Sunday, February 08, 2009

New Undercover Video Shows Tucson Planned Parenthood Hiding Rape of 15-Year-Old Girl

New hidden-camera footage from Tucson, AZ, implicates a third Planned Parenthood clinic in a multi-state child abuse scandal. In the video, UCLA student Lila Rose and her friend Jackie Stollar enter a Tucson Planned Parenthood clinic where Rose tells the nurse that Stollar, posing as a 15-year-old, is pregnant by her 27-year-old boyfriend. The nurse disregards the age difference and even cautions Stollar not to bring her "boyfriend" before the judicial hearing required in Arizona to waive parental consent for an abortion. This negligence on the part of the Planned Parenthood staffer is punishable under Arizona law.

"Is he not a minor?" the Planned Parenthood nurse, who identifies herself as Araceli, asks. When Rose says, "He's 27," the nurse urges the girls not to bring him to the hearing: "I wouldn't take him with me, no. I mean: don't take him."

The video is the third to be released in a national undercover probe called the "Mona Lisa Project." The project, conducted by the student-led California nonprofit Live Action, records on video Planned Parenthood employees as they respond to statutory rape. Rather than reporting the rape--as the law requires--Planned Parenthood clinics hide the identity of the statutory rapist and offer secret abortions.

In the past two months, the Mona Lisa Project has exposed similar cases at two Planned Parenthood clinics in Indiana. In response, both clinics either suspended or fired employees, and state prosecutors launched investigations into Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

"These videos demonstrate that Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, is entrenched in an organization-wide policy of circumventing state law and covering up the sexual abuse of young girls," said Live Action's president, Lila Rose.

This is not the first time Planned Parenthood of Arizona has failed to report sexual abuse. In 2002, an Arizona judge found the abortion provider negligent for failing to report the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl by her 23-year-old foster brother, who brought her to a Phoenix-area clinic for an abortion in 1998. After Planned Parenthood kept silent about the abuse, the sexual relationship continued and led to a second abortion six months later.

While noting that today Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard is scheduled to deliver the keynote address at an event sponsored by Planned Parenthood, Rose urges Arizona prosecutors to follow the lead of Indiana state authorities and investigate the full extent of Planned Parenthood's sexual abuse cover-up. "Our footage gives the Arizona public and law enforcement a rare window into Planned Parenthood's careless abortion-first ideology," Rose stated. "With abortion as their first and only solution for the abused victim, Planned Parenthood assists sexual predators by violating the very Arizona state laws that protect children." Rose adds, "Planned Parenthood is not above the law. They must cooperate with Arizona state authorities to reveal the full extent of their lawbreaking."


Taxachusetts thinks its citizens are its captives

Battle lines have been drawn between tax-free New Hampshire and "Taxachusetts" - and the line is at the states' border. Bay State officials said New Hampshire businesses should be collecting Massachusetts' 5 percent sales tax from residents who cross the border to shop - and save money. Massachusetts is suing Connecticut-based Town Fair Tire for allowing its residents to purchase tires at New Hampshire stores and not charging them the 5 percent Massachusetts sales tax. The lawsuit is based on the state's use tax, which is applied to items bought outside Massachusetts that are intended to be used in the state.

The case now before the Supreme Judicial Court applies only to Town Fair Tire, but some experts think the results could be much more far-reaching. The case doesn't mean Massachusetts has new collection initiatives or will have any impact on New Hampshire's retailers, according to a statement from Richard Bliss, spokesman for the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.

But two law professors who studied the case disagree. "Taken to its logical extreme, that rule would require a nationwide retailer to determine the residence of all its customers," professors John Swain and Walter Hellerstein wrote in the trade publication "State Tax Notes."

The professors also warned that if Massachusetts forces out-of-state retailers to collect its 5 percent tax, neighbors with higher tax rates like Rhode Island (7 percent) and Connecticut (6 percent) could demand Massachusetts stores collect and give them the extra tax their own residents would have paid if they shopped at home.

Customers, business owners vocal about objections

New Hampshire business owners and customers said they won't be happy if Massachusetts chases them across the border in pursuit of tax dollars. Nancy Kyle, president of the New Hampshire Retail Merchants Association, said she's outraged by the case because New Hampshire has worked hard to fend off a sales tax. New Hampshire is the only New England state that doesn't have a sales tax. "It's not the job of New Hampshire retailers to enforce Massachusetts tax law," Kyle said. She said Massachusetts is "testing the waters" by going after a medium-sized regional retailer like Town Fair Tire and, if it's successful, it could go after big-box stores and small retailers next. "Are we going to screen every shopper to see where they're from?" Kyle said.

Rep. Norman Major, R-Plaistow, a member of the state House Ways and Means Committee, said Massachusetts would be overstepping its bounds if the state ever tried to cross the border to collect tax revenue or pressure New Hampshire retailers into charging Bay State taxes. "The person in New Hampshire selling things in his store and not delivering to Massachusetts has no idea where it's going to end up," Major said. Attempts to force New Hampshire store owners to charge the tax would be intimidating to customers from both sides of the border, he said. "I don't think we should stand for that," Major said.

Retailers don't want to be tax collectors

Jeff LaPointe, store manager at John Deere dealer James R. Rosencrantz & Sons in Derry and Kingston, said a good percentage of their customers do come from south of the border. But the store isn't responsible for charging Massachusetts sales tax if the customer picks up the tractor at either store, he said. "It's not my responsibility to make sure that you pay the tax," LaPointe said. If that responsibility did become the store's job, then it could mean fewer Massachusetts customers shopping in their stores, LaPointe said. The only time a customer is charged the 5 percent Massachusetts tax is when a tractor is delivered to a Massachusetts home or business, LaPointe said.

The same is true for Best Buy in Salem, according to store manager Don Smith. If Massachusetts suddenly demanded Massachusetts residents pay sales tax in another state, Best Buy would have to comply with the rule, Smith said. "It would be another step," he said. "But if that's what the law was, we'd take that step." A manager at Fay's Salem Tire in Salem said any changes in tax law might not have much of an effect on that business. Manager Rich Stacy said the store has a lot of loyal customers from Massachusetts who would likely still continue to shop with them, regardless of whether they had to pay Massachusetts taxes.

Stacy said he was aware of the Town Fair Tire lawsuit, but also was concerned that customers looking for a bargain might go elsewhere. "People are going to try to save as much as possible," Stacy said.

Shoppers cross the border to save

The problem with the use tax is that it's up to individual customers to file - and few people ever do. Massachusetts tax officials said they have no idea how much money the state is missing out on from residents who shop across the border. James Lefave, a Wilmington, Mass., homeowner, said he had never heard of a use tax while loading windows into the back of his pickup truck at The Home Depot in Salem yesterday. Like many Massachusetts residents, Lefave traveled north to pick up 20 windows and a garage door to avoid paying the 5 percent sales tax that would have been tacked on to his purchase if they were delivered to his home. "I didn't know you had to claim it," Lefave said.

Mary Reese, chairwoman of the Greater Salem Chamber of Commerce, said forcing local businesses to enforce Massachusetts tax law during tough economic times would harm local businesses. "My suggestion would be rather than attempt to harm our New Hampshire businesses, which border Massachusetts, the commonwealth should adopt a less burdensome tax structure, which helps their own consumers and businesses," Reese said.


British countryside Alliance jubilant as High Court ruling makes hunting ban 'even weaker'

Foxhunting supporters claimed a major legal victory tonight over the law banning their sport. A High Court judgment clarifying the definition of hunting effectively reduces the scope of the Hunting Act and makes prosecutions more difficult, they said. The hunt ban has produced just 90 prosecutions since its introduction in 2005, while hunt numbers have increased.

One reason mooted for the low number of prosecutions has been lack of clarity over the definition of hunting. The High Court had been asked to define what activities were covered by the hunting ban, following several appeals against convictions. Kerry Barker, of the Crown Prosecution Service, told the judges that 'hunt' must mean 'hunting for or searching for'. He said: 'If searching for a wild mammal with dogs is not illegal, then it is difficult to see how Parliament's intention of preventing cruelty and bringing an end to the sport of hunting can be met.'

But Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Maddison ruled that hunting did not include mere 'searching for' an animal. And they said it was up to the prosecution to prove defendants were not covered by exemptions to the ban - rather than defendants having to show they were exempt.

The ruling is a victory for Tony Wright, of Exmoor Foxhounds, the first man prosecuted for hunting foxes. He had his conviction overturned after arguing that farmers had asked the hunt to kill foxes to reduce losses during the lambing season. Under the Act, there are exemptions in circumstances where animals are causing 'serious damage' and when only one or two dogs are used.

Tim Bonner, of the Countryside Alliance, called the High Court outcome 'very positive' and said: 'We have won on everything essentially. This should mean the prospect of Hunting Act offences being prosecuted will be far lower. We would expect there to have to be overwhelming evidence for a prosecution even to be launched.'

But opponents of blood sports said the law had simply been clarified and more court cases were likely to follow as a result. Douglas Batchelor, of the League Against Cruel Sports, accused the Countryside Alliance of 'trying to put the judgment wider than it goes'. He said: 'It is really a victory for clarity in the law and the backlog of hunting cases will be able to pass through the courts. 'We have been absolutely assured by our lawyers that the Hunting Act as it was intended is still in place.'

Hunts can take place legally by either laying a scent for hounds to follow or using a pack to flush a fox or another mammal out for a bird of prey to kill. The use of dogs to kill the animal is forbidden, except in certain circumstances. But critics say that in some cases they knowingly allow dogs to chase a fox after it has been 'flushed', while others lay artificial trails close to known fox habitats, then claim the animals are being 'accidentally' hunted by the pack.

More than 3,000 registered hunts in England and Wales have carried out 70,000 hunting days since the ban, while the number of people who subscribe to them is said to have increased by 10 per cent over the same period, to 44,000. The Tories have promised a free Commons vote on repealing the law if they win the next election.



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 INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: