For the last few days, we’ve been talking a lot about Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC).
If you are pro-life, these CPCs are establishments that seek to offer pregnant women (or non pregnant women, for that matter) information about their options. The staff people at these centers sit back and wait for the women to come in, they then sit them down in, in a non-judgmental environment, tell them all about adoption, childbirth and abortion. Yes, their bottom line is that they are against abortion but they really just want to make sure that woman is educated and knows what resources are available to her should she decide to give birth.
If you are pro-choice, these centers lure women into their facility under false pretenses, pretend that they are a medical office by offering ultrasounds and fill the women’s heads with lies about how the perils, both emotional and physical, of this very easy procedure.
Coincidentally, in the wake of our discussions, legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the Senate called “Stop Deceptive Advertising in Women’s Service’s Act.” In their press release, the authors of the bills brought attention to the bill’s clever acronym: SDAWS.
Just kinda rolls off the tip of your tongue, doesn’t it?
If the bill became law, the Federal Trade Commission would be required to issues rules declaring that it is an “unfair or deceptive act” for a CPC to advertise that they are “a provider of abortion services.” The pro-choice groups are understandably elated and energized. One leader applauded the initiative and said “we should all agree that a woman should not be misled or manipulated when she’s facing an unintended pregnancy.” The troops are gearing up to storm the Congress to get this important legislation passed.
My initial reaction is that this is an incredible waste of time.
Now, I admit that I have not done a full-fledged review of every CPC in the country, but I would bet that house that hardly any of them actually advertise that they “provide abortion services.” I mean, c’mon, even the sleaziest CPC staff person would never, with a straight face, say that. And if anyone can show me differently, I totally welcome the evidence and will offer a mea culpa.
Sure, many of them, if not most, say that they provide “abortion information,” but, technically, that is true. They do offer “information” on abortion, albeit in many cases it is the wrong information. But it is “information” nonetheless.
So, to me, the big question is: why are these pro-choice Members of Congress and the pro-choice groups spending time and resources on trying to pass a bill that – in the unlikely event that it becomes law – will have practically NO impact? And, for argument’s sake, let’s say the FTC does find a totally whacky CPC director who says in their Yellow Page ad that they provide abortion services. The FTC will theoretically bring some kind of action against them and chances are that that CPC will just agree to not say it in the future. And if they refuse to change their ways, maybe they’ll be shut down. Well, that leaves only THOUSANDS of more CPCs to go after! Way to go folks!
I certainly appreciate the energy of the authors of these bills and I am sure they will now get a nice donation from the pro-choice political action committees because they have shown they are pro-choice “leaders.” Meanwhile, they’ve issued their press releases and are getting some attention on pro-choice blogs, websites, etc.
But, in the long run, ain’t nothing gonna change.
And around and around we go….
Related articles
- It Sounds a Little Hypocritical to Me… (abortion.ws)
- These Pictures Speak a Thousand Words (abortion.ws)
- The Problem With The Abortion Debate (outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com)
- Pro-choice activists rally for abortion providers to keep counselling role (guardian.co.uk)
- Making Money From Abortion (abortion.ws)
August 8, 2011 at 5:22 pm
are ya paying attention Kate? Learning anything yet? you say you are all about “Women’s rights” well, listen up honey…these are FACTS written by one of your pro choice chums! read em and spread the news so ALL women might benefit from this knowledge.
Today I am hoping that anyone who receives information may embrace the truth.
These are just some of the facts I learned in research.
* Are you aware in 3 states Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana it’s a law to let woman know 24 hours before her abortion how it may increase the risk of breast cancer.
* Pro-choice Dr. Janet Daling did not allow her ideology get in the way of science. She said,”I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing around with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing. It’s a matter of what is.”
* Pro-choice Dr. Janet Daling continues:
* Most ominous of all were the results for women who had an abortion before age 18 and who also had a family history of breast cancer (mother,% sister, aunt, grandmother.) Twelve women in the Daling study fit that description. EVERY ONE of them developed breast cancer before age 45. Let me repeat that: every girl in this group developed breast cancer before age 45
* To this day the NCI rues the day they funded Dr. Daling and her group, as this study has always been absent from their webpage. Reason: They did NOT like the results.
