WorldNetDaily carried an important story late last week about fresh evidence of Planned Parenthood’s corporate policy of helping cover up the sexual abuse of teenage girls – as well as a pattern of violating state laws requiring parental consent before an abortion is committed against a girl.

The intrepid Lila Rose produced a sting tape of an abortuary run by Planned Parenthood in Alabama. Posing as a 14-year old girl, Ms. Rose asked for their help in skirting the parental consent law and protecting her 31-year-old “boyfriend”.

Not a problem, said the staffer. “As long as you consented to having sex with him, there’s nothing we can truly do about that”, the counselor adds. This, despite the fact that Alabama law makes it clear that 14-year-old girls cannot give legal consent because they are children.

The smoking-gun tape was so concrete that the Alabama Department of Health undertook an investigation of the abortion center, producing a 38-page report documenting that the Planned Parenthood operation systematically ignored two key laws designed to protect young girls: The first requires parental consent before an abortion. The second requires reporting suspected cases of sexual abuse to law enforcement officials for investigation.

“The Health Department report documents the same malpractice that we have found in state after state,” Rose is quoted as saying. “Sexually abused minors are being neglected by Planned Parenthood, which puts its own ‘abortion-first mentality’ before child protection.”

There is no doubt that the failure to report suspected sexual abuse is systematic, a corporate policy of sorts, throughout the Planned Parenthood empire. Several years ago we reviewed available data on reporting of sexual abuse in Idaho and found a huge discrepancy between reports filed and teenage pregnancy rates. The data strongly suggests that this reluctance to report abuse is as true in Idaho as it is everywhere else.

Please stop and ponder that for a moment. In effect, Planned Parenthood is engaging in a criminal conspiracy to protect predators, to enable the continued sexual abuse of teenage girls across the country.

Yet the public tax dollars continue to be pumped into the organization. Sometimes a public relations problem – but never a criminal charge against the corporate culture at Planned Parenthood.

Where is the outrage?

Compare the reaction this Planned Parenthood story has received with the fever pitch after the ACORN tapes were revealed.

While public outrage was fed by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others, even allies in Congress had to feign a shared indignation and move to block ACORN funding. (In fact, there are still ACORN stories up on Hannity’s website).

But no story, no big tv interview, no petitions to stop public funding of Planned Parenthood. About the only place we were able to find a clear expression of moral outrage was on David Horowitz’s blog.

Is the lack of outrage due to the chilling of our hearts? Can we not feel the tremendous damage that Planned Parenthood is doing to America’s children? The sexualizing and abuse of our children, particularly our daughters, may be a crime of greater long-term magnitude than even the slaughter of preborn children.

Our failure to rise up and demand an end to our collective partnership with Planned Parenthood is an indication that we need some very serious prayer efforts, begging the Lord to lead us into repentance.

Labels: Hannity, Lila Rose, Planned Parenthood

Parental Consent was not the only pro-Life victory this week. Governor Otter also signed HB248 into law, which requires abortionists to specifically offer women undergoing abortions a chance to see an ultrasound image of their baby prior to ending his or her life.

During committee debate on the legislation, Planned Parenthood and other so-called “women’s advocates” tried to label the idea “cruel” and “insulting to women”. The paternalism of the Abortion Lobby has never been more prominently displayed: Better for women not to know exactly what they are doing.

But the truth is, women often come to know exactly what they are doing – after it is too late. This helps explain the phenomenon of repeat abortions. Many women who get pregnant a second time after aborting their first child are confronted with the moral certainties they may have evaded the first time. What about this life makes it a “baby” when the other life I carried was just a blob of tissue? Reality can be a demon.

Idaho is not alone in expanding the parameters of “informed consent”.

Mississippi has a new law much like Idaho’s. And the South Carolina legislature is right in the middle of considering a bill that would go a step beyond the Idaho law. It would actually require that a woman look at an ultrasound picture of her baby before an abortion could be legally performed. This legislation has received quite a lot of national attention.

Some have wondered whether a solid requirement will survive certain legal challenges. But South Carolina’s Attorney General, Henry McMaster told the media that he believes the proposed law is both constitutional and good public policy. In fact, he seems quite anxious for the certain fight. We will monitor developments there for you.

While Idaho’s ultrasound law is fairly simple and straightforward, it could well have a dramatic effect on abortion rates in this state.

Labels: Mississippi, Planned Parenthood, South Carolina, ultrasound

Labels: abortion, Planned Parenthood

Labels: abortion, parental consent, Planned Parenthood

The Idaho House passed HB248 on a vote of 54 to 15 this week. It would require abortionists who use ultrasound equipment as part of their practice to offer women considering an abortion the chance to see their baby before they commit the act.

The legislation is simple in language and concept – but potentially dramatic in its effect.

Much of the abortion debate is a walk through Alice’s fantasy land. Things that are, are suddenly gone. Things we used to know – well, we’re not allowed to know once inside the story. Women who like the idea are carrying a baby in their womb; those who are upset or inconvenienced can choose to believe it is a mere tumor only needing excision. And we are required to stand by and support her choice of realities.

But a live picture of a growing, moving, tiny human being is difficult to argue with. As they say, it could be worth a thousand words – especially if those words are merely rationalizations and outright lies. Limited experience in other states indicates that seeing an ultrasound image of her baby convinces many women to walk out of the abortionist’s office.

A number of Democrats supported the legislation – including Margaret Henbest, Branden Durst and James Ruchti of Pocatello.

We are also surprised that just one Republican voted against the bill – Tom Trail of Moscow.

Perhaps the most surprising vote was cast by freshman Democrat Jerry Shively of Idaho Falls. He joined with a majority of Democrats in supporting Planned Parenthood in their opposition to the bill.

The bill is now in the Senate State Affairs Committee awaiting hearing early next week.

Labels: abortion, Planned Parenthood, Shively

Labels: abortion, breast cancer, Idaho Chooses Life, Planned Parenthood, pro-Life

Labels: Idaho Chooses Life, Planned Parenthood, Washington