Posted by Benjamin on: 02.29.2008 /
Yesterday I ran across this story on The Point, a team blog which is associated with Prison Fellowship Ministries and Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint. Lila Rose, a student at UCLA and editor in chief of The Advocate, a student magazine of the right to life, writes:
Over the summer, The Advocate investigated the financial dealings of Planned Parenthood and made some shocking discoveries about the clinic-owning “nonprofit.” We obtained the information by having an actor call clinics across the country and pose as a donor. The actor who called, The Advocate’s advisor, communicated to them a very racist agenda—the one that Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, had envisioned. He then asked to donate money specifically for the abortions of African-American babies in order to “lower the number of blacks in America.”
Despite his bigoted requests, no Planned Parenthood employee (or director of development, in one case) declined the tainted money. Some even asked to speak with other employees to get permission. In the first day of calling seven clinics, not a single Planned Parenthood representative expressed outrage or concern at the racism behind donations specifically “to reduce the number of blacks.” In fact, some even went as far as agreeing with the antiblack agenda.
Lila posted recordings of some of these phone calls on youtube.
The Point’s blogger, Gina Dalfonzo, said “My jaw dropped”, while the Family Research Council, a right wing lobbying organization which “champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society”, said “Racism is alive and well at Planned Parenthood”.
Rebecca Poedy, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Idaho, whose office was involved in one of the calls featured in the Advocate story, defended her organization in this story from the Boise Weekly. She claimed that the conversation was manipulative and involved baiting, and that the transcript had not been accurately represented. She also said her office never accepted money from the staged call and reported the incident to the national Planned Parenthood offices immediately. She said her office had not been prepared for such a call. She did however admit that the call had been handled poorly, and that they needed to do further training of their staff to handle calls from people with offensive agendas.
So what’s your reaction? Does this investigation show that Planned Parenthood is “jaw droppinlgy” racist? Is it a reasonable type of investigative journalism? Or is it, as Ms. Poedy claimed, “baiting, manipulative, and offensive”?
Your thoughts?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Helen
1 02/29/08 3:05 PM | Comment Link |If this is the best The Advocate can come up with I’m completely unconvinced anything they have shows PP is racist.
The Advocate might have done PP a helpful service in pointing out that it would be good to train their staff to handle weird phone calls.
Comment by: David H
2 03/1/08 12:47 PM | Comment Link |I have to agree with Helen, what these calls show is that the staff at PP was poorly trained. They might also show a bit too much eagerness to take money for something in which the staffers believe. However, that last criticism has often been directed at Christian groups who argue that it doesn’t matter where the money comes from just how it is used.
The call with Autumn — which was featured in greatest length — shows most clearly what was wrong with The Advocate’s approach and the training of PP staff. The caller begins with what sounds like something good. He is concerned with disadvantaged people and wants to help minorities. He gets Autumn in the “rhythm” of agreement then begins to change the tone of the call. First he wants to put the donation in the name of his son and then he begins to talk about too many black babies, competition for job/college, etc. Rather than saying: Hold on. Autumn goes along.
While there were other snippets of conversation, the only other long call I heard was with the woman at the beginning. Yes, she took the donation, but when the caller began the racial remarks her response was a disbelieving: “Whatever…”
Is it a reasonable type of investigative journalism? I’m a bit old-fashioned when it comes to that. I don’t think tabloid TV is journalism whatsoever and the YouTube video is very much like that. This is more of a rather heavy-handed opinion piece. They could take some lessons from Michael Moore in improving their technique. But the world in which I operate expects far more evidence than a few phone calls to prove the position being stated by Planned Parenthood.
Just as an aside, legitimate journalists went crazy recently when the New York Times published their “investigative report” on McCain’s dalliance (or lack thereof) with a female lobbyist. I have heard no one in the journalism community who believes that report qualified as legitimate journalism. Quite a few have said it is evidence of falling standards at the NYT.
Previous is just to say that there are standards for good journalism and while those of us who practice it don’t always meet those standards, that doesn’t render us unable to recognize others who fail to meet those standards.
Yet, I would hazard that Ms. Poedy is making a mistake by using political rhetoric to counter The
Advocate. A recent dust-up between the Obama and Clinton campaigns had the Clintons (reputedly) releasing a public photo of Obama in traditional muslim African dress. Obama’s campaign responded that this was dirty tricks because the Clinton campaign knew the picture would be divisive. They called it “’shameful fear-mongering.” A spokesman for Sen. Clinton responded: ”If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.” The photo was bait and Obama’s campaign bit hard. Snap.
