Meet the New Face of the Anti-Choice Movement
Lila Rose is an anti-choice activist who has been dubbed “the new darling of the anti-choice movement.” She’s a UCLA student who goes to Planned Parenthood clinics around the country posing as a 17-year-old girl. She claims she has been impregnated by a much older man and then tries to get Planned Parenthood staff on video for failure to report statutory rape. She then posts her videos on Youtube and has compiled them into a “documentary” called “The Mona Lisa Project.”
Rose’s deceptive actions are having a very intentional financial impact on Planned Parenthood. According to Alternet:
There is no question that Rose’s work is having an impact. Back in April, Tennessee lawmakers sought to end a $721,000 contract with Planned Parenthood, according to the Times, “citing outrage over what they saw in a video Rose had recently posted. . .”
The Orange County Board of Supervisors also “voted to suspend a grant worth nearly $300,000 to Planned Parenthood that was earmarked for sex education, not abortions… [after] a conservative Tustin businessman raised the issue with Supervisor John Moorlach after meeting Rose and seeing her videos,” according to the Times. The grant was ultimately reinstated though the board “created a new policy that will make it more difficult for Planned Parenthood and some other community clinics to qualify for the grant in the future.”
Megan at Jezebel had an article about this in December after Lila pulled her tactics in Indiana.
The results were predictable. Clinic staff at the two clinics in Indiana didn’t — as required by law in Indiana — report Lila or her accomplice to the police as suspected abuse victims and told her that they didn’t care how old her “boyfriend” was, despite Lila insisting he was 31 and afraid of getting in trouble. Indiana law states that anyone having sexual contact with a person under the age of 14 is committing a sexual assault, and requires doctors to break doctor-patient confidentiality laws — even if the sex was consensual — and tell the police.
Planned Parenthood fired both the aide featured in the video Rose shot in Bloomington and the counselor featured in the video shot in Indianapolis, and retrained its staff on complying with Indiana’s reporting requirements. Meanwhile, the prosecutor in Marion County (where Indianapolis is) has empaneled a grand jury to investigate whether any laws were broken.
Megan rightly concludes that laws against statutory rape exist for a reason, but forcing doctors to breach patient confidentiality by reporting suspected statutory rapes to law enforcement will dissuade teenagers from seeking medical care. This, of course, is exactly what Rose and her ilk want.
If you’re a clinic volunteer, memorize Lila’s face. She’s bound to show up at a clinic near you trying to pose as a teenage girl who needs help. Don’t get burned. Rose is deceptive and I really question the “moral standing” of people who think it’s OK to lie (and not just little white lies – big, bold-faced lies), but question the moral standing of someone who has come to the conclusion that they shouldn’t carry a pregnancy to term. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is one of those commandment thingys, right? Oh, I guess you get to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you want to shove down people’s throats.
1Caitlin
wrote on 30 June 2009 at 10:27
What the hell?? Seriously, the anti-choice movement will sink to such disturbing levels to add to their following. I’d like to see her go to a couple of crisis pregnancy centers and see if they do the same thing as Planned Parenthood. I bet a million dollars they wouldn’t report it either and would be even less sympathetic to the fact that she would want to keep her baby.
2aj
wrote on 30 June 2009 at 11:27
This is extremely troubling. The right-wing crazies are doing anything and everything possible to restrict women from their freedom of choice and basic human rights. Unbelievable. I really hope that health care facilities take a good look at her photo and make sure they are cautious of her “surprise” visits.
3Brandon
wrote on 30 June 2009 at 12:46
This is highly illegal! By taking this camera into the clinics, she’s violating every privacy and ethics code in the medical profession. None of this would be admissible in court as evidence because it violates HIPPA and every confidentiality act ever legislated!
4JC
wrote on 30 June 2009 at 13:11
“Megan rightly concludes that laws against statutory rape exist for a reason, but forcing doctors to breach patient confidentiality by reporting suspected statutory rapes to law enforcement will dissuade teenagers from seeking medical care. This, of course, is exactly what Rose and her ilk want.”
This campaign is also designed to undermine Planned Parenthood by painting this non-profit agency as a “law-breaker” that intentionally pushes young girls to choose abortion without their parents’ consent in order to do more more profitable abortions. The truth is, PP clinics turn down patients seeking abortions if they seem to have been coerced or seem unsure that they truly want an abortion.
Abortion is only a small part of what Planned Parenthood does. 90% of care given at PP clinics is preventive: annual exams, pap tests, birth control, STD testing and treatment, etc. The vast majority of patients are low-income or uninsured. If Lila Rose succeeds in driving PP out of business, where are those patients going to go for their care? How many private Ob/Gyns donate their services for free or a nominal fee? Lila Rose and her handlers don’t care. They would love it if low income American women didn’t have access to birth control and abortion. That would just mean more unwanted babies born into poor and disfunctional families. I want to see Lila Rose forced to dedicate her life to adopting dozens of unwanted poor and abused children. Then maybe she would appreciate the value of birth control and abortion.
5Heather
wrote on 30 June 2009 at 14:21
Caitlin, I think you’re on to something. Someone should totally do a similar undercover operation in crisis pregnancy centers! In TX, the state legislature took $$ away from PP and gave millions to fund CPCs. Sure, it’s icky to have a hidden camera, but screw it. Let’s do it!
6freewomyn
wrote on 30 June 2009 at 14:38
@JC – Really good point, especially since 6 clinics in El Paso just closed today.
@Brandon – I hadn’t considered that. Another good point.
7Drunkenatheist
wrote on 1 July 2009 at 8:56
Brandon, you are 100% wrong.
HIPAA applies to healthcare professionals and volunteers, as well as police officers in some situations. It doesn’t apply to a patient. This is coming from reading and knowing the law, as well as backed up by an EMT with 6 years in the field who holds a Bachelors in criminal justice.
Furthermore, I have to respectfully disagree with the thought that statutory rape laws are good, and I’m honestly disappointed that any website that proclaims to support feminism would also think they are A+++. Statutory rape laws are designed to penalize teens for having sex. Look into the laws a bit before making these judgment calls, and you’ll see really whacked out shit.
For example, in New Jersey, depending on the spacing of their birthdays, a 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old could be considered statutory rape. Despite the fact that this isn’t that weird of an age gap. (They could have met in high school when the younger was a freshman and the older was a senior.) And let’s also keep in mind that these laws may very well be applied unfairly in gay relationships, leaving one person branded a sex offender for life. One person’s life could be ruined because they got caught having sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend. One person’s life could be ruined because their girlfriend or boyfriend’s parent(s) could have a bug up their ass and decided to file charges. And, in some states, because of the wording of laws, someone who is convicted of statutory can lose their car, home, computer, anything else used to “facilitate” their sex crime. That is the case in PA, where statutory laws are covered under general rape/sexual assault laws.
Additionally, in California, where all of this is taking place, doctors are required – by law – to report child abuse. It appears that this may cover statutory rape, so honestly, despite the fact that it may dissuade girls from seeking medical help, most doctors won’t risk losing their licenses.
I don’t think the approach in this article is quite right. How about focusing on the fact that “gotcha” horseshit like this doesn’t really apply to the receptionist? Or that if she is using a fake ID to try to obtain Planned Parenthood’s services, she’s essentially admitted to that on national television? She’s basically trying to get innocent doctors to lose their licenses based on fraudulent visits. Why not focus on that portion of it? Or the hypocrisy in expecting doctors to follow the law to a T when she’s not doing it herself?
8freewomyn
wrote on 1 July 2009 at 9:24
Drunken, I think you might have misconstrued this post a bit. We are on the same page about Lila Rose and her “gotcha” techniques, as well as statutory rape statutes.
9aj
wrote on 1 July 2009 at 10:27
Drunken, when I use to work in human resources at a retirement home, HIPPA was in fact used to protect the privacy of our elderly residents. If that was the case, I think what you are saying is incorrect.
But, i’m not an expert – just trying to share my personal experience on the subject; that HIPPA did in fact protect the privacy of patients.
10Drunkenatheist
wrote on 1 July 2009 at 23:12
Well AJ, I thought I was clear, but since I wasn’t, I’ll break it down for you:
HIPAA (the correct acronym, not HIPPA) protects patients. Healthcare professionals, and in certain situations, the police, are forbidden from disclosing a patient’s medical history. If another patient is in the clinic (for example) at the same time, and wishes to run around screeching “suzy smith had an abortion and is a dirty whore,” that is not illegal. Unless the other patient is a healthcare professional at that clinic, a volunteer at that clinic, or a police officer called out for that issue, it’s legal. It’s a shitty move, but legal.
I never claimed that HIPAA did not protect patient privacy, and I apologize if I was not 100% crystal clear. I will say that I think it’s sad that this easily verifiable information is the portion you chose to give me shit about, instead of the other very valid points I made about both statutory rape laws (which strips autonomy from teens) and the fact that doctors – especially ones providing abortion (an already controversial, though legal, service) – won’t risk losing their licenses over statutory rape.
Freewomyn, cool, so you’re all about getting rid of statutory rape laws? Awesome! Thanks to some simple reading and attending some events, I’m becoming more libertarian/anti-law/anarchist every day. I’m so glad to find people who see eye to eye with me! Fight the power, yo!
11MS
wrote on 1 July 2009 at 23:15
AJ, HIPAA (the general rule here is not to take advice on the law from people who don’t even know the proper acronym) only applies to health care providers and people charged with maintaining health care records. If you learned your friend sally got an abortion and told the whole school, you are not violating HIPAA unless the way you learned about it was because you work at the clinic.
Yes, i know what I’m talking about, I’ve been in emergency medical services for 7, years and have be doing annual HIPAA training since 2003. If a news cameraman shows up on an accident scene where I’m taking care of a patient and starts taping, he’s not violating HIPAA, if I then turn to him and say “Hey there channel 6! I’m keeping extra gloves handy because this faggot has the HIV,” I am.
Freewomyn, you wrote “Megan rightly concludes that laws against statutory rape exist for a reason.” I wouldn’t say that you and Drunkenatheist are in total agreement about statutory rape laws.
12aj
wrote on 1 July 2009 at 23:25
drunk, wow, I wasn’t trying to “give you shit” about anything. I’ve re-read my post (as short as it is) quite a few times, and I can’t seem to wrap my mind around why you would interpret my statements as either hostile or as an attack. I was simply un-informed and curious how what you were saying interacted with my own personal experience w/ HIPAA!* (excuse my typing error)
thanks for giving me the accurate information. But again, I didn’t mean to “give you shit.”
13María
wrote on 7 February 2010 at 15:52
Has anyone thought (Planned Parenthood for instance) to sue the pants off her parents, or even doing a criminal investigation for letting her use a fake ID???? She tries to use the statutory rape lawa to screw us over, but she´s not a minor when it comes to braking the law. We really should give her the hell that she deserves!!!!