What’s Wrong with the World

Outstanding post, Lydia. What a loathsome organization PP is.

The problem here is that there was literally nothing but a hunch to report. You have a 12 year old girl who seems to either be sexually active or intends to become so in the near future. The worker has a 'feeling' that maybe her partner is older. Unfortunately nothing was presented to confirm this feeling. While thankfully rare, sexually active 12 year olds are not unprecedented nor are the partners always so much older as to be illegal.

There are, though, other possible scenarios that might have had nothing to do with sexual abuse. For example, perhaps the girls mother was pressuring her to go on the pill because she was sure her daughter would become active soon and she didn't want to see a teenage pregnancy. That might account for the girl being uncomfortable, even giving off a vibe of feeling coerced. Most birth control pills are not prescribed from PP clinics but from confidential doctors offices.

The woman should have asked some follow up questions to rule out or confirm if abuse was present. Additionally she could have informed the girl that consent is ALWAYS required for sexual acts and she always has a right to say no to anyone trying to have sex with her regardless of circumstances.

But, of course, the writer here doesn't really care about the situation as much as about scoring rhetorical points. So we have a tabloid style lead in the second paragraph. We think we're going to be treated to a story where a 40 year old man beings his 12 year old victim to PP to get birth control pills. In reality, though, when the facts are bothered to be presented (and I'm not sure why she does present them, she doesn't really seem to care about them), it turns out to fall pretty far short of the mark. We get a case where the worker thinks something might be wrong but has nothing concrete to go on. This type of thing is encountered all the time. I don't doubt that anyone who is a teacher or works with many kids has had times when they felt something might be wrong but nothing hard was observable to confirm or refute the hunch.

In such cases one is literally stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you start calling in Child Protective Services you can create a hell for a family. If your hunch was wrong you will end up doing a lot of unneeded damage (especially considering many state services have a poor reptutation to begin with, either overreacting or underreacting). IMO there's no easy answer for people stuck in such situations. They can play detective and try to gather more evidence to make the case clearer but there's a limit to how much one can do that....plus that can open up a can of worms in itself. Or you can just keep your mouth shut and try to observe closely to see if anything definite presents itself giving you the justification to file a report.

Actually, Boonton, I think you are wrong about the legal situation. Many people don't know this, but in many states reporting is required for children of particular ages having sexual intercourse *at all*. You may not like that or agree with that, but Dawn states that statutory rape laws apply regardless of the age of the "partner" in Oregon w.r.t. minors under 15. This girl was 12.

Moreover, mandatory reporters are not allowed just to let things go. She was _required_ to inquire about the age of the child's "partner" and to make a report a) because the girl was only 12 (see above), b) all the more so if she had further reason to believe the girl was being coerced and/or her partner was an adult. Even a hunch can be such grounds, especially if the girl appeared to be lying in response to further questions or appeared to be getting cues from the adult woman as to what she should say. Doctors do this sort of thing all the time. In fact, doctors sometimes report things when they have _no_ such hunch, simply because a child has bruises. I'm not saying I approve of doing so if the doctor has clear reason to believe the bruises have a non-abusive cause. I disapprove of it. I'm saying this to indicate how seriously conscientious medical personnel take their mandatory reporter status and the vast gap there is between the attitude of ordinary medical people and PP employees.

Another point: HPW appears to be saying that she took the adult woman not to be the child's mother. You are assuming she was. That would be another question to ask, wouldn't it?

And btw, Planned Parenthood most certainly has been caught in "sting" operations (by private people, in one case on videotape) agreeing to cover up statutory rape. So this is not unprecedented. The "don't ask, don't tell" mentality is extremely strong at PP. This is just another example.

What is shocking about this example is that this HPW had a hunch--presumably for _some_ reason or other--that this wasn't just a case of a girl "in love with" an older man but was an actual case of coercion. Yet she made _no_ attempt to find out more. In fact, she makes it a point of honor not to inquire further. "I never ask the age of their partners." Well, why the heck not? Not only is that legally required given her mandatory reporter status, but even *on her own terms* she is morally required to do so, given the whole issue of "choice" and "consent," which is supposed to be so important to a PP employee.

But as I said, I don't think that's really what is most important to HPW.

Lydia,

I'll defer to you on the various state laws. Mandatory reporting of any act of sex by a minor, though, does not seem like a very rational law. Doctor-patient confidentiality exists even when the patient is a minor and from a pure public policy perspective it seems like a diaster waiting to happen. Minors who are sexually active are better off being able to be open about it to their doctors without automatically causing law enforcement to be notified. Needless to say, prosecuting minors who engage in sex also seems like a bad policy in general....although I would perhaps leave the possibility open for cases where you have extreme age/power differences (in other words, a 17 year old with a 11 year old is a lot different than two 16 year olds).

In fact, doctors sometimes report things when they have _no_ such hunch, simply because a child has bruises.

And no doubt one can spend an hour or two with our friend Google and come up with at least a dozen examples of families tortured by overzealous state agencies that open cases from such reports. If you're going to say that even a 'hunch' is sufficient to trigger a reporting requirement then you're going to cause a lot of needless grief....as well as cause a lot of real abuse to be missed since the impression I get is many states have child abuse agencies that have trouble handling their case load and are not generally staffed by the brightest minds.

It might be fine for someone to report a hunch but at least when it is an option people can rely on their intuition. If you make it a requirement you probably will create the very thing you decry, a 'don't ask don't tell' environment where CYA would dictate that you keep your eyes closed. Needless to say I think it would be amusing to hear how the law would be able to prove someone had a 'hunch' and failed to report it.

And btw, Planned Parenthood most certainly has been caught in "sting" operations (by private people, in one case on videotape) agreeing to cover up statutory rape. So this is not unprecedented.

You mean just like the Catholic Church? Well we know the drill then. Assemble the victims and I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who would love to take the case for 1/3 of the settlement. Likewise I'm sure obstruction of justice is a crime in all 50 states so simply prosecute such incidents in the judicial system which is designed to hear criminal charges and provide for due process and fair trials.

Boonton, you won't hear me defending over-zealous social workers.

But you seem to have an amazing tin ear about this situation. Have you _no_ curiosity about why HPW asked no questions? Why did she feel positively _guilty_ about worrying about the girl? Why did she accuse herself of being "patronizing"? Why does she boast about never asking the age of clients' partners?

The parallel in the case of an ordinary medical situation would be an emergency room worker who doesn't ask how a child came by a broken arm. No questions at all, and accuses herself of being "patronizing" because she had a hunch that maybe somebody broke the child's arm in the course of a beating. After all, y'know, _maybe_ the child was engaging in voluntary sports. We wouldn't want to "patronize" her by implying to her that she was being "victimized." Better not to ask any questions.

