Lila Rose: Exposing Planned Parenthood’s Crimes
Lila Rose is one of the most famous anti-abortion activists in the United States. She is only 20 years old, and a history major, but she has already reached millions of people by prestending to be a pregnant 13-year old, wondering about whether or not she could and should get an abortion.
Rose visited several Planned Parenthood clinics across the United States and video taped the exchanges she had with the organization’s ‘experts.’ Every single time she told PP’s advisers her 31-year old boyfriend made her pregnant. Since she pretended to be 13-years old, the boyfriend engaged broke the law. PP should have acted accordingly.
But that is not what the organization did. No, every single time Rose told them the story of how she became pregnant, they advises her to get an abortion and to lie about how she became pregnant in the first place.
The Los Angeles Times has an interesting – and reasonably ‘fair and balanced’ – article up about Rose’s work. It explains that the videos posted online are producing positive results:
On Wednesday, Tennessee lawmakers said they would seek to end a $721,000 contract with Planned Parenthood, citing outrage over what they saw in a video Rose had posted two days earlier from a Memphis clinic. She posed there in July as a 14-year-old impregnated by a 31-year-old; a Planned Parenthood staffer says, “Just say you have a boyfriend, 17 years old, whatever.”
Last month, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to suspend a grant worth nearly $300,000 to Planned Parenthood that was earmarked for sex education, not abortions. A conservative Tustin businessman raised the issue with Supervisor John Moorlach after meeting Rose and seeing her videos.
Planned Parenthood has fired several employees already because they acted in breach with the law – and, of course, in highly unethical ways.
The pro-abortion organization recognizes the threat the beautiful young student poses:
In May 2007, Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles accused Rose of breaking state privacy laws when she secretly taped her interactions. It demanded she remove the videos from her website, which she did, though they are still easily found on YouTube.(Arizona, Indiana and Tennessee, where she went next, have less restrictive privacy laws.)
For Rose, the threat was a badge of honor: “They are on the lookout for me,” she told an audience of conservative Christian activists at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit in Washington in September. “When I walk into Planned Parenthoods across the country, I am flattered to see my picture on the wall. It is because to Planned Parenthood, I am — quote — a ‘known anti-choice extremist.’ This is one of the better compliments I have received.”
There is nothing extremist about Rose, of course. She is simply a concerned citizen who has proved that Planned Parenthood is systematically breaking the law. Since employees in different states act in exactly the same way, PP can no longer argue they are the exception. No, they seem to be the rule.
Rose poses an enormous threat to pro-abortion activists (we should not call these people ‘pro-choice,’ for their obsession with abortion is so crystal clear that it is not about ‘choice’ any longer but only about the ‘joys’ of destroying new life). They should take her serious.
Let us hope she keeps up the good work and that Planned Parenthood will be held accountable for its misdeeds.
“The pro-abortion organization recognizes the threat the beautiful young student poses”
Jumping Elvis on a pogo stick in a phone booth who cares what she looks like?!
“Rose poses an enormous threat to pro-abortion activists (we should not call these people ‘pro-choice,’ for their obsession with abortion is so crystal clear that it is not about ‘choice’ any longer but only about the ‘joys’ of destroying new life). ”
A sickeningly partisan and deeply insulting accusation, not befitting a “moderate perspective” but rather the old and tired tropes of the culture wars. I and other pro-choice/abortion activists would appreciate a retraction. Have I ever accused you of having your position because you want to disempower women or weaken women’s rights? Because you enjoy the fact that they’ll be forced to become single mothers or will have to go through the discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth? I wouldn’t dream of it – I can say that you have made misjudgments or weigh certain factors erroneously, but I wouldn’t accuse you of near-pathological tendencies seeing as I’ve never even met you! Would such an accusation on my part be well met at this site?
I think that the way Michael phrased it was (deliberately) provocative, Garland, but it’s also clear that he’s referring to the people represented by the particular Planned Parenthood employees who betray their true feelings when they care more about providing an abortion than about protecting minors from abuse.
What I’m told all the time when I protest about the kinds of accusations which you say you personally don’t make against prolifers (but others certainly do) is that if the shoe doesn’t fit then they’re not talking about you. Same concept applies here when someone’s talking about the attributes of ‘abortion rights’ extremists.
“but it’s also clear that he’s referring to the people represented by the particular Planned Parenthood employees who betray their true feelings when they care more about providing an abortion than about protecting minors from abuse.”
The reference should have been more semantically clear considering the gravity of the wording. The segue from the criminal PP employees to people like me was not very clear. Also, it’s not provable that even they derive any joy from what they are doing. Just like you, me or Michael they see what is at hand and weigh factors differently, acting accordingly (and in this case criminally). They should be subjected to justice, not emotional slander.
“What I’m told all the time when I protest about the kinds of accusations which you say you personally don’t make against prolifers (but others certainly do) is that if the shoe doesn’t fit then they’re not talking about you.”
Those people are jerks, but that isn’t the point. Few things are more aggravating and erosive than attempts to dictate the internal workings and qualities of people you’ve never met.
“Same concept applies here when someone’s talking about the attributes of ‘abortion rights’ extremists.”
Pray tell, what makes one an abortion rights extremist? I’m sorry if I misunderstood, but why quotation marks around abortion rights but not around extremists? Do you imply that these people only claim to stand for abortion rights while merely being extremists of some kind?
Quotation around ‘abortion rights’ because that’s their term but I don’t agree with it. Extremists because certain subgroups who consider themselves that, or the seemingly more innocuous but often just as disingenuous ‘prochoice’ are actually advocates of abortion in any instance where a woman didn’t specifically plan to become pregnant. Such people do not actually hope that all women can individually make the choice they believe is correct in their situation, but will instead want the women to make the choice that they feel is best.
I imagine you’ll disagree with me on the existence of such a mindset, but from personal experience I can say that at least some abortion clinic workers do not counsel in a neutral fashion about all available choices, but instead they deliberately downplay the significance of abortion and focus on all of the negatives of other options like adoption or keeping a child.
Then there’s also the sympathies which some proabortion activists have with the eugenics movement- in a more subtle way, of course, and rationalizing their desire to limit the birth of children that might become a burden to society by framing the child as a burden to the mother (thus alleviating their conscience because they deceive themselves into thinking that their motivation is to help the woman who would otherwise have this burden.) If abortion clinic workers aren’t of this mindset, we at least know that some of them certainly don’t discourage it, as evidenced by the scandal last year of people posing as potential donors to PP and asking if their donation could be earmarked to provide abortions for black women.
But listen, on painting with a broad brush and implying evil motivations where that’s not necessarily the case, I agree with you. As long as you’re going to speak out when people on your side of the debate do that as well, then I’ll agree with you that Michael may have toed that line IMO and should have been more specific in his reference.
Since extremists and complete nutjobs are to be found in any movement, I certainly think that they’re around.
And this certainly wouldn’t be the first story of PP bypassing discussion of other options and skipping straight to abortion.
WOW!! What lila is doing is amazing, i cant believe some of the advice that planned parenthood is giving to a “13″ year old girl! keep up the work lila!!!
sarah