Planned Parenthood gets stung

February 3, 2011 By

In a new video, a Planned Parenthood manager is seen assisting someone who claims he is a pimp involved with the sex trafficking of children as young as 14. She rather cheerfully and eagerly finds way to assist him with information about abortion and medical exams and contraception. When he asks about abortions for underage girls, she gives him the name of another clinic with lower protocols than hers. She warns him off of a nurse who cares more about the rules than she does (calling her an unprintable and horribly misogynistic name). You can watch the released excerpt or the full, unedited video here. It is absolutely horrifying — particularly about midway through — and includes crass language and distasteful subject matter.

Now let’s look at the media coverage. It actually began last week with an “exclusive” from the Associated Press. Reading between the lines, it was pretty clear that Planned Parenthood was trying to get in front of a story that might prove difficult:

Planned Parenthood, a perennial protest target because of its role in providing abortions, has notified the FBI that at least 12 of its health centers were visited recently by a man purporting to be a sex trafficker but who may instead be part of an attempted ruse to entrap clinic employees.

In each case, according to Planned Parenthood, the man sought to speak privately with a clinic employee and then requested information about health services for sex workers, including some who he said were minors and in the U.S. illegally.

Planned Parenthood’s vice president for communications, Stuart Schear, said the organization has requested an FBI probe of the man’s claims and has already fielded some initial FBI inquiries. However, Schear said Planned Parenthood’s own investigation indicates that the man has links with Live Action, an anti-abortion group that has conducted previous undercover projects aimed at discrediting the nation’s leading abortion provider.

That’s exactly what I would have done if I were a Planned Parenthood official who realized that some employees may have just been caught assisting a child sex operation. The reporter didn’t seem terribly incredulous about what might have happened in such a sting, but I suppose it’s difficult to report the story without any evidence of unethical behavior on the part of Planned Parenthood employees.

But now there is some of that evidence. How is it being reported? Hard to say.

The videos were released two days ago. I saw some mainstream coverage yesterday. The news was all over the pro-life blogosphere, of course. On Wednesday, when Planned Parenthood fired the employee caught in the sting, the coverage increased.

First let’s look at how NPR treated the news. The best thing I can say about it is that they at least wrote something about the news, unlike many of their mainstream counterparts. However, there were multiple problems with their report. They ended up retracting their claim that Lila Rose and Live Action — the group behind the sting — were affiliated with the individuals who exposed the ACORN group last year.

The headline was “Group Behind ACORN Undercover Videos Sets Up Planned Parenthood ‘Sting.’” Not entirely sure why “sting” is in scare quotes, but the first part of the headline is inaccurate. They have since admitted that. The new headline is still problematic:

“Conservative Group Sets Up Planned Parenthood ‘Sting.’

Now maybe in the NPR newsroom, all opposition to abortion is considered “conservative.” But the group does not self-identify as anything — conservative, liberal, etc. — except for pro-life. LiveAction responds to both headlines here.

Other early reports, such as this from Reuters, simply noted the release of the videos with statements from the national Planned Parenthood organization that dismiss them. You can tell a lot about what the New York Times thinks of independent journalism by what it thinks is most important in this lede:

An anti-abortion group seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood released an undercover video on Tuesday that appears to show a clinic manager advising a sex trafficker how to get medical care for prostitutes as young as 14.

Is it that aiding and abetting a criminal child sex operation is less important than the motivations of pro-lifers? I would lead the other way, even if I do think it’s important to note that Live Action has been busting Planned Parenthood in such sting operations for years, as part of its mission.

Anyway, the story changed once the Planned Parenthood, Amy Woodruff, was fired. Here’s the lede to the Washington Post account:

The Planned Parenthood employee caught on tape giving inappropriate advice to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute has been fired, the organization announced Wednesday.

Which Planned Parenthood employee? Which tape? You will not know the answers to those questions from any previous story at the Washington Post. It’s bizarre. It actually kind of reminds me of how newspapers didn’t report on a few other controversies, including the Van Jones situation, until it was far too late to do readers any good.*

The Washington Post piece is fine, although it relies a bit too heavily on Planned Parenthood assertions for my taste. If you’re looking for just a good straight news report about the matter, check out this one from NJ.com. It seems less concerned with spin — one way or the other — and more with just reporting what’s interesting about the videos.

ABCNews is reporting that New Jersey Attorney General is asking the state Division of Criminal Justice to investigate whether the manager should be charged with a crime in the incident.

*Apparently the Washington Post did have a previous story on the matter, that they disappeared down the rabbit hole for some reason. HoyStory has the image of it and it follows the general approach that the Times took as well.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Journalism, Politics, Sex, Social Issues
  • http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat Nicole Neroulias

    Fair points, but what’s the “GetReligion” angle? I don’t see any mention here of inadequate or erroneous faith coverage.

  • michael

    I don’t get your question, Nicole. The assumption here seems to be that there is only a ‘faith angle’ when ‘faith’ is considered as some kind of compartment distinct from everything else or when faith itself, as a compartment distinct from everything else, is the object of news coverage.

    Accepting that assumption would mean taking a very narrow conception of what constitutes a religious matter. That assumption is enormously problematic in itself, but it makes no sense to me in this case. The abortion question is a matter of theological concern at every level: morally, culturally, and as a matter of basic anthropology. Why should an additional ‘faith angle’ be necessary to warrant the attention of GR?

  • http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat Nicole Neroulias

    GetReligion’s mission is to point out problems with reporting on religion: ghosts, inaccuracies, etc. I was surprised that this post didn’t talk about any of that at all.

  • michael

    So let me get this straight. It only falls within GR’s mission to point out problems where religion is the subject being reported on?

    And it falls outside of GR’s mission to discuss bias/inadequacies/distortions in the reporting of issues of fundamental theological concern or of basic importance to religious people?

    So if the media ignored religion altogether and treated it as if it didn’t exist, GR by definition wouldn’t have anything to do and should close up shop?

  • http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat Nicole Neroulias

    If the media ignored religion, that would be a “ghost.”

    There are other websites that critique journalism in general. GetReligion focuses on religion reporting or reporting that wrongly ignores/glosses over religion — it’s right there in the title, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post here that does otherwise.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    The short answer to why this post is up is because we look at abortion coverage. When others have asked the question you have, I explain that we cover it and they’re free to pass on a given post if they prefer something more about doctrinal issues or basic factual errors.

    Another short answer has to do with the interplay between religion and values coverage. Just as religion reporters will cover “values,” we do, too. Abortion is one of the issues — others include torture, marriage, euthanasia, etc. that fit.

  • michael

    Nicole,

    The difference, I think, comes down to how we’re conceiving ‘religion’. Your comments suggest a narrow (and quintessentially modern liberal) view of religion as a private compartment of life in an otherwise secular reality. It’s interesting to ask how such a conception functions to keep religion constrained to the private sphere, but it follows at the very least that what as a religion story on these terms will fall within very narrow parameters and will almost always be trivial: what does Tim Tebow believe, e.g.? Occasionally, though, acts of terrorism or persecution, embarassing scandals by religious leaders, or religious transgression into the secular sphere will warrant giving religion serious public attention so that it can be put in its place. In fact, that is one way to interpret your objection, though perhaps not the most charitable one. I’d be happy to be wrong about that.

    I, on the other hand, think that religion concerns, among other things, who and what the human being is, so that anything that falls within the scope of our humanity–and that includes reason and politics–is, in principle, a matter of religious and theological concern. From this point of view, there is no problem seeing a ‘religion angle’ in this story, even though religion in your sense is not its subject matter. The story suggests an attempt by prominent media organizations to ‘contain’ the abortion controversy, not least by reducing it to politics. This is religiously relevant in at least two ways. First, it is a matter of great concern to a great many religious people, who are largely responsible for keeping the controversy alive in the first place. Second, it goes right to the heart of the ‘human question’. Attempts to contain or suppress this controversy amount to attempts to contain or suppress that question, though it is hard to imagine on what basis the media could do so if not an (unacknowledged) answer to that same question.

    Perhaps if Mollie had simply reiterated why abortion matters, then the ‘ghost’ which haunts this story would have been plainly in view, though I don’t really think that is necessary. It really isn’t too hard to spot unless, that is, one is determined not to see it.

  • Karen

    Okay, but I don’t see coverage of the medical values quandary or the possibility of creating a sting for the pimp. If the health care provider never gets them in the door, then they go medically untreated, which could lead to HIV and STDs that will leave them sterile for life and which will spread epidemic disease. The girls aren’t present in the clinic, so and until they are there is no way to help them (including getting information to them on getting away or even alerting police to be present.)

    There is nothing actionable on hand- the pimp didn’t bring in an underage girl- so it would be very difficult to call in the police now, but it might be possible if he trusts the facility.

    I don’t say this is the case, but she at least created the trust necessary to get the girls medical care. The video tends to make me think the director might not offer them a way out of being trafficked, unless they asked. But if she gets the girls in, they have the possibility of asking.

    And these guys don’t hold onto a pregnant woman for 9 months without trafficking them or getting them an abortion, so without a referral they may end up dead in a back alley (and probably late term) abortion. All distasteful options, but real coverage should consider them as well.

  • Ryan K.

    Yeah focusing on the sting aspect is like a kid who is caught punching another kid and tries to divert with, “yeah but Tommy told on me.”

    I guess if your on the side of the group or person committing the atrocity then it is easier to focus on the informant. This is why the article focuses so much time on opening an FBI probe on the man posing as a pimp, rather than a Planned Parenthood employee being eager to provide abortions for sex slaves…

  • Dave

    GetReligion has made it clear in the past that abortion and homosexuality are inherently religious topics, and that any coverage of these topics with perceived flaws falls within GR purview even if there is no specific failure on the part of the press to “get religion.” I usually respond, as herewith, that this dilutes the mission of GR and brings it closer to a quotidian conservative complaint board, which are a dime a dozen in the blogosphere whereas GR, when it sticks to its last, is a gem among the blogs.

  • Harris

    News-wise, Talking Points Media had already flagged the hoax. This was one of several prankster visits,visits that PP offices alerted the national office on, which in turn had prompted a complaint to US Department of Justice. (As to legality, there is evidently a New Jersey ordinance against hoaxing of a crime — but this is a different matter).

    On the above meta discussion of GR, as a Calvinist I can easily hold all life is religion. However, such broad definitions reduce the practical dimension of press critique, and so position GR in more a general advocacy mode. Personally, press critique if more interesting than the broader advocacy role.

  • Patrick Lynch

    “There is nothing actionable on hand- the pimp didn’t bring in an underage girl- so it would be very difficult to call in the police now, but it might be possible if he trusts the facility.”

    This is morally incoherent – how many abortions should they provide to help a child pimp run his business before they turn him in? How many of his girls do they have to betray, and how many times, before they’ve won his trust, sufficient to betray him?

    “The video tends to make me think the director might not offer them a way out of being trafficked, unless they asked. But if she gets the girls in, they have the possibility of asking.”

    So the fact that Planned Parenthood representatives are eager to be a material accessory to CHILD PROSTITUTION is still kind of okay with you, on the premise that otherwise, pimps might have to stop renting their PREGNANT kids as sex-slaves?

    Isn’t the problem here that PP seems to despise children of any age?

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Just a reminder to keep discussion focused on journalism issues.

  • Ryan K.

    Live Action has released a second video now showing another PP location supporting sex trafficking of minors. Apparently ABCnews thinks this is mainly a story about activists wanting to discredit Planned Parenthood.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/activists-targeting-planned-parenthood-release-undercover-video/story?id=12831614

  • http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat Nicole Neroulias

    I understand that abortion is generally a religious/values issue — but still, I expected GetReligion to point out reporting problems concerning religion, not political bias. There’s no mention anywhere in this post of where faith did or should have come into play in this story, and that surprised me.

    If a left-wing sting operation had someone pose as a clearly mentally unstable man with violent intentions, going to various gun shows and shops to see if he could purchase firearms — let’s assume someone would sell him a weapon. Would GetReligion dissect the resulting coverage? Or is this only about critiquing “values” issues that line up with a conservative political agenda?

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Nicole,

    No need to change topics. Try this: If a pro-choice sting operation had someone pose as someone going to various crisis pregnancy centers to snare them saying something bad, would we discuss the resulting coverage? Likely.

    And as has been mentioned, many liberals are pro-life. This is not an issue that conservatives own exclusively nor one on which all right-of-center people agree.

  • michael

    Nicole,

    Why do you insist on characterizing this critique of biased abortion coverage as a critique of political bias?

    What does that even mean: that this issue is really just a pretense for political partisanship or that the real motivation for the criticism is political? No doubt there are political implications insofar as taking a side in this debate entails a political option, but that doesn’t mean that the substantive question at issue here is essentially political. Why do you assume that the political dimension is fundamental?

  • Ben

    The NYT reporting on this story left me wanting to know whether Planned Parenthood had in fact notified authorities immediately after these incidents. That’s what PP said, according to the article, but it seems like something that could be verified.

    If PP did make immediate calls to law enforcement, then I think you have to take into consideration that this employee may be taking the approach — misguided though it may be — of trying to win trust of this guy so as to set the police on him. Otherwise, why else would this employee pass the news up the reporting channels?

  • Passing By

    An interesting meditation on The ethics of entrapment.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Some people in the media and elsewhere have a very constipated view of what should come under the heading of “religion” or values. In my opinion it is their not-so-subtle way to downgrade the importance of an issue so noone will get exercised over it and, out of complacency, accept the heretofore totally unacceptable or bizarre.

  • http://www.christineascheller.wordpress.com Christine A. Scheller

    I also dealt with the ethics of entrapment from both a Christian and journalistic perspective here:

    http://www.getreligion.org/2011/02/planned-parenthood-gets-stung/#comments

  • http://www.christineascheller.wordpress.com Christine A. Scheller