PP falls into the same trap. They had staffers who obviously did something wrong, even if it was for what they believed were the right reasons. What The Advocate did may have been “baiting, manipulative and offensive.” But I think PP would be better served by simply saying the staff was poorly trained and then make sure this never happens again. They might even get some traction by thanking The Advocate for revealing the short-coming in the staff training.
Likewise, Obama’s campaign might have done better to simply issue a long-winded press release about the wonderful opportunities for US politicians to wear traditional garb in the places they visit and then hand out some other photos of Obama’s favorite costumes. They might even want to toss in a few unflattering snaps of Sen. Clinton wearing such outfits.
Accusing denials are the worst thing for the person caught in this sort of trap to use and they are the best thing for tabloid journalists. The accusing denial may be correct and legitimate. But they only make the person saying them sound as if they have something to cover up.
Comment by: Jon
3 03/1/08 1:14 PM | Comment Link |It’s never right to adopt the evil tactics of the enemy, but observers deserve a comprehensive perspective. I have to recall what Planned Parenthood is:
* Planned Parenthood is UNREASONABLE to oppose God in their version of the meaning of sexuality.
* Planned Parenthood’s abortion solution is a somewhat EXTREME way of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.
* Planned Parenthood’s ads and condoms BAIT young people to have extramarital sex.
* Condom sales rely on INACCURATE REPRESENTATION.
* Planned Parenthood is MANIPULATIVE, e.g. ignoring parental authority, obstructing government investigation, disgusing as Gemini Office Development
* Planned Parenthood is quite MANIPULATIVE with the scalpel.
* Planned Parenthood is OFFENSIVE, especially to children in the womb (some of them).
Comment by: Jon
4 03/1/08 1:43 PM | Comment Link |I do realize that Benjamin’s question had to do with the journalism and so my comment above was off-topic. Ms. Poedy’s comments really riled me, i.e. baited me.
Comment by: Benjamin
5 03/1/08 11:21 PM | Comment Link |Helen, David
Thank you for your comments. David–yeah I was listening to some guy on NPR who was some kind of expert for politicians who’ve made some kind of serious error–like a crisis management guy or something, and he was saying one of the very first things they need to do, and which they almost *never* do soon enough, is just publicly acknowledge that they screwed up and what/how they’re going to change/do things differently/fix it.
I thought Poedy *kind* of did this, but perhaps, as you say, David, not as clearly and upfrontly as she perhaps could have.
Comment by: Benjamin
6 03/1/08 11:33 PM | Comment Link |Jon,
Thank you for jumping into the conversation! Welcome to JaC–good to have you along =)
I’m wondering what Planned Parenthood’s version of the meaning of sexuality is? I totally agree with you that abortion is a fairly extreme way of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. On the other hand, it seems to me that an unplanned pregnancy is a fairly extreme situation, and none of the options are at all easy or simple.
I’m curious about the idea that condoms are bait for premarital sex. Seems to me like maybe they’re *protection” against premarital sex resulting in the extreme situation of an unplanned pregnancy. I mean … to me it doesn’t seem like you have to bait young adults into sex–seems like the sex is the bait, in a way. BICBW.
I’m wondering how condom sales are based on inaccurate representation? When I’ve bought condoms, I … didn’t really experience misrepresentation. Maybe I missed something.
I’m sorry Ms. Poedy’s comments riled you. I hope you haven’t had some horrible experience with Planned Parenthood yourself.
Comment by: Donna
7 03/2/08 11:39 PM | Comment Link |This topic piqued my interest, so I thought I’d contribute a few thoughts. My first thoughts are in agreement with Helen; the indicators are that staff did not respond appropriately. To their defense - and this is hard, since PP is not one of my fave orgs - I must say that as the administrator of a faith-based pregnancy care center, it is very difficult to equip and monitor (mostly) volunteer staff. Every situation is unique, and while our policy states that “all calls from media, attorneys, physicians, churches, and all other non-direct client related contacts are referred to the Executive Director”, it can be difficult for staff to identify appropriate vs inappropriate situations. I find that our receptionists generally trust themselves too much and think it’s just fine to answer a few questions despite our repeated trainings and policy. We provide extensive initial and ongoing training - and when I was working more on-site, (now telecommuting), I had my ear on the responses every time the phone rang, waiting to jump in if it sounded like something the receptionist needed to pass off to me. As to the specific call in question, the receptionist should not have responded other than to say something like, “I would love to have our Executive Director return your call with that information.”
