Antiabortion Activist Takes on Planned Parenthood with Hidden Camera

As someone who participated in one of the most audacious hidden camera pranks ever perpetrated, the April 26 Los Angeles Times article about pro-life activist Lila Rose and her clandestine video recordings naturally caught my attention. For the past three years, Rose, accompanied by a colleague, has been visiting Planned Parenthood clinics around the country where she or her companion poses as an adolescent who claims to have been impregnated by an adult.

Each of the encounters has been surreptitiously videotaped and can be seen on YouTube as well as on the website of Rose's nonprofit organization, Live Action. The idea is to expose what Rose contends is Planned Parenthood's institutionalized failure to report child sexual abuse as required by law.

I recently interviewed Rose, now a 20-year-old student at UCLA, about her 2008 visit to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis where she had pretended to be a pregnant 14-year-old (two months shy of 15) who had conceived with her fictional 31-year-old boyfriend.

Click here to listen to the interview.

The video of Rose's Memphis sting cites a Tennessee statute requiring anyone with knowledge or suspicion of "child sexual abuse" to "immediately" report it to authorities. But that law applies only to alleged victims who are "under thirteen (13) years of age." When I asked Rose why Planned Parenthood is legally obligated to report her hypothetical boyfriend even though she had claimed to be nearly 15, she replied, "You could say...technically they didn't have to report it [but] that's not the issue here."

It sure is the issue on Live Action's website, where it says the group's efforts are intended to "lead to prosecution and reforms at Planned Parenthood so that their business practices will be forced to comply with governing laws that protect young girls." The stated mission magically became irrelevant as soon as Rose was told her argument hinges on a law that doesn't even apply to the scenario she had fabricated in Memphis.

Moreover, Rose offered no explanation as to why Planned Parenthood would subordinate its own priorities to hers. Regardless of how anyone feels about terminating an unwanted pregnancy, it's only prudent for a clinic worker to hesitate before reporting the unidentified boyfriend of a client to cops. Unless she can produce evidence that someone failed to comply with a legal requirement, Rose's crusade is dubious at best.

Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit organization with 30,000 employees and volunteers at over 800 clinics, has never been convicted of violating any law. If Rose were really confident about having uncovered a pattern of criminality, it seems her primary target would be those who keep refusing to hold the alleged offenders accountable. Instead, she dwells on how she thinks abortion providers should serve as police informants.

In an April 24 email sent to Tennessee legislators, Barry Chase, the CEO of Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis Region, wondered about "the almost ten month delay in release of a video" that Rose believes contains evidence of a crime. When I asked her why she had waited so long to notify authorities, Rose said she's not required to report crimes because she's a journalist. Nonetheless, she apparently does make it a practice to provide prosecutors with copies of her videos. The question about why she doesn't do so promptly remains unanswered and is an especially perplexing mystery considering how much Rose proselytizes about the legal and moral obligation to protect children.

Although she forgives herself readily, Rose won't cut Planned Parenthood any slack. For example, she harshly condemns the staffer in Memphis who said she should "lie to a judge." It's true the employee remarked at one point, "Just say you have a boyfriend, 17-years-old, whatever." But since she also told Rose the judge wouldn't even ask her about the "boyfriend," it seems the intent was not to encourage perjury, but to allay a teenager's unfounded worries about the purpose of a particular judicial hearing.

Furthermore, the staffer agreed to keep only the initial conversation "confidential" and said the "boyfriend" would "get in trouble" if the clinic's manager were to become aware of the situation. (Apparently, the woman who advised Rose no longer works for Planned Parenthood.)

In the Memphis video, Rose appears to be nervous and says near the outset that she doesn't want to incriminate her "boyfriend." When I suggested it would have been counterproductive to call the cops at that point, Rose became exasperated and demanded I clarify my logic before continuing the interview. Obligingly, I explained how a heavy-handed approach might cause a frightened 14-year-old to flee and never return. I told Rose it would probably be better to build trust and determine identities prior to notifying the police, especially since the "boyfriend" was expected to accompany his "girlfriend" to the clinic and court appearance. "That doesn't make any sense," Rose exclaimed, "That's preposterous."

After I informed her that Planned Parenthood had denied my interview request, Rose touted her own, supposedly more forthcoming disposition. But according to Robin Abcarian, the reporter who interviewed her for the Los Angeles Times, Rose was a very reluctant subject who, on the advice of a publicist, would answer questions only by email. Rose attributes the imposition of that unusual condition to her busy schedule, as if writing is less time-consuming than oral communication.

