California Planned Parenthood Boasts of Concealing Rape of 11-Year-Old Girl From Parents

At Live Action we have investigated Planned Parenthood’s failure to  report child sexual abuse to law enforcement and have caught them on camera failing to properly report over 14 times (see Mona Lisa and Traffick project). Some have asked, are there real cases of this happening as well? The answer is yes. This post highlights the first of many real cases that we will be highlighting on the coming days. reported on this incident back in 2005:

A testimonial posted on a California Planned Parenthood abortion business’ website regarding an 11-year-old rape victim has sparked a call for an investigation into the organization’s handling of sexual abuse cases.

In the “Shared Stories” section of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate’s website, a client’s shared her story.

“I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn’t think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood [sic] helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way.”

In response, pro-life leaders have called for an investigation, as Planned Parenthood is required by law to report cases of child abuse. The abortion business has since removed the post from their web site.

When contacted, a representative of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate would not comment to on whether the rape was reported to authorities.

Also the San Francisco Faith tried to get a response from Planned Parenthood on this letter but could not. They state:

Planned Parenthood Golden Gate did not respond to my repeated queries, both by telephone and e-mail.

After receiving calls about this letter, Planned Parenthood of Golden Gate took down the letter but an archive of the webpage was saved by See:

The screen shot of the letter on the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate website is seen below:

Planned Parenthood may have been able to avoid answering questions in 2005 but we are calling them to account now. Why did Planned Parenthood not  properly report and address the sexual assault of an 11-year-old child as required by California state law?

This sort of reckless behavior is not only illegal but disgusting and no organization that engaged in this behavior should be receiving taxpayer funding.

24 thoughts on “California Planned Parenthood Boasts of Concealing Rape of 11-Year-Old Girl From Parents

  1. They are not very sneeky to cover their ilegal trakes. I think they are going to get whats coming.


  2. The article says that Planned Parenthood did not comment on whether or not the rape was reported, which means that they could have, and you have no idea whether or not your claim that they did not report the rape properly is true. I don't know whether they reported it or not, but this is why so many people don't take Live Action seriously–because even your "real" cases aren't real.


    1. You are helping give weak excuses for an organization that fails to report child rape. Do you think child rape like this should be reported?

      If Planned Parenthood had reported, the law enforcement would have been involved and the letter would have never been written the way it is. That is common sense. is highly accurate and their records show what was on the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate site at the time. It is also highly suspect that Planned Parenthood took the letter shortly after getting questions about it. That is how a guilty organization acts.

      Planned Parenthood has never disputed that any of our videos shot in their centers are from their centers nor have they ever disputed the legitimacy of this incident.


      1. The issue is not whether I believe that child rape should be reported (I do), but rather, whether I can believe what Live Action reports (and I can’t). Look, if a defendant in a criminal trial doesn’t testify I figure they’re probably guilty, but if a talking head on a news show says that their decision not to testify proves that they’re guilty, then I figure that talking head is a ratings-seeking hack, because they’re making claims they know they can’t substantiate. That’s what’s going on here, except that it’s conceivable that Planned Parenthood’s silence is a result of a desire to protect the privacy of a rape victim rather than guilt. I don’t have evidence allowing me to definitively draw a conclusion, but neither do you. This is why no one outside the pro-life community takes Live Action’s pretensions to “journalism” seriously: because you won’t acknowledge (and possibly don’t understand) that there is a difference between what you want to be real and what you can prove is real.


        1. The girl said her parents parents never knew…if the police had been told, they would have investigated and part of that would be questioning the parents. The logical conclusion of all of this is that Planned Parenthood did not contact law enforcement. Would you agree that this is the most likely occurrence?


          1. Yes, I would agree (the girl’s post does not say that her parents never knew, incidentally, but that is a reasonable inference). Would you agree that there is a difference between "real" and "likely?" You’re arguing that the post represents the latter, but Live Action is saying that it’s the former.

          2. The idea of a real case is used in comparison to investigations that don't involve a real sexually abused child but an undercover reporter. That is what real means.

          3. You're assuming, plausibly but without substantiation, that the anonymous post recounted a genuine set of events fully and accurately, when for all you know the post was a plant by a staff member or patient who wanted to create sympathy for his/her cause. And if the post is genuine, you're still "reporting" as fact that PP acted in a way that validates your organization's claims, when that "fact" is, by your own admission, only a likelihood.

            As I said earlier, "you won’t acknowledge (and possibly don’t understand) that there is a difference between what you want to be real and what you can prove is real."


  3. While I do not doubt for a second that PP conceals rape, incest, trafficking, and hordes of other sins, I do have my doubts that this particular letter was written by a 17-year-old who cares so little about herself that she engages in this type of behavior. It is too well written with only one typo that I see. I think it might have been written by someone trying to frame PP so unless we can ask the girl who wrote it, I'm not so sure about it. But I certainly think it does happen to real children.


  4. This is fascinating. I’d been operating on the assumption that you people understood the difference between provable fact and logical inference but chose to blur the lines in your "reporting." It looks, though, as if you truly and in good faith cannot comprehend that they are not the same thing.

    Thanks for the discussion.


      1. Which question? Do I know what is? Yes. Do I know whether or not the web administrator for Golden Gate Planned Parenthood in 2005 fact-checked all the postings on their website? No. Therefore, I can’t say that it’s a fact that the letter fully and accurately represents a real person’s experience, regardless of whether or not I believe it does. I also don't know what practices police agencies follow when an assault victim who is a minor does not want her parents to know about the assault, and since the victim's letter does not give any indication of whether the clinic she was currently visiting was the same one to which she had reported her rape, which had happened six years earlier, it's also not possible to know in what state the rape was or should have been reported.

        You think it’s insane to question whether an unverifiable web posting meets a journalistic evidentiary standard of proof; I think that an unverifiable website posting by definition cannot meet a journalistic evidentiary standard of proof. You think that PP/Golden Gate's decision to remove the letter indicates that they were guilty of covering up a rape; I think it shows they didn't want to participate in making political hay of a rape victim's life. Neither of us has evidence to prove that we are right. We’re arguing epistemology, not morality, and we clearly don’t share the same epistemological standards. I don’t think that inference can be reported as reality, but apparently you do. End of story.


        1. I agree that we don't know if Planned Parenthood made up this letter or if PP fact checked that this was a real patient, etc but it had to pass the smell test for them as acceptable PP behavior or they wouldn't have posted it. Which goes to a bigger question, to post it, Planned Parenthood is saying that they are proud of how they acted on an institutional level. If this was a one time problem or error, they would have corrected staff, not posted it.


        2. L112-Unfortunately the impression is that your desire to spark higher standard for journalism is actually advocacy for immorality. I think your arguement is mostly credible but lacks better presentation. Simply being aggressive and critical isn’t going to cut it. At best you ignite defensiveness rather than creating a convincing call to better journalism. Or maybe my assumptions are wrong and your intent was to detract from their goal.


          1. “The impression is that your desire to spark higher standard for journalism is actually advocacy for immorality.”

            It could be that I advocate immorality in all forms, or it could be that I devoutly adhere to morals that are slightly different from yours, or it could be that I’m ardently pro-life and I believe that the cause is hampered by Live Action’s habit of finding potential evidence of inappropriate behavior and trumpeting it as definitive proof of criminal conduct. If a police officer testifies at a trial that he has proof that a suspect committed a crime, and then admits under cross-examination that he can’t prove that a crime occurred, then that police officer loses credibility. It doesn’t matter whether or not the suspect is guilty, because the officer’s credibility stands or falls on his own actions. That’s more or less what has happened here: Live Action has condemned PP’s actions in this “real case” but conceded that we don’t know if the putative victim was real.* That speaks to Live Action’s credibility as a witness. It doesn’t matter if I’m Mother Teresa or Jeffrey Dahmer: I’m merely the audience to Live Action’s message, and the character of the audience cannot affect the witness’s reliability.

            *I’m assuming based on his comments that livewell is connected to Live Action. If not, Live Action remains a non-credible witness but has not conceded the weakness of the case.

            For the record, I certainly am not laboring under the delusion that anything I say will move Live Action to begin practicing journalism rather than playing dress-up with a camera. Frankly, I posted here because I thought the story insulted the intelligence of the site’s visitors by assuming that readers are too gullible to notice the obvious flaws in the “reporting.” It appears, though, that the “reporters” themselves are largely blind to those flaws.

            Incidentally, I really wish that someone had taken the basic step of asking a law-enforcement expert to go on record on whether it is plausible that police investigating a rape under the circumstances described in the letter would have followed the victim’s request not to notify her parents. If the answer is “no,” then Live Action would have a stronger case that PP probably broke the law if the letter accurately reflects real events.

  5. Planned Parenthood's strategy is to break down the natural modesty of our youth, separate them from their parents, and become their trusted educator on all things sexual. This letter has it all. It was likely written by PP to coerce other girls into a promiscuous lifestyle. To keep their business going they need to cultivate new clientele.


    1. I definitely agree! PP is part of a whole culture aimed at drawing the hearts of young people away from their parents.


    2. Oh, Jchofmann. Let me guess. Did you also support the movement to implement a distinction between "rape" and "forcible rape"? Like there are girls lining up to be volunteer rape victims?


    1. You do realize that that is an OPINION page, right? Just posting a link to someone else's opinion is not going to change what's right and true.


      1. Are you saying you don't trust the New York Times' fact checking department? You don't think the New York Times is a distinguished, reputable publication? It's not "opinion," it's "editorial." And "editorials" are not allowed to cite incorrect FACTS. There is a large team of people whose job it is to fact check every single fact in that article and make sure it is true. The other cool thing about editorials is that all the editors on staff at the New York Times are theoretically in agreement about the gist of the article (you'll notice there's no byline for a single author). Which means that a whole lot of really smart people put this article together as a team. So yeah, it's definitely not a random person's "opinion."

        What sources would you advise I look at, if the New York Times isn't accurate enough for you?
        Anyway, you still didn't tell me what you thought of the article.


        1. Editors dont have to stick with the facts…they are editors expressing their personal opinion…and yes I dont believe everything in the Times or any other corporate rag.


  6. This is such unmitgated bullcrap, you have to be an idiot to believe these right wingers. They hate women and want us all back in the kitchen, pregnant and dependent on men. We arent going back you right wing thugs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *