Planned Parenthood Exposed - New Undercover Video

[Amanda]

Of course. Parents should have knowledge of the procedure being undertaken.

Can you tell us why you think so?

 

[Steerpike]

Can you tell us why you think so?

Because any medical procedure has inherent risk associated with it, many are invasive to one extent or another. When you are dealing with a child, it seems to me self-evident that the parents who are legally responsible for that child's well being need to have knowledge of it.

 

[Valerie]

I don't know why, but this cracks me up. Kind of a tacky gift, but I can't see anything wrong with it. If you don't want to buy one, don't.

Why do you think they don't offer these wonderful gift certificates year round?

You are amused by it, probably because you enjoy watching the religious right become apoplectic. I'd much rather nurture a little mutual respect.

 

[Amanda]

Because any medical procedure has inherent risk associated with it, many are invasive to one extent or another. When you are dealing with a child, it seems to me self-evident that the parents who are legally responsible for that child's well being need to have knowledge of it.

I can see it seems self-evident to you.

I was hoping for something that would help me understand it better. I can understand why a parent would feel that way. And I can understand that in a lot of cases it would be the best thing. But what about those times when it's not the best thing? Can you think of anyway that things could be structured so that parents could have the most control but kids could still have choices?

 

[Ravi]

Why do you think they don't offer these wonderful gift certificates year round?

You are amused by it, probably because you enjoy watching the religious right become apoplectic. I'd much rather nurture a little mutual respect.

Who says they don't offer them year round?

I have very little respect for groups that interfere in the health care of others in this manner.

 

[Steerpike]

I can see it seems self-evident to you.

I was hoping for something that would help me understand it better. I can understand why a parent would feel that way. And I can understand that in a lot of cases it would be the best thing. But what about those times when it's not the best thing? Can you think of anyway that things could be structured so that parents could have the most control but kids could still have choices?

There are already procedures place. I have been appointed guardian ad litem for kids numerous times, where I represent their interests irrespective of the parents.

 

[Agnapostate]

Weren't you earlier advocating that it should be all right for that nurse to interfere between the parents and the child by keeping her molestation and impregnation by a 31-year-old man secret, just because the parents MIGHT be upset at her? NOW you're concerned about the state having the ability to take children away from unfit parents?

The government already takes babies away from their parents, and they decide which ones are the "right" ones to do that with by a standard based on the laws of what is and is not acceptable parental behavior. And yes, sometimes they really suck at maintaining this standard. Nevertheless, they don't just decide on a whim, and it is those who pass child abuse laws who decide what is right in the first place.

Her beliefs are not contradictory because she maintains a consistent stance against the tyrannical application of hierarchical tyranny. In the former case, the state takes on a more benevolent stance, and excessively hierarchical parental authority is the tyranny being resisted. In the latter case, the excessively widespread state authority is the tyranny being resisted. But she maintains a consistent opposition to hierarchical authority and tyranny.

Personally, I think too many kids think sex is no big deal. We need to get back to educating our children that sex is the most intimate contact you can have with another person, outside of giving birth to them, and that it shouldn't just be random and without meaning.

There are certain sociobiological realities underlying forms of sexual contact in all societies of course, and essentially every culture has some standard of sexual morality. Indeed, even chimpanzees appear to have some sexual standard or etiquette. But to a very great extent, the "intimate content" bit is a social construct imposed by Christianity and Islam. There are numerous ethnological studies of smaller cultures, now dominated by the two largest religions in the world, in which such a stringent standard and view of sexual contact as "intimate" did not exist. If I recall correctly, the Cherokee mated freely, for instance. Margaret Mead observed that the early Samoans placed few sexual taboos on young adolescents, and that sexual contact was largely viewed as casual, and was both common and healthy among many. She did go a bit overboard in attempting to apply her observations to sexual standards of Western society, though.

Now, I have not directly expressed an opinion on this issue yet. I shall do so now.

I shall first say, that although the representative of Planned Parenthood displayed a willingness to violate the law, it is my belief that she is in accordance with a higher ethical standard in being willing to provide aid to a young woman who happened to be under the age of majority. The labels of "girl" and "child" are incorrect, as pregnant females are clearly reproductive, and are thus young women.

Of course, there is a wider issue than biological maturity, that being the mental maturity of minors, which is often described as being separate from mere biological maturity and severely lacking and not equivalent to that of a legal adult. My contention is that, contrary to popular belief, the commonly accepted claim that adolescents are incapable of exercising rational judgment abilities is not an indisputably correct one. Supporters of this position frequently cite studies conducted with the use of magnetic resonance imaging or functional magnetic resonance imaging that illustrate that the teenage brain is “underdeveloped,” and that adolescents are thus often incapable of making rational or well informed decisions about significant issues. Yet, as Dr. Robert Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today, notes in an article published in Scientific American Mind, thought there is some semblance of a correlation between adolescence and brain development illustrated in these scans, there is no evidence of causation by a natural stage of adolescence. His chief counter-argument references the fact that adolescents have been severely infantilized in modern society, in contrast to the important adult role they played in past times, and it may be this factor that has led to the lack of brain development so commonly assumed to be a natural byproduct of adolescence. As such, it would not be intellectually honest to declare the infallibility of these scans just yet.

There are several studies that have been conducted on the basis of measuring the actual competency of adolescents to make informed decisions, as opposed to highly speculative guesswork based on snapshots of the brain.

An important one is that of Lois A. Weithorn and Susan B. Campbell, which tested four groups of people, aged 9, 14, 18, and 21. The study, entitled The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions, came to the conclusion that 14 year olds were capable of making medical decisions with a level of competence equivalent to that of legal adults. As partially summarized by Weithorn and Campbell:

"In general, minors aged 14 were found to demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults, according to four standards of competency (evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and understanding), and for four hypothetical dilemmas (diabetes, epilepsy, depression and enuresis.)…The findings of this research do not lend support to policies which deny adolescents the right of self-determination in treatment situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity to provide informed consent. The ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the “cutoffs” below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capacities of most adolescents."

The earlier study of researchers Grisso and Vierling, Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective, came to a similar conclusion, the authors stating that “existing evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.”

Researchers Bruce Ambuel and Julian Rappaport discovered similar results in a study intended to specifically focus on this topic, entitled Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion. The study confirmed the fact that the rational judgment and decision making capacities of adolescents, (particularly those at or beyond mid-adolescence), were often on par with those of adults.

In a wide-ranging review of the developmental literature on adolescents’ abilities to make rational decisions about medical treatment, researchers Kuther and Posada confirmed that, “the literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents,” thus confirming the legitimacy and validity of the previous studies to a great degree.

I must also express my observation regarding the logical invalidity of their argument that parents should be notified of a minor’s abortion because they would be legally and financially liable for whatever negative outcomes might occur. This may indeed serve as a compelling argument if we accepted adolescents’ legal and financial dependence on their parents as a natural condition, but accepting that assertion without a challenge is moral and intellectual dishonesty at its highest point. The oft-repeated adage, “As long as you live under my roof, you follow my rules,” is perhaps the most obvious manifestation of this belief. Yet, through the combination of compulsory schooling and child labor laws, adolescents are forced into a state of financial dependence on their parents.

It is important to note that scarcely a century ago, adolescents were occupied with traditional forms of employment and adult responsibilities, while they are now consigned to schools for much of the day, courtesy of a state mandate. The previous arrangement, which likely provided more practical forms of education than sitting in a stuffy classroom for hour on end ever could, is a beneficial one, and could likely be safely and humanely readopted. The brutal conditions of child labor that initially necessitated laws to prevent it have largely disappeared in developed countries as a result of expansive labor reforms. Yet, their legacy is perpetuated as laws intended to keep 6 year olds out of sweatshops keep 16 year olds out of air conditioned offices.

The issue of forced financial dependence is altogether different from a case of natural dependence. An analogy to describe the former might be the case of a man who locks his son inside the house and then comes home to complain that he did not go outside all day. Obviously, this claim would rightly be considered absurd and ludicrous, and the same standard should be applied to the issue of minors’ financial dependence on their parents as long as it is a forced condition.

 

[catzmeow]

Should it? No matter what?

Does this hold true in those cases where a child needs medical treatment and the parents decide to pray instead?

In this situation, if a child sought life-saving medical intervention, and the parents refused, the child could ask for access to a guardian ad litem from the court to ensure that the child's best interests were protected. Parents DO NOT have a right to deprive their child of LIFE SAVING medical care because of their religious beliefs. In fact, parents have been charged with abuse/neglect for doing so.

 

[Silence]

Why do you think they don't offer these wonderful gift certificates year round?

You are amused by it, probably because you enjoy watching the religious right become apoplectic. I'd much rather nurture a little mutual respect.

yes, of course, everything is about a stick in the eye of the religious right

Perhaps they are offering them as the economy gets worse and the holidays draw near so that young women don't have to choose between their health care needs and buying toys for their kids or groceries/electric. Cuz believe it or not, there are women who go to PP already have at least one child they are taking care of.

The shit the wingers will get up in arms over never ceases to amaze me. When a gift certificate is purchased, most places don't place a restriction on that gift or what the money is spent on. But I think it's safe to say I don't think anyone will be coming in with 4 or 5 $100 gift certificates for an abortion anytime soon.

 

[Luissa]

Of course. Parents should have knowledge of the procedure being undertaken.

Some parents should know if their child is having sex or have a plan in place in the event their child is having sex. My two friends who got pregnant in high school parents had their heads so far stuck in the sand it is a wonder they could breath. Plus most fourteen year old girls would probably choose to do something stupid and harmful then tell their parents that they were pregnant and wanted an abortion.

 

[Steerpike]

In this situation, if a child sought life-saving medical intervention, and the parents refused, the child could ask for access to a guardian ad litem from the court to ensure that the child's best interests were protected. Parents DO NOT have a right to deprive their child of LIFE SAVING medical care because of their religious beliefs. In fact, parents have been charged with abuse/neglect for doing so.

This is not entirely true, legally. In the UK, Canada, and the US parents have prevailed in refusing to allow medical attention in many cases. In some cases in the U.S. there have also been prosecutions. It varies on a state-by-state basis and the courts usually strike a balancing tests. In most states in the U.S., according to the last reference I read on the subject, the parents usually prevail and the Court does not order treatment. The article was from the medical journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center, but did not cite the legal cases they were referring to.

 

[Steerpike]

Some parents should know if their child is having sex or have a plan in place in the event their child is having sex. My two friends who got pregnant in high school parents had their heads so far stuck in the sand it is a wonder they could breath. Plus most fourteen year old girls would probably choose to do something stupid and harmful then tell their parents if they had to do that they were pregnant and wanted an abortion.

That's an entirely separate issue and, as you might expect, isn't exactly feasible.

 

[Gem]

I have no problem with the gift certificates. Grocery stores, gas stations, tax offices all offer gift certificates so why not health clinics? While they are not making a statement by allowing the certificates to be used for any service Planned Parenthood offers, the certainly would be making a statement if they allowed if for all services but abortion.

I do not think Planned Parenthood did it to piss of the pro-lifers (although I'm sure that some Planned Parenthood employees are thrilled that it does), I think they did it to make money off of the holiday season and hopefully, provide health care to women who need it.

 

[Agnapostate]

In this situation, if a child sought life-saving medical intervention, and the parents refused, the child could ask for access to a guardian ad litem from the court to ensure that the child's best interests were protected. Parents DO NOT have a right to deprive their child of LIFE SAVING medical care because of their religious beliefs. In fact, parents have been charged with abuse/neglect for doing so.

I haven't forgotten about you, dear!

 

[Silence]

There are certain sociobiological realities underlying forms of sexual contact in all societies of course, and essentially every culture has some standard of sexual morality. Indeed, even chimpanzees appear to have some sexual standard or etiquette. But to a very great extent, the "intimate content" bit is a social construct imposed by Christianity and Islam. There are numerous ethnological studies of smaller cultures, now dominated by the two largest religions in the world, in which such a stringent standard and view of sexual contact as "intimate" did not exist. If I recall correctly, the Cherokee mated freely, for instance. Margaret Mead observed that the early Samoans placed few sexual taboos on young adolescents, and that sexual contact was largely viewed as casual, and was both common and healthy among many. She did go a bit overboard in attempting to apply her observations to sexual standards of Western society, though.

I'm gonna go out a limb and say this was when life expectancy was 20 or 30 years old and before the prevelance of diseases which can kill you if you have sex with the wrong person.

I think once you are an adult you can have sex as freely and with as many people as you want as long as you do so safely. more power to ya. Fuck like bunnies.

However, children, and I'm talking from 16 on down, aren't emotionally OR physically mature enough to handle the ramifications that come along with being a sexually active person. Hell there are some adults who can't handle it.

The problem I see is that we've robbed our children of the opportunity to BE children for as long as possible. I didn't even think about sex until I was 15, didn't kiss my first boy until 13 and didn't have sex until I was 17. That was the norm when I was growing up. But I see Amanda saying she started kissing and experimenting with boys at 11 and then having sex a "few" years later which I take to mean 13 or 14 years old. She says that's the norm now. She's one generation removed from my time as a teenager (I'm 40) so that tells you how vastly society has changed in a short period of time.

You would think that the attitudes about sex would've gotten more provincial with the introduction of AIDS, herpes, and other sexually transmitted diseases being so widely discussed in the open. But it seems to have had the oppposite effect. Almost like kids are taunting fate...daring nature to strike.

It's sad how casual the subject has become.

 

[Luissa]

I have no problem with the gift certificates. Grocery stores, gas stations, tax offices all offer gift certificates so why not health clinics? While they are not making a statement by allowing the certificates to be used for any service Planned Parenthood offers, the certainly would be making a statement if they allowed if for all services but abortion.

I do not think Planned Parenthood did it to piss of the pro-lifers (although I'm sure that some Planned Parenthood employees are thrilled that it does), I think they did it to make money off of the holiday season and hopefully, provide health care to women who need it.

The Pro Lifers think all that Planned Parenthood does is to piss them off!lol
And as for the gift certificates, I would have loved on a few years ago when I had no health insurance because the company I worked for in my early twenties were greedy corporate hags.
And we all know some if they didn't have the money would have skipped getting tested. Luckly in my state they started a program where for a year who can get free family planning insurance which only covers std testing and birth control. Also in my state you can also get state medical to cover your abortion if you make under a certain amount which I am sure the pro lifers love. I don't think it is widely known in Washington because you never hear them complaining about it to much.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'm gonna go out a limb and say this was when life expectancy was 20 or 30 years old and before the prevelance of diseases which can kill you if you have sex with the wrong person.

I think once you are an adult you can have sex as freely and with as many people as you want as long as you do so safely. more power to ya. Fuck like bunnies.

However, children, and I'm talking from 16 on down, aren't emotionally OR physically mature enough to handle the ramifications that come along with being a sexually active person. Hell there are some adults who can't handle it.

The problem I see is that we've robbed our children of the opportunity to BE children for as long as possible. I didn't even think about sex until I was 15, didn't kiss my first boy until 13 and didn't have sex until I was 17. That was the norm when I was growing up. But I see Amanda saying she started kissing and experimenting with boys at 11 and then having sex a "few" years later which I take to mean 13 or 14 years old. She says that's the norm now. She's one generation removed from my time as a teenager (I'm 40) so that tells you how vastly society has changed in a short period of time.

You would think that the attitudes about sex would've gotten more provincial with the introduction of AIDS, herpes, and other sexually transmitted diseases being so widely discussed in the open. But it seems to have had the oppposite effect. Almost like kids are taunting fate...daring nature to strike.

It's sad how casual the subject has become.

To the extent that that's the case, I don't think it ought to apply to only one age group, as legal adults certainly have no protection from AIDS. I might even say that the vigor of the young would enable them to more effectively deal with its symptoms.

I'll openly say that I wasn't so different from Amanda in terms of early experimentation, and it's uncannily similar that we both had early sexual experiences at church functions. (Of course, the idea that they're chaste is largely a myth.) But again, this isn't about individuals.

I think the "robbed of childhood" assertion is directly OPPOSITE of what the case actually is. Childhood has actually been extended to a point far beyond its biological end, and a mass array of legal restrictions have been placed on young adults that did not previously exist, thus creating the social construct of adolescence.

I'm not sure your response sufficiently addressed the reality that the "emotional component" of sexual activity is largely a social construct, and even if it weren't, what specific evidence do you have that younger adolescents are too emotionally immature to engage in it?

EDIT: Regarding the issue of life expectancy, if the average human lifespan were to be extended to 150 or so through scientific advancements, would you advocate that adolescence and the age of majority be extended to age 30 or so? Isn't that parallel to the system you currently support?

 

[Silence]

To the extent that that's the case, I don't think it ought to apply to only one age group, as legal adults certainly have no protection from AIDS. I might even say that the vigor of the young would enable them to more effectively deal with its symptoms.

that is one of the most ridiculous things I think I've ever seen someone say. Young people can't be trusted to take their medications regularly, which is what helps people with HIV remain healthy for so long now.

I'll openly say that I wasn't so different from Amanda in terms of early experimentation, and it's uncannily similar that we both had early sexual experiences at church functions. (Of course, the idea that they're chaste is largely a myth.) But again, this isn't about individuals.

It is a myth which is why I don't make my daughter attend church. I find most to be filled with hypocrites and liars. Do as I say not as I do types.

I think the "robbed of childhood" assertion is directly OPPOSITE of what the case actually is. Childhood has actually been extended to a point far beyond its biological end, and a mass array of legal restrictions have been placed on young adults that did not previously exist, thus creating the social construct of adolescence.

what do you consider a young adult? I do agree that the drinking age should be 18. But other than that what contraints do you see hindering these "young adults?

do you even take into account that life expectancy has increased dramatically even in the last 30 or so years? Modern medicine makes it to where people don't have to live their entire lives in a nano-second. My grandmother married at 13 and had my mother at 14. She ended up having to have a hysterectomy at 21 because her body had not sufficiently matured enough to bear a child and doing so damaged her reproductive organs. My mother was an only child because of it. Babies shouldn't be having babies!

I'm not sure your response sufficiently addressed the reality that the "emotional component" of sexual activity is largely a social construct, and even if it weren't, what specific evidence do you have that younger adolescents are too emotionally immature to engage in it?

are you saying that a 12, 13 or 14 year old is emotionally mature enough to take responsibility for keeping themselves safe from diseases? do they have the willingness to go to the doctor for regular check-ups which is what you do when you become sexually active? do they have the emotional stability to understand that having sex with someone doesn't guarantee you that they'll like you, that sometimes people just want to have sex? are they capable of dealing with that kind of rejection? Do you know ANYTHING about adolescents other than what you remember when you were one? I remember at that age I would've been devestated to sleep with a guy and have him dump me. Adults feel the same way, imagine a child who cries if their friends don't like their new haircut or clothes?

EDIT: Regarding the issue of life expectancy, if the average human lifespan were to be extended to 150 or so through scientific advancements, would you advocate that adolescence and the age of majority be extended to age 30 or so? Isn't that parallel to the system you currently support?

you're trying to argue that CHILDREN should be looked upon as sexually responsible creatures and therefore should be allowed the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. Your argument is flawed insomuch as unless these same children are willing and able to go get jobs and support themselves and whatever offspring they may produce then they shouldn't be having sex!

Apparently you're an advocate for child sex... I find that disturbing on several levels I must say

 

[Amanda]

Sorry to do the multi-quotey thing but you said a lot of things I wanted to respond to and I wanted to try to remain clear.

However, children, and I'm talking from 16 on down, aren't emotionally OR physically mature enough to handle the ramifications that come along with being a sexually active person. Hell there are some adults who can't handle it.

I mostly agree with this but I think for a different reason than you do. See next section...

The problem I see is that we've robbed our children of the opportunity to BE children for as long as possible.

I think think just the opposite. I think we try to keep people as young and naive as possible in our culture. In the past, and in other cultures, people were considered adults much younger than they are now in the US.

So there's the question of if they were really ready. If you don't think they were there's not much else to say. If you do think they were ready, then why, and what's changed? I think they were and I think todays kids have the capacity to be ready but aren't allowed to be ready by society.

I have a lot more to say on this, but this is enough for now. It will be interesting to see how others feel.

I didn't even think about sex until I was 15, didn't kiss my first boy until 13 and didn't have sex until I was 17. That was the norm when I was growing up. But I see Amanda saying she started kissing and experimenting with boys at 11 and then having sex a "few" years later which I take to mean 13 or 14 years old. She says that's the norm now. She's one generation removed from my time as a teenager (I'm 40) so that tells you how vastly society has changed in a short period of time.

I don't know if it's the norm, but I wasn't the only one. I'm sure things are different from place to place. I grew up in a rural area and there really wasn't much else to do besides get high (which a lot of kids did too).

You would think that the attitudes about sex would've gotten more provincial with the introduction of AIDS, herpes, and other sexually transmitted diseases being so widely discussed in the open. But it seems to have had the oppposite effect. Almost like kids are taunting fate...daring nature to strike.

I think it's just thinking nothing will happen to them. Our lives were boring. Boring today, boring yesterday, how will tomorrow be different? This place never changes. That kind of thinking. Does that make sense?

It's sad how casual the subject has become.

I don't know, I think it's good for it to be something that can be talked about more openly. That's got to be a result of more casualness.

 

[Amanda]

Your argument is flawed insomuch as unless these same children are willing and able to go get jobs and support themselves and whatever offspring they may produce then they shouldn't be having sex!

This is exactly it! They can't. It's like an attempt to keep them from doing adult things by denying them the means to support themselves or legally make their own decisions.

I think if you let 14 year olds work and rent an apartment and be in charge of themselves that you might be surprised how many could do it. Of course some would fail. But some fail at 18. Some fail at 22. Etc.

I think the way to get more responsible, adult behavior out of kids is to treat them more like adults than less.