Second, I was not aware there was a true exact definition of what a woman's health center is and what services one must provide to be accurately dubbed a "woman's health center." If there is, then I doubt the abortionists who advertise themselves as "health centers" would fit this exact definition either.

Some CPCs might advertise themselves as health centers - but Lauren doesn't note that the one which supposedly lied to her did.

I live in NY State and so I'm only familiar (at this time) with the laws regarding CPC's in this state.  I know that in 2002, the Attorney General issued subpoenas to nine CPC's because their advertising and business practices could lead women to believe that the centers provide medical services – including professional pregnancy testing – or that they provide abortions or referrals for abortion when in fact their goal is to persuade women not to consider abortion.  He eventually reached an agreement, the CPC will address the Attorney Generals concerns by:

• cleary informing persons who inquire about abortion or birth control that they do not provide those services or make referrals
• disclosing verbally and in writing - before providing a pregnancy test or counseling about pregnancy - that they center is not a licensed medical provider qualified to diagnose or accurately date pregnancy, and informing women that only licensed medical providers can confirm pregnancy or provide medical advice about pregnancy.
• Clarifying in advertising and consumer contacts that the pregnancy tests it provides are self admininstered (ie over-the-counter) and
• telling persons who call or visit the center that it is not a medical facility.

Please visit: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2002/feb/feb28c_02.html

for further information.  This was very intersting:

"Unlike Planned Parenthood facilities and other medical providers, which are monitored closely by the State Health Department, CPC's are not regulated by the state."

Some CPCs might advertise themselves as health centers - but Lauren doesn't note that the one which supposedly lied to her did.

Second, I was not aware there was a true exact definition of what a woman's health center is and what services one must provide to be accurately dubbed a "woman's health center." If there is, then I doubt the abortionists who advertise themselves as "health centers" would fit this exact definition either.

Third, CPCs typically offer more than just ultrasound, pregnancy tests and parenting magazines.

speaks out against the ACLU every chance she gets. In the oped about deceptive advertising practices she has this to say about the ACLU:

Once the nation's leading civil liberties group and a reliable defender of everyone's speech rights, the ACLU is being transformed into just another liberal human-rights group that reliably defends the rights of liberal speakers.

But she does have this to say about CPCs:

...some crisis pregnancy centers that offer abortion counseling can fairly be accused of engaging in a bait and switch (trying to lure women seeking abortions into counseling sessions with antiabortion advocates...

The point is not to debate whether crisis pregnancy centers should remain open or not. It is, of course, their right to open their doors as outreach arms of religious organizations and to promote and espouse their own perspectives.

However, what is not okay is to shroud your services under deceptive advertising practices like listing yourselves under "abortion services" or to engage in deceitful tactics by opening up centers right next to clinics in order to dupe women.

It is not remotely okay to compare one of these centers to a medical/health clinic like Planned Parenthood or any other independent health center. They are NOT health centers in any way. They do not provide women with medical services and, in fact, endanger women's health in the way they currently operate by pretending to be something they are not.

If CPCs want to help women, they should be 100% upfront about what they are trying to do, advertise in a way that does not "trick" women into believing they are anything but antiabortion, conservative Christian centers that do not provide even the most basic of health services.

You don't provide a single source or link for your assertions that (1) prior NY AGs entered into consent decrees with CPCs (how many CPCs and what were their names?),

You're lazy.  Originally I got it from the Attorney General of NY site that I linked in my original post which clearly referenced the consent decree's of the previous Attorneys General "The agreement is modeled closely on consent decrees obtained by two previous attorneys general in 1987 and 1995".  This interested me, so I decided to look into the who and the what.  I came across this information: http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/801 which went into greater detail.  I searched the "for more information" sites and several other sites, including wa-a-a-ay anti-abortion sites which all supported (or at least repeated) this information. The articles all stated that: Agreements with crisis-pregnancy centers in New York to stop deceptive advertising and practices were negotiated by two other attorneys general: Democrat Robert Abrams in 1987 and Republican Dennis Vacco in 1995.  Regarding the CPC's and their names... after you've read the information you will find in both instances the CPC's were listed under several different names in several differen places. 

