About Euthanasiast's suspension.

[joyfool]

I realize this is the Pit and all, but would it be possible for those who say that Lynn has a Planned Parenthood bias to toss out a cite or two? Because in all my time here, I don’t ever recall seeing it (although I could’ve just been oblivious to it) and since it appears pretty integral to the interpretation of events, I’d like to read some of what’s considered shaping this [possibly] oft-held opinion.

Thanks.

[NineToTheSky]

@Contrapuntal

**Euthanasiast **was hosed. He won’t be the last one.

That’s scary, if you’re right. I hope you’re not, because this is only a forum. That is, just a web site where people get together to chat and discuss issues. The SD really shouldn’t be in a postion where statements like the above have to be made. I love the Dope: I want us to be friends. I’m concerned.

[Bricker]

@wring

Why? You seem to be claiming that some one’s perception of reality cannot be used to evaluate a situation. I’m claiming the opposite.

Bricker I’ve said and repeated “from description” etc. cause I cannot watch the video.
From the descriptions of the events, and from the posted picture, I still don’t see where she violated the law. She (apparently) violated PP’s policies and (apparently) has had consequences from that. But I’ve got no problem believing the woman didn’t believe was a crime.

In my opinion, your view might well change if you were to see and hear the video. There’s zero skepticism on her part; it’s very buyable to me that she believes she’s talking to a thirteen-year-old. And if she believed the patient was over 18, why did she counsel her to lie and claim the father was 14 years old? She explicitly tells the patient to claim the father is one of the boys at school, fourteen years old. She also explicitly advises the patient on how to avoid parental notification laws by going to a clinic across state lines. Why didn’t she at least suggest doing the abortion there, if she was so confident of the adult status of the patient?

I’m sorry, but it’s really pretty clear what went on.

[Gfactor]

@Mr.Moto

I’ll defer to the legal eagles here - but seems to me the purpose of mandated reporting is to take the burden of decision making off of teachers and coaches and health care providers and let the police and Child Services make the call about whether there was actual abuse or not. And frankly, this only works if it is closely observed. If your professional duties involve reporting, you should be punished if you don’t report.

Here’s how I would analyze the legal issues:

1. Is a PP nurse a person who “is required to report cases of known or suspected child abuse or neglect”? Yes:

31-33-5-1. Duty to report.

In addition to any other duty to report arising under this article, an individual who has reason to believe that a child is a victim of child abuse or neglect shall make a report as required by this article.

and see, Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Carter, 854 N.E.2d 853; 2006 Ind. App. LEXIS 1947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (Staff members of medical facilities and other entities who have reason to believe that a child is a victim of child abuse or neglect must immediately notify the individual in charge of the facility, who must then report the suspected abuse or neglect.)

2. The statute says “known or suspected .” Does that mean that if the person says they are a minor, but you know they’re lying, do you “know or suspect child abuse”? I’m going to say: not if you know. If you’re not sure, then yes, because that’s probably enough for "suspect. " And see, *Carter * (“reason to believe”)

3. Assuming you believe that you “know or suspect” child abuse (so you believe the lie), but you are wrong, are you guilty of attempt? Here, I’m going with yes. See the various threads that **Bricker ** and others have done on factual impossibility as a defense (it doesn’t work in most cases) and King v. State, 469 N.E.2d 1201; 1984 Ind. App. LEXIS 3023 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (factual impossibility no defense).

4. In this case did the nurse in question know that the patient was not a child? I don’t believe she did. Her conduct is completely inconsistent with that factual theory. And if she knew she was being “stung,” what’s with the *sotto voce *comments and tricky circling on the list of clinics?

Obviously there’s no real statutory rape here. But that doesn’t mean that nobody did anything wrong.

[Contrapuntal]

@NineToTheSky

That’s scary, if you’re right. I hope you’re not, because this is only a forum. That is, just a web site where people get together to chat and discuss issues. The SD really shouldn’t be in a postion where statements like the above have to be made. I love the Dope: I want us to be friends. I’m concerned.

IMO, the tone was set when **Otto **was banned, and **Zotti **made it quite clear that picking on the staff was verboten. What **Euthanasisat **did would at the very most have resulted in a warning in the days before the Great Server Changeover.

[magellan01]

@wring

and she was punished. by her employer. But, no actual child abuse was involved in this case. Or even suspected child abuse. There was a false claim of child abuse (such false claim may be subject to criminal prosecution)

Dude, we don’t often agree, but really, your line of defense here is utterly ridiculous. The reasons have been presented by Bricker and others. You’re either blinded by a love for PP or are just caught up defending a position. It happens. Either way, take a break and think about it.

[Mr.Moto]

@faithfool

I realize this is the Pit and all, but would it be possible for those who say that Lynn has a Planned Parenthood bias to toss out a cite or two?

Cite.

@Lynn_Bodoni

I used to work as an escort for a women’s health clinic, which offered a variety of services, including abortion.

Planned Parenthood bias. Not that there’s anything wrong with that necessarily, but I think said bias has affected moderation decisions here.

[Skywatcher]

@Contrapuntal

What **Euthanasisat **did would at the very most have resulted in a warning in the days before the Great Server Changeover.

He got a warning that said “DON’T do this again”, which he responded to with “go fuck yourself”.

[Bosstone]

@NineToTheSky

That’s scary, if you’re right.

What, you think nobody would ever be banned again? Shit, he wasn’t even banned. He talked shit to a moderator and got smacked for it. I don’t see why I wouldn’t get my ass beat for telling a cop to go fuck himself when he pulls me over, even if I think it’s for a bullshit reason.

Trying to monger up some fear about this turning into some kind of heavy-handed agree-only-with-my-opinions echo chamber is idiotic and tiresome. “They’ll be coming for YOU next!” Give me a fucking break.

[wring]

Question for the legal eagles:

If the nurse had called the cops to report a crime, seeing as there was no actual sexual abuse of a child, is there a ‘false police report’ crime? Does the nurse get the 'but I believed there was a crime" defense? What about the lying 20 year old? Who is responsible for the waste of police resources on the false report?

[wring]

And Bricker - perhaps. I (obviously) won’t know. Other than the question above, though, I will bow out. Unless I have an opportunity to view the clip in question (doubtful, but not impossible), I don’t have all information possible.

[Sarahfeena]

@wring

Question for the legal eagles:

If the nurse had called the cops to report a crime, seeing as there was no actual sexual abuse of a child, is there a ‘false police report’ crime? Does the nurse get the 'but I believed there was a crime" defense? What about the lying 20 year old? Who is responsible for the waste of police resources on the false report?

It isn’t a false report if the nurse believed there was a crime.

[muttrox]

@Lynn_Bodoni

WHETHER HE(?) MEANT TO TROLL OR NOT, his thread title was inaccurate and calculated to inflame…and the intent to inflame is the very definition of trolling.

That doesn’t make any sense. You said trolling is based on intent (reasonable enough). If it’s based on intent, then it obviously does matter WHETHER HE(?) MEANT TO TROLL OR NOT.

[wring]

@Sarahfeena

It isn’t a false report if the nurse believed there was a crime.

There was a false reporting of crime. The girl herself falsely reported a crime to some one that she knew was required to report it. How is that not criminal?

[Procrustus]

@wring

Question for the legal eagles:

If the nurse had called the cops to report a crime, seeing as there was no actual sexual abuse of a child, is there a ‘false police report’ crime? Does the nurse get the 'but I believed there was a crime" defense? What about the lying 20 year old? Who is responsible for the waste of police resources on the false report?