* Are you aware the National Institute of Health based their outrages facts when they claim (Abortion Does Not Increase the risk of Breast Cancer) on Scientist Behaving Badly. (The Nature Internationally Weekly Journal of Science) included a survey to thousands of scientist, who are based in the United States and funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) admitting to changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source?
* In 2005 the National Institute of Health called for Ethics Summit: To address conflicts of interest. The Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni banned all of his agency’s from accepting consulting fees, stocks or any other compensation from biomedical industry.
In Mississippi because of this the abortion rate has fallen dramatically. In 1991 the number of abortions performed 8,814 and in 2002 the latest data available 3,605 a decline of nearly 60% If that trend read nationally more than 500,000 infants would be saved.
LikeLike
August 8, 2011 at 9:46 pm
i have read about dr daling before, and i know that she is pro-choice and her studies indicated a link to abortion and breast cancer, but the medical community turned their collective back on her.
so i believe there is a link, despite what current evidence states.
but i also don’t think that if this info was put out that it would have the impact that the PL community hopes it would.
a woman seeking an abortion isn’t looking ahead 20 years, she is looking at the next few.
that is why it is imperative to offer lasting solutions to her. fear isn’t the solution that help with medical needs, housing, food employment, child care, etc. is.
LikeLike
August 8, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Pat…sorry for taking up space on your blog, but I have been lurking here for quite awhile and Kate just about makes me sick to my stomach. Since she wants to defend Carhart and his murdering of viable children…well, Kate, here’s your sign! Read on and please LEARN the Truth!
I might add that early term abortions are also never necessary, unless, of course, the woman has a death wish, as an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.
—————————————————————————————————–
Late-Term Abortions are Never Necessary: Former Abortionist
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
WASHINGTON, DC, June 22, 2009 (LIfeSiteNews.com) – A former abortionist who is now the president elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists has written a persuasive discourse questioning whether late-term abortion is ever necessary.
Writing in the Family Research Council’s website Dr. Mary L. Davenport, M.D., FACOG, observed that following the murder of Kansas abortionist George Tiller on May 31, 2009, and the subsequent announcement of the closing of Tiller’s facility, public attention has again focused on the issue of late-term abortion.
The president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion advocacy legal organization, claimed that the closing of Tiller’s clinic left “an immediate and immense void in the availability of abortion.” But Dr. Davenport asks if late-term abortion is ever really necessary, questioning whether the demise of a facility where late-term abortions were performed leave a “void” that is harmful to women.
Referring to a statement by Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who admitted in 1997 that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies, Dr. Davenport explains that “contrary to the assertion of abortion rights supporters that late- term abortion is performed for serious reasons, surveys of late abortion patients confirm that the vast majority occur because of delay in diagnosis of pregnancy. They are done for similar reasons as early abortions: relationship problems, young or old maternal age, education or financial concerns.”
“Most of Tiller’s abortions conformed to the generally elective character of these late-term procedures,” writes Davenport. “Peggy Jarman of the Pro-Choice Action League stated that about three-fourths of Tiller’s late-term patients were teenagers who denied to themselves or their families that they were pregnant until that fact could no longer be obscured.”
Considering the claim that serious maternal health problems require abortions, Dr. Davenport states that “intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability, is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion.”
“The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy. With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby.”
Davenport points out that fetal problems “are the other serious rationale for considering abortion.” However, she says, despite advances in ultrasound diagnosis, these diagnoses are not always accurate, and cases have occurred where women have declined to abort their ostensibly sick child, only for the child to be born perfectly healthy.
Even in the most serious circumstances – fatal fetal abnormalities – writes Davenport, there is no good reason to abort the child. As an alternative to abortion for fatal birth defects, Dr. Davenport proposes a perinatal hospice, which involves continuing the pregnancy until labor begins and giving birth normally, in a setting of comfort and support until natural death of the child occurs.
Dr. Davenport cites the case of Karen Santorum, a nurse and the wife of former Senator Rick Santorum, who was faced with the prospect of her own son, Gabriel, being born with a fatal birth defect.
Mrs. Santorum describes how Gabriel lived only two hours, but how in those two hours “we experienced a lifetime of emotions. Love, sorrow, regret, joy – all were packed into that brief span. To have rejected that experience would have been to reject life itself.”
Dr. Davenport concludes that “although serious threats to health can occur, there is always a life- affirming way to care for mother and baby, no matter how bleak the prognosis. The elimination of late-term abortion would not create a void in medical care, but would instead result in a more humane world in which vulnerable humans would be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.”
