Article: “Abortion industry panelist: Reporting molestation is ‘conscription’”

Oh my goodness:

Laws that require abortionists to report statutory rape to the authorities are tantamount to forced labor, a panelist told the national meeting of the National Abortion Federation last April.

One of the 11 undercover videos leaked to the website shows a NAF speaker stating that the regulation amounted to “conscription.” Other pro-life laws are a form of “age discrimination,” she said.

“These regulations,” allowed within narrow limits by the Supreme Court’s 1992 Casey decision, “challenge the moral agency of physicians, because they turn physicians into agents of the state,” a presenter says in the video of NAF’s annual meeting last year.

“We’re familiar with this from very vulnerable populations such as making [abortion] physicians mandatory reporters for child abuse,” the woman, whose name is not divulged, says at the beginning of the video footage. “But it puts them in that same role as a state actor, saying what the state wants them to say or doing what the state wants them to do. It’s a conscription of physicians to perform state actions.”


  • dance…dancetotheradio

    How about enforcing laws?

    • Won’t happen.

    • FactsWillOut

      You mean handing 14yr old girls to cops to be interrogated? “Who did you have sex with???!!!”
      Of course, expecting parents to actually, you know, parent, is out of the question.

      • Did you read the article? Don’t you think people should inform the police if they suspect that a child is being abused?

        • FactsWillOut

          Only if there is proof.

          • And you expect to find proof without investigation?

            Good luck with that.

          • FactsWillOut

            That a 16 year old had sex is not evidence of abuse.

          • With her step-dad or mum’s boyfriend?

            Yeah, that’s abuse.

          • FactsWillOut

            An abortion doctor can’t tell who she had sex with.

          • So an abortionist can’t draw any conclusions about a thirteen year old walking in.


          • FactsWillOut

            He can conclude she had sex. That’s it. That isn’t a crime.

            Forcing doctors to report things to cops is just evil. Period.

          • Why are you defending the hiding of child abuse, Facts?

          • FactsWillOut

            I see. Defending legal alcohol = defending bing drinking. Defending doctors rights = defending child abuse. Defending internet privacy also = defending child porn. You are nuts.

          • You’re the one moving goal posts, Facts.

          • FactsWillOut

            From the start, I have maintained that forcing doctors to make reports to police is wrong.

          • Let’s clarify: you have maintained that doctors reporting abuse to the police is wrong.

            You’ve claimed some ultra-libertarian reason but not even rational libertarians would defend what you have repeatedly defended.

            If an older man bringing in a thirteen year old girl for an abortion (as was a case in Manitoba) raises no flags with personnel, one must wonder what truly motivates them: principles or cash?

            Should the girl admit that there is abuse, then what does the abortionist do? Tell the police who we as a society deem fit to investigate crimes or does he ignore it and let that girl’s personal liberty go to the wayside?

          • FactsWillOut

            No, I have maintained that forcing doctors to report suspected abuse is wrong.

          • There is already a law in place to report suspected abuse of minors. That’s what the law is there for.

            So – why do you oppose that law and what should be done in cases of abuse?

          • FactsWillOut

            I oppose all laws that force folk to do things against their will.
            Assault and rape are illegal.
            What to do?
            Bring the age of consent back to 14, (like it was until 2005 or so) and leave it there.
            This is an issue created by the government as a pretext for the government to further hassle folk, pure and simple.

          • Sure, it is, Facts.

            Sure it is.

            Sorry to burst your revolting little bubble there.

          • FactsWillOut

            You are just another apologist for the government insinuating itself more and more into peoples lives.
            Well done.

          • … says the guy who doesn’t mind a Russian nanny-state (but won’t learn Russian) and who won’t admit that he wants abortion to exist under all circumstances but dresses up his belief in some ridiculous libertarian fantasy.

          • FactsWillOut

            You are quite he dumb cunt.

          • Aw, you mad, bro?

  • Millie_Woods

    Is anyone surprised that people in the abortion business aren’t ethical enough to report crimes against children?

    • FactsWillOut

      Yes. It is also the duty of home renovation workers or houscleaners to report “improperly stored” guns, or landscapers to report “illegal pitbulls”, etc.

      • Millie_Woods

        On one end of the ‘worth to humanity’ scale you have Mother Teresa, somewhere around the middle is landscaper and house cleaner, at the far end you find concentration camp guards and abortion ‘providers’.

