Here’s the thing. We’re throwing the word rape around, but that word is only true in the sense of the age of consent in the state in question, and certainly not true in this “story”. The “girl” certainly doesn’t seem to “think” [according to her script] that she was “raped”, but got upset when [pretending] “thinking” she would have to report her [non-existent] “boyfriend”. The makers of this video came up with the perfect “girl/victim” they could to generate just this type of hype. I don’t want to play in a game with the rules rigged so far in my opponents direction.
The reason I ask is that physicians often - though by no means always - avoid conviction, if not prosecution, for breaking the law when required by their ethical code.
So the real question is whether the nurse would reasonably believe she was doing the right thing by protecting the “child’s” anonymity.
Of course, it’s also possible that she just didn’t want to deal with the hassle or reporting, etc.
Mandatory reporting for those who are in constant contact with kids versus for those who are only sought out under extreme circumstances maybe need to be different. A nurse at PP isn’t going to have a long time to build up trust. If she loses the trust of the patients, she has nothing.
I think nyctea scandiaca is right in her assessment of what the nurse was probably thinking.
Does that make the nurse’s actions right? I think it’s a very grey area. And I think the organization that planned this “sting” is despicable, its funders are despicable, and the actors in the video are despicable.
I think abortion and birth control providers should be exempt from mandatory reporting laws.
The suspicion of statutory rape is cause for mandatory reporting too, though, isn’t it?
Exactly. Since the actors are liars, the story is completely false, etc., we can’t simply take their story, paste it on real people, then say that what the nurse did was somehow indicative of anything. It wasn’t a real girl with a real story and real emotions. It was a lie designed to elicit specific results. A con. We don’t always act the same way when faced with lying con artists who can change any aspect of their story to manipulate us in any direction they choose as we do to real people whose stories are stable because they are true.
Assume for a moment that a real 13-year-old in similar circumstances would have been treated similarly by this nurse.
If this is true, how would such a pattern of behavior be uncovered and corrected? As a result of these “despicable” actions, PP has suspended the nurse and acknowledged that her actions were not consistent with the organization’s rules.
But for the “despicable” actions, how would this have come to light?
Exactly. The girl is not scared about a sexual relationship she’s not ready for. She’s scared that she’s pregnant and what that will do to her life. A very “adult” response to sex for someone who’s a minor.
On another note, every picture of this girl I’ve seen makes her clearly look like a college student. I haven’t watched the video, but I can imagine the nurse thinking she’s 16/17 and just using the younger 13 year old age to make herself younger and be in less trouble.
Should it have come to light? And I say that as one who does not support her actions, remember. But I can think of a couple of ways this could go: the abortion is done in Illinois and the girl gets on with her life. In that case, I don’t care about the law as much as I do about the person. Yes, PP may never find out. Meh. No harm, no foul, I guess. Ethically I’m uncomfortable, politically I’m uncomfortable (because every successful secret abortion slows the change of parental consent laws), but practically, I think this is the best outcome possible for all those personally involved.
Probably she’ll mess up at some point and her parents will find out about her “boyfriend”, in which case life unfolds, and maybe she’ll make it or maybe she won’t. Or maybe they never find out and he gets bored with her and breaks up with her and life goes on. Or maybe he kills her and leaves her body in a ditch. Whatever happens, I think the responsibility for that should not lie with a nurse at Planned Parenthood. It should lie with her parents, her and her “boyfriend.”
Or, the other way it could go is that the girl’s parents find out PP gave this information to her and go ballistic. They sue, or threaten, or file a complaint, and PP looks back into her file to find out who her counselor was. If they don’t keep track of that information, they should. Then we’re right where we are now, no “sting” needed.
I wouldn’t be opposed to open audio or video recording of counseling sessions, come to think of it. Only to be released with patient (not parent) consent or the order of a judge. That should keep counselors law-abiding, especially if sessions are reviewed at random by other people within the organization (who are also bound by HIPAA rules, of course.) And if a PP counselor is accused, the session being taped could confirm those allegations or exonerate her, as well.
Let’s say that tomorrow, a 15-year-old girl comes forward and claims that two years ago, she was pregnant as the result of sex with an adult, came to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, and received advice similar to what the video shows here – in other words, that this happened to a REAL 13 year old.
Are you saying that you’d find her story unreal? That these actions happened because the girl in this situation looked like she might be older?
I think the focus on the terrible tactics supposedly used by the filmmakers and the discussion over the girl’s real age are fascinating, but it’s funny that no one seems to be addressing the issues about skirting mandatory reporting laws for sex assaults.
This just in… the nurse in question has been fired
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=65106&comview=1
ETA:
I’d think the real problem would be that the nurse suggested an abortion clinic that was over 2 hours away. How is a 13 year old supposed to do that without anyone knowing? Perhaps knowing that was her only option to do it without outing her BF was a subtle way to get her to come clean with her parents and the police.
There are large gaps in the tape during what sound like essential portions of the transcript. If the patient spent those moments in tears begging for an alternative or talking about how her dad would beat her then I’m reluctant to blame the nurse overmuch. Since I’ve every reason to distrust the group posting the video…
Where in the linked video is the information provided that the actress is not a minor, and that PP has taken preliminary action on the incident?
And does anybody else get the feeling that the nurse appeared to be sometimes deliberately covering her face against the camera?
I think that’s the subject under debate, when you get right down to it. No one can seriously argue the law wasn’t violated; we’re basically discussing if the law should exist.
Actually, there are two laws in play: mandated reporting of abuse of minors, and parental consent for abortion.
That’s the problem… how would CPS find the girl? No one knows who she is. They don’t have her full name or address, because she likely would have fled the office – they couldn’t physically hold her or force her to give her information.
So, for all those who think the nurse was wrong: Do you think that she should have reported it, even if it meant the girl would flee without giving her name, which would mean not only would the rapist go free, but the girl would be left pregnant, scared, alone, with no help? Is this what should have happened??
Hey at least the nurse followed the “rules,” right? Even if it resulted in a WORSE outcome? Is that your position??
These laws are seriously flawed because in practice, they have a completely opposite effect - it results in children NOT seeking out care for fear they will get in trouble.
These parental notification laws are dangerous. To those who support the laws, what do you say when a pregnant teen’s parents are religious nuts and force her to go through with the pregnancy?? The result is an overall negative one – nothing positive has been accomplished…
The notification law results in nothing positive! It’s just another anti-abortion attempt, and the losers are young women who need medical care. It’s very sad.
Since I am already on record (in the previous thread) as saying the Planned Parenthood nurse’s actions were wrong, I don’t think I can be accused of mere tu quoquery in saying that all illegal or deceptive actions on both sides of the abortion debate should be halted.
On the subject of “sting” operations, they have been conducted against so-called “crisis pregnancy centers”. CPCs advertise under the heading of “abortion services”, but are really anti-abortion operations that deceive women both as to their intent and their goals.
*“In July 2006, Rep. Henry Waxman (D‐CA) released a study which found that crisis pregnancy centers often mislead and misinform teenagers about the medical risks of abortion. Investigators posing as pregnant 17‐year olds seeking medical counseling called more than two dozen CPCs that receive federal funding. The report found that 87 percent of these CPCs provided either false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion. Specifically, several center employees told the women that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, despite the overwhelming medical consensus that no such link exists. In addition, callers were incorrectly told that abortion could cause “permanent damage” that would affect their future ability to bear children. Finally, many centers continued to advance the myth of “post‐abortion syndrome,” even though scientific evidence shows that abortion does not cause significant long‐term psychological harm…In 2002, a University of Maryland student posed as a woman worried that she was pregnant. She called a crisis pregnancy center and made an appointment at the center’s office…Once at the clinic, the student mentioned that she might want to consider abortion care. At that point, a woman at the clinic said “Oh, you don’t want to do that. You’ll mess up your body.” The student indicated that the woman at the clinic was “really trying to scare me into not having [an abortion] as an option.” In fact, the anti‐choice Pearson Foundation’s How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro‐Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center manual tells staff that “there is nothing wrong or dishonest if you don’t want to answer a question that may reveal your pro‐life position by changing the caller’s train of thought by asking a question in return.” As an example, the manual recommends answering the question “Are you a pro‐life center?” with “We are a pregnancy testing center. What is pro‐life?” After all, “[o]ur name of the game is to get the woman to come in as do the abortion chambers. Be put off by nothing. . . . Let nothing stop you.”
…In 2007, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D‐NY) introduced the “Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act” (H.R.2478). This legislation would grant the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to sanction crisis pregnancy centers that use deceptive advertising practices to mislead women into believing they offer comprehensive reproductive‐health care. The FTC would have the power to enforce violations of their rules put forth to prevent unfair or deceptive practices on the part of CPCs. To date, 29 members of Congress have cosponsored the legislation."*
As previously stated, I do not support evasion of laws, however unjust, by women’s clinics that provide abortion services. The amount of deception and outright lying that pervades the anti-abortion rights movement is, in my opinion (and as documented elsewhere), far more widespread and reprehensible. Since the “crisis pregnancy centers” cannot be shamed into cleaning up their act, laws are clearly necessary.
I think the staff should be very clear about what the law is before the patient is allowed to speak. Large signs in the waiting area. Announcements over the loudspeakers. A written announcement of the sign-in sheet read by the receptionist as each person signs in.
Then, when the girl is aware of the law, the law should be followed.
Yes, that’s my position. And yes, it might result in this particular girl being beaten or killed or seeking out a dangerous illegal abortion that could kill her. Maybe she’ll wear baggy sweatshirts, deliver the baby and try to flush it down the toilet. And I think that totally, completely and utterly sucks. I think that’s evil and reprehensible and shouldn’t happen in a rational society. But I think that’s what the people who made this law have to face - that’s the consequence of their law. If they see that, then maybe, just maybe, they’ll change the law.
To secretly treat this girl is to put her welfare ABOVE that of every other girl in the state who can’t get a confidential and safe abortion because of this law, and skips right to the danger and death part.
That’s what I meant when I said the girl should be “sacrificed” not on the altar of Planned Parenthood, but on the altar of parental consent laws. This nurse’s actions have made this whole thing about PP, not about the shitty laws. If the bad stuff happens on the lawful end of things, perhaps people will realize that it’s a bad law. If it happens at PP, then PP looks bad.
I completely, utterly, totally agree with you. I think the best way to get that across is to enforce those laws and let their consequences be seen.
As I mentioned in my first post, if the state thinks there is a compelling interest in investigating PP (or other abortion providers) in this matter I’m all for it. I suspect it’s a waste of time as the situation as laid out must happen pretty infrequently. Personally I’m with WhyNot, I think exemptions to the law are in order. I just can’t think how either of these laws doesn’t make a terrible situation worse.
This is the winning analysis, right here.