The nurse would clearly not be guilty of anything. I think the trick would be finding a crime to charge the 20 year old with. “causing a false report to be filed” perhaps. He’s the Washington State law on the subject.
False Reporting
WA Rev. Code §§ 26.44.060(4); 9A.20.021

A person who intentionally and in bad faith knowingly makes a false report of alleged abuse or neglect shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Every person convicted of a misdemeanor shall be punished by one or both of the following:

Imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days
A fine of not more than $1,000

[Sarahfeena]

@wring

There was a false reporting of crime. The girl herself falsely reported a crime to some one that she knew was required to report it. How is that not criminal?

I’m saying it’s not criminal on the part of the nurse. What culpability the girl has, I’m not sure, but if the nurse isn’t completely sure that the person is of age (and how could she be), then she should report it and let the cops sort it out.

[Skywatcher]

@muttrox

That doesn’t make any sense. You said trolling is based on intent (reasonable enough). If it’s based on intent, then it obviously does matter WHETHER HE(?) MEANT TO TROLL OR NOT.

Euthanasiast didn’t choose the title, it was copied from YouTube.

[Bosstone]

@Lute Skywatcher

Euthanasiast didn’t choose the title, it was copied from YouTube.

He chose to use it as the thread title. He admitted he didn’t really think about how it might come across, and by itself that might have been sufficient to mollify Lynn (not going to speak for her, of course) but the ‘go fuck yourself’ sort of negates any potential defense.

[Shodan]

@faithfool

I realize this is the Pit and all, but would it be possible for those who say that Lynn has a Planned Parenthood bias to toss out a cite or two? Because in all my time here, I don’t ever recall seeing it (although I could’ve just been oblivious to it) and since it appears pretty integral to the interpretation of events, I’d like to read some of what’s considered shaping this [possibly] oft-held opinion.

Thanks.

And to add to Mr. Moto’s, here is another.

Regards,
Shodan

[Gfactor]

@wring

Question for the legal eagles:

If the nurse had called the cops to report a crime, seeing as there was no actual sexual abuse of a child, is there a ‘false police report’ crime? Does the nurse get the 'but I believed there was a crime" defense? What about the lying 20 year old? Who is responsible for the waste of police resources on the false report?

IC 35-44-2-2
False reporting or informing

---

(d) A person who:
    (1) gives a false report of the commission of a crime or gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, **knowing the report or information to be false;** 

commits false informing, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it substantially hinders any law enforcement process or if it results in harm to an innocent person.

Indiana General Assembly

So:

1. The nurse only had to report it to the person in charge of the clinic (see *Carter * from my earlier post); and
2. No law prevents her from saying “There’s a female here who claims to be 13; she says she had sex with a man in his 30s.” [and maybe add, “I think she’s lying about her age.”]
3. She’s required to report it if she has reason to believe. The more specific statute would probably control.

ETA: It’s an easier case than that even:

IC 31-33-6
Chapter 6. Immunity of Persons Who Report Child Abuse or Neglect

IC 31-33-6-1
Immunity from civil or criminal liability
Sec. 1. Except as provided in section 2 of this chapter, a person, other than a person accused of child abuse or neglect, who:
(1) makes or causes to be made a report of a child who may be a victim of child abuse or neglect;
(2) is a health care provider and detains a child for purposes of causing photographs, x-rays, or a physical medical examination to be made under IC 31-33-10;
(3) makes any other report of a child who may be a victim of child abuse and neglect; or
(4) participates in any judicial proceeding or other proceeding:
(A) resulting from a report that a child may be a victim of child abuse or neglect; or
(B) relating to the subject matter of the report;
is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be imposed because of such actions.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.16.

IC 31-33-6-2
Exception for malice or bad faith
Sec. 2. Immunity does not attach for a person who has acted maliciously or in bad faith.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.16.

IC 31-33-6-3
Presumption of good faith
Sec. 3. A person making a report that a child may be a victim of child abuse or neglect or assisting in any requirement of this article is presumed to have acted in good faith.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.16.

Indiana General Assembly