But nobody would do that if we weren't talking about sex, now would they?

You also are quite uninformed about the way that prosecution works when we are talking about abortion and Planned Parenthood. The prosecutorial authorities do ignore evidence of crime. (One striking example of this is the refusal of the local Kansas state's attorney to prosecute Tiller despite the fact that he is performing late-term abortions and not even bothering to lie and say they are for "health" reasons.) And when I'm talking about private "sting" operations, no one has standing to sue, because the girls who said they were underage and their partners were adults were not in fact harmed by PP. They were adults checking to see if PP would in fact help underage girls in covering up statutory rape. And PP was only too happy to help. But there is no lawsuit material there, though there is criminal material. Good luck getting cooperation on that latter.

You obviously know nothing about America's double standard w.r.t. abortion providers and PP in particular.

What is comes down to is taking the easy way out - inaction, to prevent inconvenience. The risk of the inaction is shifted onto the minor who may, or may not, be subjected to non-consentual sex. Am I my brother's (or sister's ) keeper? Rationality says no. So there will be no tears later when I drive by your auto wreck, Booton or others, for I am not a trained emergency medical technician - and frankly making a phone call to the highway patrol is inconvenient and may lead to my having to take time to explain what I saw, etc. While a vague unconnected argument could be made about "decline of society" and such pap - I prefer the "rational" approach - it narrowly serves my interests every time - Ah, rationality - I love you. (Opps! I meant that as a rational expression and not as emotion.)

P.S. laws are fun! The fun lies in explaining my rationale as to why they do not apply to my self-interested actions or how my action/inaction falls within the myrad legal caveats inherent in our legal system.

You may not like that or agree with that, but Dawn states that statutory rape laws apply regardless of the age of the "partner" in Oregon w.r.t. minors under 15. This girl was 12

I know I said I'd let you go on the technical matters of the law but I noticed you neglected to find out:

1. You've neglected to cite exactly what Oregon's reporting laws require medical workers to report and whether they are required to actively investigate rather than simply report what they learn.

2. You've neglected to cite whether Oregon considers statutory rape to be considered abuse reportable under this law. That's an important point because assuming the law covers sex between minors only you have a potent 5th Amendment issue. If the girl's partner is, say 12 or 13 then technically she is guilty of a crime too! Mandatory reporting would then essentially open one up to self-incrimination if one seeks medical treatment or advice. I'm doubtful that's Oregon's intent with the law & I'm doubtful if it would survive constitutional challenge if it was. So I'm a bit leary of your characterization of the law.

The parallel in the case of an ordinary medical situation would be an emergency room worker who doesn't ask how a child came by a broken arm. No questions at all, and accuses herself of being "patronizing" because she had a hunch that maybe somebody broke the child's arm in the course of a beating. After all, y'know, _maybe_ the child was engaging in voluntary sports. We wouldn't want to "patronize" her by implying to her that she was being "victimized." Better not to ask any questions.

Medical workers do often ask about illegal activity without breaking confidentiality. For example, a standard question would be to ask the patient if they use illegal drugs and what type if so. Of course I can see how a minor would not want his honest answer reported to law enforcement but policy wise it would be very foolish to insist on it. If one did then a minor fearful he was experiencing an overdose would be pressured to either lie to the doctor or not seek medical help...options that would cause more trouble than would be averted.

So yes the proper training is very much along the lines of 'don't ask, don't tell' unless it is directly related to the medical treatment.

Have you _no_ curiosity about why HPW asked no questions?....

I do but you do not. Your interest was scoring rhetorical points on PP. That's all well and good but don't pretend you really care about this particular situation. If you did why haven't you contacted her directly and asked her? Her blog is very small and has few comments. Certainly she is not so induated with spam that she cannot 'see' an email or perhaps comment post asking her for more information about what exactly her clinics reporting policies are, what her training says to do, what her state laws are (or what does she think they are) etc.

The prosecutorial authorities do ignore evidence of crime.

Translation: You have been unable to prove guilt in a court of law. Are you seriously telling me with a politicized justice dept., with hundreds of locally elected prosecutors (some from very conservative areas) no prosecutors want to take on a case against PP? Come on.

And when I'm talking about private "sting" operations, no one has standing to sue, because the girls who said they were underage and their partners were adults were not in fact harmed by PP. They were adults checking to see if PP would in fact help underage girls in covering up statutory rape

Indeed but I'm assuming that the purpose of these 'stings' is to demonstrate that PP covers up statutory rapes. If that's true then there are real victims who would make for a very tempting payday for the lawyer who took their case. You wouldn't even need to make the case against PP. EVen a case against a private doctor would be sufficient to send a chill through the area and get other women to come forward with their own stories.

Californio
So there will be no tears later when I drive by your auto wreck, Booton or others, for I am not a trained emergency medical technician - and frankly making a phone call to the highway patrol is inconvenient and may lead to my having to take time to explain what I saw, etc.

You are indeed obligated to phone the highway patrol (at least morally, I have no idea what the law is). You are not obligated to try to pull me from the wreck or engage your secret with to be a doctor by trying to 'treat' me using what you saw on ER or House as a guide. In fact you have a positive obligation not to cause more harm than already exists.

Here inconvenience isn't a factor. This woman's job is conduct interviews with patients and talk to them about medical issues so this isn't a case of...say...overhearing a conversation on an elevator or at a coffee shop. The question is what are the policies and what should the policies be.

I'm being honest when I say I don't know exactly what the law says in Oregon but it seems very obvious that whatever the policy is it's primary impact should be not to do harm. That means some degree of confidentiality will be required in situations that are 'sub-optimal' to put it mildly. Launching a police investigation because a 12 year old girl asks for birth control may indeed uncover child abuse which needs to be stopped and punished. Then again it may end up keeping people from seeking help and one relatively common problem (teens having sex) becomes multiple problems (teens with STDs, teenage births, teenagers giving birth to babies that have STDs etc).

Boonton, I've "neglected" to tell you those things because I've told you what I have good reason to believe--that sex with a twelve-year-old is statutory rape in Oregon and that the "Romeo and Juliet" law apparently kicks only at age 15. Most mandatory reporters certainly would interpret this w.r.t. _other_ forms of abuse to require some curiosity on their part. I'm not going to make other claims I can't back up as to the exact wording of the reportage laws or the degree of investigation required. My strong bet is that HPW is in violation for failure to do any sort of follow-up to her hunch even in conversation with the girl and the adult woman.

