What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Bombshell: NYC's proposed CPC harassment law is also pimp-protection law

Wow. Just wow. I cannot understand why this has not received more publicity.

Some of you have heard about New York City's attempts to harass Crisis Pregnancy Centers by forcing them to post big signs saying that they don't provide or refer for abortions. Such a requirement is insulting, implying that these centers are deceptive (even though they advertise in the "abortion alternatives" section of the phone book, for example), and it is attempting to create an opportunity to harass the centers. A similar law in Baltimore was recently struck down by a federal judge as unconstitutionally compelled speech and as obviously motivated by a bias against the CPC's constitutionally protected speech in opposition to abortion.

I have not previously blogged about this because, frankly, I don't always like to deal with the liberal carpers who come around here, and as sure as God made little green apples, the minute anybody complains about this harassing law, motivated by hatred for people who try by completely legal and non-coercive means to dissuade women from abortion, the resident liberals will start asking, in chorus, "What's the matter? Do they have something to hide? What's the problem with asking them to advertise that they don't provide or refer for abortions if they aren't trying to be deceptive?"

And I had other things to blog about.

But now comes a new revelation that opponents to the NYC law need to be trumpeting from the rooftops. Blogger Gerard Nadal points out that the law requires CPCs not to report suspected statutory rape, abuse, trafficking, etc., for girls between the ages of 13-18. According to Nadal, evidently the problem arises from the fact that New York's mandatory reporter laws are, or have been interpreted to be, applicable only to children 12 and under, even though statutory rape laws apply above that. Into that gap comes the proposed ordinance, which would require absolute confidentiality from the CPCs even for minor clients, unless the client consents in writing to having the specific information released.

Obviously, young girls who are afraid of their pimps or abusers are unlikely to sign such a release. Hence, the law acts as a protective law for those abusers and also, non-coincidentally, puts the CPCs by force on the same plane with Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics who choose to turn a blind eye to statutory rape and underage prostitution.

Comments (15)

Probably counting on someone to do the right thing and report the abuse, which would open the crisis pregnancy center to lawsuits-- as well as making it virtually assured that the girls will be forced to have an abortion, since the abuser has full access. Win-win!


Many of us are calling this the "Predator Protection Act".

Only in New York.

And Foxfier, apparently to direct penalties under the law as well.

I mean, this is amazing: If some neighbor doesn't like Mrs. Jones and calls up CPS leaving a completely lying "tip" that Mrs. Jones beats all her children, CPS will investigate the tip, create a nightmare for the Jones family, and leave the children traumatized. Nothing happens to the neighbor.

If a CPC worker reasonably suspects that a child is a victim of prostitution and reports her evidence for this to the local authorities, she can be punished by law for violating "confidentiality"?

Truly, an upside-down world.

I've sent this as a tip to Jill Stanek. I know she's been writing against this law, but I couldn't find anywhere that she highlighted this aspect of it.

"I cannot understand why this has not received more publicity."

Because it does not involve the Catholic Church. Imagine if such legislation had passed that would have protected the Church from being civilly or criminally liable in priest abuse cases. The outrage would have been endless, and justified. But in this case, the law is it's intended to protect from our view the wicked consequences of the sexual revolution and the cultural barriers it tore down.

If a CPC worker reasonably suspects that a child is a victim of prostitution and reports her evidence for this to the local authorities, she can be punished by law for violating "confidentiality"?

I can't help but think that if the NYPD were composed of real men, that their response to this law would be roughly equivalent to what Turkey's army has done every time Turkey's elected government gets too Islamic.

Mike, I believe it hasn't passed yet, and if it does hopefully it will be immediately constitutionally challenged along the lines of the Baltimore law. I should think there ought to be some sort of free speech challenge in there for gag orders about possible mistreatment of minors!

But its opponents need to be highlighting this aspect of it in their nationwide coverage. Dr. Nadal's column is the first I'd heard of it.

T.A., that doesn't explain why the _opponents_ haven't gotten the word out. I think it's just a case of some sort of coincidence there. Apparently the local opponents all know about it, but those of us at the national level don't. That's why I've written to Stanek and also to Wesley J. Smith (the latter is out of town just now). They have much bigger audiences than I do.

Even so, the NYPD should make it clear that this law won't get enforced. If they're good men and women they'll tell the elected government that they can legislate whatever they want, but the NYPD won't enforce a "Predator Protection Act" nor will it enforce court orders in support of it.

If the concept behind the Oath Keepers were expanded to unjust laws generally, you'd probably see less attempts at passing these laws in the first place.

In a country with no morals all laws are expressions of power.

Seriously, we must start explaining to legislative bodies why we have a right to ignore their immoral laws when they pass them. What do they use for a moral compass, sortilege?

I cannot march in front of abortion clinics because I get too angry. I long for the days when fathers would march into town, en masse, with pitchforks.

The Chicken

Those legislative bodies are elected by a body politic with a similar moral compass. It is no accident that "The Devil's Advocate" is set in NYC.

The NYPD won't enforce it? Who do you think it's protecting?

The NYPD won't enforce it? Who do you think it's protecting?

Somebody's reading comprehension is off today...

I figured it was just snark.

Update: In case anyone is interested, I've discovered some _very_ odd things about New York State's mandatory reporter laws. Apparently mandatory reporters, when they are otherwise covered by confidentiality standards (in the case of medical workers, for example) and hence subject to suit, are in danger of lawsuit if they _do_ report abuse by anyone other than a "parent or caregiver," unless they can argue that the "parent or caregiver" knew about the abuse and permitted it. In other words, a report of abuse or neglect from a mandatory reporter (so we're talking, according to Dr. Nadal's statements, about children under 12 here) _must target_ parents or caregivers.

So, to get concrete, if you are a nurse and you have a twelve-year-old child come in who reports that she has been raped by a person outside her family who was not her caregiver, you could be sued (even though this is within the mandatory reporting age) if you violate "confidentiality" and report what is happening to her to the police, because this unrelated person is not "a person against whom a report of abuse or neglect can be made."

The legal situation is so confusing that there is a case on the books of a mandatory reporter (I forget if it was a nurse or a teacher) who deliberately refrained from reporting a girl's statement that she had been raped by her uncle, because the adult believed that the uncle was "not a person against whom a report of abuse or neglect could be made" and that she would be in danger of lawsuit if she reported it. She got in trouble in the end anyway for not reporting, and the court ruled that she should have reported because at the time that the rape occurred, the girl was staying with the uncle, who was therefore her "caregiver"! So apparently if she hadn't been staying with the uncle, and the nurse had reported the rape, the nurse could have been sued _for_ reporting.

My guess is that Crisis Pregnancy Center workers, if they are not themselves medical personnel, are not as vulnerable to suit for talking to the police and that this law is trying in a sense to draw them into the legal mess of the "confidentiality standards" that make such a maze for medical workers, teachers, etc.

! I muse on the passages in Psalms and Wisdom that speak of laws oppressing the innocent, and judges rendering false judgment. Laws like these are true crimes against humanity.

I don't know if I'm misreading, but when you use a specific group in an example of how an unjust law may fail to be enforced, and you make it as ridiculous as possible.... It's like people back in the 1980s asking why Sharpton doesn't march through Bed-Stuy or Harlem every time a black girl gets beaten and raped; it's facetious.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.