If you cover up the rape of a minor and you are Planned Parenthood, this is what is known as "heroism".

Really? Truly?

Dawn, are you okay with this being emailed to PP's counsel?

Hope so, 'cause it will. I mean, you make some serious accusations here. So is it okay that I tell PP that you think they encourage pedophiles and rapists?
St. Bart | 12.19.05 - 10:04 pm | #

S.B., if you think Planned Parenthood would care to prove its innocence in a court of law, make my day. So far, it's actively obstructed attempts to reveal whether it's abiding by the law with regard to reporting statutory rape.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 12.19.05 - 10:09 pm | #

PP has been caught with its pants down. It's about time somebody nailed that scaly hide to the wall.
Christina | Homepage | 12.19.05 - 10:22 pm | #

Mark Shea stated concisely what I went to some lengths to say. Whatever Mark's political bent, I don't think it could be worded more succinctly. The Catholic Church deals with one of its worst scandals ever in an unavoidably public way, the past actions of bishops and popes are excoriated by people on the right and left -- but especially left -- side of the political spectrum, and pointing out that PP may have -- in my personal opinion more through oversight and a narrowly-focused agenda than outright dishonesty -- done the same thing the Church did is somehow suddenly verboten? Honestly -- I abjure labels like liberal and conservative, but the thoroughly blinkered attitude I'm seeing on the part of liberals commenting on this issue is altering my idea of what a liberal is. Had you asked me before what I was, I would have told you a libertarian with more left-leaning sentiments than right. But the hectoring tone of the response to what I've written alone, as well as the insults, is actually changing my perception of what passes today for liberal thinking. I demonstrated, using mainstream news sources,in my blog entry that there is a pattern of states investigating PP for hiding these cases of, at the least, statutory rape. For me, the idea that PP is actively saying in secret star-chamber meetings 'hey, let's give the pedophiles a pass,' is ludicrous. What is not ludicrous is knowing that there is a point where liberal thinking such as you find in any PP utterly handicaps certain decisions. If that makes me a conservative, fine. I know that a man who has raped a girl age 11 deserves to be put in jail and have the rest of the general population told that he raped a child. There is no equivocation there. Every victim of rape is psychologically damaged -- I've worked around sex crimes units, been asked to leave the room while female detectives take the statements of rape victims so they won't have to see any man, at that moment. PP's mealy-mouthed defense that they are protecting little girls by not informing the authorities and therefore the parents that a child has been RAPED is a remarkably weak argument.
Steve Huff | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 1:27 am | #

What St. Bart seems to have missed out on is that PP is being investigated by AG's in Indiana and other states because they are obstructing statutory rape cases. I have no doubt that this is the case in other states as well. Bart, when you obstruct a statutory rape case then you enable the perp. So quit with the "I'm going to tell PP on you" schtick. They already know the perception is out there, why do you think PPGG pulled what it thought to be something to brag about off their homepage when the outrage was expressed.
J Rob | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 7:02 am | #

Speaking of patterns - obtain a copy of Mark Crutcher's book "Lime 5". The darkness under the cover of the medical 'right to privacy' is very dark. Much of the book is based on filtered access via court documentation, casting a dim light into the dark recesses of the human heart.

Through the book, Crutcher brings out a fairly cogent argument that the medical aspects of abortion are totally unappealing to the best and the brightest of medical students, and instead the clandestine nature of the 'business' tends to attract sexual deviants and lesser skilled practitioners.

Hiding behind teams of lawyers (with an additional layer of dark cover via that confidentiality) and an ignorant supporting population that is already predisposed to violence and a media that trumpets 'rights' & 'choice' makes such crimes not only possible, but unsatiably inevitable. That is the nature of the abortion beast.

An unchecked 'Right to Privacy" is a fatal flaw in any culture where the concerns of the individual outweigh the greater concerns of the state.

Morality cannot be legislated.
Chris | 12.20.05 - 7:05 am | #

Is it ok to tell on Dawn to PP?

Lessee... as of this morning, the Dawn Patrol ranks as a Large Mammal in TTLB's Ecosystem - even on hiatus. (She's tied at #229 with MoveOn.org and Wil Wheaton dot net, the poor lass.) (And I don't mean Wil.) She's had over 10,000 hits this week and at least three other bloggers have picked up on her current story. This goes along with her weekly column and upcoming book.