LikeLike
August 8, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Whether the bible has mistakes or not isn’t the point. In reading just this ONE thread on this site, you all portray yourselves, even with virtual chanting of “TRUST WOMEN!! RESPECT WOMEN!!” as all about WOMEN and their right to make choices for their own lives, while calling any woman who CHOOSES to believe in God, the bible and the unborn human’s right to life a potential terrorist now? Seriously, and again with a straight face? Do you all also blast Jews for what they believe? Homosexuals? Vegans? What about a gay Jewish vegan woman who is pro-life? Would you calmly discuss her choice to be pro life, or would you just dig at her religion and sexual orientation? Or do you just reserve your hatred and gnashing of teeth for Christians alone? What about gay Christian vegans who are pro life? Do you only pick up your torches and pitchforks and go after the personal lives of straight Christians? Jews believe in God and many are pro-life, do you think they are potential terrorists?
LikeLike
August 8, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Come on Nunya. Do you really believe the crap you posted. I believe we should end it right. I believe we should elect a black lesbian pro-choice atheist congressman. Then after Obama finishes his next term, we all rally for this lady for president. Can’t we all just get along. Why can’t you live your life and I live my life? You think you know everything about everybody. You are a one fix shop. I bet you rule over your spouse with an iron fist. I bet you have both male and female reproductive organs. People like you are the ones that put the republicans in office to make slaves out of people like me. I am tired of you and your kind. Go away.
LikeLike
August 8, 2011 at 7:18 pm
You don’t know anything about me. I set out to point out that you are all hypocrites when you talk about a woman’s right to choose, and yet will blast her if she makes a choice different than your agenda. You and Todd have proven that here, as well as all the others on this thread that inspired my outrage in the first place. And I am talking about the people on this site specifically. I don’t know all pro choice people, so I can only speak to what I see and hear personally from your own writings. It’s all right here in this thread. Richard seems to be a voice of reason and rationality in this sea of hypocrisy. I have made it clear that I am pro life. Am I gay or straight? Jew or Atheist? My point is that I AM rational and logical, and I know a witch hunt when I encounter one, and I can smell hypocrisy a mile away. I have not even touched on the issue of the pro life movement, in fact made it clear that that isn’t why I was posting. Talk about deflecting! You guys invented it. Look how you labeled me just because I am pro life. What would you say if I admitted I was a gay pro life atheist? What would you attack then? I was making the point that you and your ilk are blinded by judgment, hypocrisy, and plain old kindergarten name calling and shouldn’t be on a site whose author plainly wants calm rational debate. So you go away.
LikeLike
August 8, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Nunya,
Are you saying you have issues with gay folks?
LikeLike
August 9, 2011 at 9:07 pm
No, tru, he’s saying something beyond you’re comprehension. But take it from me, my friend. I think we have found another powerful prolife voice.
LikeLike
August 8, 2011 at 7:50 pm
here is a way to cut some money from the budget! whatcha think Pat?
Planned Parenthood – which is legally classified as a non-profit organization – reported a profit of $85 million for 2007-2008. (notice how much tax payer money we provide them with!) I think they should pay every dime, they have stolen from the american taxpayer, back! Where is the outrage?
PPFA Income
Clinic
Income
Taxpayer Money
Private Donations
Profit
2007-2008
$1.038 billion
$374.7 million
$349.6 million
$186 million
$85 million
2006-2007
$1.0179 billion
$356.9 million
$336.7 million
$258.7 million
$114.8 million
2005-2006
$902.8 million
$345.1 million
$305.3 million
$212.2 million
$55.8 million
2004-2005
$882 million
$346 million
$272.7 million
$215.8 million
$63 million
2003-2004
$810 million
$306.2 million
$265.2 million
$191 million
$35.2 million
2002-2003
$766.6 million
$288.2 million
$254.4 million
$228.1 million
$36.6 million
2001-2002
$692.5 million
$254.8 million
$240.9 million
$190.9 million
$12.2 million
2000-2001
$672.6 million
$241.0 million
$202.7 million
$189.5 million
$38.9 million
Click Here for the full PPFA Annual Report 2006-2007 (pdf format)
LikeLike
August 8, 2011 at 9:37 pm
*gasp!*
she’s wearing pants in those photos! i didn’t know she was a crossdresser.
LikeLike