. They are pawns. If it is the law that the have to report this then they should. I am pretty sure it is not mandatory for doctors to report underage sex though. Some have deeper concerns for privacy than others. Maybe they feel like they have been taken advantage of enough. I see both sides.
These are minor girls... I obviously posted it because it is a ridculous posture. I would posted it if it had been in Slate or Newsweek. Just the facts, ma'am...........er sir.
So any girl 14 or under who has an abortion will be dragged in by the AG for questioning to make sure they were not raped?
my reading is they're looking for any girl that has visited planned parenthood. No mention of pregnant. Let's keep these girls ignorant of birth control!
Is Planned Parenthood your Mommy or your Daddy? If PP is instructing underage girls about safe sex and mayhaps providing them birth control, what crimes are being commited?
None. What's your point none of that is illegal? What I don't understand is Planned Parenthood refusing to give up the name of the girls or the names of the men who impregnated them. If its the men how would Planned Parenthood know that. If its the women the I agree with their position. While yes I can see how it might be perverse this is doctor patient confidentiality. If I understand the law here, help me out Mad Max, doctor patient confidentiality is protected by law so legally the doctors aren't required to give up the names of their patients. Now that I think about it though there might be a loophole. Since these are minors if the parents ask the doctors to give up their confidentiality then the doctors would be obliged to give up the names. I'm not up on these but thinking aloud. Mad Max you up on doctor patient confidentiality laws?
Name another invasive medical procedure that does not require parental consent. Tonsils? Warts? Hang-nails? The issue here would seem to be that these are minor children. That PP is not their mommy or daddy is important because it is only from that perspective that these kind of decisions should be made about minor children.
Most of these girls were not having sex with adults, they were having sex with their 13 14 year old boyfriends.
I know generally about the physician/patient privilege. But just enough to be dangerous. Like you, I think the glaring loophole here is parents' rights to know about their children's medical history, as long as they're minors. But I don't know how that works for certain.
I'll point out again...they're requesting names of girls who've visited planned parenthood. Visited. Outing those irresponsible girls who may be enquiring about birth control and safe sex.
