Hermenuetics

Comments

If she wants to expose Planned Parenthood and that is the only way to do it, she should be willing to take the legal consequences of her decision.

Posted By: Glenn | April 28, 2009 5:30 PM

Yes....I believe that in this case, breaking the privacy law is justified. I also believe the privacy laws surrounding Planned Parenthood are in place to protect the clients and not the professional staff. In this case, she was the pretend client.

Posted By: Fraulien | April 29, 2009 2:53 PM

You cannot justify doing wrong to uncover wrong. But there is a question as to whether this is actually wrong. I'm not sure of the details of the privacy laws but it should be there to protect the individual; therefore, if the individual wishes to divulge the information presented to her then she should have that right.
Additionally, this is no different than what a investigative reporter (if there were any good one left) would do to uncover unlawful acts in the private or public (gov't) sector.
The face of the individual was blocked so there was no invasion of privacy to her. This is no different that the videos you see taken in public with several people's faces blurred.
Maybe this cannot be used in a legal case but it can be used to uncover wrong doing to the public.
If any agency is being honest about their dealings then they should not fear this type of exposure. Obviously this is why they do fear it; they are not being honest.
There is a difference between presenting an edited video that distorts and misrepresents a situation and one that just presents the facts.

Posted By: Oscar | April 29, 2009 5:42 PM

How is videoing Planned Parenthood surreptitiously any different than when news organizations go undercover and video activity related to a news story? Go for it Lila. Planned Parenthood is a front organization for butcher mills which are in business to make money and rob taxpayers throuogh outrageous government funding!!

Posted By: Thomas | April 29, 2009 5:44 PM

You said: What do you think? In Rose's case, do the ends (uncovering wrongdoing at Planned Parenthood) justify the means (deception)?

Your question states, without detailing or explaining, that wrongdoing was ACTUALLY occurring at Planned Parenthood. That's a pretty big assumption, isn't it?

Assuming, however, that this college student did, in fact, uncover something inappropriate or illegal, I do not believe that provides her with any immunity for any illegal acts she may have committed. The ends do not justify the means.

Posted By: LawGirl | April 29, 2009 6:13 PM

Well, planned parenthood is receiving government, identify that as taxpayer money, and therefore is open to rules of the government. Deceiving a patient I do believe is against the law and unethical at that. It's called lying to get money from the patient. Patient records are owned by the patient and thus are only private to the patient. If the patient wants to reveal what went on during her appointment that's her business. Doctors and nurses have to answer to the medical board and therefore aren't private either, otherwise they could get away with murder, and stealing body parts, etc. and the patient couldn't do a thing about it. Oh, I need to make a correction, planned parenthood does have government permission to murder unborn and future children. Since they have no ethics there why does it suprise anyone that they lie a little to pursue their purpose. It's all about money and the unborn and future children don't get a say in their murder thanks to the supreme court and "lawyers without ethics".

Posted By: Anna | April 29, 2009 7:02 PM

Why is the focus of this article on Rose's "deception" as an undercover journalist?

You have to be fair and intellectually honest here. Would the author of this article say the same thing about cops and their stings, FBI agents, and about Miss America and to catch and predator?

The REAL issue is not Lila Rose (or our perhaps superficial or hypocritical judgments of her), she is just the journalist. The real issue is that Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion clinic chain, and the recipient of over 300 million a year from the government, covers up the sexual abuse of little girls.

Why not focus the article on that? THAT is newsworthy and we should all be concerned about these young girls.

What are WE doing to protect those girls?
What are WE doing about Planned Parenthood and abortion?

Posted By: Jasmine | April 29, 2009 7:37 PM

One more note....

The tagline of this entry was "Lila Rose's pro-life activism may be breaking state privacy laws. But does it matter?"

From the research I've done, all their investigations were done in "one-party" consent states, which means its legal to record.

Let's focus on the real issue here! Planned Parenthood is covering up sexual abuse and getting away with it...and away with hundreds of millions of tax dollars..yikes!

Posted By: Jasmine | April 29, 2009 7:39 PM

I am confused. The general public is recorded on digital video these days nearly anywhere they may go. These surveillance systems are setup and owned by private companies and individuals. People are caught and prosecuted by these recordings for stealing cars, breaking windows, painting fences, fighting with other kids at school, etc. This is not considered illegal. I've seen the films on TV of undercover agents busting prostitutes and drug dealers because they filmed them in private without their knowledge and consent. I agree with the many posts here that this is NOT the issue. Adults in an area of trust (healthcare) are advising young girls not to report rapists!!! If the Catholic Church did this, they'd by sued for millions.

Posted By: John | April 29, 2009 9:25 PM

I agree with LawGirl. The college student is still subject to the law.

Jasmine, you're incorrect that all the "investigations" took place in states with one-party consent laws. In the article, she's accused of violating state privacy laws. Here's the California penal code section she is accused of violating by recording at a PP office in Los Angeles, CA. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/632.html

That California statute specifically prohibits the recording of any confidential conversation without the consent of ALL the parties and it defines "confidential communication" as any communication that ANY party desires to be confidential to the parties.

Reporters are not immune from following the law. There was a case out of South Carolina in which an ABC reporter went undercover at a Food Lion and taped certain food handling practices. Food Lion sued ABC for trespass (among other things) and won a judgment for several hundred thousand dollars in punitive damages against ABC. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=4th&navby=docket&no=972492p

Police and law enforcement agencies are not immune from the law either. They cannot tape private conversations without a warrant. Doesn't anyone watch Law & Order any more??

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 29, 2009 9:47 PM

John, the difference is that people out in public on the street have no expectation of privacy. People engaging in private conversations -- in a home, in a private office, on the phone -- generally have an expectation of privacy. That's why some states have laws prohibiting the taping (even by a participant) of a private conversation without the consent of ALL parties.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 29, 2009 9:58 PM

If the government has a right to spy, so do the rest of us.

Posted By: Matt Stephens | April 29, 2009 10:01 PM

My wife is a social worker and had a very similar incident with one of her clients at a Planned Parenthood in Philadelphia. She also was accosted by some idiot protesters as well, so got to see how both sides in this issue are wrong. One for creating a system of destruction that victimizes young women and the other for verbally assaulting victimized young women.

To me, neither side appears to care very much for the girls or the unborn. Also the issue is to valuable as a political football for both sides to let the issue ever be dealt with realistically.

Sorry for the rant, but I am pretty disappointed with the church's lack of real response on this issue. As Pat Robertson said, and I don't usually agree with him but this time he is right on, if you are not supporting housing or alternatives for these young girls your words or protests are meaningless.

We can't expect the kingdoms of this world to conform to the values of our kingdom, but we can sure hold up a convicting example of a better way.

Posted By: Gil | April 30, 2009 12:04 AM

Perhaps if you concentrated more on "going into all the world spreading the gospel" there wouldn't be places like these clinics. More Christianity and less politics please.

Posted By: Liza Sunnenberg | April 30, 2009 8:30 AM

What does it matter?? What does it matter?? Are you serious when saying this? As a city inspector I drive past a PP in our town and sometimes see folks with signs in front. What generates this activity I'm not sure...the church I attend weekly does not mention it. Regarding the taping...yes, there are folks in every organization who are there for the paycheck more than really listening and trying to help the people they serve. Just curious if Robin found anything, just one thing/person who offered good advice or options to abortion? If so, somehow tend to think that would come close to being "fair and balanced" and we know how accurate that is on cable TV. Come on folks; let's focus on the "before" instead of crying and whaling about the "after" she is pregent. Let's show the world that -- yes we do care, and love all people -- and are here to help and serve. Then again, shouting and crying is alot easier and requires alot less of our time.

Posted By: rockonjd | April 30, 2009 10:52 PM

The point here is that the "nurse" is complicite in rape and condoning rape and therefore is committing a crime. Why a state would pass a law allowing the act of rape to be condoned and using the excuse of privacy to the person condoning this rape tells me that the state is also complicite and condoning the act of rape. The patient said she was 13 and the father of the baby was 31. In any state I know that is called rape and unless the law wants to go further and say the act of rape is allowed under the privacy laws, well, actually that is how they did write the privacy laws, isn't it. The public, witness, etc. is required by law to report a crime, not doing so is itself a crime, does the privacy law allow this to be done too. Such a contradiction in the law, is it being done deliberately to give grown men the right or permission to have sex with young girls and allow a tax funded government approved organization to keep in business, the business of collecting money from pregnant women. Sounds like it to me. Well, who is writing these laws, liberal lawyers, right. Everything for the person doing the crime, nothing for the victim. Sounds like the centuries old treatment of women and girl children, doesn't it, except now the privacy laws are being used to perpetuate the sexual usage of women and girl children by men and money on the part of the business.

Posted By: Anna | May 1, 2009 9:51 PM

How long does it take to disciple a nation, a generation, or two, or 233 years? For generations we took it for granted that people; citizens, politicians, religious leaders etc, understood what it meant to be human. We can't take that for granted anymore. That's one side of the story. The other is this, if we are going to protest against something, and we do, then we must also have solution. That solution involves providing alternatives to abortion. Are there economic concerns about to going to fullterm? Then we will help to support you finacially. You don't want the baby? Then we will adopt your baby. In raising our hand to protest, we must also extend our hand out to help those in a bind.

Posted By: Fr. Ian Yorston | May 4, 2009 11:51 AM

Gil, I completely agree.

Does anyone know, does PP have to be accredited by any government standards? Since hospitals and most clinics do, either by the gov or a private entity, wouldn't you think PP as a medical facility would also be held to the same standards? The aide was rightly fired, they should be working to protect the rights of women in all cases - I am appalled that a potential rape was dismissed and covered up. Interesting to see where this all leads.

Posted By: Stephanie | May 5, 2009 11:36 AM

"In Rose's case, do the ends (uncovering wrongdoing at Planned Parenthood) justify the means (deception)?'

--Isn't setting a scenario standard investigative journalism? Police do it. ABC, CBS, NBC do it. This seems to be in line with all those standards.

The deception she is doing is legal. There is no law that I know of that says you can't state your age as different.

Posted By: Lisa | May 13, 2009 6:49 PM

Although I think it is excellent that this young woman and her group are exposing the deception of Planned Parenthood, I do think we as Christians need to remember a couple of things.

a) Live Action has been accused of being affiliated with some extremist groups within Christianity (the sort of groups that wish we would execute all homosexuals, etc). Although I don't necessarily believe that is true, they should answer the claims with legitimate evidence disproving them.

b) Christian "clinics" preventing abortions have also lied in the past. There was a "sting" done in my city (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada)where the pro-life birth clinics were telling women falsehoods and things that are possible but have yet to be proven (such as linking abortion to breast cancer... possible, but there has yet to be a research study that definitively proves this).

I am NOT a fan of Planned Parenthood. I once phoned them myself asking if birth control pills had the possibility, however slim, of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. They told me that there wasn't even the slightest chance of that happening, despite the fact it says so right on the birth control instructions you get with the pills. So maybe Live Action should expand its focus into the wrongdoings of BOTH sides. Then it will gain legitimacy with mainstream secular media AND will hold Christian groups accountable.

Posted By: Sara | May 29, 2009 2:16 AM