This week AIW has obtained new direct and damning evidence of crimes happening at Planned Parenthood centers in the state of Washington. Of course, women who've had abortions have known this all along. It's only now that the general public is learning the truth about the abortion industry's dirty secrets.
Readers can see in this Kennewick Police Department report how Planned Parenthood's employee Andrea Smasne holds a 22-week pregnant, 14-year-old girl hostage and refuses to return her to her father. Smasne also holds her so they can complete a referral to Seattle for a late term abortion. When the police arrive, Smasne even disobeys the police officer's order to return the girl to her father, telling him that "once a minor child is pregnant she is emancipated".
Here are the details in the words of the responding officer:
I then asked Smasne how old the patient was. She advised the female patient for 14yoa. I then asked why they would tell the father he had to leave if his juvenile age daughter was there. At that point Smasne stated that once the juvenile is pregnant, the juvenile is emancipated, and further stated the father had no right to be present if the patient did not want him there.Funny thing but to our ears that sounds just like Rep. Eileen Cody in her "memo" to Rep. Matt Shea that a parental notification bill will not be heard by the Health and Wellness Committee because "over 14 once a girl is pregnant they are considered emancipated - independent."
But is this in fact the law of the state of Washington or another legal fiction developed by promoters of abortion?
Here's what City Attorney Eric Eisinger told the officer after he called about Planned Parenthood's "emancipation" claim,
Based on his research, a Juvenile is not emancipated simply by becoming pregnant. He stated becoming emancipated required a Court process. Eisinger further advised that unless employees of Planned Parenthood provided documentation from the Court indicating that [redacted] is/was emancipated, [redacted] would be required to go with her father [redacted]. I was also advised, if employees at Planned Parenthood could not provided the documentation and did not allow access to [redacted] to send her with father, I should proceed with a criminal investigation against the involved employees citing Custodial Interference Section 26.28 as the charge.It gets worse.
As the Planned Parenthood employee Smasne defies the officer and attempts to hang on to the girl despite the officer's explanation of the law, Smasne seems determined to make sure a 22-week old baby is aborted, ignoring the officer until her referral is completed. To be clear, this woman disobeys a direct, lawful order from a police officer to do everything she can to ensure a 22-week-old unborn baby is aborted. That is how hell-bent on killing babies they are at Planned Parenthood.
Please note that the father of the baby was 20 years old. After the officer informs Smasne of this fact, she retorts that the girl's father "did not have rights in this matter" because "according to the legal staff of Planned Parenthood" the girl was "emancipated".
Which brings us back to Rep. Eileen Cody: How come Rep. Cody and Planned Parenthood's lawyers seem to have exactly the same fictional misunderstanding of the law regarding under age abortions and circumventing Custodial Interference Section 26.28? Whenever anyone -- including our state representatives and House Committee Chairs -- wants to defend abortion they cite the Planned Parenthood legal department rather than the state's legal code. Can it be that a member of the state House of Representatives is collaborating with the nation's largest abortion provider to facilitate under-age abortions, child rape, and violations of parental rights? We contacted Cody's office for answers but have not received a callback at this time.
AIW calls on Eileen Cody to resign immediately her chairmanship of the Health & Wellness Committee so that an impartial and responsible member of the House can be appointed. It's completely unacceptable that the Health Committee should be chaired by someone operating under such a cloud.
Sadly this isn't the first time the Kennewick Planned Parenthood has treated women with such disdain and disrespect. Christine Weideman had an abortion at this Planned Parenthood when she was 16. She was denied the information she needed to make an informed decision, and when she tried to stop the abortion, she was ignored by PP staff, including licensed medical professionals.
How many other incidents of this type have gone unreported?
Parents need to take note of Custodial Interference Section 26.28 and be prepared to use it with Planned Parenthood employees in the event their children are ever in the same situation as this same young girl. Employees of Planned Parenthood cannot interfere in the rights of parents.
These actions by the Kennewick Planned Parenthood are systematic of the abortion industry and part of a nationwide problem that has been so well documented by Live Action. We hope everyone has seen the their undercover videos showing the facilitation of under-age sex trafficking by Planned Parenthood and also the pattern of failure to report statutory rape and covering up for men who have sex with under-age girls who come into Planned Parenthood clinics.
We also hope everyone has been following the progression of the two bills in Washington's capital Olympia that seek to eliminate the state's CPCs or Pregnancy Medical Clinics (PMC) and Pregnancy Resource Clinics (PRC). This bill is a direct result of intimate collaboration between Planned Parenthood and legislators like Eileen Cody.
Part of our goal with this blog is to warn parents about the dangers that an unchecked and unregulated abortion industry poses to families in Washington state. We seek to warn them that the State is not their partner in protecting their kids from abortion industry and you can see this from Rep. Cody's enthusiastic collaboration with Planned Parenthood rather than parents. In fact, all the evidence we've seen shows us that the state is in partnership with the abortion industry to get children sexually active, hooked on contraceptives, and ultimately paying customers of the abortion industry.
We see it in the public schools and Ballard High School case. We see it in the actions of our legislators. We see it in the Department of Health. We've even seen it in both public and private charities like HopeLink.
We've said it before and we'll say it again: There is a pervasive and active network of people who like abortion and will do anything, say anything, and jump through any hoop to make sure no abortion is left undone. No cost will be spared. No inconvenience is too great. We've even seen in this case that they believe they are above the law and basic human decency. In their eyes, abortion rules and nobody is going to get in the way of that.
Posts
6 comments:
U need to add a link to www.operationoucy.org so these testimonies can be collected and son tothe supreme court to overturn roe
You don't appear to be in the slightest bit interested what the girl herself wanted: just the assurance that she will be returned to her owner still pregnant.
No notion in your head that when a statutory rape victim goes to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion, it would be plain wrong of the clinic to hand her back to a man who may be the rapist who got her pregnant.
Yonmei -- People don't have "owners" only property. Her father is her legal guardian and whatever his shortcomings has a primary relationship with her.
"Want" is not a criteria for whether or not someone should be allowed to do something. For example, we have laws against running thru red lights, theft,rape and holding people hostage despite the fact that people may "want" to do those things.
Our concern is most definately for the woman who was carrying a child and in need of protection from those at PP who wanted to exploit the situation to their advantage. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the conception of this baby, an abortion was not going to undo a rape or give her back her innocence.
Planned Parenthood did not care about this woman or protect her from her rapist. Who do you think she'd go back to after the abortion? Especially since PP didn't seem at all concerned about the age difference between the girl and older man.
Besides they weren't trying to keep her from her 20 year old boyfriend, they were trying to keep her from her father who could afterall protect her from the boyfriend who clearly should be seeing women his own age.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see mention of whether Planned Parenthood complied with their legal requirement as "mandated reporters" (as supposed 'health care providers'). The girl was 14 and the man who impregnated her was 20 yo. Do we know more on this background? I'm guessing that the officer came to PP at the request of the 14 yo girl and not because a little bird from inside the PP summoned him, right? If I'm right, then PP could be in hot water for not notifying the authorities (at least if they knew previously and hadn't contacted authorities...but perhaps this was the girl's first visit and they could say that, as she hadn't yet left the premises, they still had time...and then the officer showed up. Guess it would be worth pulling the law and regulations on the requirements.)
What a story though, gee, poor 14 yo girl in a world of grown-up problems. Hope all is well with her, and her baby, now.
Too bad about the hysterical PP staffer. Wonder how much of her reaction is based on her having been deliberately misinformed by PP so that she thinks this 14 yo girl will be dealt with by violence on the part of her father....yet this staffer is evidently completely clueless as to how unspeakably violent abortion is!!
Meant to say that the officer presumably came at the request of the 14 yo girl's father, not at the girl's request.....though I did read elsewhere that, when the officer interviewed the girl privately, he found that she didn't want to sign the referral to the Seattle area late-term abortion site.
We spoke today to a Captain in the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Kennewick Police Department to get an answer to your (and our) question about the statutory rape reporting. He agreed that this was clearly an apparent case of statutory rape, and a complaint to that effect was filed in Moses Lake, though he didn't say by whom.
He reviewed the police report closely and said that there wasn't evidence to him that the PP staff was aware before the police arrived for this incident of the age of the baby's father. It's possible they did, but there isn't evidence that they did.
We told him that we have heard that PP deliberately has patient intake done by non-medical staff who are not mandatory reporters under the law, but he of course couldn't act on that.
We felt he took the situation seriously but didn't have anything concrete he could act on in this case.
Post a Comment