Why does it appear as if you are not interested in discovering the truth about these CPC's?  Doesn't it worry you that these CPC's were  misleading women with false advertising and that there have been complaints that some might be doing this now?  Would you go to a non-medical clinic for diagnosis?  Would you take your children to a non-medical clinic for medical treatment?  I know I wouldn't.

Oh, and let's stop pretending that CPCs "endanger women's health." Plenty of women leave abortion clinics dead, but I've never seen anyone name a single victim of a CPC -- NEVER.

The numbers from the CDC list fewer deaths from complications with legal abortion than from complications with childbirth.  I think it's pretty clear from your posts that you don't really care about womens health, you are against abortion.  Abortion is your focus, not women.

If your argument is that the the women are harmed by the lack of medical care, you should back that assertion up with the name of at least ONE victim

You're talking about two issue's here: a)CPC's harming women and b)claiming to be medical clinics when, in fact, they are not.  By the way, you don't get to decide if or to what extent these women are harmed by these deceptive CPC's.  There have been many accounts by women who have felt decieved/emotionally harmed by CPCs, although, most victims don't want their names used.  I was able to find info about one woman, Sean Sweet, who was decieved by a CPC.  Please do feel free to check out the following legal cases also:

Boes v. Deschu: A patient sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on an encounter at a crisis pregnancy center in which the Court stated: "CPC's employee, thus acted with knowledge of plaintiffs extreme vulnerability to emotional distress regarding her abortion.  The showing of the film, it can be easily inferred, was calculated to dissuade the plaintiff from obtaining an abortion.  But, the employee's had been told that she was not interested in having an abortion.  Their conduct, it can be inferred, was calculated to exploit plaintiff's vulnerability and to reawaken her guilt in an inexplicable attempt to "strengthen" her stated resolve not to have an abortion"

Roe v. San Diego Pregnancy Services: "A crisis pregnancy center  was banned from advertising "pregnancy testing" and "pregnancy test," and prohibited from advertising that such tests were free if the kits were conditional upon anything--including receiving counseling or listening to a presentation. The center was also prohibited from performing pregnancy tests until it became licensed to do so."

Stoner v. Williams: A center client successfully sued a pregnancy center for fraud after she said she was coerced into signing adoption papers. While she was in labor, she was presented with papers and told they were hospital forms. She signed them not realizing she was giving her baby to a Tennessee couple to adopt. When she tried to get her baby back, a Tennessee court told her that her parental rights had been terminated on grounds of abandonment.

Again, your issue is with Planned Parenthood and abortion... you don't even care to pretend that you actually care about women.

As opposed to paying Planned Parenthood for abortions in service of the agenda of its liberal, staff clergy and other religious affiliates (see here, here, here and here).

There was nothing on those pages with the exception of this: http://www.cnsnews.com/ - what were you attempting to prove?

Let's not pretend that Planned Parenthood somehow less religiously motivated than the CPCs

What I was “attempting to prove” (in response to Annie Newman's crack about the agenda of the CPC's “conservative, religious umbrella organizations”) and what the articles clearly demonstrate is that Planned Parenthood uses religion as much in its campaign for abortion as any CPC does.

The only thing those article demonstrated is that there are members of religious organizations who support a womans reproductive rights. 

 It receives hundreds of millions in governmental aid and spends money on pro-choice clergy to spread its message. (Apparently, Planned Parenthood believes that the fetus receives a soul somewhere between six months and birth, rather than at conception, and prefers to force that view of things into law).

 Planned Parenthood has cited hyperemesis in various court cases (including several Supreme Court cases) as a reason for justifying abortion, but they don't give information regarding its treatment, or of any pregnancy-related disease.

