A stunning videotape appears to show a staffer at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles advising a woman whom she thought to be a 15-year-old girl to conceal a statutory rape.

The episode has been reported on outlets such as CNSNews.com, LifeNews.com, and WorldNetDaily. And although the story has taken place in Los Angeles and adjacent Santa Monica, one place you won't read about the details is in the Los Angeles Times. They have not published a single syllable on the story.

The hero of the story is Lila Rose, an 18-year-old student at UCLA and founder of a pro-life magazine called The Advocate. From a press release (May 15, 2007):

[Lila] ... posed as a 15-year-old pregnant girl at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Santa Monica. Rose was accompanied by James O’Keefe, who acted as her 23-year-old boyfriend. In a recorded conversation, the employee encouraged Rose to invent a birthday to allow Planned Parenthood to avoid reporting a case of statutory rape.

"If you’re 15, we have to report it. If you’re not, if you’re older than that, then we don’t need to," the employee said. "Okay, but if I just say I’m not 15, then it’s different?" Rose asked. The employee responded, "You could say 16…well, just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything."

"Planned Parenthood has been concealing statutory rape and child abuse cases for years," Rose said. "This video reveals what really goes on behind closed doors in Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics."

In its original reporting, The Advocate published portions of California penal codes 11165.1 and 11165.7, which discuss sexual abuse and mandatory reporting. Videos of the encounter are available at CNSNews.com. (They are no longer viewable on YouTube.)

There is also the news that Planned Parenthood has threatened to sue Ms. Rose. (Ms. Rose has provided a scan of a letter she received.)

Prediction: The Times will continue to ignore this big local (and national) story ... or ... (Less likely:) They will report the story but focus its attention on Rose's videotaping rather than the egregious actions of Planned Parenthood. Your guess? (You can factor in the Times' history of covering (or not covering) the abortion issue and Planned Parenthood. (See this, this, this, this, and this for just a few examples.))