Perhaps Warren’s readers would instead appeciate reading what Planned Parenthood actually say and do, rather than what the American Family Association claim that they do. This is PP’s standard HIPAA statement — you’ll find it throughout the organisation. Note that they specifically state they will conform to mandated reporting laws.

Beyond that — perhaps the readers would also like to know where all this rubbish started. It was an anti-abortion group set-up, and if you read carefully you’ll also note that when PP was investigated they were exonerated.

Seperate to the mandated reporting laws, PP has several on-going legal disputes about the release of client files.

Technically at the time, oral and anal sex were crimes for both gays and straights

False. Griswold overturned that assumption in 1965, followed by a succession of cases that gutted the laws against heterosexuals — married or unmarried.

Contrasting that, Bowers in 1986 ruled on a George sodomy statute that “technically” covered both gay and straight specifically found that these prior cases did not apply to gays. Heterosexuals excluded but homosexuals, they said, had no such privacy or liberty protections. That ruling was only overturned with Lawrence in 2003.

But as a heterosexual, we neither expect you to know or appreciate these facts because they’ve never had any impact on your life. Unless you are claiming that you and you’re wife consulted a law book and acted accordingly??? Actually, spare us an answer to that one 🙂

According to Jennings he was out to his administration, etc.

False. You quoted it: “fired from my first job for being gay … I was a closeted gay teacher…” Or, do you now prefer the version in the book?

Recognize both Jennings and Brewster, and you will begin to recognize the perversity of the criminal laws that Massachusetts applied in 1988.

But here is the thing: the kid is not prosecuted.

False. The law made no such provision.

In widespread practice, police use this to extract confessions and false allegations from one party (typically the younger) in order to secure a prosecution. Having turned Crown evidence (or whatever) they would then be released. This is a sordid part of the history of these laws that you may perhaps not wish to acknowledge, but there is a reason they were called “The Blackmailer’s Charter”.

Even if you have not met people who have been through this — and we have — there is more than enough literature covering the subject. Quite apart from the criminal charges bought against someone, those who turned false accuser were themselves often horribly traumatized by the occasions and carry a deep sense of guilt throughout their lives.

Warren, you are professionally trained to examine and consider the personal dynamics around such an events. Do so — from Brewster’s perspective, not your own.

Where a kid is out of control, advise and not report is not a service to a 15-16 year old. There is still time to intervene helpfully.

As a blanket statement, false, particularly for adolescents. You should know better. The fact that the law now says you must report is not evidence that such an approach is the best — it is simply the law. If the law is an ass, I hope others are attempting to modify them. As we said, the current regime in Massachusetts looks a good workable one — but we’re not discussing 2005 and we’re not discussing the current environment where the criminal law recognizes a crime against an innocent party rather than a “moral outrage”.

(And note: if you next intend to accuse us of being “flexible” or against mandatory reporting — Victorian law has very strong mandated reporting and we have yet to find a single occasion where we’ve even considered doing otherwise. Our regime works very well with today’s laws, and provides essential protections for young or vulnerable people. We have had no qualms about disciplining or on occasion dismissing staff for not following these reporting procedures and have a reputation for being very inflexible on the matter. Frankly, we don’t like the way some of your conversation is being reflected at us.)

You have implied otherwise, but there is utterly no evidence that Brewster’s sexuality per se was problematic to him and, to the contrary, it is clear that the young man did indeed stabilize and mature (like anyone his age). Jennings was able to follow Brewster’s progress over the next few years until his successful graduation let’s not forget. On the face of it, the advice and not reporting appears to have worked quite well enough.

You are laboring to show it but have not presented any evidence that the young man was abused in 1988, or that Jennings showed poor judgement in not reporting the conversation in 1988. Determining that he was so obliged by reference to current law and current environment is simplistic.

But please do detail: what would you have done as a “helpful intervention” in 1988? Specifically how would this have been better for Brewster? Please don’t hide behind the current law.

And finally, perhaps you might like to discuss why your allegations about Jennings have not changed throughout what appears an ongoing campaign against GLSEN. You are presenting this as the smoking gun, but you certainly didn’t need these latest “revelations” several months ago. At that time you specifically attacked him by using the same misquote that you now describe as a “defensible”.

Only your “evidence” has changed and, as someone who has frequently needs to investigate such allegations — and not merely report on them — that sort of behavior is an invitation to treat the allegation warily.

PS Have you asked Jennings for a comment yet?

PPS Please accept usual comment about hating narrow column blogs

Yes these things are reported quite frequently. You may assume they are not being reported simply because you do not hear about them. And the reason you do not hear about them is because NO ONE (besides Planned Parenthood) is saying that they should NOT be reported! Quite unlike what some of you are doing here… It’s appalling actually…