What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Choice devours itself--Planned Parenthood willing to aid child traffickers

Warning: I have not watched the video I am linking for this post, as I have not had an opportune "no children coming to watch over the shoulder" moment in which to do so. But I think it's important enough to make this connection now, as the news is breaking.

According to summaries of this video, it shows a pro-life "sting" operation against Planned Parenthood in which the PP employee coaches people pretending to be child traffickers in a) how to lie to obtain abortions for their minor girl sex-slaves and even get a "student" discount for various PP services, b) when they can once again begin having the "girls" perform full sexual services after an abortion (a shockingly short minimum of two weeks), c) how to use them as "part of the action" during that two week period, and d) where they can find a lower-class abortion facility that is less monitored than PP and that will ask fewer questions. (Wonder if this is how Kermit Gosnell got some of his customers. But remember--his existence was somehow the fault of pro-lifers who didn't give women enough money to kill their children.)

One wonders: Does this PP worker claim to be "pro-choice"? It boggles the mind. In my original "choice devours itself" piece on the old Right Reason, the point of mine that generated the most comment concerned foreign aid workers who enabled sex traffickers, promising not to help girls escape in return for access to the slaves.

It seems nothing has changed, and the pattern is emerging in the U.S. The sexual revolution with its talk of "choice" leads us to situations where the high priests of that revolution sacrifice choice on its altar--without a qualm. This PP worker seems to know the ropes pretty well. Wonder how often she has done this with real pimps and child traffickers?

Will charges be filed against PP? I'm cynical enough to think not. I remember a different case in which the pro-life group who made this video was forced to turn over the video (in that case, of a PP worker coaching a girl on how to lie about her age and that of her boyfriend) because of violations of wiretapping laws. Yep, those are the most important laws to enforce. The ones against being accessories to child trafficking and statutory rape, not so much.

I'll be glad if I'm proved wrong and the FBI and other relevant agencies sweep down on this. Please let me know if you see a story indicating that it's happening for real.

By the way: Yes, I'm aware that PP has engaged in furious damage control, firing the employee and reporting to the FBI, though obviously Woodruff wasn't doing so. No, this does not make the video a "hoax." That would be if, you know, the video were not real. Some people don't know how to use words. I have linked the unedited version above, as apparently PP attempted to use the fact that it had been edited for length originally to call its authenticity into doubt. It's unclear whether PP would have contacted the FBI had they not believed (as they state they did believe) that the people approaching their clinics were engaged in a sting operation. In any event, while Ms. Woodruff has lost her job, there could easily be more Ms. Woodruffs out there. And PP, so far from being thankful to Live Action for smoking out Ms. Woodruff, wants (of course) Live Action itself investigated by the FBI. That's right: Shoot the messenger.

Comments (53)

This is one of those litmus tests for state power and corruption. With all of the incredible power the states and feds have today, their "tools" for law enforcement as they call them in the press, we should be saying "countdown to RICO prosecution of Planned Parenthood in 3... 2... 1..." not wondering if anything will come of this.

It's things like this which force me to keep one foot in the libertarian camp. If the state won't bring down the hammer like Attila on these people, we simply cannot trust it to do right in general.

The important thing in the universe is that (to use Mel Brooks's words) pee-pees can go into woo-woos uninhibited. Everything else pales in comparison to this unassailable right. E. Michael Jones is correct: modernity is all about rationalizing sexual misbehavior. The rest of it is frippery and gingerbread.

Mike,

Perhaps about three toes rather than the entire foot.

Kamilla

The employee was fired. Will she be prosecuted? I doubt it. Also, what about this other, non-PP clinic that asks fewer questions? Shouldn't that be investigated?

What I'm really waiting for in 3...2...1 is the spin machine to start. Shall I predict what it will say? Of course, that's a little unfair, because it's already started:

"Since PP reported some of this after suspecting a sting, the whole thing is irrelevant and tells us nothing about PP."

Not true. The PP manager did what she did. That remains true even though PP got wind of the sting and tried to do damage control. PP fired the employee only after the video came out, though it seems plausible that she had done this sort of thing before.

"The video was edited, so the whole thing is irrelevant."

Not true. The uncut video has been released, and unless critics are willing to claim that it was _fabricated_ (which PP itself does not seem to think, since this employee is a real person whom they fired), this criticism is irrelevant.


"PP says that this violated its core values."

Evidently not. Not Ms. Woodruff's core values.


"This has nothing to do with choice devouring itself."

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

"This has nothing to do with liberalism. Anyone who does that isn't a liberal."

Definitional moves are useful for face saving, but a little boring, don't you think?

Oh, I forgot one:

"What a terrible, dishonest, and possibly illegal thing Live Action did in recording this video. That's the real story. Let's all talk about that. Pro-lifers are horrible. They should be investigated by the FBI and put in jail."

Misdirection. The classic tool of one caught red-handed.

Well it certainly explains why Homeland Security has been scouring pro-life groups in the way that they have never done, even under Bush, to say...CAIR.

NJ Division of Criminal Justice is investigating.

http://liveaction.org/blog/new-jersey-ag-investigate-manager/

Thanks, Paul. We'll keep an eye on it. I hope she's just engaging in understandable professional understatement, though perhaps "very disturbing" should be regarded as a very strong statement coming from the Attorney General.

I think this could be spun by saying the PP employee did not want to frighten the pimp away which would result in backstreet abortions for his underage prostitutes. They could also add that in reporting the pimp and causing his arrest other pimps would stay away from PP in the future and force backstreet abortions on their underage prostitutes.

This is how they think: women will have abortions anyway so they may as well make them safer. In this instance the pimp will be making the choice but the abortion will be safer anyway, since an illegal abortion would follow inevitably otherwise.

PP reported the activity to the Justice Dept. in the same week that the visits took place. Why hasn't Live Action posted all the videos? There's no story here beyond the fact that after fishing around all over the nation LA finally found a bad actor. Wow!

And the child sex slave will remain in safely in sex slavery, so everyone is happy...right...yeah...

Whatever you do al, don't take off the blindfold!

Puragu, I know that's how they think. Isn't it perverse and morally insane? That's exactly what they said about the workers who promised not to help the girls out of slavery. "Well, that gives them access so they can treat their STD's."

By this logic, we should provide latex gloves to wife beaters so they won't get germs in the wounds. And let's not report them. The wife beating will just go underground, and then we won't get a chance to treat the wives.

Al, Live Action has found substantially more than one "bad actor" and has posted videos to that effect before.

Even in this case, this was the manager of a clinic, not some flunky, and she clearly knew the ropes about how to game the system.

Moreover, they "found" this other clinic that is apparently even worse, to which she referred.

Patrick, how about explaining where I am wrong?

What apparently happened is that an anti-abortion organization conducted a nation-wide sting on several planned parenthood offices.

One of the persons they contacted in one of the offices behaved very badly. The counselors in the other offices reported the contacts to their superiors in PP who then contacted the Justice Dept. in the same week in which the sting was conducted.

The offending counselor was fired when her actions became known.

On the tape that same counselor is recorded as instructing the stingers on how to circumvent existing PP policy that was likely to be enforced by other PP personnel with whom they would be in contact.

What we know from this sting is the following:

1. PP has policies in place to guard against the abuse of minors.

2. The overwhelming number of PP employees who were contacted follow those policies.

3. PP will report violations of their policies (and the law) to the proper authorities in a timely manner.

4. The one bad actor was in conflict with other employees in her office who enforced the policies.

Where am I wrong?


"Behaved very badly." Gotta love it.

Hey, Al, I'm waiting for you to call for this "one bad actor," Ms. "Waist up" Woodruff, to be _prosecuted_. We're talking about _child sex slavery_, dig it?

Sometimes I almost wonder if Al is capable of outrage.

Oh, that's right: He is, at "the rich."