 Planned Parenthood sites hyperemesis in various court cases when they're referencing the law.  What would treatment have to do with the law? 

By the way, this:

The "medical" practice of their "ob/gyns" is very limited -- the only time their doctors go anywhere near a fetus is to kill it, and they do it hundreds of thousand of times a year. That's "choice"? That's "alternatives"?

My point is that PPs interest in pregancy-related diseases extends little further than using them to make legal arguments about why the diseases justify abortion, rather than helping the women who have the diseases covercome them and have children.

Too bad that point wasn't actually made in your posts, huh?  Visit PP  and search "pregnancy related disease" and quickly scan the 502 results.  Most helpful was the information regarding pre-pregnacy planning... I guess your opinion that PP cares only about preventing pregnancy is drawn entirely from your complete opposition to abortion (Surprise!)

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/std-hiv/Pre-Pregnancy-Planning.htm

 most Planned Parenthood ob/gyns spend the majority of their time performing delicate, corrective fetal surgery and delivery healthy, happy babies.

Also, now that you've informed me that abortion is just "preventing pregnancy," I'm not completely opposed anymore. It's just like abstinence, I guess (and even starts with the same two letters!).

Honestly, if you can't even remember what it is that you've written, how on earth is anyone to take your proclamations seriously?  Clearly, when I made the statement that "I guess your opinion that PP cares only about preventing pregnancy is drawn entirely from your complete opposition to abortion" I was referencing your very words:

Raving Atheist: A far better case could be made to enjoin the nation's largest abortion provider from using the word “Parenthood” in its name when its primary purpose is to prevent parenthood.

And, as you've demonstrated throughout most of your ranting posts, you  have no proof of your assertations.  Therefore, I (rightly so) offered the only reasonable explanation for this false accusation (and your many other emotionaly charged but never substantiated claims).  You just don't like abortion (and you do not understand even the most basic points of debate).   

Now, regarding the services that PP offers to pregnant women (in some, but not all of their clinics): "We provide high quality prenatal medical care as well as nutrition, health education, and psychosocial services to improve your pregnancy and birth outcome. We address the full needs of our clients in a culturally competent manner, respecting our clients' values, beliefs, and traditions"

It's too bad you can't rationally explain your points of view, it would be nice to actually have an educated exchange with someone opposed to Reproductive care - but then, I suppose when you're arguing a point of view that wishes to take rights away from half of the population, it can be quite a stretch to come off as logical.

They also demonstrate that Planned Parenthood created something called "The Planned Parenthood Pro-Choice Religious Network, that it puts clergy on its payroll and participates in prayer breakfasts. Why else would PP go to all that trouble, unless it sincerely believes that there is a religious basis to support abortion rights, and that God supports abortion in some or all cases? It's inexplicable, unless you believe that PP is just some giant atheist conspiracy, merely using religion to suck the gullible into supporting its pro-choice agenda.

It's only inexplicable if you cannot grasp the fact that there are religious folk who support a womans reproductive rights.  Your opinion does not a fact make.

The are reasons to oppose abortion that don't require a belief in the soul or spirit

I never said that there weren't.  I was responding to this quote by you:

Raving Athiest: (Apparently, Planned Parenthood believes that the fetus receives a soul somewhere between six months and birth, rather than at conception, and prefers to force that view of things into law).

Which we know is a false statement... the fact that you take no issue with those wishing to legislate "fetal personhood" at conception is very telling. 

And if you're going to make a statement like this:

If that is the case, then it's fair to say that Planned Parenthood believes that ensoulment occurs sometime at or after six months

You may want to support your claim.  It is not "fair" to say anything for Planned Parenthood when they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

My understanding is that the organization supports the holding of Roe v Wade, which prohibits abortion and imposes forced childbirth after the beginning of the third trimester, absent a valid health reason. So Planned Parenthood does support the legislation of personhood

Your supposition is completely absurd.  My suggestion would be to actually read the ruling as there is no legal standing regarding "personhood"... try again, dear.

I assume PP would oppose the old Incan practice of throwing infants into volcanos, declaring as false whatever Incan belief about gods or souls might support it.

We'll just call that "crazy emotive babbling".

But again, PP does draw some sort of line equivalent to personhood,

prevent pregnancy and it is equally as commendable that they assist those women who wish to prevent birth.

I never said anything about people becoming parents without pregnancy. I pointed out that preventing parenthood and preventing pregnancy aren't identical. An abortion prevents parenthood without preventing pregnancy (although it terminates a pregnancy that wasn't prevented).

I'm a bit confused and perhaps this is just an honest mistake on my part so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong... but do you not believe that a "person" or a "child" is present at conception?  If you do, then preventing pregnancy would be the same as preventing parenthood as one becomes a parent when one has a "child" or a "person" to parent.  This is why I didn't understand the difference between preventing (an unwanted) pregnancy and preventing (unwanted) parenthood.  I appologize in advance if I was incorrect.

Viability is pretty much identical to personhood if its the criteria you're using to give a fetus a "right" to live against the wishes of the mother.

That could be a problem for most people because viability is, in fact, not the same thing as personhood.  Viablity is a medical issue and personhood appears to be more of a philosophical issue.  A viable fetus has the potential to remain alive if it is removed from the uterus, of course, the viable fetus may suffer serious harm if removed from the uterus too soon so this is not advised.  Personhood is something that appears to easily make sense in ones mind but to articulate that idea is not so simple.  My understanding regarding personhood is that a person is a sentient individual.  You and I, we're persons.  A viable fetus is just that: a viable fetus. 

 I'm not sure what yours is, but if you believe there's some point at which something that was originially conceived by two human beings is entitled to live against the wishes of its mother, that point effectively constitutes personhood

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know when a spirit enters a body.  I believe that a human being is entitled to decide if and when they wish to gestate and/or give birth.  I believe that a third party who has no stake in the outcome should not be able to decide if or when a human being should reproduce (become a "parent").

In any event, whatever you call that point, Planned Parenthood DOES want it enforced by law.

What are you even talking about?  It already is enforced by law.  Abortion is legal until viability for any reason - legal post viability for maternal health/life.  I'm just having trouble following your point as it appears be ever-changing.  First, PP wants to change the law, then they wish to enforce the law.  Which do you mean because those are two different issues.

...any more than you'd accept their prior ruling that slaves weren't "persons."

What the heck?  I suppose you could equate compulsory maternity as enslaving women but that is not even close to what we were discussing.

My consistent point (which you seem to be deliberately missing) is that it's as fair to attribute a religious motivation to Planned Parenthood's position as it is to attribute it to a CPC.

No, it's not.  The fact that you even pretend there is a comparison is laughable to anyone who wishes to research the two.

And even if your definition of "reproductive rights" is limited to the abortion right, Planned Parenthood can be said to oppose reproductive rights to the extent it supports any restrictions on abortion at any pont of fetal development.

No, PP supports the law as it stands: A womans right to abortion until viability for whatever reason she wants and abortion post-viability when there is a threat to her life or health.

As to "religious folks who support reproductive rights", obviously religious pro-lifers fall within that definition.

My point was simply that I don't object in most cases to preventing parenthood (as defined above) if it involves preventing, rather than aborting, a pregnancy.

Okay.  Now why should what you find objectionable affect millions of women?  Why should your opinion about abortion dictate whether or not I can terminate my pregnancy?  See, there is nothing that you can equate to a pregnant woman - the zygote/embryo/fetus/pregnant woman relationship is a unique one.  How you feel about my pregnancy does not affect me nor will your opinion have any bearing on whether or not I will remain pregnant.

People, including committed pro-choice people, frequently refer to the developing fetus as their “baby” or reply, when asked about its gender, that it's a “boy” or a “girl.” Technically you could accuse them of asserting that parenthood begins before birth, or that the fetus is a “child,” but I'm not interested in that sort of cheap “gotcha” shot.

I'm not sure why you would accuse someone using colloquial terms when speaking of their pregnancy to be asserting "personhood" on their pregnancy.

I (and most people in society) don't have a stake in whether you continue to be a parent or kill your born child, either, but the law certainly does decide that question.

Yes, you do... and you should.  Now you're comparing a born child to a zygote/embryo/fetus... most people (and the law) are capable of recognizing that a child is no longer residing inside of a womans uterus and once born, has full legal rights.  It appears as if you will not acknowledge the distinction... even though it's a pretty big one!

Fine . . . then they're pro-lifers to the extent they support forced childbirth after viability, even thought the fetus isn't a person

You could not be more wrong but again, you can continue to make this statement but it will continue to be untrue.  PP does not support forcing childbirth upon anyone.  If childbirth is considered a risk to a womans health, PP would support her decision to terminate.

It's not obvious to you that the right to reproduce (and against forced abortion) is a reproductive right that religious pro-lifers support?

 This is why the Roe decision was a problem for most people, and that was the flaw in it I was explaining. The court said that the Constitutional, human right against being killed applied only to “persons” within the meaning of the Constitution, but then nevertheless awarded that “right” to a viable fetus. That's why, regardless of the label it put on the late-term fetus, the court essentially gave it personhood status. Mere “things” don't have “rights,” much less rights against being killed.

The Court reviewed the language of the United States Constitution and concluded that the word “person” did not have any prenatal application

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. "

The above quotation from the court proves that you are incorrect and explains that the court most certainly did not give a viable fetus "personhood" status. 

I'm not sure how, though, you'd respond to a person who claimed that killing a born child was acceptable up to three months or later because the it wasn't really a "person" then. If you objected, that person could always say “unlike you, I don't pretend to know when the spirit enters a body.”

I am sure how I would respond:  Anyone born or naturalized in the US is entitled to their full rights under the law... murder is against the law.

If you're using “reproduce” (or becoming a “parent”) as equivalent to giving birth, then you're essentially claiming to know that birth is the point at which the being becomes a “person” or gets a “soul” or “spirit” or has “rights” (again, the terminology isn't all that

The law does treat viable fetuses differently than persons. Roe used viability as a line where states can regulate a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, however it still mandates exceptions for her health and life even where the fetus is viable. These exceptions are not available after birth when rights are granted by the Constitution - a woman cannot kill a child to save herself from natural death or natural bodily harm.

Certainly my opinion doesn't dictate anything, but the law does. And it does dictate that a women will remain pregnant post-viability absent a health reason, regardless of what she feels about it

This part: "regardless of what she feels about it", is not true... if continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to a womans health (including her mental health; i.e. how she "feels") than she has a right to terminate her pregnancy under the law.  How is a womans mental health not important, particularly when you expect her to birth and raise a child.

So your argument about how it's all a matter of the woman's opinion is pure nonsense

That is not my argument.

And again, why should your opinion of the value of a toddler affect whether the law should allow its parents to kill it?

Again, murder is against the law.  Whether you murder your toddler, your spouse, a stranger, whatever.... murder is illegal.  My opinion has nothing to do with it.

You're joking, right? I used the colloquial meaning of “parenthood,” and jumped on it to make your “oh, you don't believe the fetus is a child” argument.” It was a response to that.

Wha?  Because it kind of sounds like you're saying "na-na-na-na-nana!"

The argument was why it's any of YOUR concern whether other people kill THEIR children. Doesn't affect you, it's not your life, it's none of your business, right

Murder effects all of society... it effects our economic growth, it effects us personally (the fear of victimization), it is estimated to costs us billions of dollars (Ted R. Miller, Mark A. Cohen and Brian Wiersema, The Extent and Costs of Crime Victimization: A New Look, 1996, National Institute of Justice, January 1996.).  Yes, murder has an affect on society and murder is most certainly "your business".

So what if it's your OPINION that children are more valuable that fetuses?

You've admitted that the pro-choice people at PP do support forcing a post-viability woman to bear a child against her will, in the absence of a health exception.

No, I haven't... why would a woman not want to continue a pregnancy?  Because she does not wish to be a parent... the reasons are many but faced with the prospect of continuing an unwanted pregnancy and being forced to parent an unwanted child would cause severe damage to her mental health.  Why would PP support harming womens health?  They don't... they support abortion post-viability when there is a threat to a womans life or health.

It's beyond me why you continue to pursue this losing, and awfully silly, semantic argument. They gave the majority of viable fetuses a RIGHT against being killed, regardless of whether they applied the word “personhood” to the being that they were protecting under the law.

It's only silly because you keep insisting that the courts bestowed "personhood" upon a viable fetus.  They didn't.

No, we've established that under the laws of this country, a viable fetus (absent a health exception) also gets “rights,”so it's not that fact that “once born” is the time when the entitlement to rights first applies.

And it's rights are always secondary to those of the pregnant woman however, once born, a child has the same rights as any other person (including it's mother), right?  "Once born" is the time when full entitlements apply, under the law.  After all, there is no health exemption for murdering your child.

And yes, you WERE "essentially claiming that birth is the point at which the being becomes a person,” repeatedly insisting that people become “persons” at birth only because the Supreme Court said so.

Why would you even attempt to speak for me when I've posted the following regarding "personhood":

"Personhood is something that appears to easily make sense in ones mind but to articulate that idea is not so simple.  My understanding regarding personhood is that a person is a sentient individual."

That, combined with the fact that I've repeatedly said that the Supreme Court did not define "personhood" in any way, shape or form.  I never claimed to know when one "becomes a person".  But you do love to "speak" for others, dontchya?

Hey, I thought they could speak for themselves, why are you speaking for them?

I'm not... If you research "planned parenthood and late term abortion" you will find that they indeed do "support abortion post-viability"... as a matter of fact, they have consistantly fought any late term abortion ban that did not have an exemption for maternal "health" (even if there was an exception for maternal "life").  You can check out Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood where PPFS Deputy Director of Litigation said regarding the Partial Truth Abortion Ban "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women’s health and safety. Today the court took away an important option for doctors who seek to provide the best and safest care to their patients.  This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them."  So, does the fact that they fight those wishing to outlaw perfectly safe late-term abortion not prove that they support late-term abortion?  See, this is a losing battle for you because this issue is easily proved by a thorough search.  I don't pretend to speak for Planned Parenthood... it isn't necessary when I can just quote them.

But anyway, I'm glad you've clarified your (and PP's) position that there is absolutely no prohibition against abortion post-viability if the woman asks for it, for any reason.

Except that I clearly stated that both I (and, it would appear, PP) fully support the law as it stands.... post-viability abortion for maternal life/health.  I don't have a problem keeping up... it does appear as if you do.

 The functional equilavent of “personhood,” yes, because they gave it a “right.”

By the way, if you ever post a comment to this thread while in Alabama or Kansas (or in a plane flying over them), you'll have to refer to fetuses as “persons” because that's the law.

Unless you're a pregnant woman looking to terminate your pregnancy or a doctor who performs abortion... these "personhood" laws make those people exempt.  Read the laws... they may be more complete if you search them on less biased websites (The National Right To Life League doesn't have a firm grip on truth when it comes to abortion, they tend to leave out the information that they don't like).

Love it when you become so moralistic about “murdering children” a minute after birth, when a minute before the desire not to be a parent is a perfectly legitimate “health” exception in your eyes.

And I think its disgusting that you care so little about pregnant women while you wax poetic about a fetus.