I strongly took issue with Euthanasiast’s thread title as I felt it was deceptive. I am a long-time supporter of Planned Parenthood (financially and otherwise). I don’t think he was trolling, any more than other posters who frequently target organizations or entire countries for the actions of one or a few people.
This may be the first time I’ve ever registered a complaint about moderator actions. It’s no huge deal (and the stuff about arguing with mods inappropriately is another issue) but a penalty for “trolling” seems out of line.
totally different, Bricker - in the dateline thing, they’ve no reason to not believe it’s a 13 year old. I see no evidence taht the 20 year old in question appeared to be 13.
So why did the nurse on the video not call her on it?
The nurse did not say “Come on, you aren’t thirteen, so the law doesn’t matter.” She made it clear that she was going to pretend not to have heard what the patient clearly stated. She then went to give advice to the patient on how to lie - advice that would be unnecessary if she disbelieved what the patient said.
If it was so obviously a sting, the nurse’s actions are inexplicable. There was absolutely no need for the nurse to have committed the crime she did, and for which she was suspended.
So either the nurse knew she was being set up, and went along with it to the point of committing a totally un-called for crime, or she did not know, and was doing exactly what the title of the thread said.
Something which, as mentioned, Planned Parenthood has done in the past.
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In the past, Planned Parenthood has violated their legal duty vis-a-vis parental notification. Why is it so hard to believe they are doing it again?
I don’t always call my clients out on obvious bullshit. And, of course, we don’t see all of what was there. I recall once, when a client was telling an obvious bullshit story, and I was talking to him about it, he said “why are you so interested in my sons deaths?” and I answered “If a client of mine had experienced such a tragedy, of course, I’d be concerned. and if a client of mine was lying about it something like that, of course I’d be concerned”. If you only heard the first statement, and not the second, you’d walk away w/the same thought.
The clip doesn’t show the entire interaction. The nurse, in question, did not commit a crime. It is not a crime to fail to notify about a 20 year old having sex w/a 30 year old.
Regarding have I advised clients to lie, I would not say that, others may disagree. Many folks who write resumes include some shading of presentation. And some would argue that would fall into the ‘lie more effectively’.
I"ve often told them “people will not believe you if you present it that way”. Most often I’m telling them that when I think they’re lying through their teeth.
So you’re asking me to believe that someone who looked obviously over 13 walked into the PP clinic and said “I’m 13?”
That’s possible, I suppose, but it seems much more likely to me that they sought out someone that looked very young, to add verisimilitude to their sting. Added to that is the fact the the nurse doesn’t react with skepticism, either overt or merely registered in a tone of voice. So far as I can tell, the nurse believes the story.
None of this is proof positive, of course, but it adds up to enough that I’m prepared to accept as a working hypothesis that the actor credibly appeared to be 13-ish.
You understand that the “Dateline”-profiled folks are committing a crime when they reply to a 47-year-old sheriff’s deputy online and tell him, “Yes, I’d love to teach you to suck cock,” right?
Yes, it’s clear their intention is to have some sexual contact w/underaged person. From the description of the clip there is, to me, not a clear intention of not providing the required notification. From the description, she is visually seeing a 20 year old person who claims to be 13. We also only get a certain amount of the interaction. From those two pieces of data, I do not see sufficient cause to believe that the nurse intended to allow a 13 year old to continue to be involved in a sexual situation w/a 30 year old. which is what the title said. YMMV. She may have been more intent on getting the 20 year old the requested help, w/intent to deal with the ancillary issues in another way, another time.
This is kind of pointless since this has already become a rehash of the locked thread, but I have to say I wasn’t aware of Lynn’s attachment to PP.
Can we have a list of what issues are dear to each mod, so we know to avoid them?
This is ridiculous. I mostly agree with PP, but I would like to have the right to discuss their particulars. That one agrees with the principle of something doesn’t mean one has to claim their shit don’t stink.
I was pissed at Ed for this. Now I am a lot more pissed at Lynn. Shame on you for letting your personal views dictate your behavior as a mod. Isn’t this what we need mods for in the first place, to uphold the rights of minorities against the lynching mob of the majority? (hey, Lynn - Lynch!)
It is terribly disappointing that Ed and Lynn are free to abuse their powers like this. I hope someone in CL with an interest in this place making some money notices this and does something about it.
And a big thumbs up (the ass) to Ed for posting to let us know that he is aware of this thread, but not addressing any of it.
And another of those thumbs for closing the thread. Great way to go, locking threads because they are about topics you don’t like to see discussed.
Perhaps you could point out the relative part of your cited law to indicate that a health care professional must report a 20 year old claiming to have sex w/a 30 year old? I see stuff about “child abuse” or “suspected child abuse”, but I don’t see where this situation would require notification.
Girl says she’s 13 - absent proof she’s not you have to assume that she is or at least cover yourself, as I said above. Not doing so can expose your organization to considerable risk.
And I disagree. I don’t think she looks anything like 13. You might think of “CYA”, some one else might not. The nurse may have not acted w/in PP’s guidelines, but to claim that she was breaking the law is BS.
Not doing so may indeed expose your organization to risk, if indeed the girl was actually 13. However, she wasn’t. She lied. There was no child sexual abuse, there was no suspected child sexual abuse. There was a false claim of such, I agree.
