Home - List All Discussions

Choice, pro-choice & sex-ed

Promoting choice for/to 13-yr-old "women" with your tax dollars

by: whosays

Planned Parenthood thinks girls should be able to consent to sex and so do men like Mr. Flory.

"http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=67220" said Michael Flory, the Queens sicko accused of raping, sodomizing and abusing at least seven children told cops he attacked even more kids - and claimed his tiny victims enjoyed the abuse, law enforcement sources said yesterday.

Now there's a Planned Parenthood man! How very pro-choice of you! (One note of clarification: Planned Parenthood prefers to call 10-, 12- and 15-year-old girls "women" when they're having sex, because Planned Parenthood's argument is that a 14-year-old "woman" has the right to do what she wants with her own body, which includes their "choice" to have sex and "partners" like Mr. Flory.)

"He's going to jail, and that's it. They're safe now," said the father of a 10-year-old boy and 7-year-old girl who frequently spent time at Flory's College Point home.

But, of course if any of his other victims were old enough to get pregnant, pro-choice Flory could have simply paid Planned Parenthood or another abortion clinic to provide "confidential abortion services" for his victim and quietly (read, illegally) dispose of the DNA evidence of his crime (that is, the baby). That way he and predators like him can remain on the streets to have "consensual" sex with other girls and boys - and thus, Planned Parenthood facilitates the CONTINUANCE OF CHILD RAPE.

Doesn't any body out there get it? Isn't law enforcemtent supposed to be ENFORCING THE LAW - even when those laws require them to investigate and prosecute Planned Parnethood and other abortionists for failing to report child rape? [Which would PREVENT CHILD ABUSE by forcing these http://www.childpredators.com/TheProblem.cfm to comply with mandatory reporting laws - already on the books in every state - and, thus, provide evidence that can get predators like this off the streets.]

But Noooooooooooooooooooooo, that would mean that abortion clinics and other businesses that profit by selling products and services to sexually active (read, "consensual") minors wouldn't be able to make as much MONEY!

Did anybody out there see the http://www.lifedynamics.com/Prolife_Press_Releases/3-23_PR.doc? Should Planned Parenthood really be getting taxpayer dollars (Title 10 funds) when their reciept of these funds are based on a DEMONSTRABLE LIE - that lie being that they comply with ALL STATE LAWS?

And what may be EVEN WORSE, schools all across America are bringing in these self-serving-pervert-protecting-"choice"-promoters to TEACH underage girls THEIR IDEAS about "sex" with the stamp of government approval!  Is your local school district one of them? Fools, Planned Parenthood TEACHES minors that they have a "choice", i.e. that they can "consent"! Do you for once think that Planned Parenthood, who STAYS IN BUSINESS by providing services to sexually active minors, isn't in schools with the express intent of ADVERTISING the fact that Planned Parenthood will provide "confidential" products and services that can help minors "choose" to have sex WITHOUT BEING DETECTED?

Teaching/advertising... Wake up, America, Joe Camel isn't the only BUSINESS targeting kids as customers!

reply from: Navynate


I did see that last night. PP makes me sick. That organization truly is an evil organization, I don't say that lightly either, but they really are evil. The tell kids to have sex or as close to that as they possibly can without saying that word for word. Then they give out PP condoms (BTW Consumer Reports tested several condoms on the market and guess who had the worst ones? PP that's who. I wouldn't accuse them of intentionally giving crappy condoms out on purpose, but then again, I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing that.) to any HS student who wants one. My dad was shocked when I was given a condom by the University I attend, he's also shocked when I talk about PP and NARAL to him as well. PP should definately be disliked for their, "Here's a condom, go at it, have as much sex as you want to kids." attitude they have towards sex education.   

How can any group have any credibility when they support and defend preditors like Flory and other preditors like him? When it comes to defending people like that, I think that throwing people to wolves or hungry animals would be way too nice and humane for people like that. And the groups that protect them should join them as well. I'm not serious about actually doing that, but that is the kind of thing that people like that really do deserve to have happen to them. I'll admit it, I hate people like Flory and people who protect him. I know that I shouldn't hate people like that, but I'm not perfect and I hope God will forgive me for hating evil people!!! If I were God then I would love them anyway, well, I'm not God.     

reply from: whosays

Ummm... it's off topic, but Nate you might want to read Ps. 5:5.

That tells us that God hates the workers of iniquity.

And it is always better to let God speak for himself.

So, in this regard, if guys like Flory and/or the clinic workers that help perverts like him to conceal their crimes are workers of inquity, then it's contrary to scripture to suggest that God loves them "anyway".
Of course, if they aren't workers of iniquity, then neither Ps. 5:5, nor Jesus' harsh words to workers of iniquity or other passages would necessarily apply, but the question certainly deserves consideration.   

reply from: BorisBadanov

Back on topic -- Saw this in the local Ft. Wayne newspaper:

Posted on Sat, Mar. 26, 2005

The Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel
A column by Kevin Leininger

Abortion records will aid hunt for abusers
Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit is not in best interests of rape victims.

In Indiana, anybody under the age of 14 who has sex is, by law, a victim of abuse.

As attorney general, Steve Carter’s job is to investigate whether Indiana clinics have treated child sex-abuse victims at state expense but failed to report the crime – as the law also requires.

But when Carter asked clinics run by the nation’s largest abortion provider for records that might lead to the prosecution of men who prey on young girls, Planned Parenthood refused – and sued the state instead!

Welcome to the wacky world of abortion politics, where law, compassion and even common sense must be vilified if they appear to threaten the rights invented by the Supreme Court 32 years ago in its infamous Roe vs. Wade decision.

I’ve known Carter for years, and he has never been a leader (publicly, at least) in the social-conservative wing of the Republican Party. So when he assured me this week his request for the records of about 80 young patients treated at 22 Planned Parenthood clinics had nothing to do with abortion, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Planned Parenthood’s response, on the other hand, clearly had everything to do with abortion – despite its lofty assurances to the contrary.

Although Carter wouldn’t discuss specifics because of his active investigation and Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit, he did reveal this much:

The state’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit requested the records March 1 as part of its investigation into whether Medicaid recipients as young as 12 and 13 had been neglected by the clinics’ failure to report sexual abuse to the proper authorities.

During the Medicaid unit’s investigation, Carter said, names of the patients would be kept strictly confidential, becoming public record only if prosecutors – not Carter’s office – decided to file criminal charges. The children involved did not necessarily receive abortions, Carter said; Planned Parenthood also offers counseling, diagnoses, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and other services. Nor is the unit targeting Planned Parenthood, he added.

“We’ve been doing these investigations since the 1970s, and there’s never been a case where we have not maintained the confidentiality of records,” Carter said. “It may be unpopular to request to look at these records, but we take our obligation (to investigate fraud and abuse claims) seriously, and we’re frozen for the moment.”

And so, in the name of “protecting privacy,” Planned Parenthood may be shielding from prosecution men who abuse the very people the organization supposedly exists to serve.

That makes no sense, of course, if Planned Parenthood cares about protecting girls and prosecuting statutory rapists. But the organization’s obstructionism makes perfect sense if its first priority is to protect abortion and the millions of dollars it generates.

The organization’s motives become obvious when its conflict with Carter is viewed in a larger context. In Kansas, for example, Attorney General Phill Kline (supported by a court order) has requested medical records of more than 80 women who obtained late-term abortions in 2003. Kline has said he is looking for evidence of child abuse or violation of a state law restricting abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy.

The Justice Department faced similar complaints last year after it requested medical records from a New York hospital it said were necessary to defend objections to a federal law banning late-term “partial-birth” abortions.

In each case, abortion-rights supporters objected on “privacy” grounds – the same grounds the Supreme Court used in 1973 when discovering a constitutional right to abortion that had somehow gone undetected for nearly 200 years. And confidentiality, of course, is sought by many abortion patients.

But consider what Planned Parenthood and its allies are really saying here:

If rapists must go free to ensure privacy, so be it.

And if states or Congress choose to restrict later-term abortions – as even Roe vs. Wade allows – we will make those laws, including Indiana’s, impossible to enforce by denying access to records needed to prove illegal activity took place.

Karen Pearl, interim president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, made the organization’s motives clear when she told The Associated Press: “What we are witnessing is an alarming attack on medical privacy across the country. Politicians with rigid anti-choice agendas are trying to rip apart the covenant we have with our patients.”

But is the pro-life movement behind Carter’s investigation? It’s impossible to say for sure, although it’s no secret that groups such as Texas-based Life Dynamics have been anonymously calling clinics run by Planned Parenthood and others to see if they would report sexual activity involving young teens.

Did Life Dynamics or its allies relay their findings to Carter?

And would it really matter, even if they did? The factual guilt or innocence of an alleged sexual predator should not be determined by the motives of the people making the charge.

“We’re not the ones who made this a public issue,” Carter said of his previously confidential investigation. “We didn’t make this a public issue. The other side has chosen to draw public attention to this.”

Allen County Right to Life Executive Director Cathie Humbarger, who was in Indianapolis this week lobbying for a bill that would require abortion clinics to be licensed and inspected once a year – abortion advocates oppose that, too – believes Planned Parenthood’s priorities are misplaced.

“Defense of our children should be our foremost concern,” she said. “This is not about abortion; this is about child abuse. What’s more important – privacy or kids? And if we don’t defend them, who will?”

Reporter Kevin Leininger writes a column every other Saturday. Leininger has been with The News-Sentinel for 25 years, 11 of which were as an editorial writer. The column reflects his opinion, not necessarily that of The News-Sentinel, and discusses issues affecting Fort Wayne. To pass along column ideas or feedback, contact him at mailto:kleininger@news-sentinel.com, or call 461-8355.

reply from: YGOR

Boris and all:

Please - let's respect the fair use and copyright laws when we are on this forum.

We are not allowed by most news sites to cut and paste entire articles.

Please use links instead.

If people won't click on the link, that is their choice.


reply from: whosays

It's truly amazing the see-no-abortion-evil mental gymnastics that pro-choice types will use to convince themselves that their defend-abortion-and-abortionists-at-all-costs belief-system is "good". 


Surely pure-as-the-drive-snow Planned Parenthood would never act out a selfish interest to protect it's cash flow (from sexual predators who put up the money for "confidential" services that help them conceal their crimes) or to keep the http://www.childpredators.com/States_seek_abortion_clinic_records.cfm from getting the evidence that could put these cash-flow-generators in jail.
And surely, Planned Parenthood isn't worried that it's employees might end up being prosecuted for failure to report child rape?

No.It's all just a vast-right-wing-pro-life-anti-choice-conspiricy seeking to deprive children of the right to choose to have sex with adults. Defend Planned Parenthood and defend the men who get the girls pregnant, after all it's their choice (right Mr. Flory?) and their money (keep it coming) that is funding the "choice" movement.

reply from: Tam

Looks like some of the exchanges on our forum!

reply from: whosays

Danger, pro-choicers, danger! The facts in the following story could be hazardous to your choice-is-good, see-no-abortion-evil delusions. 
And take note the real life situation in this report is almost exactly the same as the situation that over 90% of Planned Parenthood workers NATIONWIDE knowingly and willingly agreed to conceal when they were caught-on-tape in LDI's http://PlannedParenthoodExposed.com.

reply from: bigc

for any crime you guys say is commited by planned parenthood you can find 100 nursing and private hospitals doing things like letting someones legs rot off from sitting in thier own excement for months on end  its better to give that person the  right to call the best physician in the world  JACK KEVORKIAN 

reply from: Tam

Abuse of patients in nursing care facilities is not a justification for murder.

reply from: whosays

Come on, bigc, that's silly. It's like trying to excuse the crimes committed by Hitler by pointing to the crimes of Stalin and Mao and noting that they did worse.

No rational person can really believe, for example, that the Catholic priest who abused a 14-year-old girl in California was bad, but the Planned Parenthood workers who failed to report the abuse, destroyed the dna evidence and helped him to conceal his crime from law enforcement were good.

Planned Parenthood's crimes should be prosecuted, just like we expect law enforcement to prosecute any other crimes. Even better, more http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050330/NEWS01/503300348. As is explained on the http://www.childpredators.com/LegalRecourse.cfm#list, if sexual abuse victims start taking Planned Parenthood to court it will put a dent in the profits they off of sexual predators at the expense of child rape victims.

reply from: Navynate

Good, sue the pants off them. Those scum bags deserve to lose everything they have. They disobey the law and then they take in Millions of tax payer dollars every year. I hope they have to close every single baby killing mill in Ohio to pay for the damages the parents deserve to get from them. Next PP will demand protection from law suits and that the government has to pay for their lawlessness and lies.

reply from: Della22

Hmmm, never ceases to amaze me. Prochoicers will always have some stupid argument how two wrongs make a right. Because if someone from the prolife side did something wrong obviously we all did. And if a prochoicer did something wrong it's okay because someone else did something wrong. Not all of us are "Arrny of God" fanatics. Actually few of us are. And not all of us did something wrong or believe it is okay for prolifers to do something. I don't condone the evil things that ANYONE does. But I know PLENTY of prochoicers who would go rushing to the defense of another prochoicer when they do something irrefutably wrong just because they have the same veiws on abortion. But you won't hear me coming t the defense of a prolifer who is a hippocrite and a fanatic. My point: Don't defend something you know is wrong just because you want to aid someone who has the same veiw on abortion. This is to ALL prochoicers because I think you've all defended someone who did something wrong. Planned Parenthood is no exception!

reply from: Tam

I understand how you feel, Della. It's like anyone who feels abortion is murder is lumped into this big supergroup of which every member is responsible for the peccadillos of every other member, even though that may be the only thing we have in common. Like you, I don't condone the evil things that anyone does--and I agree that two wrongs do NOT make a right! Ever!! It makes me so angry that I get blamed somehow for violence against abortionists or whatever other problems in the world are related to other anti-abortion people. And it makes me sick when someone stands up for someone else's despicable acts just because that person shares their view on abortion--no matter what the view! Of course murder is wrong--isn't the whole point of the anti-abortion movement that Abortion = Murder = Wrong? Well, if some people are murdering to further their cause, their cause does NOT include "Murder = Wrong" anywhere! The whole REASON abortion is wrong is that it's murder! Just because some lunatics are out there murdering people, whether because the victims are abortionists or for any other reason, doesn't mean someone condones that just because they agree on something. Charles Manson's favorite color might have been green, and so might mine be--does that mean I advocate psychotic serial murder? Just because two people agree on something does not make them responsible for each other's actions. Like Della, you won't hear me coming to the defense of a "prolifer" who is a hypocrite and a fanatic. Likewise, it is sickening to see pro-abortion people standing up for Planned Parenthood in any and all situations, just because they provide abortion on demand. Some feel PP can do no wrong. I think they are afraid that PP really is as sick and corrupt as has been claimed, and that any chink in the armor will be its downfall, so even when it's obviously wrong, they defend it to the death (as it were). How would they feel if we blamed them for things PP has done? In a way, those who SUPPORT an organization ARE responsible for its actions. So every pro-abortion person who supports PP in thought, word, or deed IS partially responsible for the evils committed by that organization. And in the same way anyone who supports a murder, regardless of the reasons for the murder or the age of the victim, is partially responsible for that murder--and is definitely not pro-life. This goes for state-sanctioned murder as well, like that of Terri Schindler-Schiavo and capital punishment.

reply from: poppa

yes  i can agree with that being the parrent of two children myself  any crime against a child should be dealt with harshly the punnishment should be whatever is on the books now times 10 i believe that sex crimes against children should result in a death sentance because over half of the convicted sex offenders repeat the crimes if let out of prison...   do you want to take the chance on letting that person do harm to your famly???

reply from: Tam

Ok, poppa. If Terry's going to give you another chance, I will, too.

The reason child molesters are able to commit new crimes is that they are, for some insane reason, allowed out of prison. In order to combat this problem, we need:

1) Longer sentences for child molesters--which means Life Sentences. In some cases, with possibility of parole, and in extreme cases, with no possibility of parole.
2) Make point 1 possible by reducing prison overcrowding. Do this by using prisons for their intended purpose (to lock away violent offenders, who need to be kept off the streets--of which child molesters are at the very top of the list), instead of using prison as a punishment system for people who do things we don't like (nonviolent offenses). For nonviolent offenders where there is a victim involved, such as in robbery or fraud, be more concerned with restitution than punishment. For nonviolent, victimless crimes, use community service and/or fines as punishment, so that the offender is contributing to society rather than depending upon it.

Because two wrongs never make a right, I believe the death penalty is immoral. It is not the only way to prevent a violent criminal from further violent crime. If prisons were only for violent criminals, not only would there be enough room for all the violent criminals (so no early releases!), but there would also be a much greater deterrent to violent crime--as undesirable as prison is now, it would be worse if every inmate were a violent criminal! I say let the punishment fit the crime. If someone is proven a child molester, that person must be locked away, and the conditions under which there might be any hope of release someday must be extremely limited.

reply from: Della22

I'm not going to put in my opinion about the death penalty because I know most of you know how I stand on it. If not read thread named "Murderers and the Unborn." 

I think you're both right about the stricter punishments for molestations and rape. But one thing the authroities could do right now that would help cut down on the repeat offenses of child molesters and rapists is better notification. When a sex offender or predator moves into your area where I live, you get a card in the mail telling of his exact location, name, description. In some cases you even get a picture. But if YOU move in no one sends you the cards you never seen. If they even had a number to call for each county or state and they could send you a list, that would help. I don't know where ANY of them live in my neighborhood. But in the town I grew up in my parents stay up on that. That's why my husband and I are moving out there instead of looking for a home around here. I know almost everyone and I know their history. Makes me feel better that I can have some kind of control over my child/ren's future and well-being. But not everyone knows all the people in their area. Parents should be better informed. Even if that meant getting the school involved so you could find tose things out through them. The government has the power to do that NOW!! 

reply from: Tam

The larger problem is just what you point out--that in most of the country, a NEIGHBORHOOD no longer implies a COMMUNITY. People don't know each other and look out for each other. It is the lack of community that is the cause of so many problems in this country. I don't think the solution is trying to whip up a fervor of community spirit in any random place one lives; I think the solution is forming intentional communities off the grid with those of like mind and values.

reply from: Della22

The larger problem is just what you point out--that in most of the country, a NEIGHBORHOOD no longer implies a COMMUNITY. People don't know each other and look out for each other. It is the lack of community that is the cause of so many problems in this country. I don't think the solution is trying to whip up a fervor of community spirit in any random place one lives; I think the solution is forming intentional communities off the grid with those of like mind and values.

In a lot of places that could mean that parents are more motivated to partake in PTA meetings and having the PTA more involved in these kinds of things. In some cases parents CAN'T go to PTA meetings, so why not at least make sure every family whose children attend the school are at the very least INFORMED. And setting up neighborhood watches wouldn't hurt either. Every place I've lived there has been a nosey neighbor. Why not put their efforts to GOOD use? It's something that we all can LEGALLY do NOW.

reply from: MadelinesMommy

I think planned parenthood is a big joke!!! I knew they were evil, but I didn't know that they have been concealing child rape.. that doesn't surprise me...

My lil sis is 18.. and she has told me through out her high school years how many of her friends have gone to planned parenthood and had them help them out by giving them abortions or the morning after pill.. and their parents never found out! Sickening, just sickening!!

I really hope that planned parenthood is exposed to everyone who doesn't know how evil they really are..

reply from: sarah

The most disturbing thing is they won't be exposed as you say...the pro-abortion media as a whole won't expose it. Imagine, if the media was as pro-life as we are. The headlines would look entirely different.

The courts continually back them up. The 9th circuit court just ruled that Idaho's parental notification law is un-constitutional. If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal on that ruling. Now, any CLEAR thinking person can see the absurdity in that. The school nurse can't give your child an asprin without approval, a dentist can't pull the tooth of a minor with parental permission. Yet, a complete set of strangers can take your child and perform a medical procedure and NOT notify the parent? Where on God's green earth is the logic in that??

So, where does that leave planned parenthood...free to continue what they do so well. Make a ton of money off the backs of woman and now they don't have to fear the parents getting involved.

As long as the rest of the government (legislative & executive) continue to cower in the wake of the judical we don't stand much of a chance in getting in the way of the "evils" of planned parenthood.

We can lobby for laws to be changed all day and all night, and get them enacted...but, until the judical branch is reigned in...well, the pro-aborts get their way. It's really as simple and sickening as that.

reply from: Dmourning

Yeah, those blasted activist judges! If we would have reigned in the judicial activism long ago we would have never had Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia and Bolling vs. Sharpe. Who knows what kind of absurdity will arise in the future if we don't contain the judiciary!!!

reply from: Tam

Yeah, those blasted activist judges! If we would have reigned in the judicial activism long ago we would have never had Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia and Bolling vs. Sharpe. Who knows what kind of absurdity will arise in the future if we don't contain the judiciary!!!

D, I hear what you're saying. You are saying that judicial activism has done some good things, too. Just like you pointed out that Hitler helped invent the information superhighway. No, that was Al Gore. Sorry, I mean interstate freeway system. But surely you can acknowledge that, just as Hitler's actions were not ALL positive (!!!), judicial activism might not ALL be a good thing, too? Hmm? Rather than just making blanket statements about it? I mean, don't get me wrong--you're funny, and I appreciate a good laugh. But please reassure me that you understand the whole checks-and-balances thing does have a purpose...? That the judiciary should NOT be the ultimate rule over the country--that none of the three branches should have ultimate authority--checks and balances--are ya with me?


reply from: Dmourning

And where are the "checks and balances" in court stacking as those in this forum advocate?

Funny how you have no reply to my other post on this quoted directy from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Go read it and tell me what you think then.

reply from: Tam

And where are the "checks and balances" in court stacking as those in this forum advocate?

Funny how you have no reply to my other post on this quoted directy from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Go read it and tell me what you think then.

Ok, first of all, can you just link to the other post because I don't know where it is. Better still, if you think I've dropped the ball in that other thread, call me on it there, and ask me to respond to it. Ok? I have no problem responding to it but for now I'd like to get back to the "you responding to my post" thing. Now, I asked you some simple questions, and you responded by changing the subject. Really, I don't mind talking about court stacking, but at least can you answer my question first, before we move on to that?

reply from: bobinsky

The SC has the final say over every Constitutional and CR case/decision brought before it. And most cases before the SC have gone through every judicial level that is relevant before being granted a WOC. Unfortunately, the court has limited time and hears only a small fraction of the cases brought before it. Only in emergency cases - death penalty, for example - will it hear a case not on the docket. But the judiciary, as the FF set up this government, was granted an extensive amount of freedom from the checks and balances of the other two branches because of it's judicial power and, of course, in any possible instances of conflicts of interest.
If you study the history of the FF's intent of the U.S. judiciary, you will see that they reason they granted the levels of judiciary the latitude that they did was because they did not want the church or the government to be able to meddle or control (I can't think of the right word just now) - but the FF's wanted the judiciary out of the reach of the other branches and the church.
I mentioned, very earnestly, my life's goal of becoming a SC justice, which you posters have gotten a lot of laughter over and mileage out of the last few days. I'm glad that in my being honest about a goal of mine I could brighten your day. But I would suggest that if anyone is in D.C. - arrangements are best made ahead of time - that you sit through a session with the SC and watch how things are done. It's fascinating. The minds of these justices are absolutely so brilliant and so consumed by every detail of the law - from decades ago to the current law - it's remarkable. So I'll never be a SC judge. I'll just keep plugging along at what I do.

reply from: Tam

The SC has the final say over every Constitutional and CR case/decision brought before it. [...] But the judiciary, as the FF set up this government, was granted an extensive amount of freedom from the checks and balances of the other two branches because of it's judicial power and, of course, in any possible instances of conflicts of interest.

Really? Well, I don't know about that. I'm not a constitutional scholar. Want to provide some evidence? I'd like to know more about this absolute judicial authority of which you speak.

2014 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics