Obama Admin Ignores Planned Parenthood Sex Trafficking Videos

[juliee]

Obama Admin Ignores Planned Parenthood Sex Trafficking Videos

Washington, DC – Lila Rose, the head of the Live Action organization that released videos showing Planned Parenthood centers helping undercover investigators posting as sex traffickers, says the Obama administration is ignoring the potential crimes.

lifenews.com/2011/03/02/obama-admin-ignores-planned-parenthood-sex-trafficking-videos/

 

[bbarrick8383]

Obama thinks that being Commander in Chief means you can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones ignore based on your own judgement. He’s Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches all wrapped in one. He’s the messiah, he campaigned on stopping rising waters. There is nothing he cant do.

 

[LemonAndLime]

My understanding of the videos is that they were “honeytraps”.

Such things are unadmissable in court in certain countries, tell me - did they actually find evidence that Planned Parenthood were carrying out these sex trafficking offences or was it just the journalists pretending they were pimps? Because if its the latter I would ignore it too.

 

[bbarrick8383]

My understanding of the videos is that they were “honeytraps”.

Such things are unadmissable in court in certain countries, tell me - did they actually find evidence that Planned Parenthood were carrying out these sex trafficking offences or was it just the journalists pretending they were pimps? Because if its the latter I would ignore it too.

So if I walked into say, a Catholic Church and told the priest that I had a plan to launder money from the Church that would make us both rich. And he gave me advice on my plan and at least entertained the thought, not ever once declining it. You would just ignore that?

 

[z0wb13]

So if I walked into say, a Catholic Church and told the priest that I had a plan to launder money from the Church that would make us both rich. And he gave me advice on my plan and at least entertained the thought, not ever once declining it. You would just ignore that?

that’s not exactly what happened. the one women on the first video, who offered advice as to how to circumvent normal reporting laws, was fired. on all of the other tapes, the employees acted appropriately. and that woman that was fired reported the incidence to her superiors, who took appropriate action and reported it to police.

employees have to follow state laws. in most of those states, health care providers have to give out all the relevant information to people coming to see them, and advise them on all of their options. that’s exactly what happened.

furthermore, the people at PP informed local police at first and later the FBI when it was implied that an interstate sex-trafficking ring was operating. so here they acted appropriately as well.

@bbarrick: what if you had told the priest that you had already committed said crime, but you told him during confession. does the priest have an obligation to report this to police? because the way that i understand it he is actually duty bound to not report it. what if i told you about an institution that instead of reporting pedophiles to police, the institution just shuffled them around to different offices, what would you think of that institution? my point here is that you can’t logically conclude that because a group has a few bad apples (like the women at PP that was fired) that the entire organization is also bad. it’s a fallacy of composition.

anyway, no, obama shouldn’t prosecute the case because there was no crime committed. and, i think this gets lost in the shuffle: THERE WERE NO VICTIMS!!! THERE WAS NO SEX-TRAFFIC RING!!! IT WAS ALL MADE UP!!! so there is nothing to prosecute, unless you want to get people for crime thoughts somehow.

 

[Nostradennis]

Why did Obama get the majority of the Catholic vote?

                                54%

Do Catholics not know that the President chooses the Attorney General (America’s Prosecutor) and nominates justices to the Supreme Court (Highest Law of the Land) ?

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=9996

 

[bbarrick8383]

that’s not exactly what happened. the one women on the first video, who offered advice as to how to circumvent normal reporting laws, was fired. on all of the other tapes, the employees acted appropriately. and that woman that was fired reported the incidence to her superiors, who took appropriate action and reported it to police.

employees have to follow state laws. in most of those states, health care providers have to give out all the relevant information to people coming to see them, and advise them on all of their options. that’s exactly what happened.

furthermore, the people at PP informed local police at first and later the FBI when it was implied that an interstate sex-trafficking ring was operating. so here they acted appropriately as well.

@bbarrick: what if you had told the priest that you had already committed said crime, but you told him during confession. does the priest have an obligation to report this to police? because the way that i understand it he is actually duty bound to not report it. what if i told you about an institution that instead of reporting pedophiles to police, the institution just shuffled them around to different offices, what would you think of that institution? my point here is that you can’t logically conclude that because a group has a few bad apples (like the women at PP that was fired) that the entire organization is also bad. it’s a fallacy of composition.

anyway, no, obama shouldn’t prosecute the case because there was no crime committed. and, i think this gets lost in the shuffle: THERE WERE NO VICTIMS!!! THERE WAS NO SEX-TRAFFIC RING!!! IT WAS ALL MADE UP!!! so there is nothing to prosecute, unless you want to get people for crime thoughts somehow.

I wrote that in haste, but I was trying to point out that just because a journalist fakes who they are does not mean the crime, possibility of a crime or whatever is being said should go ignored.

If that were the case the Dateline would not be arresting those people for responding to minors from online.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Why did Obama get the majority of the Catholic vote?

                                54%

Do Catholics not know that the President chooses the Attorney General (America’s Prosecutor) and nominates justices to the Supreme Court (Highest Law of the Land) ?

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=9996

Because a lot of Catholics are liberal Democrats? And they thought that any President with dark skin would be great? Totally ignoring the fact that he voted AGAINST the partial birth abortion ban…He is against the restriction of abortion in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. I’m afraid a lot of Catholics ignored those things because they got caught up in the “transformative moment” of electing a black President. Aren’t we done with all that skin color stuff by now???

Why would he investigate Planned Parenthood when they are part of what elected him?

 

[z0wb13]

I wrote that in haste, but I was trying to point out that just because a journalist fakes who they are does not mean the crime, possibility of a crime or whatever is being said should go ignored.

fair enough, but in the case of PP it wasn’t ignored. it was reported to authorities. so what actual crime would anybody be charged with? conspiracy maybe, but it would be very difficult to make that case. the one worker that was fired for misconduct didn’t agree to commit a crime, and i would think that first amendment rights and physician patient confidentiality would protect her anyway. and most conspiracy charges need an overt action for them to stick.

i don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but i think a few people are convinced that PP is evil, so it must do evil things, so of course it would also do this other evil thing. but you are working from a presumption of guilt backwards to what the actual facts are. i don’t want to get into a long argument about the merits or morality of PP in general, but on this one instance i think that people that are cheering the videos have got it wrong.

If that were the case the Dateline would not be arresting those people for responding to minors from online.

dateline doesn’t have a very good record for prosecutions, either. don’t misconstrue what i’m saying as a defense of sexual predation, but it’s another case where there is no victim, so it makes it hard for me to see the crime. there aren’t any hard numbers on the cbs website about how many people are actually imprisoned because of their work, which makes me think the numbers are probably pretty low. most of the people they catch are actually prosecuted for other crimes, like having child pornography. but the person on the internet that lures the creepo to the house isn’t a minor, and the person that opens the door isn’t a minor, so the best you can get the person on is conspiracy and not actual sex crimes. i worry that the purpose of the show is to drive ratings rather than actually address the issue of sexual predation.

and the other problem with the PP videos is that they probably aren’t admissible in court. i think that the “journalists” are more likely to be in legal hot water, because in many states it is illegal to record private conversations without both parties’ permission.

 

[ERose]

Why did Obama get the majority of the Catholic vote?

                                54%

Do Catholics not know that the President chooses the Attorney General (America’s Prosecutor) and nominates justices to the Supreme Court (Highest Law of the Land) ?

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=9996

Because he duped alot of people and I pray that Catholics as well as the rest of Americans gain enough sense and vote this man out of office in 2012 before he completely destroys this country.

 

[ERose]

Obama Admin Ignores Planned Parenthood Sex Trafficking Videos

Washington, DC – Lila Rose, the head of the Live Action organization that released videos showing Planned Parenthood centers helping undercover investigators posting as sex traffickers, says the Obama administration is ignoring the potential crimes.

lifenews.com/2011/03/02/obama-admin-ignores-planned-parenthood-sex-trafficking-videos/

And you are surprised by this?

 

[LemonAndLime]

I wrote that in haste, but I was trying to point out that just because a journalist fakes who they are does not mean the crime, possibility of a crime or whatever is being said should go ignored.

If that were the case the Dateline would not be arresting those people for responding to minors from online.

Are we to persecute aggressive people because of the verbal/physical assault they may commit (but haven’t yet)? Do we have a right to force them to go to anger management classes? Should every Priest have his computer and home searched in case he is a paedophile? Should every teacher suffer the same? Anyone who has contact with children? Surely the possibility of the crime justifies it?

Or another example - you sit a child in front of a slice of cake and tell them not to eat it, then wait for them to eat it then accuse them of stealing. Would they still have stolen if you hadn’t placed it in front of them? Probably not. Therefore, honey-traps are not always admissible in law.

Police used to do this in the UK - have policewomen dressed as prostitutes, and when a man tried to buy sex she would arrest him. Judges often refused to hear the case.

Besides, as other members have stated - there was no crime shown in the videos anyway, and the workers behaved appropriately.

