Are Connecticut Family Planning Clinics Protecting Men Who Rape Children?

14-Year-Old Given Three Abortions in Six Months!

On Monday, a New London man was indicted in the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl.  Now, a police investigation has uncovered that the child was taken for abortions to the Planned Parenthood clinic Norwich in April, July and September of 2006.  

Mark Crutcher, the president of Life Dynamics Incorporated of Denton, Texas, says that this is part of a nationwide pedophile protection scandal involving facilities associated with Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation.    

During a two-year undercover investigation, Life Dynamics recorded over 800 calls to such facilities across America in which a female actress portrayed a 13-year-old girl pregnant by her adult boyfriend and seeking an abortion in order to hide the illegal sexual relationship from her parents and the authorities.  On the tapes, many of the clinic workers are heard telling the caller that this situation was unlawful and that they were legally mandated to report it to the state.  However, even after acknowledging this, 91 percent of the 800 facilities contacted agreed to illegally conceal it.  In fact, representatives of these organizations—often operating on tax dollars—routinely instructed a child who they believed to be a sexual assault victim to:

• lie about or conceal her age or the age of the man who impregnated her
• participate in illegal activity in order to circumvent the state’s parental notification law
• use a fictitious name, phone number or address when she came to the facility
• keep the situation hidden by altering what she would say when she came to the facility
• be more careful about what information she gave out and to whom

The Planned Parenthood facility in Norwich was a target of this investigation and gave a response that perfectly matches this pattern.  Tapes of the calls made to other facilities in Connecticut show the same results.  Crutcher stated, “Our investigation proved that rapists who target underage girls have no better ally than Planned Parenthood.  If these people in Norwich had any sense of decency, or any concern for this child, they would have reported this situation to the authorities the first time they saw her.  Of course, that would have cost them the profit from the next two abortions.”

For additional information visit

The Coward’s Creed

With the political season at our throats again, we’re starting to hear more and more of that tired old “I’m personally opposed to abortion but want it to remain legal” nonsense.  The media is even starting to promote politicians who espouse this view as people of courage and high moral character.  This serves as additional confirmation that the American media wouldn’t recognize courage and character if it bit them on the rear end.    

The fact is, this is by far the most cowardly, the most morally indefensible and the most intellectually dishonest position a person can take on abortion. 

The only basis for being opposed to abortion is the recognition that it is the killing of a child.  So when someone takes this position, what they are actually saying is, “I understand that abortion is the intentional slaughter of defenseless children but if someone wants to do it I’m not going to do anything to stop them.” 

That raises the question: which other innocent human beings do they think it should be legal to kill?  Also, are they equally tolerant on other issues?  Presumably, they are also “personally opposed” to rape, armed robbery, racial discrimination, and wife-beating.  But will they abstain from inflicting their personal beliefs regarding these issues as well? 

It is especially fraudulent when politicians take this “personally opposed but don’t want to inflict my personal views on others” position.  Inflicting their views on others is precisely what legislators are elected to do and every vote they make does just that.  Further, if a politician is not going to be guided by his own personal views, then (a) why would he bother to tell us what his personal views are, and (b) whose personal views is he going to be guided by? 

For those of us who are pro-life, this issue reinforces the need for us to constantly remind ourselves that the conflict over abortion is not a war between us and the baby killers.  It is a war between the baby killers and the babies.  We are simply a community of people who entered this war on the side of the babies.  And what that means is that every time we support some coward who tells us that he is “personally opposed to abortion but pro-choice as a matter of law,” in the war over abortion we commit treason.

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics