Actually, the article deals with this. First of all, the "teenagers" who were supposedly pregnant were fictional, so there was no actual crime to report. Second of all, none of the fictional teenagers ever spoke to or saw a doctor or nurse, who are the ones who are the mandated reporters. The people answering the phones are not.
LOL, the "first of all" rules out the "second of all" automatically.
Internet predators are actually breaking laws. No one here was found to be breaking any laws. If anything, this proved that maybe PP needs to train the people who answer their phones a little better.
Of course the investigation didn't find any laws being broken. I had already said that
the investigation was dropped as soon as it was decided that there were no actual pregnant teens involved.
Let's not confuse a dropped investigation with a completed thorough investigation concluding that a given organization is found not to be breaking laws.
They failed to prove that they are bypassing anything. They uncovered a problem within our system, yes. That's definitely true. The patient has the right to confidentiality regarding her medical treatment...yet if a 13-year old is pregnant by a 30-year old, that's a problem, and doctors have to report it. They've exposed a big problem, but they've not exposed any grand scheme to cover up sexual abuse.
Perhaps you should read my post again.
Sorry, what? I'm not sure what problem you're talking about.
It would seem that way, but this latter portion seems to conflict with even your earlier statement that there is a problem:
"They uncovered a problem within our system, yes. That's definitely true."
So what have we got?
A claim that states one portion of a group (the professionals answering the phones) do not reflect in any way the whole.
Fair enough and it goes as far as any claim would go in my book.
But I'm for parental notification (as well as spousal) with caveats with or without the pointing to this red herring anyway. Kinda goes with parents being the guardian (or spouse being... well. a spouse) and not all the authority being swept over to some birth control agency attempting to jockey sole influence and also presuming to avoid moral or ethical considerations.
BTW - If anyone were to actually read PP's mission and policy statements, one would see that they strongly affirm that abortion, contraception, blah, blah is an INDIVIDUAL and/or PERSONAL decisions. Inherently, their mission and policy ideology is contrary to notifying anyone, much less including any other input.