        • FactsWillOut

          I see. So if a woman comes into a doctor’s office and says “If you kill the baby in my womb, and remove it’s remains, I’ll give you money”, and the doctor consents, that’s the same as rounding up folk and shooting them?

          • Millie_Woods

            It’s not as big a difference as you think. Both killings are premeditated and both are killing people who can’t defend themselves. But that’s semantics. The important question is, are you OK with abortion? Just first and second trimester? How about third trimester abortion? Partial live-birth abortion? Euthanasia, mercy killing? It turns out the only people we can’t legally kill in Canada is cold blooded murders.

          • FactsWillOut

            My feelings are not germane, to be honest, nor are yours. Granting personhood to an unborn baby is a BIG mistake.

          • ntt1

            good thing your mom didn’t feel that way.

          • FactsWillOut

            My mom didn’t try to grant me personhood before I was born.

          • ntt1

            I’m sorry to hear that, although the rejection has left its mark in your rather bent world view. we knew the sex and health of both of our kids well before they were born . they were persons with full rights as soon as they existed in the womb. your mother could have had you murdered right up until your delivery, some progressives say that murder should be allowed well after live delivery too. but then those are the same people who think bruce jenner is a brave woman..

          • FactsWillOut

            I see. So, as the unborn are full-fledged citizens, you support state-mandated pregnancy tests for scuba diving, boxing, motorcycle driving, drinking, smoking, etc, or at least charging women with criminal negligence or murder/manslaughter if an unborn child is killed in a motorcycle accident or whatever.
            Then, after you have passed all these laws giving the government so much more power over women, you can whine when they extend similar laws to men under the pretext of equality and fairness.

            Not to bright, are ya?

          • ntt1

            not too” on the subject” are you? talk about deflection .
            You seem to be rage filled do you need a hug?

  • tom_billesley

    The arguments sound similar to those of educators objecting to their being expected to report radicalism of mahometan students.

    • FactsWillOut

      Expected = forced?

  • FactsWillOut

    Forcing anyone to work against their will is slavery. Period.

    Besides, statutory rape is when a girl under 18 has intercourse with a man over 18.

    If there is no proof that the man was over 18, then there is no crime to report.

    A smart doctor would just have the girl sign a waiver that says “the father was under 18 at the time.”

    I guess folk here also think that a doctor should be forced to call the cops if he treats a gunshot wound, as well.

    There is no difference between that and forcing a priest to marry a same sex couple, or forcing a Christian doctor to perform abortions. Period.

  • FactsWillOut

    I am shocked that everybody here approves of the “report all incidents to Big Brother” laws.

  • Tom Forsythe

    Normal people WANT to tell the authorities. Mandated reporting allows doctors to do so without making themselves liable for breaching doctor patient privilege.

    • FactsWillOut

      “For exploitative sexual activity (prostitution or pornography, or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency), the age of consent is 18 years.

      The spirit of the new legislation is not to regulate consensual teenage sexual activity. To this effect, there are a few notable exceptions to the law:

      Youth 12 or 13 years of age can consent to nonexploitative sexual activity with peers when the age difference is no more than two years. For example, a 12-year-old child is deemed capable of consenting to sexual activity with a 14-year-old, but not a 15-year-old.

      Youth 14 or 15 years of age can consent to nonexploitative sexual activity when the age difference is no more than five years. For example, a 15-year-old can consent to having sexual intercourse with a 20-year-old, but not with a 21-year-old.”

      Mandatory reporting of “suspected” crimes?

      • Doctors already report suspected abuse to the police.

        • ntt1

          as do teachers and community field workers.

  • Tom Forsythe

    I always get concerned when nanny-state liberals start talking like libertarians.

  • FactsWillOut

    When did all the BCF readers become proponents of the state “co-parenting” the children?

    • Since children were being abused.

      No one under the age of eighteen can consent to sexual activity or abortion. Her abuser brings her in. If this pervert had been breaking her arms and emergency room doctors did not report what they suspected, what do you think would happen to them?

      • FactsWillOut

        “No one under the age of eighteen can consent to sexual activity or abortion.”

        • Really?

          • FactsWillOut
          • So you’re telling me that someone under the age of eighteen can have sex?

            Right. Okay.

            I think, for the refreshing honesty of it, you might as well admit that you think abortion is dandy and that even cases of abuses should be accepted just for that reason.

            Just to clear the air.

          • FactsWillOut

            I tire of your constant nanny-state BS.

          • Yes, this old canard.

            THAT gets tiresome.