Second “Explosive(!)” “Shocking(!)” Live Action Video Reveals… Health Workers Providing Care!

Updated: this article was updated at 3:14 pm Thursday, February 4th to include a portion of the statement released by Planned Parenthood Federation.

See all our articles on this issue at this link.

Lila Rose and Live Action Films have released a second video in their promised expose of Planned Parenthood.

And the only thing shocking about this video is that Rose and her cohorts think there is something shocking about it.

It exposes…..wait for it……a health care worker providing information about health care.

It’s the most shocking thing I’ve encountered since the mailman delivered my mail today.

In the video and in the transcript, the clinic worker is seen and heard calmly doing her job. She is assisting her clients and answering their questions about testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, about contraceptive methods and unintended pregnancy.  No minor is present in the room.  When asked about abortion, she calmly discusses the options a minor in need of abortion might have, such as judicial bypass, which lest anyone be confused, is the perfectly legal recourse provided to minors who face an unintended and untenable pregnancy and who can not for whatever reasons secure their parents’ “permission” to procure an abortion.  Parental consent laws are widespread but have been shown in study after study to be useless in their supposed efforts to dissuade minors in need from seeking abortion.  Moreover, as extensively noted by the Department of Justice, minors involved in sex work or who have been trafficked into sex work often are abandoned by their families, so they are not likely to be seeking out their parents’ permission for much.

These children “generally come from homes where they have been abused, or from families that have abandoned them. They often become involved in prostitution as a way to support themselves financially or to get the things they want or need.”

After the visit, this clinic worker and her colleagues in other sites where the “sex traffickers” sought services reported these visits to their supervisors, who in turn reported to Planned Parenthood Federation’s head office which, in turn reported this to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

So they did things exactly right. Sought to meet the immediate health needs of the patient while in turn reporting suspicious activity to the police.

In a statement, Planned Parenthood Federation of America said:

Today, Live Action, an anti-abortion groups led by Lila Rose, a self-described
“extremist”1, who has called for abortions to take place in public2 and has vowed to “take down” Planned Parenthood, released videotapes secretly taped at Planned Parenthood Health Centers in Virginia.

In a recent round of secret videotaping in January 2011, at least four health centers in Virginia received visits in a short period of time from persons claiming to be involved in the sex trade, involving vulnerable minors. Local authorities, as well as federal authorities, were alerted to these visits. In this morning’s publicized tape, the Planned Parenthood staff member reacted professionally to a highly unusual person posing as a patient. After the encounter, the staff member immediately notified her supervisor, who subsequently notified members of Planned Parenthood’s national security team, who are working with the FBI, which is investigating these visits.

Come to think of it, this might be even less shocking than the fact that a half inch of snow can close schools across Montgomery County, Maryland.

That a health care worker at a Planned Parenthood would be offering clear, concise and evidence-based information on testing and treatment of infections, contraception and abortion is kinda the antithesis of shocking, really, because in case Lila missed it, these are the services that sexual and reproductive health clinics provide.

The fact that a health worker would be doing so in a manner that earns the trust of the client is not only normal, but a central ethic of health care and medicine.

The fact that she didn’t say: “Hey traffickers, sit yourselves down and have a cup of coffee while I go call the police,” but instead ended the visit and reported to her supervisors also is exactly the protocol she is supposed to follow.

The American Medical Association states, for example:

Physicians have always had a duty to keep their patients’ confidences. In essence, the physician’s duty to maintain confidentiality means that a physician may not disclose any medical information revealed by a patient or discovered by a physician in connection with the treatment of a patient. In general, AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics states that the information disclosed to a physician during the course of the patient-physician relationship is confidential to the utmost degree. As explained by the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, the purpose of a physician’s ethical duty to maintain patient confidentiality is to allow the patient to feel free to make a full and frank disclosure of information to the physician with the knowledge that the physician will protect the confidential nature of the information disclosed. Full disclosure enables the physician to diagnose conditions properly and to treat the patient appropriately. In return for the patient’s honesty, the physician generally should not reveal confidential communications or information without the patient’s express consent unless required to disclose the information by law.

In fact, when it comes to sexual health and to the sexual health of minors in particular, the emphasis is first placed on the needs of the patient, and on confidentiality, and later on legal issues.  See this paper on sexual health disclosure in the military for example  and this from the Office of Adolescent Health of the State of Oregon.

The process to ensure health care access, confidentiality and privacy can be quite complex when it pertains to minors. Every day, health care providers are attempting to figure out: (1) which services a minor can obtain without parental consent; (2) when a parent can access a minor’s health information; and (3) when minor consent must be obtained before the provider can share the minor’s health information. State statutes, federal laws and regulations provide a complicated patchwork of requirements that often do not fit neatly together and may be challenging to interpret and implement.

Unfortunately, no single rule can be applied to all situations. However, a good place to start is with a resource like this that compiles all the requirements. Great care has been taken to present accurate information that is as clear as possible with citations to the entire text of the law or regulation. We encourage anyone wrestling with these issues to use this document as a starting place while establishing a process that will encourage minors to seek care while maximizing their confidentiality and privacy.

The fundamentalist right in this country wants to criminalize sexual behavior of all kinds and turn doctors into investigators.  This is the essence of all sorts of laws seeking to limit teen access to comprehensive sexual health education, contraceptive methods, safe abortion services and so on.  It is and was the essence of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in regard to health care. As Dr. Kenneth Katz pointed out in an article for RH Reality Check last year, this was indeed the same dilemma he faced in treating patients under DADT and the ways in which restrictions on sex and in this case sexual identity affected his ability to serve his clients and make sure they were healthy. 

So I repeat, there is nothing shocking–whatsoever–about a health care worker addressing a patient with respect and respectfully answering their questions.  And then, later, reporting to their supervisor if in fact there is suspicion. In fact, it is protocol.

Rose keeps asking in her voice overs: “Will Planned Parenthood comply with the law?”  Only she doesn’t want to give you the answer to that question–yes–by also reporting that indeed PPFA reported the suspected trafficking to the authorities.  That would ruin the whole thing!

The point is this: Health care workers are there to guard individual and public health.  In doing so, they face dilemmas on a daily basis. Anyone who thinks otherwise is neither interested in the health of minors nor of trafficked minors, does not understand either public health or medicine, and is not interested in ethical behavior. 

But we already knew that about Lila and her colleagues. And that is not very shocking at all.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • rebellious-grrl

    I suppose Lila and crew think *HIPAA* is a code-word for aiding and abetting criminals. Their attempt at “investigative” journalism is a huge FAIL.

  • goatini

    that’s actually their definition for HIPAA, seeing as they also consider the Constitutional right to privacy as something that aids and abets those citizens exercising that right.


    They’re un-American facists.  

  • tripledomer

    This comment has been removed.


    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.


    RH Reality Check staff

  • ldan

    Where does it say she was fired?


    The worker in the first video, who *was* being shockingly unprofessional in demeanor, was fired. There is no indication that this worker, who acted professionally before reporting the strange behavior of these visitors, was fired.


    How is Planned Parenthood not a reputable organization? Thousands of women get their basic exams, information, and contraception from Planned Parenthood regularly.


    Thousands of men and women get STD testing and treatment. The public health benefits from this portion of their work alone are worth making sure they continue to receive the funding they need.


    So if the only reason they’re not reputable in your eyes is their provision of abortion–approximately 3% of their operations and completely separate from the work that federal funds go to–then you’re being rather short-sighted.

  • madrak

    This is not the woman that got fired.  The woman that got fired was the manager of  a clinic.

  • prochoicekatie

    Planned Parenthood didn’t fire this worker. They fired a different employee who had not followed policy in a similar situation.


    Please read the article more thoroughly before you attack the reputation of an entire organization. In fact, why don’t you just not attack an entire organization in the first place? On principle, critique should always be direct, specific, and based in evidence.

  • jodi-jacobson

    was not fired.

    She acted entirely appropriately

  • tripledomer

    The video (about which there is supposedly nothing shocking) led to PP firing the manager.  I hope to get an answer as to why they fired her.  Either (1) the manager did nothing wrong and PP made a terrible mistake in firing her, or (2) or she did something so wrong that it was worthy of being fired and this article’s premise (that there is nothing shocking on this video) is false.

  • ldan



    1. you are confusing two different videos. The video showing a manger who was later fired is not the video in the article above.


    or possibly


    2. you are purposely confusing the videos in order to confuse the issue so you could grumble about an article when you actually have no leg to stand on.


    Did you actually read the responses to your first post? For that matter, have you actually read the article above and those referring to either of the two videos?

  • tripledomer

    Here is how Jody opens up the article:

    “Lila Rose and Live Action Films have released a second video in their promised expose of Planned Parenthood.  And the only thing shocking about this video is that Rose and her cohorts think there is something shocking about it.”

    Here is PP’s response to this what this video showed:

    “The behavior we saw in the videotape was egregious and repugnant,” he said, adding it was “completely inexplicable and inconsistent with what Planned Parenthood does.”

    Aparently Planned Parenthood’s very own spokesperson thinks there was something shocking about the video.

  • ldan

    I didn’t think she was. I’m assuming the poster confused the two different workers thus far featured in the released videos.

  • prochoiceferret

    You’re getting the two videos mixed up.


    Video #1: New Jersey clinic, clinic manager acting unprofessionally, PP fires clinic manager.


    Video #2: Virginia clinic, clinic worker doing her job, no one gets fired, only people shocked are anti-choicers.


    This article is about video #2. Any questions?

  • ldan

    One more time.


    There are two different videos.


    The PP response is to video #1.


    Jodi’s article is in response to video #2.


    Any further questions? Or are you conflating the two videos simply to stir shit?


    [edit] Typing at the same time as ProChoiceFerret=repetition. Ah well, hopefully it drives the point home.

  • invalid-0

    Jodi cites an AMA paragraph above.  I’m not sure why she included the whole paragraph except the last sentence:

    There are exceptions to the rule, such as where a patient threatens bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person.

    By the way… three, four, five….

  • jodi-jacobson

    I included the full two paragraphs of a much longer document.

    In that document it lays out the conditions under which a health provider deals with patients.

    it also speaks to the provider’s responsibility to act when required to do so by law. And since PPFA acted as required to do so by law by reporting the incidents in question to the Department of Justice and the FBI, they, and the health care worker, did as expected and according to both ethical standards and protocol as I noted numerous times in my piece.


  • mar61

    I read on the news that in the Virginia clinic, the “professional” PPFA worker advised that the sex trafficker go to the local Health Department Clinic, because his  illegal activities would be less likely to be discovered. Is this true? The Virginia Attorney General said he found the videos to be highly disturbing. Also, how does offering to provide these services to children who are being held captive and forced into terrible actions they don’t want uphold ethical standards? PPFA was not dealing with a patient who came to them, they were dealing with an adult who was telling them he was holding children as captives and forcing them into these activities. And PPFA is supposed to just go along with that and offer the services anyway? Are you kidding? 

  • arekushieru

    Umm, you might want to read more carefully, next time.  Firstly: I believe this is another incident you’re referring to….  This PPFA worker was fired and these individuals were reported to the police.  Secondly: The imposter was speaking to a clinic nurse, NOT a counsellor.  She was simply giving him accurate and detailed information on how to obtain these services.  And left the legal side of things to the appropriate officials, as she should have done. 

  • ldan

    Had he brought one of the supposed victims into the room, the appropriate response might have been different (getting the girl away from him in a non-confrontational way before reporting/getting information from her/etc. seems sensible).


    When it’s just him, saying that he has some victims out there, somewhere, offering the information on how to get services, and offering that information in a non-judgemental way, offers the chance that he may actually allow said victims to come in there where they could be helped. Kicking him to the curb pretty much puts up a brick wall at best, and possibly becomes a dangerous confrontation.


    Even mandated reporters, like doctors, when examining a kid that they suspect is abused, can’t just pick the kid up and run off with it while yelling for police.

  • jodi-jacobson

    There were originally 3 videos. (There are now more).


    There was a short version of New Jersey and a longer version of New Jersey. That’s two. PPFA, RH Reality Check and pretty much everyone else with any sensibility saw and was distressed by the actions of the clinic administrator/worker in New Jersey. That person was summarily fired. Her behavior was as you note above criticized roundly by PPFA.


    The “third” (but referred to as second video because it was from the second “site” of a video released) was from Virginia (Richmond).  Pretty much everyone agrees that employee acted appropriately and as they should have according to both health and medical protocol and with respect to reporting to law enforcement.  PPFA did not criticize the actions of that employee.

    Moreover, it has now been made clear that the Virginia video was tampered with because having been analyzed, the time-stamps in the conversation do not match up and the conversation has been shifted around for whatever purpose suited Rose and her crew and the anti-choice movement for which she works.

    We reported on the tampering this afternoon, as analyzed by Media Matters for America.  we also will report on new videos released late today.

  • ldan

    Bah, hadn’t realized at the time I responded that there were two versions of the New Jersey one. It doesn’t change the point, but is just inaccurate enough to have possibly been confusing.


    I did spot the article about tampering…with no real surprise.

  • jodi-jacobson

    I was replying to the original poster on that.

    it is very confusing at this point, probably purposefully so.

  • ldan

    I just hate being inaccurate without noting it. :)

  • invalid-0

    After the visit, this clinic worker and her colleagues in other sites where the “sex traffickers” sought services reported these visits to their supervisors, who in turn reported to Planned Parenthood Federation’s head office which, in turn reported this to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    So, in other words, PPFA notified the FBI after several reports started coming in?  Not immediately, after receiving only one report? 

    Let me see if I can get this straight…

    Suspicion of illegal activity by employee –> report to supervisor –> report to PPFA headquarters in Washington DC –> call for investigation, only after multiple reports have come in

    Is that some kind of joke? 

  • jodi-jacobson

    You are purposefully twisting words and also show little knowledge of processes, including jurisdictional issues, in which one incident is reported to local authorities, multiple incidents and multiple states (and a pattern) changes jurisdiction to a federal issue.

    I understand you are trying with all your might to deflect attention from the fact that both PPFA employees AND PPFA management did exactly, precisely what they were supposed to do.  Honestly, I have better things to do than reply to any more of this nonsense.

  • mar61

    If the PPFA workers in Virginia were afraid to call the police in the pimp’s presence, why didn’t they call 911 immediately as soon as he left the building? He admitted to being a heinous criminal. The police would have had a good chance of catching up to him. 

    Also, why, after being told he had child prostitutes he was pimping for, why did the Virginia worker say”We don’t look at the legal status” Isn’t this a wink and a nod? There were 3 videos from Virginia locations that show similar things.

  • squirrely-girl

    … that an American contracting company ACTUALLY locked a brutalized rape victim in a cargo storage container for several days and then didn’t want to be held accountable for a REAL crime… or are just outraged at FAKE pimps and NONEXISTENT teen prostitutes because you don’t like abortion?

  • squirrely-girl

    Were you also outraged, like myself, about reports of a school not reporting an ACTUAL rape on school grounds until “they investigated” the voracity of the claims? Or are you only outraged at the PP scenario because you oppose abortion?


    Totally just realized that scenario has occurred more than once…