# The Planned Parenthood thread fiasco revisited **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 10, 2008, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504 "2008-12-10T04:02:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Green\_Cymbeline](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_cymbeline/32/9244_2.png) [@Green\_Cymbeline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Cymbeline)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/81 "2008-12-11T08:08:45Z")
The root of the problem is that the parental notification laws are seriously flawed and result in the complete opposite of their supposed intended effect. For obvious reasons, a young girl would be understandably fearful of her parents finding out about her pregnancy. So, instead of seeking out a safe, legal abortion, which is the RIGHT thing for her to do, one of the following could likely happen: [ul] [li]She will proceed with the pregnancy without health care, which could endanger her or the baby’s health[/li][li]Give birth secretly and dump/abandon the infant[/li][li]Have/keep the baby, limiting her chances for future success[/li][li]Keep the baby, which will grow up with higher chances of abuse/neglect and poverty[/li][li]Suffer from abuse/condemnation from her parents/community[/li][li]Get an illegal, dangerous abortion[/li][li]Go over state lines for an abortion[/li][/ul] The chances of a positive outcome from this situation are very low. I doubt anyone will disagree with this. So what is the point of the law? So, knowing that the law is a bad one, and knowing that it will only result in a more negative outcome for the girl, the nurse tries to work around it. It’s the only chance the girl has. This country’s history is full of bad laws that people have had to stand up to. You CANNOT just trust that the opressors will eventually see the error of their ways. Take the founding fathers: signing the Declaration of Independence was treason, but what they were doing was right. Take slavery: the people who hid slaves on the underground railroad. They were breaking the law, but what they were doing was right. Take Rosa Parks: Sitting in the front of the bus was breaking the law, but what she was doing was right. Take people in Nazi Germany who hid Jews: They were breaking the law, but what they were doing was right. You get the point. The parental notification laws are merely “feel-good” laws which actually result in more harm than good. They put thousands of health care workers in between a rock and a hard place, and restrict the ability of girls to receive safe and confidential health care. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/82 "2008-12-11T11:46:17Z")
> [@nyctea scandiaca](#): > > This country’s history is full of bad laws that people have had to stand up to. You CANNOT just trust that the opressors will eventually see the error of their ways. > > Take the founding fathers: signing the Declaration of Independence was treason, but what they were doing was right. > Take slavery: the people who hid slaves on the underground railroad. They were breaking the law, but what they were doing was right. > Take Rosa Parks: Sitting in the front of the bus was breaking the law, but what she was doing was right. > Take people in Nazi Germany who hid Jews: They were breaking the law, but what they were doing was right. But in each of those cases, it was an adult making a public stand about a law. The two key things we don’t have here are adults and publicity. (Well, we do have publicity now, only it’s focused the wrong way.) We need a different strategy to fight an unjust law aimed at children regarding privacy, don’t we? It’s almost an inverse function here. To be perfectly clear: I don’t know if letting girls suffer will work or not. I just know that undermining the law \*secretly \*certainly **won’t** work. “Work” meaning, “getting the law changed”. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/83 "2008-12-11T15:32:35Z")
> [@nyctea scandiaca](#): > > The root of the problem is that the parental notification laws are seriously flawed and result in the complete opposite of their supposed intended effect. Even if we take that point, that isn’t the whole story. Because the laws about reporting suspected child abuse don’t mandate telling the parents - they require telling either the police, child services, or some combination of such depending on the specific law. Nor is this law targeted to abortion providers - however the people who would have to report abuse would include nurses and doctors working at family planning clinics, as well as doctors and nurses in general. Planned Parenthood has gotten into trouble for not strictly adhering to these laws in the past - in some circumstances that meant that after the abortion the sexual abuse continued because nobody knew about it. [I’m linking to a recent decision in Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region](http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-4318.pdf) - the court was deciding the admissibility of certain records and remanded the case for further proceedings. But certain facts about the case are pretty clear: > [@](#): > > In the fall of 2003, Jane engaged in a sexual relationship with her 21- > year-old soccer coach, John Haller. At the time, Jane was 13 and in the eighth grade. > The sexual relationship continued through 2004, and in March of that year, Jane > discovered that she was pregnant. > Jane told Haller. Haller convinced Jane to have an abortion. Later in > March, Haller called Planned Parenthood and attempted to schedule an abortion for > Jane. Planned Parenthood told Haller that he could not schedule the abortion and > that Jane would have to call to make the appointment. After his conversation with > Planned Parenthood, Haller called Jane and told her to schedule the abortion. > > …The Roes alleged that Planned Parenthood had breached its duty to > report suspected abuse, and claiming a systematic and intentional breach of that > duty, the Roes attempted to justify their request for the abortion records. > Planned Parenthood did not deny that it had not filed an abuse > report. And we note that reports made under R.C. 2151.421, and the information > contained therein, are confidential and inadmissible as evidence in any civil > proceeding. So right now Planned Parenthood is wrapped up in a major lawsuit that stems from a failure to report abuse - confidentially. One would think that sort of thing would make them a bit gun shy, and that they would be extra strict about this sort of thing in the future. How many isolated incidents have to pile up before we decide it is a pattern - or even policy? These issues were beginning to be explored in the original thread - before the hammer came down. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/84 "2008-12-11T15:56:01Z")
Mr. Moto, your link does not say what you think it says. Thanks for wasting my time. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/85 "2008-12-11T16:31:57Z")
In the interest of not wasting anyone else’s time, here’s a brief synopsis of what the link does establish: A 13 y/o girl was in a sexual relationship with her soccer coach. After finding out she was pregnant the coach talked her into an abortion which they obtained fraudulently (she provided the coaches cell phone number to PP as belonging to her Dad. Subsequently, the coach identified himself as her brother on the day of the abortion. The girl and a classmate got into an argument the led to a teacher discovering the sexual relationship and abortion and reported it too the police. Coach jailed. The parent then sued PP alleging the following: A. They hadn’t obtained parental consent B. Had not obtained informed consent of the patient C. Had breached it’s duty to report suspected child abuse (Posters’ note: This is close enough to the situ as laid out in the OP that it makes me wonder if the makers of the video were aware of the case and couldn’t help themselves from juicing it up to make it more salacious.) As part of their lawsuit they requested not only the 13 y/o records but also 10 year worth of other minor’s records to try and establish that PP engaged in pattern and practice of engaging in the allegations as outlined above. The trial court granted the motion. The link **Mr. Moto** provides is a reversal of that decision by the Appeals Court. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/86 "2008-12-11T17:53:03Z")
Doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion - the sheer fact that this is an issue in the first place (to the point that there is current litigation on the subject) should have Planned Parenthood and their staffers on their toes. [There is of course more:](http://mediakit.indianewengland.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=BC04E199ED344449A6CE89A713961DAA&AudID=Picture%20this!) > [@](#): > > A pediatrician charged with failing to report suspected child abuse after treating a pregnant 11-year-old should have a clean criminal record again by the end of this month. Dr. Mukeshkumar Shah received a special form of probation that allows him to avoid trial and having to plead innocent or guilty. On Jan. 17, his 30-day probation will be up and the charges will be wiped from his record – so long as he does not commit a crime before then. > > …Shah and his associate, Ann Lule, were the first doctors to be prosecuted under a Connecticut law that requires physicians to report suspected child abuse or neglect. The charges against Lule were dropped last month because she is Shah’s subordinate, according to Mark Dupuis, a spokesman for the Connecticut State’s Attorney’s Office. The case stemmed from the doctors’ treatment of a girl who came to their Bridgeport office last March complaining of a swollen stomach. When the girl tested positive for pregnancy, Shah and Lule questioned her about her sexual history and were told that she had no boyfriend and had never had sex. The doctors counseled the girl and her mother, referring them to an obstetrics/gynecology clinic. After a 75-year-old was charged with sexually abusing the girl, the doctors were arrested. In April, they were each charged with two counts of failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect – a crime punishable by a $500 fine. Prosecutors said the doctors should have filed a report with the state Department of Children and Families after treating the girl, who gave birth in May. So the doctors in question recommended that the girl be taken to a clinic for an abortion (not reported in the story, but that is indeed what happened) and went along with business. The fact that she was 11 didn’t prompt them to call authorities - the case was so egregious that it prompted not only the prosecution of the doctors but a complete legislative reworking of the notification law. These issues aren’t going away, and frankly Planned Parenthood isn’t equipped to deal with this. Even if you support all the things they do, you’re left with the fact that they can only eliminate one noticeable symptom of rape or abuse, not prevent it in the first place or deal with other effects of the abuse afterward. There is no reason for them and other care providers to be ducking mandatory reporting laws - especially if such laws guarantee confidentiality and immunity from civil action. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/87 "2008-12-11T17:55:48Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > That would not be ethical. Its an ethical catch twenty two. There is no legal and ethical choice the nurse can make. Sorry, I’m not getting this. If I know about abuse to a child, I don’t have to tell the parent that I am reporting them. I can collect the information and report without them knowing…? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/88 "2008-12-11T17:56:33Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The phrase “[strict liability](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability)” has a specific legal meaning. It refers to liability that is applied without regard to culpability, fault, or intention. In Indiana, neither the statutory rape law nor the mandatory reporting law are strict liability offenses. A reasonable belief that the minor in question is 18 or older is a defense. > > I think you mean you have zero tolerance for zero tolerance laws–that is, laws which draw bright lines without accounting for circumstances, yes? I’m unclear on how a strict liability law differs from a zero tolerance law. “Drawing bright lines without accounting for circumstances” sounds pretty much the same as “applied without regard to culpability, fault, or intention.” Upon reading it seems the main difference is _mens rea_, or intent. Still, the Wikipedia article on [Strict liability(criminal)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)#United_States) mentions “In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face Felony charges due to not knowing the age of the other person.” If this statement is accurate(and it’s flagged citation needed, so I’m dubious) then it seems _mens rea_ is NOT a component of a statutory rape offense in many states. So I’m seeing some conflicting information on what Strict Liability means. The [Free Legal Dictionary entry for “Statutory Rape”](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statutory+rape) says “a defendant may not argue that he was mistaken as to the minor’s age or incapacity.” On the other hand, an article on “[zero tolerance](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/zero+tolerance)” says “The policy of applying laws or penalties to even minor infringements of a code in order to reinforce its overall importance and enhance deterrence.” This makes it sound more like a prosecutorial process than a legislative one. The Zero Tolerance aspect of a law comes in when a prosecutor pursues every case, regardless of circumstance, as opposed to the law applying, but perhaps not being pursued due to prosecutorial discretion. Statutory Rape laws may be strict liability(depending on the state) but it seems they’re not necessarily Zero Tolerance(depending on the prosecutor). In the other direction, I’m guessing most statutes which are candidates for Zero Tolerance are Strict Liability. In any case, the terms apply to two different spheres, one legislative, the other enforcement. Thanks for the chance to expand my knowledge on the topic. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Carson\_O\_Genic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cdc98d/32.png) [@Carson\_O\_Genic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carson_O_Genic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/89 "2008-12-11T18:07:01Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > There is no reason for them and other care providers to be ducking mandatory reporting laws - especially if such laws guarantee confidentiality and immunity from civil action. ``` Given the firing of the nurse in question it would appear there is no ducking on PP's part. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/90 "2008-12-11T18:16:32Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion - the sheer fact that this is an issue in the first place (to the point that there is current litigation on the subject) should have Planned Parenthood and their staffers on their toes. The fuck it doesn’t you dishonest prick. You could have accomplished the same thing by say “I think PP has a pattern of doing this, here’s some plaintiffs (who lost) that also think so”. That way I and anybody else who are participating in this debate would have known you were talking out of your ass rather than trying to digest that 16 page bullshit “cite”. Your second cite has fuckall to do with Planned Parenhood and in fact highlights one of the problems with these mandatory reporting laws. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/91 "2008-12-11T18:26:49Z")
> [@Stuffy](#): > > Your second cite has fuckall to do with Planned Parenhood and in fact highlights one of the problems with these mandatory reporting laws. How so? If a girl comes in pregnant and 11, isn’t that suspicion of abuse on the face of it? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/92 "2008-12-11T18:28:19Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > I’m unclear on how a strict liability law differs from a zero tolerance law. “Drawing bright lines without accounting for circumstances” sounds pretty much the same as “applied without regard to culpability, fault, or intention.” Upon reading it seems the main difference is _mens rea_, or intent. Still, the Wikipedia article on [Strict liability(criminal)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)#United_States) mentions “In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face Felony charges due to not knowing the age of the other person.” If this statement is accurate(and it’s flagged citation needed, so I’m dubious) then it seems _mens rea_ is NOT a component of a statutory rape offense in many states. So I’m seeing some conflicting information on what Strict Liability means. The [Free Legal Dictionary entry for “Statutory Rape”](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statutory+rape) says “a defendant may not argue that he was mistaken as to the minor’s age or incapacity.” Statutory rape can be a strict liability offense, and it is in some states. It is not in Indiana. The difference is whether there is a _mens rea_ requirement for the key element: the fact that the person is underage. In many states (but not Indiana), it doesn’t matter if, for good reason, you think the person is an adult. Regardless of your state of mind in that respect, if the person is in fact a minor, you’re up a river. > [@Mtgman](#): > > On the other hand, an article on “[zero tolerance](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/zero+tolerance)” says “The policy of applying laws or penalties to even minor infringements of a code in order to reinforce its overall importance and enhance deterrence.” This makes it sound more like a prosecutorial process than a legislative one. The Zero Tolerance aspect of a law comes in when a prosecutor pursues every case, regardless of circumstance, as opposed to the law applying, but perhaps not being pursued due to prosecutorial discretion. I think you’re correct that the term mostly refers to enforcement. In the case of the criminal law, this could be a matter of prosecutorial or police judgment. So maybe zero tolerance is not the right phrase to sum up your complaint. I took you to be complaining about the fact that nothing in the reporting or rape law accounts for circumstances–which is another way of reaching the zero tolerance result. For example, we could have a murder law by which any killing of a human being is homicide. If cops/DAs didn’t enforce the law in cases of self-defense, we’d say this wasn’t a zero tolerance law. Or there could be a legal exception for self-defense. The lack or presence of a legal exception is functionally similar to the exercise of discretion in enforcement. (But note that this has nothing to do with whether the crime requires the intent to kill another person.) > [@Mtgman](#): > > Statutory Rape laws may be strict liability(depending on the state) but it seems they’re not necessarily Zero Tolerance(depending on the prosecutor). In the other direction, I’m guessing most statutes which are candidates for Zero Tolerance are Strict Liability. In any case, the terms apply to two different spheres, one legislative, the other enforcement. Yes, statutory rape laws are strict liability in some states, and whether there is a zero tolerance policy will depend on the cops/prosecutor. It might be the case that strict liability laws are more likely to be subject to zero tolerance simply because they are the laws where discretion seems most important because of the lack of discretion in the law. In other words, we never speak of a jurisdiction having a zero tolerance murder policy even if it prosecutes every single murder. The only time we talk about something being zero tolerance is when we expect that it wouldn’t be–as in the case of bringing knives to school when a kid brings a butter knife for lunch. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/93 "2008-12-11T18:30:43Z")
> [@Stuffy](#): > > The fuck it doesn’t you dishonest prick. You could have accomplished the same thing by say “I think PP has a pattern of doing this, here’s some plaintiffs (who lost) that also think so”. That way I and anybody else who are participating in this debate would have known you were talking out of your ass rather than trying to digest that 16 page bullshit “cite”. Also - I quoted from this - and one of the things not contested by either side was that Planned Parenthood hadn’t notified authorities about the situation. Do you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/94 "2008-12-11T18:35:26Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Yes, statutory rape laws are strict liability in some states, and whether there is a zero tolerance policy will depend on the cops/prosecutor. It might be the case that strict liability laws are more likely to be subject to zero tolerance simply because they are the laws where discretion seems most important because of the lack of discretion in the law. In other words, we never speak of a jurisdiction having a zero tolerance murder policy even if it prosecutes every single murder. The only time we talk about something being zero tolerance is when we expect that it wouldn’t be–as in the case of bringing knives to school when a kid brings a butter knife for lunch. And that’s why I think criticism of this particular law along these lines in unwarranted, as the investigation will move to people qualified to conduct it - police and child services. Whatever we may think of pediatricians and teachers and clinic workers, they aren’t equipped to become investigatory agencies. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/95 "2008-12-11T18:36:55Z")
**Mr. Moto** , I’ll be fascinated to hear what your standard is for determining when we can infer organizational policy from a pattern of incidents. When you’re reasoning that one out, keep in mind that there have been more reported incidents of US interrogators torturing detainees to death in the last five years than there have been of Planned Parenthood failing to report statutory rapes. ETA: to respond to the above post, I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/96 "2008-12-11T18:42:27Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > When you’re reasoning that one out, keep in mind that there have been more reported incidents of US interrogators torturing detainees to death in the last five years than there have been of Planned Parenthood failing to report statutory rapes. Planned Parenthood: We’re a Little Bit Better than the CIA. Sorry, don’t think it’ll catch on in advertising. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/97 "2008-12-11T18:44:33Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Planned Parenthood: We’re a Little Bit Better than the CIA. > > Sorry, don’t think it’ll catch on in advertising. I’m glad to hear you’ve come around to recognizing that torturing people to death was the policy of the government you elected and most of us opposed. Or were you maybe applying a double standard to PP? ---
**Author:** ![Kaio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c68b51/32.png) [@Kaio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaio)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/98 "2008-12-11T18:51:30Z")
In a perfect world where there was no such thing as abusive parents/guardians/families, I could support a parental notification law. Absent extenuating circumstances I think it would be a good thing if (good) parents could know what’s going on with their kid. However, we currently live in a world where, while the most likely scenario is that the teen who says “My parents would kill me if they found out” is speaking hyperbole, there remains a chance that she means it literally. There’s no way for a health care worker to know which it is, and the consequences could be devastating if she guesses wrong. (Plus just by virtue of a 13-year-old being pregnant, it’s probably a reasonable guess that the home life ain’t all that great.) We’re living in a very imperfect world, and here’s one of the places where we have to choose the lesser of two evils. It sucks, but what else ya gonna do? On the other issue, I think the nurse completely fucked up with the mandatory reporting. Sometimes health care workers are the only ones in a position to find out about abuse, and if they don’t report it, no one else will. Her abuser may not kill her, but the abuse is going to fuck her up emotionally/psychologically for the rest of her life, whether the kid in question realizes it at the time or not. It was admittedly not an easy situation, but if she was really worried that the kid would bolt if the nurse told her she was calling the cops on her “boyfriend”, the nurse can simply omit that fact during the conversation with the kid, give her the medical information she needs, collect as much biographical information as she can, and call CPS after the kid has left. It still runs the risk that the kid was lying through her teeth in regards to name, contact info, or anything that might be useful for finding her again, but at least the nurse would have tried. The only other approach I can think of is to put the kid under involuntary hold until CPS gets there, which looks like it’s not legally tenable (and may be logistically impossible, if CPS is unable to send someone out in response immediately). ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/99 "2008-12-11T18:53:55Z")
Mr. Moto. The only reason I’m further engaging you is for any bystanders that happen to be reading along. Dealing with the second cite first. We were talking about Planned Parenthood, your attempt to obscure this not withstanding. While I agree that a pregnant 11 year old is obviously a rape victim, the situation can be easily construed that the mother was going to handle the situation. A fact bolstered by the fact that she took the girl to a doctor. While your first cite does contain an acknowledgement from Planned Parenthood that they failed to report potential abuse, a quick perusal of your cite (or even better my subsequent synopsis of it) reveals that the girl and coach lied. Unless you’re asserting they had Mrs. Cleo on staff who failed to notify them that the girl and coach were lying, I don’t see how the plaintiffs or you for that matter are going to hold PP culpable. ---
**Author:** ![AngryIrishLass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bbce88/32.png) [@AngryIrishLass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AngryIrishLass)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504/100 "2008-12-11T18:57:31Z")
Whether this was a scam or not (and I think it was), the nurse needed to react properly and legally to the information she had at hand: 13yro with a 31yro partner/rapist. She didn’t and therefore sullied the work of PP. Until legislation is changed, she had a duty to follow it. I don’t think she was qualified to make a determination that the privacy of a 13yro was better served by allowing a rapist to remain free. Mandatory reporting laws may be severely flawed, but they are still laws. It makes me wonder how many other [real] rapists this particular nurse has let slip through by coaching lies from her patients. I would imagine that these folks get lied to all the time, such as in the soccer coach example above. In that case, the participants constructed an elaborate lie to obtain the abortion, which, IMO, is not something PP should be held accountable for. Neither PP or the nurses there can make their patients tell the truth, but they do have to act accordingly to what information they have been given. The nurse didn’t follow PP procedure - which I’ll guess also included not telling PP the information relayed to her. She was justifibly fired. Yeah it’s shitty, but she had to have known that was going to be the outcome. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-planned-parenthood-thread-fiasco-revisited/476504.md?page=6)