And, I absolutely agree with Benjamin that org’s have to own their screw-ups, and communicate what they’re changing to prevent it from happening again. Precisely due to a similar situation, I had to effectively fire a volunteer after she spoke completely out of line to a client - not an easy task. I was very concerned about fallout, and contacted all parties involved with a response, plan, and sincere apology within two days.
Yes indeed, it is so true that unplanned pregnancy is complex and there are no easy answers. Our mission to to provide an environment where a woman, (and her partner is she desires), can obtain information to the extent they desire, ask questions, receive compasssionate, caring and non-judgemental responses minus the agenda. (Really.) We sit with our clients week after week and care for them through their pregnancies and challenges for as long as they want us to. We consider our clients friends - we geniunely approach our relationship from a place of love.
Comment by: David H
8 03/3/08 12:01 AM | Comment Link |This intrigued me so I did some research. Seems these two issues are part of the information being disseminated by Focus on the Family and other organizations. Read here.
More on that from other groups here.
The FOTF page claims, among other things, that condoms are only about 77 percent effective in preventing pregnancies and next to useless for preventing many types of STDs (such as HPV). It cites studies that support this but provides no links or validating references. It asks the question: “Who’s really more vulnerable, the teen taught to use condoms or the one who’s motivated to save sex for marriage?” But admits that one-third of teens are engaged in sexual behavior. It also states that CDC studies show only about 13 percent of sexually active teens use a condemn consistently and correctly. All of that is in their argument for shelving teen sex education and replacing it with abstinence education.
While I believe abstinence is the only way to be 100 percent sure of safety from unwanted pregnancy and STDs, I am also sure that lots of kids will not follow that program. I can’t see leaving that one-third to their own devices because of a personal belief that their choice is immoral.
I have two daughters. I will encourage them strongly to abstain from pre-marital sex. Once they begin dating (at an acceptable age), I will encourage boys who squire them to realize that diddling with my daughters may be the last thing they do on this earth. But I will also get my girls HPV vaccinated and I will talk to them about condoms. If nothing else, talk about all the potential pitfalls of not using such protection might scare them into a bit more responsibility.
As for the claims the condoms bait young people and that condom ads are inaccurate, I have yet to see any verifiable proof on either. And though my personal beliefs would probably come closer to the side of biblical morality than free love, I can’t see condemning those who don’t agree with me. I amy think they are doing something stupid, but I would want them to be safe while doing it.
Bottom line for me is that abstinence education is the responsibility of parents. Condoms and school sex ed falls into the realm of public health. I’m not sure Planned Parenthood would disagree with me on that.
Comment by: Hannah
9 03/3/08 1:38 AM | Comment Link |Prank phone calls do not a journalist make.
Comment by: Benjamin
10 03/3/08 2:30 AM | Comment Link |Donna,
Just wanted to say thank you kindly for dropping by and sharing. You rock for standing in such a vulnerable place and trying to help people in an extreme situation. Sounds like you’re doing a great job of it.
David–thank you for doing a bit of research for us. I remember reading the information on the condom packages just out of curiousity, and thinking they were fairly carefully worded *not* to raise expectations past reality. And I remember back when I was in that Focus on the Family funny little world, and back then I also believed that there was a sort of conspiracy out there to “bait” teens into having sex by encouraging condom use, and to “misrepresent” factual info about condoms. Now, looking back, it seems to me that all that stuff is tied to a sort of general … fear about sex–fear of talking about it, fear of thinking about it, fear of emoting about it. BICBW.
Hannah–indeed. You bring up a good point. I would be a little ashamed if I were the one making such a phone call. I don’t think I could pull it off, actually–I’d either chicken out or else I’d totally have to call back and apologize soonish, ’cause I felt so guilty.
Comment by: Elaine
11 03/4/08 9:05 AM | Comment Link |My choice is “baiting, manipulative, and offensive”.
While I do believe racism, sexism, etc. is alive and well in the USA. I don’t think a real journalist (like David) would resort to this type of manipulation to get the story. It sounds to me like they had already written the story and were manipulating the situation to give them their documentation.
Whether or not PP should have said yes to accepting the racist’s money raises a different set of issues for me. I think there are many organizations that don’t care about the ethics of where the money comes from as long as “they are using it for good”. And sadly, knowing how difficult finances can be for non-profits, I can appreciate how difficult it might be to turn down the money. (I wonder how much money they used for bait.)
I also agree the person on the front line is frequently under valued and under trained about how to respond to “difficult” people.
FOTF has more than burned it’s bridges with me with all the unreliable statistics they provide. (Isn’t that called “lying”?)
Regarding PP, while I do not agree with abortion, I do appreciate the other services they offer. My oldest daughter (as a teenager) received her birth control from them for several years before I became aware of her being sexually active. I was grateful she was using protection during that time. And when at 20, she became pregnant, she came to me and told me she was having the baby - she did not want an abortion. Together we went through counseling at a Christian pregnancy center, like Donna’s, which helped her reach a decision on whether to keep Sammi or give her up for adoption. Sammi is now 16 and a great joy to her grandfather and me.
(My daughter was a prime candidate to be sexually active. She had the sterotypical divorced parents, absentee father who favored her brother, and more)
Comment by: Benjamin
12 03/4/08 3:45 PM | Comment Link |elaine,
I really appreciate your candor. I’m stoked for you that you got to be part of seeing Sammi grow up and to be connected with her.
I worry a bit about my two young daughters in the future–what to tell them? Don’t have sex before marriage, and if you *do*, for the love of Pete use a condom! Hopefully my wife and I can maitain an excellent and open relationship with them to the degree that they will be able to talk with us openly about these things.
Comment by: David H
13 03/4/08 5:04 PM | Comment Link |I try to talk candidly with my daughters regarding the pitfalls and benefits of relationships. I try not to say either do or don’t have sex prior to marriage. I try to talk about consequences for doing something without a good understanding of why and what will happen after. When the girls watched the movie “Juno” that became a good opportunity for discussing the difficulty of dealing with teen pregnancy and the confused reasons people can come to that place.
I said earlier in this thread that I probably fall closer to biblical morality than anything else because I believe premarital sex isn’t good. But it isn’t a “sin” issue for me. I think it can be bad for the participants quite often because it of unequal expectations (one getting their rocks off and the other thinking it is love) or because sex is seen as an avenue to get something else (like love) when it should be something that comes after love. I talk pretty frankly with my older daughter about how boys can act and why. I try not to condemn boys too much, pointing out that hormones can make them crazy.
But with my kids I try to get a conversation going about what sex should be to counter the peer pressure and cultural influences that I believe work constantly to change sex into something irresponsible, unhealthy and ultimately damaging to all participants.
Comment by: Elaine
14 03/5/08 8:41 PM | Comment Link |David - I think that is all we can do. Help them to understand whether they go along with the crowd, remain silent, speak up, march to a different drum, their attitude - not doing anything is a choice and all of these have consequences.
What do they want to choose for their future?
Comment by: Benjamin
15 03/5/08 9:49 PM | Comment Link |Just a note for all: I’m reposting David’s most recent comment (number 13) to the top tomorrow as a new thread.
Comment by: Eliza
16 03/5/08 10:16 PM | Comment Link |Great conversation. Awful trick by that caller-”journalist”. If what he did was ethical journalism, then it would be OK for any journalist (which can be anyone these days, given the internet) to try to trick a volunteer or staff person with ANY group into going along with judgmental statements, at least implicitly (by not objecting loudly) in return for the promise of a big donation. Dangle the bait, see if you can get someone to go against their better judgment & usual behavior in order to get it.
Regarding abstinence-only education v. education regarding condom use: there was a study published within the past few years, might have been through the CDC (I can’t remember, but it was a scientifically reputable group) which showed that teens who had pledged to avoid sex until marriage were just about as likely to have engaged in sexual activity, AND were more likely to have engaged in oral and anal sex among their sexual practices (not considering these to be “sex”, apparently), AND were more likely to have contracted STDs, than teens who hadn’t made such a pledge.
Scary.
Comment by: Rachel
17 03/6/08 10:06 PM | Comment Link |This discussion of who to accept money from reminds me of a podcast I listened to with Shane Claiborne of the Simple Way. Shane is a committed anti-war activist and he was talking about his decision to accept a donation for his community development work from an executive at Lockheed-Martin. Shane said that some of his friends questioned his decision saying, “But that’s the Devil’s money!” Shane’s response was “T’was then, t’aint now!”
Comment by: Benjamin
18 03/7/08 6:08 AM | Comment Link |that’s kind of a tough call.
I mean I’m hardly one to talk. I take educational grant money from the U.S. federal government =(
I wonder what Shane would have said if the Lockheed Martin executive had said he wanted the money earmarked to help only white people?
Comment by: Rachel
19 03/7/08 8:38 AM | Comment Link |I’m sure he would have refused it in that case.
Benjamin, I don’t think you should feel bad about accepting grant money from the government. Those funds are set up using taxpayer dollars because we have decided as a nation that making college accessible to more people will advance the common good. I’d much rather Uncle Sam gave my tax dollars to you than to Lockheed Martin! That is unless Lockheed Martin was going to turn around and give it all to Shane. ;-)