HPW makes it quite clear why she asked no further questions. It's the ideology. I can't believe you can't see that. Sex is supposed to be _different_. It's supposed to be so important (and even to some extent you think this way) that minors can have sex without consequences that we are willing to risk leaving a child to be raped rather than putting a "chill" on the "confidentiality" that would make for the maximum distribution of birth control. It's a matter of priorities, and what's more important to HPW is sex without consequences rather than protecting the child. To that end, she has convinced herself that it's _not good_ for her to feel worried about the child. The child, when it comes to sex, is to be treated as a mini-adult rather than protected, because protection is "patronizing" in the sexual realm. That is her ideology and she's sticking to it. It's there in black and white, about as clear as it can be.

I already gave you a standard medical example. You prefer to ignore it. As I said, no emergency worker would fail even to _ask the child_ how he got injured--a broken arm, black eye, etc. This woman refuses--and _brags_ about refusing (something you continually insist on ignoring)--to ask the child with whom she is having sex, what his age is, and so forth. It is balderdash to say that a medical worker would follow that sort of absolute, and even in a perverted way "principled," "don't ask, don't tell" policy if we were talking about some other type of potential abuse.

Here, by the way, is a link on the evidence that PP covers up statutory rape in other cases. It's apparently pretty much their standard modus operandi.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070515b.html

But I'd guess you won't care much, Boonton. After all, you'd rather assume that all the real girls of this sort--thirteen-year-olds having sex with 22-year-olds and the like--are just exercising their "choice" and congratulate PP on supposedly preventing unwanted consequences. That minor girls are being harmed by this is something you don't want to believe and won't consider.

In fact, you are a standard liberal following the standard liberal line towards a world in which "choice devours itself." Perhaps we should also just encourage child prostitutes to seek "inside work," as I instanced in my old post?

HPW makes it quite clear why she asked no further questions. It's the ideology. I can't believe you can't see that. Sex is supposed to be _different_. It's supposed to be so important (and even to some extent you think this way) that minors can have sex without consequences that we are willing to risk leaving a child to be raped rather than putting a "chill" on the "confidentiality" that would make for the maximum distribution of birth control.

On the other hand I've been in the emergancy room with loved ones when doctors ask the 'personal' questions and I've noticed the same neutral sounding tone when the topic is drug use. And that makes sense. If she asked the 12 year old if she used illegal drugs or smoked she most certainly would not follow those questions up with "and who gives you the drugs" if the answer was yes. But then why not? If she was, say, smoking dope with her father or an older man that too would be child abuse.

She also would probable chide herself for sounding patronizing. The person asking the questions needs to avoid giving the patient any motivation to answer dishonestly.

But I'd guess you won't care much, Boonton. After all, you'd rather assume that all the real girls of this sort--thirteen-year-olds having sex with 22-year-olds and the like--are just exercising their "choice" and congratulate PP on supposedly preventing unwanted consequences. That minor girls are being harmed by this is something you don't want to believe and won't consider.

Sigh, and Zippy described you as a "analytic philosopher of the first order". I'd hate to see the second order! Your style seems to be tabloid sensationalism followed up by not paying attention to the arguments you are refuting topped off with putting words and thoughts in other people's mouths. Yes, yes, my uncertainty about whether this person should have reported the girl to social services must be because I think 12 year olds are 'real women' and want to have sex with 22 year olds.

Actually why do you ignore my suggestion about actually asking this woman for some more information about her clinics reporting policies and such? There's a very real possibility the 12 year old may show up again to renew her script or to get a routine exam. Perhaps you might even achieve some good in the situation by having the woman look at her case more carefully & maybe ask the girl if she understands consent, abuse and the law? Indeed she may not even understand the reporting requirements of her state or even her clinics policy. It would hardly be the first time.

But you make it clear you're not about the real world as much as you are about ideology. Hence you declare that this woman wants the 12 year old to have sex because it fits her ideology. Yet that ignores the down to earth honesty in her post. She isn't sure what to do, isn't sure if her hunch is even correct and clearly feels it is important whether or not the girl is consenting or not. The law likewise follows course, I don't doubt for a second the panalties for a 12-14 year old relationship are trivial compared to, say, 12-22 years old or older. Likewise the penalties for forced sex (rape) are by far harsher as they should be. And why should they be? Because consent is very important, even when consent cannot legally be given.

And of course you only care to listen to this woman's 'hunches' when it fits your ideology. You assume that the adult woman she came with was....what....just in it for the fun of hooking 12 year old girls up with 30 year old men? While strange things like that do happen they are often an exceptional freak story rather than the norm (just like stories about adult teachers who have affairs with young boys get play in the media but in normal life it is usually adult men who seek to seduce underage girls rather than the other way around). In all likelyhood this aunt or family friend was not facilitating rape but trying to give the girl some support and guidance. But at this point ideology demands that you can no longer trust this woman's 'hunch' here because it complicates the narrative you are trying to create which is 30 year old men sending their 12 year old victims to PP for birth control while PP shrugs and doesn't care.

Your thesis is that the ideology is 'have sex' and consent is used as a cover for that until it gets to the point where it 'swallows itself' and ignores nonconsensual sex. That, though, doesn't really jive with the feminist history this woman probably came out of. Recall in addition to advocating abortion rights, birth control rights and so on feminists also challenged nonconsensual sex in the law. Today we hardly even remember that not too long ago it was an accepted legal theory that a husband could not possibly rape his wife or that a rape victim had to prove they were innocenct of any 'bad' sexual behavior.

There is, though, a long tradition of confidentiality and it certainly wasn't invented by NOW in the 1970's. If this girl had gone to a priest in confession, he would be barred from reporting anything to the cops even if she said she was being molested by a 50 year old man. Likewise if a woman calls a battered woman's shelter or hotline they will not report a crime against her will but rather keep the call as confidential as she wants. Why would this be? Certainly that doesn't fit your theory of 'sex' ideology and it sounds like breaking up marriages is something you think feminists like to do.

Boonton, do you seriously believe that if I or anyone else from my side of the political line said to HPW, "You should have asked more questions; and by the way, see here for your state's statutory rape laws," etc., it would make the slightest difference to her practice? Yeah, I guess you seriously believe that. Or else you want to _imply_ that to make it look like I'm some sort of odd "hypocrite" if I don't go and gently try to counsel ol' HPW on her bizarre ideas of honor.

"Hence you declare that this woman wants the 12 year old to have sex because it fits her ideology." What fits her ideology is that the 12-year-old have maximum _freedom_ to have sex, even if this means ignoring evidence that she is having sex un-freely. Look, let's face it: Often pressure--social and legal--has to go one way or another. To use an entirely different example, if you imply to a Middle Eastern girl in conversation that she is covering her entire face except for an eye slit because she is afraid of her male relatives, this may end up putting some pressure, if only sociologically or conversationally, on some girl who really is doing it voluntarily. So when it comes to sex, if you imply disapproval of a 12-year-old's having sex, yeah, that's going to put pressure even on the 12-year-old who is "consenting" as far as a 12-year-old can consent. Why would you do that? Well, because you think that a) 12-year-olds can't give consent in the same way that adults can and/or b) it's more important to prevent rape than to avoid any possibility of making a young sleep-around feel bad. And that's just for starters.

You have to choose your priorities. HPW's are quite clear.

Actually, I _cited_ HPW's implication about the adult woman--that she is not the girl's mother--when you wanted to imply that she was the girl's mother. The business about having "found an adult" in the post is pretty clearly not attributed to a hunch at all. Rhetorically, I think you can tell from the way the post reads that _that_ part is an assumption, whereas she says expressly that she "got the feeling" that the girl "didn't exactly consent" and that her partner was older, perhaps much older. And pro-aborts make that assumption all the time about adults who would bring girls for their services. When Congress was considering legislation making it a crime to transport a minor over state lines to avoid parental consent laws, PP and their ilk wanted non-parental adults to be exempted from the law on the grounds that children _need_ to find non-parental adults to help them obtain abortions, that such adults are kindly, helpful, and have the child's best interests at heart.

If the girl is having sex with an adult and if this woman friend knows it and is covering it up and abetting it, then not only legally but also morally--hopefully by _anyone's_ reckoning--this adult woman is an accomplice to rape, however "nice" she may be and whatever twisted ideas she may have about helping the girl. And she doesn't have the girl's best interests at heart.

For that matter, I think it's pretty clear that HPW doesn't, either. Anyone who thinks of a 12-year-old child in the mini-adult way that she does is so out of touch with reality as not to be able to see the child's best interests.

And btw, you can just keep talking about confidentiality, but mandatory reporters are what they are, and things are set up that way for a reason. Children are supposed to be different from adults and to be protected by society. That's why we have such laws. Are they abused? You bet they are, and I could cite you cases of my own. Do they have a place? Yes, indeed, they do. Children are not mini-adult "clients" who should be treated as independent free agents entitled to a confidentiality that involves enabling abuse of the child and self-destructive behavior of the child. There is a reason why priests are not mandatory reporters, but it's theology, and perhaps you wouldn't understand. But health care workers are, and they should be. Deal with it.

PP and their ilk wanted non-parental adults to be exempted from the law on the grounds that children _need_ to find non-parental adults to help them obtain abortions, that such adults are kindly, helpful, and have the child's best interests at heart.

I believe that the rationale for this was that very often it is the child's own father who has fathered her child, and her mother is too intimidated and submissive to do anything to help her. In those cases, clearly, if the child is going to get help it is going to need to come from some adult outside of the nuclear family.
If you consider abortion to never be "helpful," under any circumstances, this rationale is, of course, negated. If, however, you make an exception for rape and incest, then this exception is necessary.

"C'est la Vie"
"To each his own"
"Mind your own business"
"Am I my brother's (sister's) keeper?"

What is wrong with the world?! Clearly this lady has allowed her better instincts to be squelched and misshapen by the lionization of choice, an ideology that all too easily couples with a "pursue your bliss" mentality" and is reinforced in the hallowed halls of consumerism. This is what happens when moral choice is thought to be grounded in sentiment. When this presupposition is bought into, it becomes hard to argue for better moral decisions, for obviously no one is really going to argue whether chocolate tastes better than vanilla. If our moral instincts are really just a matter of taste, then it would be silly and "patronizing" to inquire about other people's moral actions.

Could it be that the intuitive part of her that set off the alarm bells is somehow connected to her obligation and authority as an adult to look out for children? Naahhh!! We can't accept that because that would meant that there is something more than just cultural conditioning, that would mean that there is some kind of essence and order to the universe, which would mean...

PP and their ilk wanted non-parental adults to be exempted from the law on the grounds that children _need_ to find non-parental adults to help them obtain abortions...

I believe that the rationale for this was that very often it is the child's own father who has fathered her child, and her mother is too intimidated and submissive to do anything to help her.

This is one of those altogether-too-frequent situations where the facts run exactly contrary to claims by abortion providers to be working in the best interest of the victim. The simple fact is that girls impregnated by their fathers almost never want an abortion; in most cases, the child welcomes the pregnancy because it will draw attention to her plight and create the possibility of escape. On the contrary, it's usually the impregnating father who benefits from the child having an abortion, and if there's an intimidated wife, she's intimidated into seeking an abortion for her daughter.

Incest, then, is one of those situations where it benefits the victim to keep abortions difficult to obtain, and require maximum exposure.

Don't expect to read that in a Planned Parenthood brochure, though. They benefit (read "profit financially") from anything that makes abortions easier to obtain.

What is funny is how offended liberals get when you tell them they are setting up a society that is a paradise for unrelated child molesters. But think about the "principles" under which HPW operates. They are very nearly *by definition* helpful to any child molestor who sends a girl in who is too scared to say anything explicit. And add in there what was discovered by the phone callers--that PP employees will tell girls, "Don't tell me that your partner is 22, because it could get him in trouble. Just don't tell me anything about that." What are we looking at? Basically, you're letting the world know the following:

1) If a minor girl comes in here to get an abortion or birth control, we won't report it, even if she is so young that under state law she isn't supposed to be having sex with _anybody_.

2) We will make it a matter of principle not to ask her the age of her sexual partner.

3) If she tries to tell us the age of her partner, we'll shush her up.

4) If an employee has a gut feeling that she is being coerced into sex, we won't follow that up with any questions, even to her.

5) If she is accompanied by an unrelated female, we won't ask who that person is.

Now, this is _asking_ for child molestors to frighten girls into silence and to send them in to PP to get "cover-up" of one sort of another for abuse, sending a female accomplice with the girl to watch that she keeps her mouth shut. The girl would nearly have to scream, "Help me! I am being raped!" to get any attention or legal help. I wonder what HPW would do then.

Oh, btw, Dawn Eden had a link (PP has since taken down the story) to a little "personal stories" spot on a PP web site where a girl says, "I was raped when I was 11 by my 17-year-old boyfriend, but I decided not to tell my parents. Planned Parenthood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way."

The link to Dawn's quotation is here:

http://www.dawneden.com/2005/12/planned-parenthood-boasts-it-covered.html

They were _proud_ of that story. They _deliberately_ put it up on their web page, until somebody noted it with horror.

Yet liberals will try to deny that there is a major problem here. I don't know if they just think the pro-lifers are lying or if they are just going to go on forever saying, "But you don't really know what the circumstances were," or what. But not only is PP "enabling" child molestation, so too are the "choicers" who keep on making excuses for PP.

I notice the Lydia glided nicely over the possibility of trying to contact this woman and ask her some follow up questions. As expected when push comes to shove the idologue prefers the political narrative over real life complexities.

Well what do we know? Nothing. She had a hunch that maybe the girl was with someone older. Then again she had a hunch she was 'projecting'. She didn't know and there was not enough evidence to tell.

Now out of the blue we get some prattle about 'pro-aborts'. Getting birth control pills, though, would be strange behavior for someone committed to increasing abortions. The woman who came with her was not a friend, not an aunt, not a mother (the woman was not identified so she very well may have even been her mother)....just a woman committed to what exactly? Statutatory rape?

And btw, you can just keep talking about confidentiality, but mandatory reporters are what they are, and things are set up that way for a reason. Children are supposed to be different from adults and to be protected by society

Yet this is what confidentiality does, protects. The priest is not only confidential for theology but protection. By having confidentiality a safe zone is created so the 12 year old to come for help. Without a measure of confidentiality somewhere you don't get protected children, you get no protection at all. If you doubt this then let me ask you, do the lawyers also have confidentiality via theology???

But health care workers are, and they should be. Deal with it.

Great work analytical philosopher. Maybe healthcare workers are, you've burned up your keyboard all day but still haven't bothered to actually ask what the reporting procedures are for health care workers or even indicated that you've thought about this beyond sex (ironic isn't it).

I'll help you again. Let's return to the routine questions asked by healthcare workers about illegal drug use. Reportable? Why not? If the girl said she smoked pot that would beg the question of where she was getting it from and why not 'guess' that her source was an adult? Would they persist in questioning her in depth or leave it at what was needed for treatment?

What is funny is how offended liberals get when you tell them they are setting up a society that is a paradise for unrelated child molesters.

Funny, when I asked you why the victims are simply not assembled and lawsuits filed you answered that there were no real victims of PP....only staged ones who had no basis to sue.

Let's be frank, I seriously doubt any state does not require reporting of known child abuse or child abuse suspected with good cause (no 'hunches' are not the same thing). At the same time, medical workers do not and should not probe their patients to discover abuse. While such an action may uncover a case it can also cover up many cases from those who will be deterred from getting any help at all. At some point, the worker has to stake out a neutral ground where they allow the patient to come to them for help but they do not push it. This is hardly about convenience. No doubt the most inconvenient thing in the world is to have to keep such secrets or not to follow up on questions like the woman in the blog had. I also don't envy the priest who must keep the secrets of the confessional even when he knows if he brings them out in the open he may be able to stop additional abuse or at least bring some to justic. The convenient thing to do is report it, let the police handle it and then (as a result) never have to hear about it again because you won't.

So again we come back to making lots of guesses when in reality we know very little. I tried poking around PP site(s) to see what their official rape policies are. Unfortunately it's late, I'm tired and it seems that every PP has its own local web so the pages I land on are specific to particular PP sites rather than a universal policy type site. The sites I did find include:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/northern-adirondack/date-rape-education-and-prevention.htm

and

http://www.ppgg.org/site/c.esJMKZPKJtH/b.1156439/apps/s/content.asp?ct=1607281

Again they seem to be taking a healthy approach to the subject, hardly so enamoured of 'sexual freedom' that they forget that such a thing as nonconsensual rape exists. To be honest I'm very skeptical that any of the rape counseling sites and hotlines (note that PP seems to be referencing them, they aren't PP operations) would report a victim to the police against her will, even if she was a child. If you don't have a zone of confidentiality you're going to loose a lot of victims who will simply not come forward in anyway.

By it's ok Lydia has the solution. Wait until they get pregnant and when they have babies that will prove they were molested. That is, after all, what every incest victim is hoping for according to her.

Speaking of which, what happens when a 12 or 13 year old walks into a hospital in labor having a baby? Is a report made to the police? Anyone have real answers out there?

While I wait for my response to clear the moderation filter, I figured I'd venture over to the site that stated this all and ask some questions. Unfortunately I couldn't locate an email address so I asked them in the comments section. Hopefully the author will see them and take some time to respond. I did note that in her profile she is only 25 years old and a recent college grad. so I suspect she is probably not a doctor or even a nurse but more like a secretary. This would probably have some impact on this debate since we only have her hunches while we have no access to what the 12 year old or her adult companion told the actual doctor or nurse who saw her.

Perhaps this could turn out to be something more than the usual mud slinging whenever abortion or PP is the topic.

Confidentiality is only protected in certain professions in Oregon, specifically:

Psychiatrist, psychologist, clergyman, or attorney shall not be required to report information communicated to him by a person if the communication is privileged under ORS 40.225 to 40.295.

(It would also appear that 40.260 and 40.262 apply in the exemptions, but not all clergy are exempt in all situations.)

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/children/abuse/cps/report.shtm

A licensed clinical social worker doesn't have a protection of confidentiality, nor does a licensed practical nurse or registered nurse. We can only hope she's one of those, giving out prescription medication.

Also it would appear according to Oregon law that sex with a girl aged twelve is a statutory rape in the 2nd degree. As I read it, the Romeo and Juliet clause (3 years, ORS 163.345) may be entered as a defense. A defense against does not constitute an elimination of prosecution.

Source: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/163.html

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

I notice the Lydia glided nicely over the possibility of trying to contact this woman and ask her some follow up questions. As expected when push comes to shove the idologue prefers the political narrative over real life complexities.

Typical liberalism. We're not allowed to complain about another's moral offense unless we're also willing to clean up after him. Lydia doesn't have enough to do raising her own kids and keeping them safe from the kind of bottom-crawlers PP protects.

We're not allowed to complain about another's moral offense unless we're also willing to clean up after him.

William--
I'm curious as to how you would characterize the group implied by the "we" that is the subject of that sentence?

The simple fact is that girls impregnated by their fathers almost never want an abortion; in most cases, the child welcomes the pregnancy because it will draw attention to her plight and create the possibility of escape.

That does not present itself as "a simple fact" to me. Do you have any citations to support it? I think that the strongest fear of any 12 or 13 year old girl who has been raped by her father, and is pregnant, is that anybody would find out about it. A child's sense of justice is rarely able to overcome a child's sense of shame.

On the contrary, it's usually the impregnating father who benefits from the child having an abortion, and if there's an intimidated wife, she's intimidated into seeking an abortion for her daughter.

That strikes me as a more plausible assertion than the first cited above. Again, however, I wonder if you can site any statistics supporting it? While it certainly seems reasonable, for all the obvious practical reasons, that the incestuous father and the intimidated mother would want to get rid of their abused child's pregnancy, I believe it to be the case that psychologically the guilty parents fear the exposure of their guilt to an authority figure more than they fear the consequences of the pregnancy; the pregnancy that they, of course, blame on the victim.

Todd, I appreciate the link, b'cause I couldn't get the one from Dawn Eden's blog to work.

I notice Boonton can't keep me straight from other commentators. Boonton, don't be rude around here regardless (you're on the edge), but especially don't be rude if you can't even bother to tell what I've said and what other people have said.

Boonton, the laws in question (to which Todd has kindly found working links) say that a report is required in the case of "probable cause." "Probable cause" is actually quite a low legal standard. It isn't anything like "enough evidence to convict." My experience is that when people say they have a "hunch" they often do have evidence but haven't made it explicit. It might be the kind of eye contact the girl was making with the older woman, for example, or the way she referred to "him." But in any event, if HPW was concerned about the girl, even a little more questioning would very likely have elicited evidence that would _easily_ amount to probable cause. The girl would either lie or tell the truth, and unless she was a top-notch liar, even if she lied about the age of her partner, that should itself have been pretty evident.

What category HPW falls into is an additional question. She was apparently making birth control pill prescriptions. In doing so, she was at least representing a physician. Some physician's name went on that prescription, and the strong impression from the post is that HPW is the only person the girl saw. How mandatory reporting works legally when a doctor allows non-doctors to see patients and make prescriptions in his name is an interesting question. Could HPW wriggle out of mandatory reporter status on those grounds, without getting into trouble on the other side for making a prescription without proper physician supervision? One reason I doubt it is because of the many accounts of PP employees all over the country who tell clients *not to tell them* the age of their partner (after the client has already told), or else "he'll have to go to jail." Apparently the PP employees understand themselves to be mandatory reporters but have a highly creative interpretation of "probable cause"! ("I didn't hear that. Now, let's start over again and don't you tell me that.")

(Quick note: It looks from my reading of the Oregon law Todd linked like the "age fifteen" thing is for "sexual misconduct" not for 2nd degree rape. On this point Dawn's summary appears to be incorrect--i.e., it looks like voluntary sex between a 12-year-old and someone less than three years older than herself could at most be prosecuted as sexual misconduct.)

Let's get it straight that the girl _was_ having sex or was soon planning to at a minimum. And as Todd has pointed out, an "affirmative defense" does not necessarily mean that no investigation or prosecution would take place. In any event, _you_ continue to ignore the fact that HPW makes it a point of honor _never_ to ask the age of the girls' partners. In other words, she is committed to avoiding obtaining information that is directly pertinent to whether the "Romeo and Juliet" clause would apply. This is incredibly reckless of the well-being of girls, and should be by HPW's own lights, unless of course she approves of children's having sex with people more than three years older than themselves or at least considers it something other than a very serious matter that should be stopped. (Are you really so morally confused, Boonton, that you think having sex with a child is no more of a problem than providing the child with marijuana? Not that I'm convinced the sort of "confidentiality" you outline there is moral and responsible, either. By no means. But I'm willing to believe that liberal ideology also tries to convince people to connive at children's continuing in a situation where they are being given drugs by adults. Not protecting children from adult-encouraged destructive behaviors is a relevant tie-up, here.)

Why don't I say something to HPW in her comments box? First, because I doubt very seriously that it would do the slightest good. It's very weird that you think it would. Second, because I want her to leave the original post up as evidence for any investigators who do decide to take up the case. Third, because if I take time to do something "real-world" about this, it's going to be contacting the Oregon DOJ, not contacting the thoroughly messed-up young woman who is ideologically committed to treating 12-year-olds as consensual sexual actors. I have been waiting to write the relevant justice departments not only for time but also for access to the relevant legal links, which were not working from Dawn's page. I had put a comment on Dawn's recent post on this telling her the material wouldn't come up. I might mention that Plumb Bob, a gentlemanly and sensible blogger-commentator who has recently posted in this thread, has indeed tried to plead gently with HPW in her comments thread, and if she doesn't change her mind as a result of that, it will only be confirmation of her highly deliberate hardening of the heart. We each make our own contribution to real-world situations in the way we think our actions can be most helpful.

I don't know how much more I will be responding to you, Boonton. You are obviously _aggressively_ committed to the idea that it was some kind of good thing that HPW asked nothing more of this child, as a matter of "confidentiality," in order to keep her coming back for "help"--"help" being defined by you, as by HPW, as getting pills to prevent some of the unwanted consequences of sex at age 12. I think that's a horrifying abdication of adult responsibility. It was also, plausibly, illegal. And a good thing, too.

One of the reasons I remain firmly opposed to legalized abortion is the consistent, unremitting, outright DISHONESTY of abortion's defenders.

Boonton gives me a prime example:

"Getting birth control pills, though, would be strange behavior for someone committed to increasing abortions."

And yet, the same people who believe in giving birth control pills and condoms to children, also believe in free access to abortions for children. Dilemma? Hardly.

In the first place, it's a Straw Man. Their commitment isn't to "more abortions," and nobody ever said it was. Neither is Boonton's. Both are committed to "no restrictions on sex," the banal self-justification underlying so much of the Left's dismantling of Western civilization. I'm not surprised he won't admit it, but it's obvious.

But beyond that obvious deception, Boonton's "dilemma" posits PP workers thinking thus: "I won't tell this 12-year-old about birth control pills, so she'll get pregnant and perhaps get an abortion here, earning me money." Does he really believe that's ordinary, profit-making behavior? Really? So, he also believes fee-for-service doctors "forget" to prescribe antibiotics for sinus infections, hoping the patient will develop bronchitis or pneumonia, requiring more costly care? He believes auto mechanics won't point out a dry ball joint, hoping for a more expensive front-end repair down the road? This is how Boonton thinks free enterprise works?

Poppycock. That's Marxist Dreamland, not the real world. Giving birth control pills isn't strange behavior for a business that also profits from abortions, it's how ordinary businesses work.

An even more egregious falsehood is Boonton's repetition of the nonsense phrase, "we don't have enough information." We have the one piece of information that makes this affair a crime: the sexually active "woman" being counselled is 12 years old. A crime is being committed. This is a fact in every state of the union. But Boonton won't acknowledge this.

And I say that as if the fact that a little girl is sexually active is something that wouldn't be of concern except for statutory rape laws. Laws aside, that's of concern to anybody I care to regard as human.

As I said, it's consistent invention of such thoroughly DISHONEST arguments that convinces me that my opposition to legal abortion is culturally necessary.

"[M]edical workers do not and should not probe their patients to discover abuse." Sez Boonton.

A remarkable position to take. Scenario: A pediatrician has a blog under a pseudonym. He posts the following:

I had a girl come in today with a black eye and a gash on her arm. I had a hunch maybe someone much older had beaten her up, but I asked her nothing at all. I never ask kids how they got injured. They might not come back, especially if they feel loyalty to the person who hurt them. I have to offer them confidentiality--which includes never asking questions about what happened to them--so they'll keep coming to me to get treated. I prefer not to know. If I found out that her dad beat her up, for instance, I might be in a legal dilemma and feel that I had to report it. And then confidentiality would be breached. Can't have that. But she's lucky. She had a woman with her, so if she is indeed being abused by a family member or friend and it gets too serious, she has someone to turn to.

Either Boonton would or wouldn't have a problem with that. If he wouldn't, that's a reductio of his whole approach to such matters. If he would, then presumably he denies the analogy. Why? Because a little girl's having sex (if it's _consensual_, maybe?) isn't injurious to her, in his view? That would make my point for me very well in itself.

Regarding the infrequency of impregnated incest victims seeking abortion:

The only study that's apparently ever addressed the issue is by one G. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publications of Amer., 1979. I was citing conclusions from his study second-hand. To be thorough, I should read the study itself to be sure it's not being misquoted by my sources -- and I will.

The assessment that incest victims usually view the pregnancy as a means of escaping their situation comes from the book Victims and Victors (Acorn Books, 2000) ed. David Reardon, Amy Sobie and Julie Makimaa. It's a collection of 192 accounts of women impregnated by incest and 55 impregnated by sexual assault. Their near-unanimous assessment is that abortion makes the situation worse.

Also relevant is Maloof's and others' finding that pregnancy very seldom results from incest, apparently in less than 1% of incest cases. Arguments based on incest or rape pregnancy are examples of justification at the margins, almost always a path to bad policy. You write laws to address the majority cases, and make exceptions to cover the marginal cases.

By the way, yes, if a 12 or 13-year-old shows up at a hospital in labor, a crime report should be made. Is this controversial? I guess so, in certain circles.

An even more egregious falsehood is Boonton's repetition of the nonsense phrase, "we don't have enough information." We have the one piece of information that makes this affair a crime: the sexually active "woman" being counselled is 12 years old. A crime is being committed. This is a fact in every state of the union. But Boonton won't acknowledge this.

Maybe NBC's "To Catch a Predator" should set up shop next to a PP "clinic." It would be like shooting fish in a bucket.

Let me see if I understand this right - is what's going on in these comments nothing more than different ideas on the role of statutory rape laws?

That would make sense.

I certainly see how they're useful, but do think they're painted with too large a brush.

Make no mistake, I certainly obey those laws. However, I am not fully convinced that 12 year olds having consensual sex is "rape" just because the state legislature defines at as such. Likewise, I'm disgusted by the exception that some states add that marriage is a defense to statutory rape.

But yes, as a health care provider, if Oregon statute mandates reporting where a law may have been broken - even if reasonable people differ as to whether it is a victimless crime - then it should be reported.

"However, I am not fully convinced that 12 year olds having consensual sex is "rape" just because the state legislature defines at as such. Likewise, I'm disgusted by the exception that some states add that marriage is a defense to statutory rape."

????

Let me see if I understand this: you are not fully convinced that statutory rape is rape if it is defined by statute, except if it has an exception?

Calling it "rape" where they consent is a legal fiction. "Rape", as I understand and use the term, implies no consent whatsoever.

The legal thinking behind it is actually "capacity", which is analogous to the law of minors regarding contracts and motor vehicles. Kids do not have the "capacity" to drive or engage in contracts until 16 or 18 (in general). But they certainly do consent to driving and contracts.

Yes, it is semantical, but I think it underscores what's going on. Hence, to call it "rape" is an improper term.

As for marriage exceptions, where 30 year olds can have sex with 12 years if they are married, a couple things:

1. It's about consistency. If 12 year olds do not have the capacity for sex, then I don't see how they have the capacity to get married, as it necesitates the capacity for sex.

2. The statutory rape laws do protect children, and in many cases, the laws fit the crime (but not always, see "rape" above).

But by allowing the marital exception, what we considered a minute before a child predator is now given legal status. In that, the state is not merely condoning child predation, but given its blessing to it.

Mr. Beckwith--
I read the statements you quote to mean: 1) the writer is not convinced that consensual sex involving 12 year olds is "rape" merely because it is so defined by law; and 2) if, however, such consensual sex should be defined as statuatory rape, then marriage should not be cause for an exception to that definition.

Rodak - in much more succinct fashion, yes.

Here's a great example of why I don't always consider it "rape."

Consider Garnett v. State (Md. App. 1993)

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/garnett%20v%20st.htm

Garnett was a 20 year old mentally retarded man living with his parents. Erica was a 13 year old girl. Erica sneaks into his house by climbing through his window. They engage in intercourse and Erica gets pregnant.

The judge (rightly, in my opinion) said it would be an injustice to apply Maryland's statutory rape laws to imprison Garnett, despite their age difference on account of Garnett being mentally retarded.

Royale writes, just too incredibly,

Calling it "rape" where they consent is a legal fiction. "Rape", as I understand and use the term, implies no consent whatsoever.

No, sir, this is not a legal fiction. This is a recognition of the fact -- and fact, it is -- that before they've reached a certain age, children don't have the experience or cognitive faculties to make certain decisions properly.

Of course adolescent girls and boys can be coaxed into giving their "consent" to have sex. They're curious. They're changing physically. Their hormones are producing unfamiliar feelings. They don't understand why their parents are so touchy about their explorations; can't they see how adult they've become?

It takes an adult perspective to understand the implications of sexual relations, and to manage the attendant emotions. Kids don't have enough information to make those decisions. This is why, even when it's the child who approaches the adult for sex (and this happens more often than you'd think,) it's the adult's responsibility to say "No," because he or she is in the position to know better.

An adult man engaging in sexual intercourse with an adult woman who does not want to do it is exercising his physical power over her. An adult man engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor girl who wants to do it is exercising the power of his experience and stature over her. Both are an inappropriate use of power to obtain sex; in both cases the woman is a victim. Both are rape, in fact as well as in law.

By the way, Royale, I agree with your assessment of Garnet v Maryland. In my mind, this is comparable to two 12-year-olds engaging in sexual relations with each other. It would be inappropriate to prosecute either as a rapist, so long as they both intended to do it. Same with the case of a mentally retarded adult; both parties lack the capacity to commit a criminal culpable act. See my comments about adult responsibility, above.

On the other hand, locking the stupid kids in their rooms for about 4 years wouldn't be a bad idea...

It's the exercise of adult stature to obtain sex from those who haven't full capacity to defend themselves that makes statutory rape, rape.

"This is a recognition of the fact -- and fact, it is -- that before they've reached a certain age, children don't have the experience or cognitive faculties to make certain decisions properly."

This is why I differentiated "consent" from "capacity." Your analysis goes to capacity, in which I agree.

But consent and capacity should not be confused. Hence, I adopt a much more narrow definition of "rape" as consent can be very tricky, whereas "capacity" is much more easier to administer in law.

Consider this, let's say a man and woman meet at a bar. The man lies and convinces her that he is worth $10 million, but in reality he is a penniless pauper who stole some nice clothes and is a great actor.

They sleep together (or get married and sleep together, no difference here). She finds out that he was lying.

She was coerced, lied to, and manipulated. The guy is a scumbag.

She consented to sex (or marriage) with a millionaire. She did not consent to the same with a penniless pauper.

But still, was she "raped"? I say no.

Semantic and legal issues aside, if a twenty year old talked a twelve year old into committing suicide I would treat the twenty year old like a particularly heinous sort of murderer. Off with his head.

Royale, a couple of the several controversies going on here concern the best way to help and protect a minor who is having sex. What I wd. call the "liberal" perspective is that it is best to have a rule that one asks no questions of such minors, not about the age of their partners, not about whether the sex is consensual, nothing, because most of them are engaging in consensual sex anyway (whether with older people or with people their own age), and asking them no questions is the best way to keep them coming back for "help," where "help" means birth control pills, perhaps condoms, and so forth--that is, things that can mitigate various consequences of their sexual activity. The "conservative" position is that this is a horribly reckless rule and that it abandons the children involved to their own devices, even allowing coercive rape to go undiscovered in deference to the "don't ask" rule--in other words, that such a rule perversely prioritizes children's freedom to have sex and the ability of the healthcare worker to mitigate the consequences over the protection of the minors _from_ sexual intercourse, even from unwanted sexual intercourse.

There are other, to some extent unstated, differences as well, such as whether 12-year-olds should be allowed to have sex even with those their own age (my answer is "no," of course), and so forth. But to my mind it is totally out of bounds--crazy, in fact--to defend what HPW did morally on the grounds that this is the best way to "help kids." It betrays a totally messed-up set of priorities, an inability to understand children's incapacity (which Plumb Bob has highlighted) to give meaningful consent, and an irresponsible lack of sufficient concern for discovering, even by a few well-placed questions, even outright rape. In other words, "choice" (quote, unquote) is being treated as more important than choice, where we consider that it's better to risk leaving a 12-year-old in an abusive situation than to risk driving her away from the source of birth control pills

She was coerced, lied to, and manipulated. The guy is a scumbag.

She consented to sex (or marriage) with a millionaire. She did not consent to the same with a penniless pauper.

'Tis a pity; she's a whore. She didn't get raped, she got stiffed.

Reminds me of a joke my mother told me (yes, my mother.) The man says to his female companion, "If I gave you a million dollars, would you sleep with me?" She considers, and slowly says, "yeeeeesss..." wondering where this is going. "How about if I gave you $5?" he continues. "Of course not!" she snaps. "What do you think I am?" "We've already established that," explains the fellow, "and now we're just haggling over the price."

"We've already established that," explains the fellow, "and now we're just haggling over the price."

SSocialist punchlines on WWWtW? Who'da thunk it?

Todd,

Thank you for posting Oregon's law. I notice the reporting rule applies to "information communicated to him by a person...." This would seem to contradict Lydia's assertion that not only does one have to report information reported to them (as in "I'm 12 years old and having sex with a 22 year old man") but also hunches (as in "I'm 12 years old and want birth control" and the secretary suspects she is having sex and having sex with an older man).

Reporting seems to create a larger problem of deterring people from seeking help. For example, I posted two links to resource directories for rape and incest victims. I'm almost 100% certain that none of these hotlines would break confidentiality as doing so would deter a lot of victims from contacting them. Should they be required to do so?

Rodak
I believe it to be the case that psychologically the guilty parents fear the exposure of their guilt to an authority figure more than they fear the consequences of the pregnancy; the pregnancy that they, of course, blame on the victim.

Good point, I would imagine when pregnancy does result from a father who is molesting his daughter the strategy would be to blame the pregnancy on some unidentified 'boyfriend' whether the pregnancy is taken to term or aborted.

Lydia
Boonton, don't be rude around here regardless (you're on the edge), but especially don't be rude if you can't even bother to tell what I've said and what other people have said.

Point taken, I do try to keep the commentators straight out of politeness. It doesn't matter from the point of an argument, either an argument is valid or invalid regardless of who made it. But I apologize if I mixed you up with another commentator and I'll try harder to avoid the error in the future.

Boonton, really: The phrase "information communicated to him by a person" occurs in the section in which it is explaining clergy and other exemptions. It is quite a stretch to say that this means that those not exempt may deliberately ignore their own concerns about a child's safety and deliberately insulate themselves from obtaining any information on the subject. The relevant language (obviously) is this:

"Any public or private official having reasonable cause to believe that any child with whom the official comes in contact has suffered abuse, or that any person with whom the official comes in contact has abused a child shall immediately report or cause a report to be made . . ."

Obviously a lot turns on the meaning of "reasonable cause" and on how far one is allowed, without being in violation, to go in making sure one *does not* get exposed to information amounting to "reasonable cause." But I think a pediatrician not wishing to get in trouble with DHS would be ill-advised to follow the policy I outlined in my example above, to ignore his hunch that a child had been abused, deliberately to ask no questions about the situation, and to trumpet it about on the web.

Lydia
Boonton, the laws in question (to which Todd has kindly found working links) say that a report is required in the case of "probable cause." "Probable cause" is actually quite a low legal standard. It isn't anything like "enough evidence to convict." My experience is that when people say they have a "hunch" they often do have evidence but haven't made it explicit. It might be the kind of eye contact the girl was making with the older woman, for example, or the way she referred to "him."

Please tell us exactly what type of experience you have in this area. Probable cause usually refers to issuing warrants and police conducting search