Abcarian told me she spent months pursuing Rose, and even offered "to fly anywhere she was speaking in order to make it easier for her." The Times staffer added that Rose "usually took days to respond and sometimes did not respond at all to my follow up questions."

Rose is certainly entitled to accept or reject interview requests as she pleases, but her unsubstantiated accusations about the Memphis clinic have cast significant doubt on her credibility. So has the fact she spent almost ten months calling for a criminal prosecution before she bothered to contact prosecutors.

If I were the sole witness to a crime, I wouldn't tell everybody except the authorities about it, and then complain the alleged culprit had escaped punishment.

Click here to listen to the interview.

Jeff Norman blogs at CitizenJeff.com.

Comments

[rutfam]

Your rhetoric in this piece - "demanded", "exasperated", "touted", etc. - paints Miss Rose as something I found no evidence of while listening to your interview. I listened to the entire interview, and I suspect that some of your other commenters who so willingly joined in the bashing - "typical conservative" - did not.
What I heard during the interview was an intelligent, reasonable, diplomatic and compassionate young lady. And I had to consider why your opinion piece was so intent on picking apart her character.
Lila Rose won't cut Planned Parenthood any slack? Why should she? $100 million in profits by a group taking over $300 million of our taxes every year? They have more than enough money to defend themselves, their employees, their position, and their work.
I found it ridiculous that you tried to paint Miss Rose as making flaky excuses as to her availability. Yes, I completely buy that as a 20 year old student at UCLA she would be a bit busy. Considering what she is accomplishing without the support of $300 million in taxes, I'm amazed that she had time for your loooong, and rambling interview.
I'd say Miss Rose is pretty impressive.

[Jeff Norman - Huffpost Blogger]

I buy that Lila is busy, but not that it’s less time-consuming to answer questions by email than phone. She avoided the Times reporter for months, yet patted herself on the back for being more forthcoming than PP. She did that when we were chatting before the interview.

“Demanded” is accurate. She wouldn’t let the interview continue until I answered her questions.

You didn’t hear exasperation in her voice at the point I cited?

[rutfam]

"yet patted herself on the back for being more forthcoming than PP"

Do you realize how silly this sounds? Especially when one realizes you are bashing a 20 year old college student, who volunteers in her own grassroots movement based on her personal beliefs, because she "avoided" the Times reporter for months? I find it difficult to believe you know the intimate details of her life which would consume her time and availability. Do you remember mid-terms? Finals? Family visits? Friends? Study groups? Do you remember being 20?

Sorry, Jeff, I heard no exassperation. I heard her clarifying when you would try to weaken her points using weasel words such as "claim".


You seem to be missing the point of what she is trying to bring to light.

OR, maybe you do realize what she is exposing, and you don't want it exposed so you are trying to draw attention away from the issue and solely to the young person taking on the million dollar company. The real question is, why don't you want it exposed? I agree with the previous commenter when he/she asked why were you willing to protect PP because of a legal definition.

You're arguments focusing on Lila are pittance, and they may distract the easily distracted or the people who like you want PP protected above 14 year old girls impregnated by grown adult men, but they haven't made any ground with me.

[sylvanseen]

Jeff,

I find your legal analysis very misleading and cursory at best. TN law requires the reporting of "child sexual abuse" – and not just if the minor is under 13. “Child” is defined as under 18. (Duh.) Furthermore, according to Title 64, Chapter 6, Section 214, an abortion provider can lose their license over...

"(1)Unprofessional, dishonorable or unethical conduct;
(2) Violation or attempted violation, directly or indirectly, or assisting in or abetting the violation of, or conspiring to violate, any provision of this chapter or any lawful order of the board issued pursuant thereto, or any criminal statute of the state of Tennessee".

I think you have to agree that protecting child abusers and advising people to lie in court falls pretty squarely into the category of "unprofess­ional/unet­hical conduct" and "attempted violation of the law." As a professional journalist, I think you have an obligation to avoid making misleading generalizations about the law. It damages your credibility.

The code you referenced in your article was the following:

"39-15-210. Child Rape Protection Act of 2006". —

Please read it again, very carefully. You are erroneously interpreting it to mean “a physician doesn’t need to report sexual abuse of children unless the victim is less than 13” -- which makes no sense at all.

[Jeff Norman - Huffpost Blogger]

The definition of “child” is irrelevant. What matters is the definition of “child sexual abuse.”

I did not reference 39-15-210. Unfortunately, the website I linked to wouldn’t let me link to the specific statutes that apply, but here they are:

Tennessee 37-1-605.(b) (1) states: “Each report of known or suspected child sexual abuse pursuant to this section shall be made immediately...”

Tennessee 37-1-602 (3) (A) states: “’Child sexual abuse’ means the commission of any act involving the unlawful sexual abuse...of a child under thirteen (13) years of age...”

The statute about unethical conduct is vague. It adds nothing to our discussion. Either PP broke the law, or it didn’t. Apparently, it didn’t.

[sylvanseen]

You're right, I was mistaken about that specific definition.

However, you ignore the larger issue: that PP has no problem hiding dangerous and despicable felonies committed against innocent minors. Why are you willing to protect these people because of some legal definition? The abuses Lila exposed are the reasons these kinds of laws are revised. Furthermore, your article declined to mention the statutory rape clause that Lila's video cited, 39-13-506, and that undoubtedly applies here.

Lila is right: her job is to investigate, not act as a lawyer. But the purpose of investigative journalism is to expose practices that warrant attention and review by the proper authorities.

[Tommy Silva]

Mr. Norman,
It seems that you would like to smear Lila Rose’s reputation. Your article is neither accurate, nor gentlemanly, and is inconsistent with your interview of the young lady.

In the interview you “admire” and “congratulate” Rose on her work, but now, in this article you call her investigation a “prank”.

You say that Rose was “exasperated.” But you interrupted her 7 times in just those two minutes and still she remained calm and polite.

You fault Lila for saying, "That's preposterous." But in the interview you agree with her saying, “That wouldn’t be the first preposterous thing I’ve said.” and “No, it’s not really what I think…”

Further, you seem to look down on protecting children saying, “Rose proselytizes about the legal and moral obligation to protect children.” And you call those who report child abuse, “police informants.”

Up ‘till now I thought you were reasonable, respectful, and honest. I am very disappointed.
Sincerely,
Thomas

[Jeff Norman - Huffpost Blogger]

I referred to a prank I had done, and linked to it; I didn’t call Lila’s investigation a prank.

Lila interrupted me more than I interrupted her. I interrupted her when she veered off topic and filibustered, and once (with an apology, as I recall) just to make sure listeners knew what we were talking about.

I didn’t fault Lila for calling my logic “preposterous.” I just quoted her and gave no opinion at all about her comment.

I don’t look down on protecting children; I look down on Lila’s hypocrisy. She’s the one who always says how important it is to protect kids, yet she waited almost 10 months to report someone SHE saw as a danger to children.

Yes, Lila became exasperated at the juncture I cited. What can I tell you?

[irisda]

Typical of the kind of conservative who would rather believe in tales than deal with reality.
She had preconceived and simplistic ideas on abortion. Went investigating, found that reality was quite different to what she painted in her head. Now she's confused and even refuses to use her brains to look at the real issues.
The people working at planned parenthood are doing a very difficult job, handling issues that shouldn't be so complicated and controversial. If all this posturing, misinformation and political hijacking didnt exist they would be doing their jobs more efficiently, educating more people and engaging with more communities for more pre-emptive actions.
Every times conservatives get in power abortion rates increase and teenage pregnancy increases too! TIme to face reality.

[GaryWolf]

I read the original LA Times article and there are too many flaws in the logic of her ambush of Planned Parenthood for anyone to take her seriously. Not least of which is the unspoken implication that a 14-year-old girl pregnant by a 31-year-old man would be better off going through with the pregnancy. Combined with a potential court case on statutory rape, how is that protecting children?

[sdskelton03]

Who in their right mind would report a 31 year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl anyway?

[JakeMontero]

jeffy: The behavior captured in those videos by Planned Parenthood is atrocious clear and simple. That is the story. It does not help the pro-choice effort.

[wndrwrthg]

If a "journalist" is aware of a crime, either before during or after the fact and fails to report it, then they should be tried as if they were the culprits. Hiding behind "free speech" while people may have been or will be harmed is cowardly.

[Isabelle17]

Totally true. That said, if Planned Parenthood was aware of statuatory rape, they should have reported that, and if not, they should also be prosecuted.

[Jeff Norman - Huffpost Blogger]

Prosecuted for what crime? Neither PP nor Lila Rose is required to report anything here.

[LeftRight]

Since there's no reporting requirement in TN for a child over the age of 13...... I can hardly see a crime here....

[SpoxLogic]

I think Lila Rose is pissed that she wasted three years of her life and has squat to show for it. It must be quite disheartening to realize that she failed to get any proof to back up her initial ideas of what she would uncover in her many "undercover" stings.

However, I am sure she will get handsomely compensated for her failure - since it seems you eitehr have to be some sor t of failure or a criminal to make money in this country.