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

Can anybody explain this?

Okay, legally astute friends, help me out, here.

Live Action has released another video, this one from Virginia, showing a PP worker who doesn't bat an eyelash at giving advice to a man claiming to be a pimp and sex trafficker as to how to get services for the underage girls he "manages." The main difference between this one and the previous one, which may generate some sympathy for PP, is that this PP worker seems a good deal less odious and conspiratorial in her manner than Amy Woodruff (from the New Jersey video). One even shakes one's head occasionally and wonders whether this staffer, Kimberley, was really listening when the man said that he "manages" these underage girls in "sex work." She chatters on and just seems a tad clueless.

But here's what I'm confused about. She goes on at some length about what she calls "judicial bypass" to the state's parental consent laws for abortions for minors. Did you think, as I did, that a judicial bypass required the girl actually to talk to a judge? Did you think, as I did, that a judicial bypass required the personal involvement a court with court papers, documentation, etc.?

Here is this woman talking about a "judicial bypass" for underage girls who are being trafficked in the sex trade, which she claims can be obtained purely by means of a single phone call made by some outside agency to the minor girl at a phone number the minor girl chooses. Does that sound like a "judicial bypass" to you? Not to me either.

How can this possibly be working? Is there some stack of pre-signed "judicial bypass" papers sitting around at some courthouse somewhere? Is Child Protective Services involved in this? If so, how can they not find out if an underage girl is a trafficked prostitute from out-of-country whose parents aren't anywhere in the picture whatsoever? Who could the "agency" be that makes this phone call, and how do they have the authority to grant a "judicial bypass" on the basis of a single phone call to the girl?

Comments (18)

This is in the Virginia law, and may be what she was referring to in the video.

"A physician shall not knowingly perform an abortion upon an unemancipated minor unless consent has been obtained or the minor delivers to the physician a court order entered pursuant to this section and the physician or his agent provides such notice as such order may require. However, neither consent nor judicial authorization nor notice shall be required if the minor declares that she is abused or neglected and the attending physician has reason to suspect that the minor may be an abused or neglected child as defined in § 63.2-100 and reports the suspected abuse or neglect in accordance with § 63.2-1509; or if there is a medical emergency, in which case the attending physician shall certify the facts justifying the exception in the minor's medical record."

The whole section is here,


As pimps are sociopaths, I wouldn't expect an unarmed female councilor to go into detail about the physician having to report the suspected abuse or neglect.

So, you're implying that she was confusing the "physician suspects that the minor may be abused or neglected" provision with the "judicial bypass" provision? After all, she _called_ it "judicial bypass," which one would think could not be obtained by a simple phone call to the minor. Moreover, she said the phone call would be from an "outside agency." What would that be? CPS? She said they did two the previous month. She also said nothing about the girl's having to be abused or neglected but only that this was a bypass for girls who did not have parental consent. The clear implication was that any girl who didn't want to get parental consent could get one of these "phone calls" and get a so-called "judicial bypass." At a minimum, this indicates an abuse of the "abuse or neglect" exception, since it's apparently being passed out willy-nilly.

Let me also add that he did not introduce this entire question. She did. If she was so afraid of him, why give him all this unnecessary information?

Let me add that if it really is this easy to get around the parental consent provisions in Virginia state law, they need to be tightened.

The quoted passage is from the judicial bypass section. You may be expecting too much precision from a woman alone in an office with a either a felon or a hoaxer and thinking on her feet. She reported the contact after the interview so I imagine she was feeling some pressure during the interview itself.

We need more information but any minor has a right to exercise the judicial bypass option and the right to counsel so the referenced agency is perhaps a legal aid organization. Without more information, the Virginia video is no big deal.

The theory behind the exception is that its not likely to be exercised by an unabused minor as the reporting provision would lead to the parents being investigated and thereby notified.

So, what do you think happened when they "did two last month"? Just a phone call, and that was it? Because that's _definitely_ what she's implying happened. Do you, even you, think it ought to be that easy to get around a parental consent provision?

Lydia, we don't know without more information. We can speculate all over the place but we just don't know. The moron in NJ was an LVN so there is a possibility that the counselors have limited knowledge and a decision tree to follow - e.g. minor, wants abortion, no consent, refuses to get consent - send to mystery (to us) organization. Usually people speak in a somewhat compressed manner so we just need more information.


It appears to me there are three circumstances under which an abortion may be performed on a minor child:

1) Judicial authorization (bypass)
2) Suspected abuse
3) Medical emergency

The first two require action by the courts or notice to law enforcement - both of which *always* require a paper trail. So, a phone call may initiate judicial bypass of parental notification, but it will end up with paperwork. If they are going to claim to be "bypassing" notification laws because they suspect abuse, then they are *required* to report such abuse to the authorities.

The only way law enforcement or the courts do not become involved in performing an abortion on a minor child is if the doctor declares a medical emergency - and that has to be documented as well, in the medical records.

In any of the three scenarios, a simple audit by the appropriate law enforcement or regulatory personnel will reveal the paper trail -- unless, of course, they have been falsifying age records. And THAT is something LiveAction also has ample documentation of.

They kill babies for a living - does anyone really expect them to keep meticulous, legally correct records?

As pimps are sociopaths, I wouldn't expect an unarmed female councilor to go into detail about the physician having to report the suspected abuse or neglect.

Al that is very interesting. I'd like to hear your grounds for believing that pimping is inherently wicked. Could it not merely be that pimping is a legitimate business but one often abused by wicked men? What if all the women have joined his firm consensually? What if they knew exactly what they were getting into and decided to get into it anyway, as in Nevada or Holland?

In other words, is it not the abuse of the business that bothers you, rather than the business as such?

If so, then you cannot categorically say that pimps are sociopaths.

(Note: I do have my own grounds for regarding pimping as such, no matter what positive law may say, as wicked. I'm an happy to explain and defend those grounds if you wish.)

"And THAT is something LiveAction also has ample documentation of."


both of which *always* require a paper trail.

This is very much an assumption and not necessarily true at all. First, courts perform all manner of functions without writing things down. There are numerous courts in every state, for instance, that never make any full written record of their proceedings (common examples being traffic courts, city courts, small-claims courts, and what are in some jurisdictions known as "General Sessions" courts---these are all known as courts "not of record"). Depending on how Virginia's law reads, it may authorize judicial bypass via some court other than one of record.

Second, even if the issuing court has to be a court of record, that doesn't mean it can't issue decrees without a full-blown hearing. Courts issue rulings, especially in peremptory proceedings, without hearings---even over the phone---on a regular basis. Warrants are often issued, for instance, based on telephonic consultation. These bypass provisions are meant to be quick and discrete: you can't be either if you slap them on the court's standard motion calendar.

Third, even assuming the court has a hearing in person and generates some kind of paper record, that record is not going to be publicly available. Judicial proceedings involving minors are sealed and generally exempt from disclosure laws. You might have noticed that when an appellate court issues a published decision involving a minor it always truncates the minor's name to initials. You never see published opinions of a juvenile court.

I don't know what the details of Virginia's law are---they may very well be too lax, and it may be possible to tighten them. Really, these cases should never be heard without at least three attorneys: one for the girl, one serving as guardian ad litem for the girl, and one serving as guardian ad litem for her child (the applicant's attorney would argue what she wants, the guardian ad litem would be selected by the court and argue what's good for her). I'm not aware of any state that requires such representation of the various interests, however. In a sane world, the court would appoint an additional attorney to represent the interests of the absent parents, but in this world that idea would be dismissed as crazy talk. As it is, there are plenty of ways that the same pathology that obstructs oversight of the rest of the abortion industry affects the judicial bypass mechanism as well.

Titus, granted that there is some basis for there being a "quick and simple" method for some kinds of judicial bypass. You mention getting a warrant. When a judge hears a cop's version of what he thinks is going on that needs a warrant, over the phone, do you mean to say that there is no paperwork - after the fact - that is required that documents the particulars that the cop claims? He can just state it verbally and there is never any printed word that backs up the rationale for the warrant? That seems like an arrangement that BEGS for abuse. What's the point of requiring judicial review if the only thing the judge has to go by is somebody's word for it, AND there is no opportunity (before or after) to check up and verify the facts? That's not review, that's a blank check. That's a judge's pure whim as to whether he happens to like the cop or other person asking for the judge's OK. Without a record, the judge himself will never be called to account for his act, as well as the cop.

Titus, that's very interesting, and if a real judicial bypass really could be issued by a single phone consultation without any paper trail, that would _have_ to be tightened up. It couldn't even be checked. In fact, the abortion clinic could lie and say that it "got a judicial bypass" when it had done _nothing_, and there would be no way to check. To my mind, even more begging for abuse is the business about the doctor's "suspecting" abuse. It seems to me that that would be a perfect case for bringing in the courts. After all, if the doctor is going to have to report the suspected abuse in the end anyway, why couldn't he explain that to the judge? And does it follow that it's in the best interests of the minor to have an abortion simply because she is "abused or neglected"? By no means. Even a pro-choicer ought to be able to see that. That provision in the law seems like a huge loophole.

Now I'm curious about the judicial bypass provision and other bypass provisions in Michigan's parental consent laws.


You are assuming even more than you accuse me of assuming. If there is no paper trail, there is no court action, period. I never said or implied that any of those conditions you outline were necessary.

No paper trail, no court action. Even in traffic court they give you a slip of paper to bring to the clerk/cashier so said civil servant knows how much to extract from you. And if you're in healthcare and don't want to become a subject of the investigation yourself, you had better be able to prove you reported a case of abuse of a minor child.


There needs to be a record which is confidential.

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subsection shall govern proceedings relating to consent for a minor's abortion. Court proceedings under this subsection and records of such proceedings shall be confidential. Such proceedings shall be given precedence over other pending matters so that the court may reach a decision promptly and without delay in order to serve the best interests of the minor. Court proceedings under this subsection shall be heard and decided as soon as practicable but in no event later than four days after the petition is filed."

There needs to be something in writing,

"A physician shall not knowingly perform an abortion upon an unemancipated minor unless consent has been obtained or the minor delivers to the physician a court order entered pursuant to this section and the physician or his agent provides such notice as such order may require."

A physician who performs an abortion without written consent, a court order, or, lacking either, fails to report possible abuse or neglect afier performing an abortion, has committed a crime.

The minor has a right to counsel; the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor is at the discretion of the court; I don't see any provision for counsel or a guardian for the fetus (Personhood from conception would require such a guardian for any action that might affect the fetus - hence life becomes Bleak House).

Note also that the doctor is still required to notify an authorized person from whom consent would normally be required unless the judge also finds that doing so would not be in the best interest of the minor. A doctor would, of course, have to see that in writing or he would be in violation of the notification law should he elect to not send any notification.

You all hate PP so you will never be convinced that anything they do is OK but Tony and Lydia might want to consider that pooling information allowed the likelihood of a hoax to be discerned saving scarce taxpayer dollars and limited police resources. Do you really, really want police agencies in several cities conducting separate investigations of a non-existent sex ring? If PP didn't collate the data nationally how would these individual cities know to co-ordinate anyway? Once a pattern was apparent why would you want to expend local resources? What seems to be going on is that you want to believe that these were really pimps and prostitutes not pranksters and evil PP was happy to help them out. It was a hoax folks; one that was easily detected once the facts were in place - which is why we want them in place.

Tony, abortion clinics and personnel have been the targets of anti-abortion terrorists and religious extremists for decades. It would be surprising if by now a national organization like PP didn't have a security term and protocols covering all sorts of eventualities.

Given the record of violence on your side I don't understand why you are making such a big deal over PP's interest in having a federal agency take a close look at folks who enter their clinics under false pretenses and who represent themselves as criminals. I understand you see them as doing the Lord's work, why can't you understand that others may see them as a nuisance at best and possibly engaged in actions that may incite the worst in others?

Paul, pimps use psychological manipulation and physical violence in order to live off the earnings of others. That's enough for me.

Al, the person they are speaking to makes two things quite clear:

1) Minors engaged in underage sex routinely receive completely confidential services related to their sexual activity at this PP, and no one is notified of this, even though mandatory reporter laws should cover it.

2) Minors routinely receive abortions with nothing but a single phone call, to the minor, from some unknown outside agency, to circumvent parental consent laws. This is offered to a minor as a routine service by the clinic in the event that she cannot get real parental consent. This is clearly not obeying anything remotely like the spirit of the parental consent law, and it is exceedingly difficult to see how it can be obeying the letter.

It seems to me that you have to take all this information to be _incorrect_ information and to do so merely on the basis of the fact that she was speaking either

a) to people she believed to be criminals and hence was afraid of, so she was making all this up or else was so flustered (though she doesn't sound flustered) that she gave them seriously faulty information about the routine operation of the clinic,

b) to people she believed to be completely harmless but out to catch PP doing something illegal, in which case it would be _extremely strange_ for her to give them incorrect information that makes it look like PP does legally questionable things.

Either of these is highly implausible. But if PP is really doing all this information pooling and knows that these are staged visits, they should be coaching their workers to say, "Heck, no, we don't offer those services confidentially for minors. We're a mandatory reporter. If you are really who you say you are, then you're in a very dicey situation with the law, and we _absolutely cannot help you_ with these girls you say you are 'managing'. And I'm going to have to report this conversation. If what you are telling me is true, we need to try to get these poor girls away from you and get them some real help to get off the streets."

After all, there's nothing to be afraid of, is there, because it's what you call a "hoax"? Other people call that "undercover investigation."

But then there's the possibility that what she tells them about all these confidential and streamlined services for minor girls is really true. In which case, PP has a problem, and this conversation has helped to expose it.

Given the record of violence on your side

Not my side, since I decry such violence. You'll have to look somewhere else to lay that charge.

but Tony and Lydia might want to consider that pooling information allowed the likelihood of a hoax to be discerned saving scarce taxpayer dollars and limited police resources. Do you really, really want police agencies in several cities conducting separate investigations of a non-existent sex ring?

Al, I don't mind the idea of PP notifying federal level law enforcement after FIRST notifying the local authorities as local law requires. That seems reasonable. But not in place of telling the local police. The local police have a much more immediate responsibility to attempt to determine, and then apprehend, a sex criminal before he abuses another girl. The federal role is far less immediate.

Also, I might theoretically be mistaken, but sending a letter to the AG, instead of to the specific sub-entity that deals with sex crimes and trafficking, is at least a little bit of grand-standing. It's only one step away from sending the letter to the President, and we know that's just silly. You write a letter to _head_ of Justice Dept. when you see a systemic new form of wrong-doing that has not been realized before, or when the lower levels of the department are not responding to crimes that _have_ been reported properly. This fits neither of those types. What they did is the equivalent of sending a letter to the Governor saying there might be a stray dog in your backyard, and some conversations you've had with friends across the state suggests maybe they might have seen some stray dogs too. That's not what reporting the possible crime means.

Just an update as this latest venture has failed to gain much traction unlike the ACORN fraud. This article by Dave Weigle might be of interest,

"As the meltdown continued, there was some coming-to-Jesus at Media Matters for America, David Brock's moneyed watchdog group. The word went out: Progressives had just gotten their asses kicked. They needed to anticipate things like the Jones campaign or the ACORN tapes, and they needed to stop them from taking good people down with them."


This item from the California Code on mandated reporters may be of interest to those wondering why pregnant, underage girls can go to organizations like PP and not get reported,

"(1) For purposes of this article, "reasonable suspicion" means
that it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a
suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position, drawing, when appropriate, on his or her training and experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect. "Reasonable suspicion" does not require certainty that child abuse or neglect has occurred nor does it require a specific medical indication of child abuse or neglect; any "reasonable suspicion" is sufficient. For the purpose of this article, the pregnancy of a minor does not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for a reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse."

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.