I finally watched the video. Amy Woodruff expressly identifies someone named "Karin" as her "partner in crime" (her words). The only person whom she definitely says to avoid giving information to is the nurse, for whom she has harsh words. It is unclear whether Karin, her "partner in crime," is the same as "me and my other counselor" who "want as little information as possible" mentioned at 3:13.

So even within this particular clinic, this is not a case of "one bad actor."

Nobody has said that Karin has been fired or investigated by PP.

And the other clinic, the "Medical Association," must be a real winner if it asks even fewer questions. Sounds like another Gosnell place.

More videos will be forthcoming, but will they be more damning or less?

Live Action is likely following a media strategy of gradual releases to build a larger narrative. Their former associate James O'Keefe did the same with the ACORN videos. The most damaging ACORN video wasn't the first one, as I recall.

Lila Rose said on Feb. 2 that Live Action will be releasing more evidence showing that Planned Parenthood is willing to aid “sexual exploitation of minors and young women.”

“As our research and evidence will show, this is not only a problem for one clinic in New Jersey — it is much broader and more endemic.”

As a practical matter, they also have to finish processing and editing the videos they have.

Woodruff says "we" or "we all" (I'd have to look back up to see which) "hate" the nurse. This indicates, so far from one bad apple, a general clinic mindset like that of Woodruff with only one person, the nurse, who might abide by mandatory reporter laws, might report the trafficking, and must be avoided.

Al, what is your evidence that all the stings were conducted and the possible trafficking reported within the same week? I'm not saying you don't have the evidence. I just haven't found that timeline. And if it was all reported at the same time and only late in the week, this still doesn't look like each clinic rushing to report what it knows but rather like a coordinated damage control maneuver as they realized what was going on. They also reported LA to the FBI, which just shows so much gratitude for smoking out Woodruff & co. (the "& co." evidently haven't been fired).

Al,

Four percent of all Catholic priests and deacons in ministry from 1950-2002 have been accused of sexual abuse of minors. I suspect that you don't accept a collective shoulder shrug and the "one bad apple" defense in that case, do you? And how much money are you willing to wager that the percentage of PP workers who would aid and abet sexual abuse of minors is 4% or less? It sounds like it was much higher than 4% of the staff in the clinic in question alone.

Actually j. christian, I do. From what i have read,it seems to me that there were a few bad apples at the top - the former pope, the present Pope and some Cardinals and bishops. A few bad apples were able to do a lot of damage because their superiors were willing to cover up their crimes.

I don't believe there are enough employees at a typical PP clinic to apply the same stats as for the RCC.

Lydia, this 1/24/11 press release,

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-informs-federal-authorities-potential-sex-trafficking-35888.htm

There was also an AP release and a WP story the same day. With multiple reports coming in close together, it makes sense to take a day or two to put things together.

Suggesting to the FBI that this may have been a sting by LA seems responsible to me. It also seems the most reasonable conclusion - more so than the coincidence of sex traffickers popping up all at once all over the nation.

PP obviously needs to find out what went south at the NJ office and deal with it. You wouldn't want to be fired on the unsupported, off-hand comments of a co-worker and there is potential liability if PP did that.

Kevin, you are doing LA no favors by drawing a comparison with convicted criminal James O'Keefe and the now generally recognized as a fraud Acorn videos.

Right, Al. These things come from the top down. Sort of like an organization that has a eugenicist as its founder.

The important thing in the universe is that (to use Mel Brooks's words) pee-pees can go into woo-woos uninhibited. Everything else pales in comparison to this unassailable right.

Having attained this right, they've managed to [edited LM; Steve I know you didn't start this, but we're not going to expand upon it.]

Al, they didn't just "suggest" to the FBI that this "may have been a sting." They want the FBI to investigate LA. They call what LA did "dirty tricks." Is that what you would call it if it were done by the FBI and actually _found_ somebody aiding and abetting traffickers? "Dirty tricks" that should in turn be investigated?

Suggesting to the FBI that this may have been a sting by LA seems responsible to me.

Al, I don't think that's what you mean. In my lexicon, "sting" means a method of using subterfuge to uncover crimes. I really, really strongly doubt that PP is suggesting that LA was using subterfuge to uncover crimes.

Entrapment is when someone (usually police) mount an effort to provoke someone into an illegal action that they would not have otherwise considered. It is possible for a sting operation to result in entrapment, if the operation is not well designed to avoid provocation or enticement toward criminal behavior that would not otherwise be considered. Making available a mere opportunity for criminal behavior, without applying any direct pressure on the target, is not entrapment.

I suspect that Al wants to suggest that the actions of LA were along the lines of entrapment rather than presenting a mere opportunity for criminal behavior. I would suggest, as an alternative, that everyone who walks in the door at PP is considered a client or potential client, and it is hard to see how a client can present pressure towards criminal services. Other than, say, offering higher and higher abnormal remuneration for such illegal services. Is that what you say happened, Al?

the now generally recognized as a fraud Acorn videos.

That's rich. According to the sites I just search, 2 of which were in support of ACORN, the fraudulent nature of aspects of those videos didn't explain away the illegal behavior, and they agreed that those ACORN employees should have been fired. I don't support fraud in any event, but I wouldn't sit there trying to defend illegal behavior by saying that the guy who blew the cover off was also doing something wrong: people who use that defense go to jail.

"Having attained this right, they've managed to [edited LM; Steve I know you didn't start this, but we're not going to expand upon it.]"

Heh-heh. I bet I know what you were going to say there, Steve-o!

In any case, the observation stands: sexual "liberty" is the keystone of the modernist revolution.

For the "one bad apple" spin file, try this one:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6197723-504083.html

You know, it's not like this is all just beginning now. I love the way this sort of documentation is always supposed to start all over again, as though all the things they've _already_ exposed never happened.

This is one of those litmus tests for state power and corruption. With all of the incredible power the states and feds have today, their "tools" for law enforcement as they call them in the press, we should be saying "countdown to RICO prosecution of Planned Parenthood in 3... 2... 1..." not wondering if anything will come of this.

It's things like this which force me to keep one foot in the libertarian camp. If the state won't bring down the hammer like Attila on these people, we simply cannot trust it to do right in general.

Well hold on a minute. You're absolutely right that this state of affairs should not be, but proper diagnosis of the problem is important. There is an explanation for the protected status of abortion, and why it is the God-awful truth that it is the most unregulated medical related business in the nation. State power was declared off-limits to deal with it.

Also, many forms of libertarianism are just fine with stuff like this. I am a conservative, and as such I share much with libertarians since there is a good bit of overlap, but libertarianism has limits. Push it too far and it allows just this sort of thing.

The article I linked show exactly why the poo-pooing of the SCOTUS decision is a grave mistake. You know the type . . . "Oh yes but you see it would be so much better if people saw that abortion was wrong and acted on this conviction without the compulsion of the law." Some sort of anti-nomian humbuggery. Declaring a group of persons (let alone defenseless) outside of the rule of law that the rest of us enjoy has grave consequences, and when even those who oppose abortion act like those that think so are some sort of legalists or fundamentalists just really blows my mind.

Also, many forms of libertarianism are just fine with stuff like this. I am a conservative, and as such I share much with libertarians since there is a good bit of overlap, but libertarianism has limits. Push it too far and it allows just this sort of thing.

Libertarianism itself doesn't have a single answer about abortion. There are libertarians like Vox Day who actually call for all participants in abortion to be prosecuted for murder. In fact, you will find that some of the most radical pro-lifers aren't conservatives, but "libertarians for life." Conservative support for the pro-life movement is proportionally not much better. One expects a pro-choice position from many libertarians, but it's disheartening to see the number of conservatives who chomp at the bit for the opportunity to compromise.

Libertarianism itself doesn't have a single answer about abortion. . . . Conservative support for the pro-life movement is proportionally not much better.

Have you compared the party platforms of the Libertarian party and the Republican party on this? They are against state funding, but oppose federal *and* state government from making it illegal as it was pre-Roe. The position is that whether an unborn baby lives or dies is properly the personal choice of each woman.

Have you compared the party platforms of the Libertarian party and the Republican party on this? They are against state funding, but oppose federal *and* state government from making it illegal as it was pre-Roe. The position is that whether an unborn baby lives or dies is properly the personal choice of each woman.

1) The Libertarian Party can't draw the support of even a large minority of libertarian-leaning or libertarian individuals. It doesn't even get sympathy funding from them.

2) The Republican Party has not actually taken a viable attack against abortion since the failed appointment of Robert Bork. Actions speak louder than words, and many conservatives will say that they believe in abortion in case of rape or incest or even into the first trimester.

3) Ron Paul, a pro-life libertarian, was the de facto libertarian candidate in 2008. In fact, other than Huckabee, he was the only serious candidate who had a credible claim to being an ardent enemy of abortion on demand.

4) One would expect greater support for abortion on weak individual autonomy grounds from a movement very concerned with individual autonomy, but it is shocking to see how many "pro-family" types take similar positions.

"Another story breaking."

I viewed it and there's nothing there - unlike the one NJ with the now fired manager, the woman in the Virginia office did nothing wrong and reported the incident immediately after it happened.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/activists-targeting-planned-parenthood-release-undercover-video/story?id=12831614&page=1

Actually al, she reported it to her supervisor, who sent up the ladder to the PP security team who then notified the FBI of a suspicious visit. She didn't report it as a possible sex trafficking incident. PP was looking at it as a hoax. Otherwise, it would have been reported to local authorities who have jurisdiction. Nice try at spin though.

Al, if he'd really been a pimp she shouldn't have been telling him how to get abortions, etc., for his "girls." It would have been easy enough to say, "You know, how about we talk about this STD concern that you have for yourself? If there are other people who need our services, have them get in touch with us. As you can see it's really easy to get in here to talk to somebody." There's no reason whatsoever why this one man needs to be getting tons of information on how minor prostitutes who aren't even there can receive confidential sex services. If he'd really been a pimp, this could have been a big problem, especially if he'd just gone elsewhere to use the information.

I don't know, I'd want him to come back if i were interested in stopping him and helping the young women.

"Actually al, she reported it to her supervisor, who sent up the ladder to the PP security team who then notified the FBI of a suspicious visit. She didn't report it as a possible sex trafficking incident. PP was looking at it as a hoax."

We don't know what she reported it as but PP reported it as a possible crime OR a hoax. Of course she reported it to her supervisor who then reported in to her supervisor, etc. Most organizations have protocols for dealing with non-emergency incidents that may involve the authorities. You seem to be quite confused over this matter. Whatever sources you are relying on seem to have misled you.

Here is the letter sent to AG Holder.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact_AG_Holder_011811.pdf

"Otherwise, it would have been reported to local authorities who have jurisdiction."

That is why organizations have reporting protocols. It allows one to see a bigger picture. When the facts were gathered it was clear that something was going on in more than one state. That makes the AG the appropriate contact. you are simply making things up that sound good to you.

That is why organizations have reporting protocols. It allows one to see a bigger picture.

Sorry, I don't think that's supposed to be how it works. It is not for PP to decide whether there is a scheme or organized effort. They should be reporting to the local jurisdiction regardless of whether they also think that there might be a "larger picture." Developing the larger picture is a job for other agencies, but pursuing a specific criminal involved in a specific sex crime is something the local jurisdiction is supposed to be doing. People like the FBI can coordinate with the local cops themselves. PP's protocol should have been for an immediate phone call or letter to the immediate law enforcement office that has jurisdiction. That protocol should also not give the employee any reason to think it is her job to say "I don't know, I'd want him to come back if i were interested in stopping him and helping the young women."

Tony is completely right. You call the police. The local police. It's hardly such an easy-going situation if you have evidence that young girls are being held and managed as sex slaves in your own town!

Moreover, PP wants to defend her on the grounds that she gave out correct information. But since she implied that they would _not_ report underage sex (i.e., _at least_ statutory rape, if not out-and-out rape, of minors being used as prostitutes), she did not give him correct information. If we're going to excuse deliberately acting like you're helping a pimp to "get him to come back," then it seems like any degree of fake cooperation could be excused so long as you told the PP food chain about it afterwards. In that case, the fault of the Ms. Woodruff in New Jersey would not have been all that blatantly conspiratorial advice-giving to someone she believed to be a pimp but rather not telling PP upper management _only_.

"But since she implied that they would _not_ report underage sex (i.e., _at least_ statutory rape, if not out-and-out rape, of minors being used as prostitutes), she did not give him correct information."

"Ok Mr. Pimp, as you no doubt know prostitution is illegal and sex with underage persons is illegal. I am now going to call the local police and have them come over and you can take them to these underage girls and get arrested at the same time. Please wait here."

I also suppose that our film crew (or real pimp) used a real name and address so when the local police arrived they would know just where to go and who to seek.

"Tony is completely right. You call the police. The local police."

Notice the trajectory here. We are now complaining because PP followed their protocols instead of the ones you believe should be followed and notifed the agency you would have notified instead of the agency they notified. We are now down to petty hair splitting. I understand that PP's timely notification of the Justice Dept sort of blew LA's little project out of the water but you'll just have to live with that..

Al, I've already told you what she could have said, and there are a lot of other things, too. Heck, the really bad woman at the New Jersey clinic at showed that she _knew_ about statutory rape laws. This one sounded like she was saying they literally didn't exist, like she was clueless or thought they didn't apply. She could have pointed out, "We are mandatory reporters of statutory rape, so we can't guarantee confidentiality if underage girls are sexually active and seeking services related to that." On the contrary, she said _just the opposite_. And frankly, I think that's true: They don't report underage sexual activity or statutory rape. I think she was giving a true picture of how they operate. Why should we think she wasn't?

It's completely unclear as to whether PP would have done anything at all if they had really believed this was a pimp. It looks very clearly like they were seeking Justice Dept. involvement in order to try to get LA in trouble.

Yes, al, most organizations when there is a possible abuse of minors going on send a letter to the head of the Department of Justice. Don't you think that is a little...unusual? The whole letter reads like a press release. The letter doesn't say, "We have contacted the FBI and local authorities." It says "We believe these incidents should be investigated..." Is this typically the way one goes about reporting a possible crime? I don't think so.

Also notice in the next paragraph is says that staff "will comply" with state laws concerning such behavior. It doesn't say they have reported anything to the applicable states yet.

Other than issuing a letter that looks like a PR stunt, I don't know what they have reported. But based on the quotes in the ABC article and this letter, it looks like the only place they contacted was the DOJ.

We are now complaining because PP followed their protocols instead of the ones you believe should be followed

You don't know that. If they have an official protocol, produce it so that we see that it says to contact the Attorney General of the US. I could be wrong about what they actually have, but putting such a ridiculous action item into a protocol is just too silly to contemplate seriously.

Their protocol must be to wait at least seven days from the event (Falls Church was the 11th and this letter is dated the 18th) and then send notification to the AG via snail mail.

For car accidents, they wait one day to see if any occur at other locations. Once the day passes they send mail via Pony Express to the US Department of Transportation that maybe the should look into the car accident.

Go, Chris!!!

"Go, Chris!!!"

Go where? To another non-sequitur perhaps? Chris is assuming an emergency situation with Pauline tied across the railroad tracks. What was apparent with central data collection was Lila once again playing pretend hooker.

What does the car accident reference have to do with anything?

If one is in North America and hears hoof beats, one assumes horses not zebras. If one is Planned Parenthood and reports of kids representing themselves to be hookers and pimps start filtering in, one assumes a hoax not a nationwide underage prostitution ring.

You all so want to believe that PP would aid underage prostitution as a matter of policy that you seem to have lost track of the fact that the whole thing was a transparent hoax* from the beginning. So they too a few days for a non-emergency situation - so what?

*I assume no minors were actually harmed in the filming of these hoaxes.

You all so want to believe that PP would aid underage prostitution as a matter of policy that you seem to have lost track of the fact that the whole thing was a transparent hoax* from the beginning. So they too a few days for a non-emergency situation - so what?

So, the wrote the US AG about an obvious hoax? Obviously he doesn't have a enough to do.

Anyways, it isn't their job to decide whether it is a hoax or not, especially at the initial point of contact. That is a job for the police. Plus, at least the first couple of PP locations don't know other locations are seeing similar incidents. So, protocol is now to wait a few days to determine if it is a hoax or not? What if it, by sheer coincidence with two locations, had been a real situation? It's acceptable to wait several days and then not properly report a possible crime?

Actually, had each PP location done the sensible thing and immediately notified local authorities, it wouldn't have been a problem. I doubt LA would have continued it they were constantly getting detained and questioned by the police. That's the laughable thing about this. PP could have done the right thing and LA would probably be getting fined for all sorts of nuisance violations. Instead PP is following this mystical protocol that seems a lot like avoiding the law.

BTW, having worked for a couple of national companies, protocol is almost always to contact local law enforcement with regards to possible criminal situations. The only exceptions tended to be for items that would involve internal auditing where the company would want to collect all available information before contacting authorities.

It looks to me like Al doesn't think it really would be all that big a deal if this guy actually were pimping underage girls. Ho, hum, it probably isn't real. Let's not worry about it.

Moreover, PP wants the *actual conduct* of the staff to be taken to be *illustrative* of their generally law-abiding behavior. But since we're now being told that their actual conduct was _not_ illustrative of what they would do in a real situation, how the deuce do we know what they would do in a situation they considered real? I hardly think PP should want to be defended the Al Way, which is essentially by saying, "Oh, yes, what they did would have been completely inappropriate as a response to such a situation if it had been real, but since it wasn't, just trust them for what they would do in a real situation. This doesn't count."

In that case, why don't they defend Ms. Woodruff in New Jersey by saying this? "Hey, she's just a really, really good actress. They decided to mess with her head. She decided to mess with theirs. Nothing she told them was the way any PP clinic really operates. It was all made up. Of course it would have been inappropriate in a _real_ situation, but it doesn't _count_, you see, because this wasn't a real pimp."

If the "what we did shouldn't be evaluated in itself because the situation wasn't real" defense works, it works all the way and for everything, and they needn't have fired Woodruff.

Why do you guys even bother? If some liberal group announced that the sky was green, Al would find some way to defend it.

What was apparent with central data collection was Lila once again playing pretend hooker.

I know the Left isn't so good at caring about little details like getting the lady's name, but Ms. Rose didn't pose as a prostitute prior to this. The prior stings she did were as a victim of statutory rape (twice), and a racist donor.

The gal who posed as a hooker to expose ACORN was Miss Giles. Lots of sexual insults against her then, too-- remember, folks, respect women as long as it's useful!

BTW, Al? What "does not follow" is failing to report self-claimed slavery, child-abuse and rape for long enough to DO central data collection.

There appears to be some reflection going on.

"There’s so much real investigative journalism conservatives could be doing on government waste, incompetence, accountability, and transparency. It’s pathetic that donors on the right keep handing over money for these moronic “stings”. The right needs 10 more Tim Carneys. Instead, they keep churning out James O’Keefes."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/a-pimped-out-movement.html#more

So PP fired the employee as they should have, and they also reported this visit and several other similar visits IMMEDIATELY to the local and federal authorities as possible sex trafficking rings in the area. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/01/AR2011020106135.html)

So now we have the feds wasting their time looking into 6 different potential sex trafficking rings that don't exist. They were all just a hoax aimed at taking down PP. While the PP employee handled this poorly and unethically (IMO), these sting operations really do little more than ferret out a few bad employees and waste time and money.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.