Trust me, Planned Parenthood does not need you to tell them what Dawn is writing. It's about as secret as the recipe for ice water.
Nightfly | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 12:13 pm | #

Okay. Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to inform you that a blogger with a large following is defaming Planned Parenthood on her blog.

Dawn Eden Goldstein is a radical right-wing abortion foe. As such, she is free to disagree with the practice of reproductive choice. However, she has gone much further than that.

Among other things, Ms. Goldstein has alleged:

Planned Parenthood encourages pedophiles and pedophilia.
Planned Parenthood does not report rapists.
Planned Parenthood's philosophy is based on eugenics.
Planned Parenthood is not a nonprofit organization.

Links to the posts can be found here: http://haloscan.com/tb/dawneden/ ...503442258833930

http://haloscan.com/tb/dawneden/ ...480861639948720

http://haloscan.com/tb/dawneden/ ...459761926900392

A search of her blog reveals that this is the tip of the iceberg. She has been doing this for a long time. I strongly urge you to consider legal action against her, and I would even volunteer my time to work on the case.

Sincerely,

*sends*
St. Bart | 12.20.05 - 12:48 pm | #

Good. The resultant publicity will only help Dawn's career, and expose Planned Parenthood yet again for allowing minors to be raped and keeping silent about it. "Accessory after the fact" essentially describes PP's actions.

To paraphrase the BASF commercial running right now: "They don't rape children; they give the rapist peace of mind."
Therese Z | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 12:58 pm | #

Let's see what the investigation turns up.

It's the 'guilty until proven innocent' routine that galls.

Edited by Siteowner for an ad hominem attack. User has been banned until she apologizes via e-mail for breaking the clearly posted rules.
St. Bart | 12.20.05 - 1:21 pm | #

I see the good ship Irony has once again left some passengers at the quay. Bon voyage, Bart.
Nightfly | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 1:31 pm | #

I find it fascinating that St. Bart would post all this and leave no easily identifiable e-mail or webpage. This is my real name slapped on here. Dawn just leaves off her last name, but one Google search can get you that. But St. Bart the Litigious, brave defender of the Ghost of Margaret Sanger, leaves a@a.com as an e-mail address and no homepage. That's really showing the courage of one's convictions, if you ask me.

(Apologies if my saracasm dripped on anyone.)

(Dawn, I won't be offended if you delete this, but I really just couldn't stand it anymore.)
Steve Huff | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 2:26 pm | #

And Holy St. Bart the Litigator, a question: if Dawn is doing what you say, really, then why would she post on the entry proper the following words from me?

"For me, the idea that PP is actively saying in secret star-chamber meetings 'hey, let's give the pedophiles a pass,' is ludicrous. What is not ludicrous is knowing that there is a point where liberal thinking such as you find in any PP utterly handicaps certain decisions. If that makes me a conservative, fine. I know that a man who has raped a girl age 11 deserves to be put in jail and have the rest of the general population told that he raped a child. There is no equivocation there..."

The first sentence of that comment is in opposition to this statement in your 'letter' --

"Planned Parenthood encourages pedophiles and pedophilia..."

Even if Dawn does think this, she was willing to tack my comment stating that I do not believe that to be the case on her blog entry. To me, whatever Dawn's subjective view, this indicates a level of thoughtfulness and an ability to be fair-minded you are refusing to acknowledge. The first time Dawn linked my first entry on this subject, she noted that I 'do not normally' express particularly conservative views. I don't. Yet I consider Dawn a friend, and a good one. And whatever her motivation in this instance, I found enough evidence from mainstream news sources to support my own contention that PPs have done this sort of thing in the past and been investigated. Sometimes, they have been found lacking in their responsibility to report abuse to the proper authorities. If Indiana investigated, Arizona investigated, then what is stopping California? Again, Dawn may feel differently than I do about the 'why' -- yet she still posted my own thoughts in a prominent place.

This is why I have said that this experience is changing my opinion of what 'liberal' is -- I grew up thinking that the advantage and achilles heel to liberalism was the desire to cooperate and compromise. Those things are good, in proportion, carefully allowed. I see now that there seems to be a breed of liberal about today that prefers to continue thinking in polarities, cherry-picking their arguments. St. Bart the Litigator posts to this particular entry attacking Dawn Eden's views, and barely acknowledges that she used mostly text written by myself and Mr. Shea in this blog entry. Mr. Shea's views may be more overtly conservative than my own, but to me, his address of this issue was perfectly worded. I'm wondering if the presumably liberal and sanctified Litigator of the Haloscan is more comfortable ignoring the complexities of the issue and someone like myself who will address them directly and just using this as another opportunity to take pot-shots at their favorite right-winger to abuse for today.

That's the funny thing, see -- Dawn knows I'm not a fervently conservative person, that I am best described as staunchly independent. She knows some of my views may not agree with hers. But she also knew I'd open my mind to at least investigating this issue. I did. I took time to do it to ensure I was doing the most even-handed research possible.

Why do I get the feeling that the presumably liberal St. Bart would never approach someone whose views did not entirely match their own in the manner Dawn Eden did me when she became aware of this possible crime, or circumstance enabling future crime? Though Dawn is a friend, I could have decided the PPGG thing wasn't enough to follow up on. I think Dawn knew that. Who is really the more open-minded person, in this instance?

Dawn, my apologies for the long comments.
Steve Huff | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 2:56 pm | #

No apologies necessary, Steve. When someone attacks others while hiding behind a mask, I feel no compunction about using strong language to bring them into the light of day.

I've noticed that the so-called compassionate Lefties love to dredge up details of my personal life that I myself have made public—like the fact that I sought treatment for depression (now in remission for six years, praise God), and that I have a Jewish last name. In the case of so-called St. Bart, whose name is neither Bart nor who considers herself a Christian saint (meaning believer), someone who would normally tout her understanding stoops to the lowest kind of anti-Semitism. I use "Dawn Eden" professionally. There is no reason why anyone would cite my last name, let alone repeat it multiple times, unless they wanted to drive home the fact that I am a Jew.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 3:04 pm | #

I wonder if any response would be posted here, if received.
Mary | 12.20.05 - 6:51 pm | #

If St. Bart e-mails me PP's response, I'll be glad to post it.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 6:59 pm | #

The funny thing is that PP themselves practicly bragged that they obstructed the prosecution og a statutory rapist and St. Bart calls reporting same "defamation"
J Rob | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 10:09 pm | #

Would any of you like me to dig through my notes and blog some of my stuff on PP? (You can also go to my site and do a search. Just type "Planned Parenthood" in quotes in the search box.) You get to my site through my sidebar. Click the "RealChoice" logo. I can't post a link because I'm on free servers and comment managers think i'm spamming.
Christina | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 10:24 pm | #

I fully endorse all of Dawn Eden's statements above noted and repeat, reallege and reiterate them as though set forth here in full. My name is Robert Neil Going and I reside at 14 George Street, Amsterdam, NY 12010.

I look forward to the discovery proceedings.
Robert N G | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 10:46 pm | #

Dawn, et al, since PP is getting all this lovely press, I'm going through my notes and blogging therefrom. Lots of historic cases showing a pattern of pretty bad behavior. Read especially the ordeal suffered by patient A.A.
Christina | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 10:53 pm | #

Thanks, Christina. I just added to this post a link to your entry.

Robert, thanks for the backup!
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 12:17 am | #

First of all, Dawn I've blogrolled yours and Steve Huff's writing's on PP. Yours too, RA, on "Don't Ask, Don't Care" Second, slightly off-topic, I'm having difficulty in a discussion with a person who insists on using ad hominem attacks against me to discredit my arguments. Either here or at the RA's site I saw a refute that was well-stated, calling the attacks for what they are and calling for rational discussion instead. I can't remember the exact words and would like to use the refute in my discussion (and put this person in their place). If you know the phrase used or a good refute to such non-sensical behavior, it would be most helpful.
Rachael | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 2:51 am | #

Litigious St. Bart apparently doesn't understand what defamation is. It's false allegations, SB. When it is true, as it is in this case, it isn't defamation. And Steve Huff showed his list of mainstream media sources: "I demonstrated, using mainstream news sources,in my blog entry that there is a pattern of states investigating PP for hiding these cases of, at the least, statutory rape."

I blogged the one I have in the state of Connecticut, how abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood "look the other way" (the media's headline, not mine): http://www.ctfamily.org/ plannedp...parenthood.html

"Planned Parenthood encourages pedophiles and pedophilia."
By not reporting them, this is and has been shown to be what happens as a result. NOT discouraging them encourages them.

"Planned Parenthood does not report rapists."
Some of these instances are the same as above, as in statutory rape.

"Planned Parenthood's philosophy is based on eugenics."
St. Bart is among a vast majority who doesn't know much about PP's founder, Margaret "Negro Project"-"poor-people-are-human-weeds-who-ought- never-have-been-born" Sanger. Don't take my word for it, read a black organization's take on this: http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html

I guess you'll have to "rat on" them too, now.

"Planned Parenthood is not a nonprofit organization." I don't believe Dawn ever made this accusation, just as I haven't, but we both have shown repeatedly, as has S.T.O.P.P. (so please do add both of us to those you so maturely are "tattling on", St. Bart) that they've made on average about $30 million profit each year for the past decade or more (we got that from their own annual reports soooo.... it isn't "false" unless THEY are guilty of SEC fraud violations themselves). Here's the link to one of their recent Annual Reports, St. Bart. DYOR: http://www.plannedparenthoodrx.c...t/report- 04.pdf .
Annie B. | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 8:48 am | #

WorldNetDailyhas picked up this story December 16, four days after Dawn broke it.

We're blogging a post with as many of the pertinent blog links as we can amass (it's taking time to build, be patient or email me if yours isn't up there yet: http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2005/12/self- described-perhaps-more-liberal.html
Annie B. | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 9:19 am | #

Well keep popping in to my blog over the next few days, as I'll be posting more PP badness as time permits.
Christina | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 10:46 am | #

Rachael, thanks for the plug! Not sure which mention of ad hominem attacks you mean, but there's some good advice against them in the Harris brothers' comments rules, which I call the Harris Protocol.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 12:38 pm | #

Dawn Eden - you GO girl!

I look forward to "st." bart's reply from planned deathhood. They will not reply - they cannot defend what is indefenseible.

Millions of babies killed, thousands of young women's lives left in shambles...millions of other women's lives left in shambles.

Planned deathhoood cannot defend itself.

blessings -
Lee Anne | 12.21.05 - 1:16 pm | #

"St." Bart needs some prayers, I think.
The biggest problem with Planned Barrenhood is its rationalism and its attack on those with weak consciences. It is truly run by a demon.
May Planned Parenthood fall by the grace of God!
Mia | 12.21.05 - 4:32 pm | #

I just re-read St. Bart's email to PP. It looks to me like he is an ambulance chaser
J Rob | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 5:05 pm | #

Dawn,
No prob! I really like your blog and your posts are well-written. In reference to my question, it's on another blog (which I'm with-holding the name as to not stir things up) But I was asking because I'm sort of a novice when it comes to debate and argumentation and having seen some well-done refutations here, would like to become better equipped to defend my beliefs and position.
Rachael | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 9:40 pm | #

I think PP would want st. bart to go away...any more attention to this situation is NOT want they would want....
annmarie | Homepage | 12.22.05 - 7:55 am | #

Annmarie, or PP could try to turn the publicity in their favor and try to rally more support from the vocal pro-choicers.
Rachael | Homepage | 12.22.05 - 4:32 pm | #

I love how people on this thread make St. Bart the villian when all he does is tell PP what Dawn says.
A-wo! | 12.23.05 - 3:31 pm | #

Like PP doesn't know already. St. Bart was the one who made himself out to be the hero when the "David" PP was going up against the "Goliath" of Dawn Eden. The fact is that the roles are reversed. PP gets almost unqualified credence in every thing they do because they set themselves up as the "champions" of choice and privacy even to the detriment of society viz a vis their deliberate obstruction of rape of minors calling it a triumph for "privacy".
If they don't wish to be portrayed as "Pedophiles Pal" then they should stop acting the part.
J Rob | Homepage | 12.23.05 - 10:59 pm | #