At the end of the day, the PP video incident only goes to prove to me one sad fact - prolife supporters and campaigners will use dirty and dishonourable tactics while trying to claim to be morally above the other.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Are we to persecute aggressive people because of the verbal/physical assault they may commit (but haven’t yet)? Do we have a right to force them to go to anger management classes? Should every Priest have his computer and home searched in case he is a paedophile? Should every teacher suffer the same? Anyone who has contact with children? Surely the possibility of the crime justifies it?

Or another example - you sit a child in front of a slice of cake and tell them not to eat it, then wait for them to eat it then accuse them of stealing. Would they still have stolen if you hadn’t placed it in front of them? Probably not. Therefore, honey-traps are not always admissible in law.

Police used to do this in the UK - have policewomen dressed as prostitutes, and when a man tried to buy sex she would arrest him. Judges often refused to hear the case.

Besides, as other members have stated - there was no crime shown in the videos anyway, and the workers behaved appropriately.

At the end of the day, the PP video incident only goes to prove to me one sad fact - prolife supporters and campaigners will use dirty and dishonourable tactics while trying to claim to be morally above the other.

No.

I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying.

If these videos had found workers at planned parenthood to by complying with a crime, whether the videos in the end are admissable by court or not, we as a people should take note of what has happened.

Whoever filmed this was hoping they would get an Acorn type reaction and shut PP down. Now, their actions may not be the right way to do it, but any pro-life person should consider shutting PP down a good thing.

If this proves to you that all pro life supporters and campaigners will use dirty and dishonorable tactics then that’s a sad statement on your behalf, shows me what kind of person you are.

 

[LemonAndLime]

No.

I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying.

If these videos had found workers at planned parenthood to by complying with a crime, whether the videos in the end are admissable by court or not, we as a people should take note of what has happened.

There is a difference however between a journalist secretly filming what is going on, and causing the crime to actually happen in order to film it.

Whoever filmed this was hoping they would get an Acorn type reaction and shut PP down. Now, their actions may not be the right way to do it, but any pro-life person should consider shutting PP down a good thing.

I see nothing in the videos that makes me want to shut PP down. That is, going just by the videos. I by no means an defending PP as a whole.

If this proves to you that all pro life supporters and campaigners will use dirty and dishonorable tactics then that’s a sad statement on your behalf, shows me what kind of person you are.

Did I say all? I said pro-life supporters will use them, and they do, and have done - on this website, on television. What have I said that is incorrect, exactly? Both sides use them, but I cannot support a video clip which used dishonourable tactics and I cannot support the people who did it, and therefore I cannot support them in their aim.

And what kind of person does this make me? Perhaps I have too many morals for my own good, and should look at the full picture and allow dishonourable tactics, after all - the only thing that matters is the end. I always thought the means were just as important as the ends, and the means could never justify the end - I thought that was a benchmark of pro-life thought. No? Oh, okay then.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

My understanding of the videos is that they were “honeytraps”.

Such things are unadmissable in court in certain countries, tell me - did they actually find evidence that Planned Parenthood were carrying out these sex trafficking offences or was it just the journalists pretending they were pimps? Because if its the latter I would ignore it too.

This happened in America. Do you honestly expect an attorney over here to use the argument that it’s illegal in the UK?

Are we to persecute aggressive people because of the verbal/physical assault they may commit (but haven’t yet)? Do we have a right to force them to go to anger management classes? Should every Priest have his computer and home searched in case he is a paedophile? Should every teacher suffer the same? Anyone who has contact with children? Surely the possibility of the crime justifies it?

The police over here do it all the time. Daily. In every jurisdiction. They have special units devoted to it. They have police officers on social websites pose as children to suck them into it. They post photos on the internet, and wait for someone to download it, then jump into their patrol car and go get them and their computer. We even have a website devoted to it called “Perverted Justice”.

Or another example - you sit a child in front of a slice of cake and tell them not to eat it, then wait for them to eat it then accuse them of stealing. Would they still have stolen if you hadn’t placed it in front of them? Probably not. Therefore, honey-traps are not always admissible in law.

Police used to do this in the UK - have policewomen dressed as prostitutes, and when a man tried to buy sex she would arrest him. Judges often refused to hear the case.

Besides, as other members have stated - there was no crime shown in the videos anyway, and the workers behaved appropriately.

At the end of the day, the PP video incident only goes to prove to me one sad fact - prolife supporters and campaigners will use dirty and dishonourable tactics while trying to claim to be morally above the other.

I guess you would have to feel that the US also has dishonorable police. Not some, but all, because this is standard practice. They show it on our reality TV shows, and post it in the daily news. Perhaps you could run for political office here, or at the very least, write to your ambassador and complain about the conditions over here.

 

[LemonAndLime]

This happened in America. Do you honestly expect an attorney over here to use the argument that it’s illegal in the UK?

No, when did I suggest that? I said that some Judges refuse to hear cases about alleged crimes that are related to “honeytraps” (last time I checked it wasn’t strictly illegal yet but there was a big debate about 2 years ago, haven’t looked into it recently and UK Judges are free to use their discretion about this). I would however expect an attorney to use the argument that honeytraps are dubious and morally wrong as they deliberately tempt someone to commit a crime. And I dare say that argument is used, and has been.

The police over here do it all the time. Daily. In every jurisdiction. They have special units devoted to it. They have police officers on social websites pose as children to suck them into it. They post photos on the internet, and wait for someone to download it, then jump into their patrol car and go get them and their computer. We even have a website devoted to it called “Perverted Justice”.

That doesn’t surprise me. I think I have heard that our police do some of that but I get the impression they don’t do it in a “cold” way - they often wait for a tip-off and proof that the behaviour/crime is already happening, and then they use a police officer to pose as someone in order to get the evidence they need, but often it’s too “cold” and that’s when the case is dismissed - I GUESS - I’ll have to check my facts but this is based on what I’ve read.

I guess you would have to feel that the US also has dishonorable police. Not some, but all, because this is standard practice. They show it on our reality TV shows, and post it in the daily news. Perhaps you could run for political office here, or at the very least, write to your ambassador and complain about the conditions over here.

I’m surprised people don’t already. Americans are so tetchy about freedom and government interfering in their lives I’m surprised people aren’t up in arms. I know you’re being sarcastic to a degree, but at the end of the day my post was discussing the morals behind honeytraps, not the legality.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I’m surprised people don’t already. Americans are so tetchy about freedom and government interfering in their lives I’m surprised people aren’t up in arms. I know you’re being sarcastic to a degree, but at the end of the day my post was discussing the morals behind honeytraps, not the legality.

Not too sarcastic; mostly literal.

But you hit the crucial issue that involves this story. Americans don’t like government interference, but when it happens to pedos, who in the world would stick up for them, right? And to some extent, if it happens to a whore customer, some folks would stick up for him, but most would be afraid to, and the customer would probably hang his head and try to hide it. But when exactly the same tactics that the police use all the time are used to show the evil of abortion, I guess people feel that abortion is an honorable profession, not slightly seedy like adult prostitution, and not in anyway detestable like pedo porn. So just because people are pro-abortion, the tactic used to expose it is immoral, even though the same tactic is peachy when used to expose something they are against. People claim it’s the tactic, but it’s not the tactic, it’s what it’s used against.

If the cops use this tactic on your family member, yea! If it’s someone else’s family, boo! If it’s used against a Republican, yea! If it’s used against a Democrat, boo! If the cops arrest a player from the Dallas Cowboys, yea! If they arrest a player with the Stealers, boo!

 

[LemonAndLime]

Not too sarcastic; mostly literal.

But you hit the crucial issue that involves this story. Americans don’t like government interference, but when it happens to pedos, who in the world would stick up for them, right? And to some extent, if it happens to a whore customer, some folks would stick up for him, but most would be afraid to, and the customer would probably hang his head and try to hide it. But when exactly the same tactics that the police use all the time are used to show the evil of abortion, I guess people feel that abortion is an honorable profession, not slightly seedy like adult prostitution, and not in anyway detestable like pedo porn. So just because people are pro-abortion, the tactic used to expose it is immoral, even though the same tactic is peachy when used to expose something they are against. People claim it’s the tactic, but it’s not the tactic, it’s what it’s used against.

If the cops use this tactic on your family member, yea! If it’s someone else’s family, boo! If it’s used against a Republican, yea! If it’s used against a Democrat, boo! If the cops arrest a player from the Dallas Cowboys, yea! If they arrest a player with the Stealers, boo!

I hear what you’re saying. I’m sympathetic to the pro-life group who did this, and I do not approve of the means - but I do feel angry about the possible crime that they have committed along with some of my fellow members who have already posted on this site. Yet I object to it because I expected the pro-life groups to behave better. If the same tactic was used against a paedophile I would most likely agree that the honeytrap was a success and nothing morally wrong with it - but after thinking about it for a while, I would probably change my mind that it was the best way to go about it - Thought police anyone? - but I think if I was to voice disapproval I would be shouted down - same goes for if this tactic was used against a public hate-figure.

We’ve had problems recently over here in the UK with journalists hacking into the answer-phone messages of celebrities and MPs. People are all too happy to read the stories and spread the gossip and don’t really think about how they got that information, but when the method is released people suddenly condemn it - even other newspapers, who are guilty of it themselves!

I suppose it comes down to hypocrisy, and in this case yes - American people’s “fear” of centralised government.