Saturday, June 09, 2007

Planned Protection for Predators

Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion operation, claims to be a trusted source of health information and medical care for young women. However, there is mounting evidence that the organization has failed miserably when it comes to protecting minor girls from sexual predators.

The latest example of this comes from Ohio, where a girl who was sexually abused by her father has filed suit against Planned Parenthood in Cincinnati. The girl says that Planned Parenthood failed to report the abuse she underwent when her father forced her into having an abortion. Following the abortion, the abuse continued for more than a year, according to a report by the Associated Press.

Now, under Ohio law, doctors, nurses, teachers, and others in positions of authority are required to report claims of abuse to law enforcement. Planned Parenthood official Becki Brenner was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that, if the girl had alleged abuse, "We would call and report as required by law." This statement indicates that the girl's case may boil down to "She said, PP said." PP is obviously betting that its support from some public officials and a vast number of media representatives will help shore up its case.

But isn't it ironic that an organization which claims to have the best interests of women at heart is questioning the credibility of a sexual abuse victim? Is that really a pro-woman stance?

If the Cincinnati incident were an isolated case, that might be one thing. But the fact is, there appears to be a pattern of PP failing to report sexual abuse to authorities. The American Life League, for instance, has documented a number of cases in which PP did not live up to its responsibility to report statutory rape. For instance, in 1998, in Glendale, Arizona, a 12-year-old girl who was raped by a foster brother had an abortion at PP. But PP never reported the rape to the police. It took another six months-and another appointment for abortion-before PP alerted authorities and the predator was arrested and convicted. The girl sued and a judge determined that PP was negligent for failing to report the rape. Court records indicate that the girl ultimately reached a settlement in the case.

Meanwhile, in 1999, an 11-year-old California girl went to a PP facility, saying she had been raped. The victim asked PP not to inform anyone, including her parents. However, the law clearly indicates that PP should have reported the rape to the police. In 2005, a PP website included a letter from the girl praising PP for keeping her rape a secret. Not only did PP fail to do its civic duty-it actually had the gall to publicize the fact. According to the American Life League, the letter was ultimately removed from the site-but the damage had already been done.

It's bad enough that PP actually accepts money to end the lives of tens of thousands of unborn babies. Now, there are indications that PP has, at times, been grossly negligent by failing to report allegations of statutory rape. It's going to take a great deal of public relations spin for PP to attempt to redeem itself in this situation.

Source



What Would Methodists Do Without Experts?

Post lifted from Taranto. See the original for links

ABC News reports that in 1991, the United Methodist Church--Hillary Clinton's denomination--considered "changing its view that homosexuality violates Christian teaching."

During its deliberations, the church sought an expert opinion from a physician, James Holsinger, who produced an eight-page paper titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." Holsinger's paper did not address the question of whether "homosexuality violates Christian teachings." Rather, it discussed reproductive anatomy and the medical risks of certain types of male homosexual activity.

Ultimately, the UMC did not change its position. As noted here, Mrs. Clinton's church still adheres to the view that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."

The separation of church and state notwithstanding, the United Methodists' deliberations on homosexuality have suddenly become a subject of interest to the U.S. Senate, because the president has nominated Holsinger to be surgeon general. According to ABC, "Doctors who reviewed the paper derided it as prioritizing political ideology over science, and Democratic aides on Capitol Hill say the paper will make his confirmation hearings problematic, if not downright bruising."

So what did the paper say? ABC's Web site headlines the article " 'Homosexuality Isn't Natural or Healthy.' " It puts these words in quotation marks even though they are not a direct quote. We have read the paper and will link to it as soon as we get done warning you that it contains a lot of discussion (in clinical, not vulgar, terms) of the mechanics of sexual intercourse as well as other, less familiar sexual behaviors. OK, here's the link. These are Holsinger's two main claims:

* The sexes are "fully complementary."

* Compared with ordinary intercourse, erotic activity that involves the alimentary tract poses far greater risks of injury and infection.

The first of these is obvious to all human beings and probably most lower mammals as well. The second is obvious to anyone who has occasion to think about the subject. (To those readers who would rather not, our apologies.)

At some level this is sort of funny: Mrs. Clinton's church had to find itself a medical expert to explain the facts of life. But what is chilling is that Holsinger now finds himself under political attack for stating the obvious.

This column takes a live-and-let-live approach on this subject, pretty much across the board. Mrs. Clinton's church's position on homosexuality is nobody's business but Mrs. Clinton and her coreligionists'. What consenting adults do in private is no one else's business either.

But when political activists try to render the complementrity of the sexes a taboo subject, and when one of the two major parties seems ready to accede to this Orwellian effort, something is seriously askew in our political culture.



Australia's PM negative on homosexual adoption

PRIME Minister John Howard says he is opposed to gay couples adopting children and heterosexual adoption is a benchmark society should maintain. But he said that didn't mean gay and lesbian people had no affection for children.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission has recommended to the Victorian Parliament that gay couples be allowed to adopt and lesbians have access to IVF treatment. Mr Howard said today he believed children should ideally have a mother and a father. "It gives children the best opportunity in life," he said on Southern Cross radio. "I know for some that sounds harsh, I don't think it's harsh, I think it's something that most people believe is the desired, the ideal outcome. "I'm not saying that gay and lesbian people don't display enormous affection to children."

The Prime Minister said limiting adoption to heterosexual couples was a benchmark Australian society should maintain. On IVF for lesbians and single women without partners, he said: "In the past we have objected to that."

The Victorian Law Reform Commission report, tabled in state parliament yesterday, said the Government should change the law to allow lesbians to access reproductive treatment, even if they are not medically infertile. "An appropriate test is whether a woman is 'in the circumstances in which she finds herself unlikely to become pregnant other than by a treatment procedure'," the report says. A court decision in 2000 found it was discriminatory to deny treatment to a woman based on whether or not she was in a relationship with a man.

Gay couples currently are unable to adopt in Victoria, but the commission says they should be able to. "The commission believes it is important the widest possible pool of people is available to help these children," the report says. "Research shows that a parent's sexuality is not a predictor of harm to children."

Felicity Marlowe, 33, said she looked forward to the changes being endorsed, as she had no legal status in the lives of 11-month-old twin boys Rafi and Callum, born to her partner of seven years, Sarah Marlowe. "It would mean a great deal to me to be able to receive that legal recognition, and in terms of the future rights of my children it is important too," said Ms Marlowe, a member of the Rainbow Families council. "The discriminatory laws that currently exist don't stop people from creating families, but they do undermine the rights ... of the children."

But Australian Families Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said the changes pandered to the gay agenda without considering the best interests of children.

Source



Family group slams $2.5m anti-smack campaign

A hardy perennial resurfaces in Australia

A NEW $2.5 million campaign urging parents not to smack their children has upset a family group that supports smacking. It is not illegal for parents to smack their children, but the Federal Government's "Every Child is Important" campaign argues against it. The kits in 16 languages will be available soon in various community, health and education centres.

"Hitting a child does not teach acceptable ways to behave," project material says. "Instead it may result in a repeat of the misbehaviour. "Often children are so upset or angry after being hit, they forget why they are being punished."

Family Council of Victoria secretary Bill Muehlenberg said it was wrong to use taxpayers' money to push an anti-smacking line most parents would disagree with. Mr Muehlenberg, who smacked his three boys, said in some cases with small children it was the only option. "It's usually done as a last resort, done in love, done with moderation, self-control," he said. "In other words it's not the same as abuse, which we already have laws on the books about."

But Dr Joe Tucci, CEO of the Australian Childhood Foundation that compiled the "Every Child is Important" campaign, is opposed to smacking. He says parents should work out why their child is misbehaving and address the cause. "You don't have to hit your children to teach them right from wrong," he said.

Sunrise presenter and father of four David Koch is a high-profile smacking advocate. "Smacking is very different to being abusive," he told the Herald-Sun. Koch said it was wrong to smack when you were emotional, but an out-of-control child may need it.

Source

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************

No comments: