Archive for sexually active

Planned Parenthood covers potential sexual abuse of 13 year old children

Posted in child predator, Planned Parenthood and Child Predators with tags , , , , , , , on January 21, 2014 by saynsumthn

Pro-life Action League has reviewed inspection reports posted recently by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, and uncovered some very disturbing findings concerning two Planned Parenthood facilities in Philadelphia.

PP Phila Locust Street

On August 29, 2013 Department of Health inspectors conducted an annual registration survey [PDF] of Planned Parenthood’s Locust Street Health Center, and discovered that the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic was not reporting the sexual activity of minor girl’s as young as 13.

The report revealed that on several instances, the clinic failed to inquire if the person these children were having sex with were four years of age or older as required by state law. Despite the fact that two of the girls admitted to being sexually active since the age of 11, the clinic did not even care to investigate the possibility of sexual abuse, nor to report the cases as required by law.

The following cases were outlined in the State’s Inspection Report:

PPSP Surgical Locust Street Health Center
1144 LOCUST STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107

13 year old who began sexual activity at 11 years old:

MR1) . A review of MR1 revealed the patient listed in the medical record was a 13 year old unmarried pregnant patient. A further review of MR1 revealed no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child.

A review of MR1 revealed the patient listed in the medical record was a 13 year old child and had indicated in the sexual history portion of the medical record, that the child’s age at first intercourse was 11. A further review of MR1 revealed no documentation that the facility reported the sexual intercourse at age 11 to the appropriate agencies.

An interview with EMP1 on August 29, 2013, at approximately 3:00 PM confirmed that both MR1 and MR2, revealed in the sexual history portion of the medical record, that the child’s age at first sexual intercourse was under 13 and both medical records revealed no documentation that the facility reported the sexual intercourse to the appropriate agencies

13 year old who began sexual activity at 12 years old:

MR2) . A review of MR2 revealed the patient listed in the medical record was a 13 year old unmarried pregnant patient. A further review of MR2 revealed no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child.

A review of MR2 revealed the patient listed in the medical record was a 13 year old child and had indicated in the sexual history portion of the medical record, that the child’s age at first sexual intercourse was 12. A further review of MR2 revealed no documentation that the facility reported the sexual intercourse at age 12 to the appropriate agencies.

An interview with EMP1 on August 29, 2013, at approximately 3:00 PM confirmed that both MR1 and MR2, revealed in the sexual history portion of the medical record, that the child’s age at first sexual intercourse was under 13 and both medical records revealed no documentation that the facility reported the sexual intercourse to the appropriate agencies

13 year old

MR3). A review of MR3 revealed the patient listed in the medical record was a 13 year old unmarried pregnant patient. A further review of MR3 revealed no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child. An interview with EMP1 on August 29, 2013, at approximately 3:00 PM confirmed that MR1, MR2, MR3, MR4, MR5, and MR6, revealed no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child.

14 year old

MR4). A review of MR4 revealed the patient listed in the medical record was a 14 year old unmarried pregnant patient. A further review of MR4 revealed no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child.
An interview with EMP1 on August 29, 2013, at approximately 3:00 PM confirmed that MR1, MR2, MR3, MR4, MR5, and MR6, revealed no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child.

14 year old

MR5). A review of MR5 revealed the patient listed in the medical record was a 14 year old unmarried pregnant patient. A further review of MR5 revealed no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child.
An interview with EMP1 on August 29, 2013, at approximately 3:00 PM confirmed that MR1, MR2, MR3, MR4, MR5, and MR6, revealed no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child.

13 year old

MR6). A review of MR6 revealed the patient listed in the medical record was a 13 year old unmarried pregnant patient. A further review of MR6 revealed no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an offender who was four or more years older than the child.
An interview with EMP1 on August 29, 2013, at approximately 3:00 PM confirmed that MR1, MR2, MR3, MR4, MR5, and MR6, revealed no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child.

The conclusion of the report is that Planned Parenthood would have to put protocols in place:
Based on feedback from surveyor during the August 29, 2013 survey, the surgical center manager reviewed Pennsylvania State law and PPSP protocols specific to mandatory reporting at center staff meeting on September 17, 2013. PPSP Chief Operating Officer and Manager of Center Quality with legal consultation will revise current protocol to include language on when to ascertain if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child. The revised protocol will be in place by January 15, 2014 and all health center staff will receive training on this protocol by February 15, 2014. Revised protocol and evidence of training will be available for review.

Based on a review of facility documents, policies, medical records, and interview with staff (EMP), it was determined that the facility failed to conform to all applicable State laws. Ppsp Surgical Locust Street Health Center was not in compliance with the following State laws:
The Pennsylvania Crimes Code and the Child Protective Service Law Sexual intercourse with a child less than 13 years of age is always a crime without regard to the age or relationship of the offender, and without regard to the “consent” of the child. See 18 Pa.C.S §§ 3121(c)(rape of a child); 3121(d)(rape of a child with serious bodily injury); 3123 (b)(involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child); 3123(c)(involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child with serious bodily injury). Under Pennsylvania law, a child less than 13 years of age is incapable of consent to sexual intercourse

Sexual intercourse with a child less than 16 years of age is a crime if the offender is four or more years older than the child, and the child and offender are not married to each other. 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3122.1 (statutory sexual assault); 3123(7)(involuntary deviate sexual intercourse). Under Pennsylvania law, an unmarried individual less than 16 years of age is incapable of consent to sexual intercourse with a person who is four or more years older.

childpredatorlogo

Planned Parenthood knows full well what the laws are about. Pro-life groups like Life Dynamics have been documenting their failure to report for years.

In 2002, Life Dynamics conducted the undercover investigation in which we called over 800 Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities across the nation. The results of this survey were appalling. Even though many of these clinics openly acknowledged to our caller that this situation was illegal and they were required to report it to the state, the overwhelming majority readily agreed to conceal this illegal activity.

One of the places they called was this very Planned Parenthood. The caller posed as a 14 year old child impregnated bya 22 year old adult man.

Here is a portion of the transcript of that call:

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Okay, there’s no charge for the pregnancy test if you come in here either.

CALLER: Okay. It’s just — the reason why I can’t tell my parents is because like my boyfriend’s 22, and we’re going to get married and everything, but they hate him because they think he’s too old for me. So they just can’t find out.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD:: Okay. Well, they don’t — I mean, like everything here is confidential, so like I said if you want to come in today you can come in up until what time? up until 3:00 if you can get here by 3:00 you can come in and we can do a pregnancy test for you.

CALLER: Okay. Would you guys be able to do birth control there?

PLANNED PARENTHOOD:: Yes, we do. Um-hum. You’d be offered like birth control following your procedure, so like if you wanted depo or if you wanted the pill we’d be able to give that to you as well.

CALLER: Okay, and does anybody have to know about the birth control?

PLANNED PARENTHOOD:: Does anybody have to know?

CALLER: Yeah.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD:: No. Um-um. Only you.

CALLER: Okay. Is it all right if my boyfriend brings me?

PLANNED PARENTHOOD:: Yeah, that’s fine.

CALLER: Okay. And they wouldn’t ask anything about him or anything?

PLANNED PARENTHOOD:: No. Um-um.

CALLER: All right. Well —