eNews Updates
License to Lie
Eleanor Bader, RH Reality Check on April 15, 2008 - 9:48am
Published under: Contraception | Access to Abortion | Women’s Rightsadoption | anti-choice activists | CPCs | crisis pregnancy centers | Choose Life license plates
 According to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the first vanity plate was produced in 1931 at the request of a Pennsylvania motorist who wanted his initials on the tag. In the 77 years since, specialized plates have become big business, with local governments and advocacy groups selling them to benefit causes from state parks, space exploration, and violence prevention to public education and endangered wildlife. By the mid-1990's anti-abortion activists wanted in on the trend. Randy Harris, a virulently anti-choice county commissioner from Ocala, Florida, is considered the mastermind of the idea to have state DMVs collect funds to promote adoption over abortion. His plan was simple -- have the state agency sell "Choose Life" tags for $22 above the regular cost of a license plate. The extra money would then go to non-profit adoption agencies, so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and maternity homes with the sole purpose of encouraging the unhappily pregnant to put their progeny up for adoption. Harris galvanized supporters by arguing that since only one percent of women deemed "abortion vulnerable" by CPCs gave their babies to adoptive families, more needed to be done to promote this option. And doing more, he reasoned, required money for the medical care, shelter, food and living expenses of those giving birth. How simple it would be, he cajoled, if people bought vanity tags to promote the cause. Harris' three-year campaign was victorious and Florida's then-governor, Jeb Bush, authorized the plates in 1999. By 2000 bright yellow tags with a childlike drawing of a boy and girl -- the female is distinguished by longer hair and a red bow atop her head -- and a Choose Life message were selling like hotcakes. By the end of 2007, the state had raised $5.5 million and the idea of selling anti-abortion tags had spread to 17 states; in less than eight years, more than $8.4 million was collected for anti-abortion adoption centers and explicitly Christian CPCs across the country. No comparable pro-choice plates exist -- which clearly pleases anti-abortionists. At the same time, Florida anti-choicers acknowledge that the tags have not been as effective in promoting adoption as Harris originally expected. While figures for the number of babies placed for adoption pre-and-post tags are unavailable, Russ Amerling, Publicity Coordinator of Choose Life, Inc., a national network established to promote the plates and help anti-abortion activists bring them to their states, admits that the program has hit numerous bureaucratic roadblocks. "The problem," Amerling begins, "is not the exclusive focus on adoption; it's the distribution of funds." Indeed, money collected by the DMV has been accumulating far faster than it is being spent. "In Marion County, we get $30,000 a year which is distributed to qualified agencies that promote, support or enhance adoption services," Amerling continues. "There is no paperwork, no contract signing. The county auditor goes in every year and confirms that the money is being used in accordance with the statute. That's it. In other counties it's not like that. Many county commissioners don't distribute the money because there is so much red tape that agencies don't even apply for it. It's too burdensome. The funds are not being spent because barriers are being erected that keep it from being spent." This means that the money raised by Florida's sale of Choose Life license plates isn't doing what its promoters say it is -- helping women place their babies with adoptive families. Instead, the funds -- approximately $200,000 according to news-press.com -- languish in state bank accounts. Sydna Masse, a former Focus on the Family staffer and founder of the anti-abortion counseling group, Ramah International, says that this outcome was predictable. Unlike Amerling, who champions Florida's adoption-only bent, Masse believes that "the state made eligibility for funding too restrictive. It's not for any woman choosing life. It's only for women choosing adoption." Since most women coming into a CPC want to keep their babies or have an abortion -- not give them away -- she believes that agencies that might be eligible for funding see no point in applying since they know they'll rarely be able to use it. She is also perplexed by Choose Life Inc.'s refusal to push for a loosening of the rules. At the same time, she is heartened that anti-abortionists in other states have learned from Florida's errors. Masse hails Mississippi as the country's most successful license tag program. Terri Herring of the Pro-Life America Network (PLAN) for Mississippi says that her group used Florida as a model but wanted to fund more than just adoption. While the 33 agencies currently funded by tag revenue -- over $1 million has been raised since 2002 -- encourage women to relinquish their babies, they also fund services for those who want to keep their offspring. Janet Thomas of Choose Life, Mississippi oversees the quarterly distribution of funds to qualifying groups and says that in the fourth quarter of 2007 grants ranged from a low of $320 to $4,575. This money was used to promote adoption, says Thomas, "as well as for women who needed pampers and baby clothes. It was also used for pregnancy tests, sonograms, or whatever else a pregnancy center wanted to use it for including outreach on abstinence or that type of thing." Thanks to a sophisticated "License to Live" ad campaign on television and in statewide print media, Mississippi tag sales remain brisk. For their part, pro-choice legal challenges to the Choose Life tags -- including a 2005 Supreme Court petition that the Court rejected -- have been largely unsuccessful. Although a 2004 Circuit Court decision found that having a Choose Life tag violated the First Amendment unless pro-choice tags were available, other Circuit Courts have sided with the antis. An Oklahoma case, brought by the Oklahoma Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Education Fund (ORC), will be argued and decided in late 2008. Arguments that money is going to overtly religious groups with an overtly religious agenda have similarly fallen flat. Janet Crepps, Deputy Director of Domestic Legal Programs at the Center for Reproductive Rights, is representing ORC and argues that the tags are objectionable on multiple levels. First, she says, is the issue of the state favoring one political viewpoint over another. "If they're going to give anyone access to the license plate forum, they should give access to all viewpoints." Then there's the question of funding, and where the money collected by the state actually goes. "Crisis Pregnancy Centers have a history of providing women with biased information, and in some instances, misleading women about their pregnancy choices," Crepps continues. "No public funds should go to CPCs for any reason. It's a misuse of public money to fund organizations that are both religious and political. It's particularly outrageous that states give money to CPCs when these same states often refuse to provide comprehensive sex education or to provide adequate funding for family planning services." These criticisms don't faze Russ Amerling or his Choose Life, Inc. colleagues. "We've learned from Florida and have now drafted a model bill," he says. "The ideal is to send money collected by the sale of tags directly to a non-profit Choose Life group, sidestepping county government altogether. That agency can then distribute funds to help abortion-vulnerable women choose adoption." Numerous states have rejected the Choose Life tags and even in states where they've been approved, sales are often slow. Connecticut, for example, has sold only 550; Hawaii just 672; and Indiana 804. But the issue isn't going away any time soon: bills to authorize their sale are pending in six state legislatures and the issue is being litigated in five others.
66 comments
On any legislative efforts to give drivers the option to buy a pro-choice, or pro-family planning tag? I've heard stories that efforts to offer pro-choice tags were shot down by anti-abortion legislators.(I wonder what they were afraid of) Are there are some actual cases to mention? Thank you. Not that I know of. The anti-abortion side has CPC's ready and able to take money and run programs. The pro-choice side does not have anything comparable. And that is the trend I see over and over again. The pro-life/anti-abortion/and anti-choice groups are organized,well-funded,and at the ready to intrude into the personal lives of women and take our rights.They have the legislative momentum with ranks of politicans leaping into action to do their bidding and pass ever more restrictive laws. Florida came up with an abortion advocacy plate. It shows the Mommy star, with little aborted baby stars flying up to Heaven, and the lucky little chosen star being either permitted to gestate unmolested or held in the mommy star's arms, it's hard to tell. Very interesting artwork,I thought: http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2007/02/florida-choice-plates-unveiled.html Psst! We all know how to read URLs! Okay, so some organizations which help pregnant women to be able to afford to give birth are using customized license plate fees to raise money. In some states, people are choosing (of their own free will) to buy these plates, with the understanding of what kinds of organizations are being supported. It appears that Planned Parenthood's approach is to silence the drivers who wish to express this point of view and the organizations helped by this? Why don't they just lobby for and sell "support PP" or "Pro-choice" plates instead. Do they just have too many lawyers sitting around with nothing to do? Do they need somewhere to spend their $112 million in profits? I have not heard of PETA and Ducks Unlimited going after each other in this way, even though their viewpoints are diametrically opposed. The $5.5 million figure you mentioned as having been raised by sales of the license plates seems laughable next to the costs of litigating against people's right to display "Choose Life" tags. Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend some of the $336 million in public funds PP has received toward authorizing "pro-choice" plates?
and
< br/> If you look at their financial statement for 2006-2007 you can find "excess of revenue over expenses" and the amount $114.8 million. In the business world, that's called profit. Where did this money go? Well, net assets at the beginning of the year were $839.8 million and at the end of the year were $951.8 million. That's $112 million that didn't go to any health needs, reproductive or otherwise.
Getting back to my original point: litigating over "Choose Life" license plates seems like a huge waste of money. Are non-profit adoption agencies, CPC's, and maternity homes cutting into PP's profits that much?
No, they're not. CPCs are known for spreading bad medical science and lies. Very few people have an "nderstanding" of what these places do. And the benign suggestion that they simply "help pregnant women be able to afford to give birth" is a knowing misstatement of the facts. They cajole, lie, and bully women out of having abortions. It appears that Planned Parenthood's approach is to silence the drivers who wish to express this point of view and the organizations helped by this? They aren't trying to "silence" anybody. If the state would allow "freedom of choice" license plates, Planned Parenthood would leave the issue alone. Who's being silenced here? Why don't they just lobby for and sell "support PP" or "Pro-choice" plates instead. Do they just have too many lawyers sitting around with nothing to do? ... Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend some of the $336 million in public funds PP has received toward authorizing "pro-choice" plates? If you spent more time reading the article and less time smarting off, you'd know that they already are. However, the efforts keep failing, much like your ability to comprehend what you're reading. If you read the article, she mentions that the funds: would then go to non-profit adoption agencies, so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and maternity homes ... You said: CPCs are known for spreading bad medical science and lies. Could you deign to bestow upon us some documentation for this blanket statement--with specifics as to what "bad medical science and lies" and with statistics as to how CPC's are bad and how many are, in fact, good? You said: If the state would allow "freedom of choice" license plates, Planned Parenthood would leave the issue alone. I am grateful for your omniscience and since it seems that
Well... you can start here: http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1080 where Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member of the Committee on Oversite and Government Reform , released the investigative report, False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers. The report outlines how 20 CPCs in 15 states that received federal tax dollars misled or provided false information to investigators who called asking about their services. According to the report, CPCs have received more than $30 million in federal funding since 2001, while additional "capacity-building" grants have been distributed to 25 centers. Investigators found that 87 percent of these centers give women misleading information, including spreading the myths that choosing abortion increases the risk of breast cancer & sterility and that they provided false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion – all of which have been debunked by expert scientists, doctors, and breast cancer awareness advocates. First, consider the source, Rep. Waxman. Is he a doctor? No. Is he a public health researcher? No. He's a politician. On which side is his bread buttered? Well NARAL says that he votes their wishes 100% of the time. If he had investigated abortion clinics and found anything amiss, would we have heard anything?
But Waxman says that he can judge what information women should be allowed to receive, and Waxman is an honorable man.
Second, look at the methodology used: phone calls on a pretext of being a pregnant 17-year-old wanting information. When confronted with this investigative approach, Planned Parenthood called the investigator "a known anti-choice extremist" and decried this approach as "unacceptable" and "deceptive tactics to smear Planned Parenthood", and "the product of the most cynical form of politicking".
But Waxman says that the methodology is okay, and Waxman is an honorable man.
Third, there were three key deceptions claimed in Waxman's investigation of which the first was that CPC counselors told the caller that there were studies linking abortion to breast cancer. Unfortunately this happens to be true: there have been studies linking abortion to breast cancer.
So, I guess that the CPC statements that "studies have found a link between abortion and breast cancer" are true.
But Waxman says that they are lying when they say that, and Waxman is an honorable man.
Fourth, another key "deception" reported in the investigation is that CPC's said that abortions could pose a risk for future fertility, and increase the risks of miscarriage. Some of the ways this can happen are:
Even the Guttmacher institute has published an article in the International Family Planning Digest concluding that
So I guess that wasn't a lie, and there is at least a risk that abortions can impair future fertility and increase the chance of miscarriage.
But Waxman says that there is no risk, and Waxman is an honorable man.
Finally, the last area that the investigation objected to was CPC's claim that there could be emotional harm from abortion. Interestingly, even the Waxman report soft-pedaled on this (and placed it last), stating "there is considerable scientific consensus that having an abortion rarely causes significant psychological harm" and
That's quite a long way from calling it a myth.
Well, maybe there could be an impact of abortion on mental health.
But Waxman says there is no effect, and Waxman is an honorable man.
I blog not to disprove what Waxman spoke, but to blog what I do know. It appears that along with pregnancy tests and sonograms, most CPC's dispense REALITY, something that Michelle, Brenda, and Magdalena could have used. pro-life groups use this tactic on PP and abortion clinic staff?
Oh my... I have to laugh at this very ironic statement. Those who wish to criminalize certain abortion procedures (even if these procedures are the safest for the pregnant woman, ie IDX) were not doctors... were not public health researchers... they were legistlatures. And yet, those against abortion not only supported these bans, they completely disregarded the medical evidence which proved this procedure was sometimes the safest choice thus allowing legislatures, not doctors to make medical decisions for women. Are you okay with that?
If abortion clinics were giving false medical information or misleading women about their services than yes, we would have heard something.
Reading comprehension is fairly important... case in point: The Committee on Oversite and Government Reform obtain their medical information from expert scientists, doctors, and breast cancer awareness advocates. Neither the Committee, nor it's members "judge what information women should be allowed to receive" rather, they believe that women should receive accurate medical information in lieu of lies. Do you disagree? Now, about this part:
Are you seriously claiming that Henry A. Waxman is not an honorable man? Seriously? Yes, this certainly doesn't sound honorable to me: "A leader on health and environmental issues, Rep. Waxman has fought for universal health insurance, comprehensive Medicare and Medicaid coverage, tobacco regulation, AIDS research and treatment, air and water quality standards, pesticide regulations, nursing home quality standards, women's health research and reproductive rights, affordable prescription drugs, and community rights to know about pollution levels" http://www.house.gov/waxman/bio.htm Are you basing your opinion of whether or not you believe this man is "honorable" on his insistance that CPC's provide accurate medical information to women? You do not believe it's honorable to tell the truth? Go figure.
We have. And the New Jersey Supreme Court said it was fine. Sorry Jen R, but you expect us to believe that this woman was unaware that if she gestated for 40 weeks a baby would have born? Why would a woman look to terminate a pregnancy if not to prohibit the birth of a baby? The Supreme Court acted as she should have... there is no baby until birth, that is a scientific fact. Would you prefer that legislatures make medical decisions for women? I know I wouldn't The decision regarding an unwanted pregnancy is between a woman, her family and her doctor and certainly not any third party with no stake whatsoever in the outcome.
A study released by the journal, Cancer in February 2008 entitled "Commonly cited website quality criteria are not effective at identifying inaccurate online information about breast cancer" examins websites with breast cancer information that turn up among the top results in various search engines and examins them according to a set of quality criteria. Government (.gov) sites were the only ones to receive a 100 percent accuracy rating. Therefor, in order to obtain the most accurate and unbiased information, I will site the information found on .gov sites. You can visit www.cancer.gov to find this information:
These are the Findings:
The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).
After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provides substantial evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.
****If you are really concerned about what the risk factors are for developing breast cancer you should start here: Now, clearly you are free to take the word of Dr Joel Brind, I, however, choose to follow the findings of the US National Cancer Institute and the 100 top experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk... to each her/his own.
In a recent 2007 study, researchers concluded that medical abortion does not increase the risk of future miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, preterm delivery or low birth weight babies. According to the National Institute of Health, this statement:
is true of Cesarean Sections or any other surgery done on or around the reproductive organs. There are risks associated with any surgery, however, the earlier an abortion is done, the less overall risk is involved (and 89% of abortions are done by the 12th week)
What studies? The only info I could find comes from anti-abortion groups.
Yes, it is a lie... there is no medical evidence that having an abortion increases a womans risk of infertility or miscarriage - telling women that if they have an abortion they will be infertile is a LIE, plain and simple. Although, it is clear from your posts that if a lie is told or a truth stretched in order to prohibit women from terminating their pregnancy you are a-okay with that.
Waxman gets his medical information from expert scientists, doctors and others in the medical field... and yes, he is an honorable man, how would one come to any other conclusion? The basis of Waxman's report was that CPC's lie when they state that studies show links between abortion and:
These are studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In fact one that I cited was from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Are they an anti-abortion group?
Were I considering an abortion, I would want to know of the potential harm before making my choice. I might decide to take the risks, but it would be an informed decision.
Don't you think women should have that right?
No Crispy, that information is absolutely incorrect and by typing it you are perpetuating three anti-abortion myths. It isn't surprising that you've simply ignored the study done by the National Institute of Cancer (involving more than 100 of the world’s leading experts whose sole purpose was to study pregnancy and breast cancer risk) and the fact that the level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established", which is something (I might add) none of your studies had.
Prove it. I could not find any peer-reviewed study anywhere. The link that you gave was not good so I attempted to find any valid scientific study involving any expert on fertility between 2003 and present and came up empty handed. It's not that difficult to research the truth and I have enough faith that most people will take the time to separate fact from myth (I believe that forums like these are a tremendous help in getting the truth out). I also trust that most people will put their faith in the experts within the field of cancer, fertility and psychology and not some person and/or group with an agenda.
Yes, and clearly many other people agree which is why they are bringing attention to the false and misleading medical information that these CPC's are giving to women. So, I guess we agree that CPC's should only give accurate medical information to the woman who call or stop by. All science is not created equal. In medicine and science there is something called "best evidence". The strength of evidence of a study is determinied by objective criteria about the study (how the study is performed, design, etc). Some qualities that make a evidence stronger is how difficult it would be to get these results by chance or how well the potential for inaccuracy is addressed. The objective criteria are *the same* agreed upon criteria whether we are talking about cholesterol, cancer, or contraception. You don't get to change the criteria based on the topic or what you *want* the results to be. Medical conclusions are based on the "best evidence" and analysis of the strong studies. It is common practice for people who don't understand science, or those who are misleading people to find some weak studies and exaggerate their importance or to pretend that all studies have equal worth and validity. The *best evidence* shows that abortion does not increase a woman's risk of breast cancer. The *best evidence* shows that a first trimester abortion does not impair women's future fertility. The *best evidence* shows that abortion does not cause mental illness. And by the way--you really do want your doctors and scientists to be using the *best evidence* to make recommendations for you and society. This is how we make progress in preventing and treating disease and improving the health of all people.
myth: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence. If it looks like a myth and it acts like a myth... Actual studies have been done and have consistantly proven that if a woman suffers from depression prior to becoming pregnant chances are she will suffer from depression afterward regardless of whether she terminates or gestates her pregnancy. These same studies have consistantly proven that there is no link between feelings that follow an abortion and a psychological condition in need of medical care. Please do research the following:
This is what you give as proof? And what, may I ask, is the point of your "stories"? Shall I offer up that perhaps Andrea Yates or Susan Smith should not have gestated and given birth? At least there is truth to those stories. My "myth" comment was about the Waxman's report of studies of mental health problems following abortion, such as the following: Despite methodological shortcomings of individual studies, the fact that studies ... come to very similar conclusions is persuasive evidence that abortion is usually psychologically benign. Let's break it down:
Even your APA quote does not make "negative psychiatic consequences" a myth, it just says that the incidence is low. The New Zealand study I cited was published in 2006 (long after Reagan/Koop) and was published in the Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry.
The studies cited by Waxman, yourself, and me show that there is a risk of "negative psychiatic consequences" following abortion. There are "stories" as well to provide anecdotal evidence and give a face to what some see as a mere political issue.
Thats insane.. studies show that there is a risk of post-partum psychosis following gestation and birth but the majority of woman are not affected by it - the CPC's make no mention of this, as a matter of fact, anti-abortion sites fail to mention this scientific fact at all.
"a risk"? Do you take aspirin? Did you know that if you do, it may increase the risk of excessive bleeding, including the possibility of bleeding in the brain? What about tylenol (acetaminophen)? Did you know that Acetaminophen overdose is the leading cause of acute liver failure in the United States? How about ibuprofen... if you take this your risk of heart attack rises 24%. Oh, and nevermind the risks involved with pregnancy and childbirth - nice that my doctor never mentioned all of the horrible risks involved with that, considering that every year in the U.S. 875,000 women experience one or more pregnancy complications. It is just insane that those who are opposed to abortion can support the CPC's use of misinformation backed by flawed studies under the guise of concern for womens health. If you were so concerned, why wouldn't the studies done by experts in those particular medical fields be of any interest to you... how easily you disregard them. Your "stories" are just that. And what about the stories of Andrea Yates and Susan Smith... shall we share them with the woman contemplating having children? What about these women: Ruthless, The issue in the license plate cases has been whether the message on the plate is governmental or private speech. If it's governmental speech, then the state has the right (under Supreme Court precedent) to favor childbirth over adoption and permit only the purchase of anti-abortion plates. If it's private speech, then it has to let all individuals say whatever they want on the plates, just like they do on bumper stickers. Wow, Crispy. I was obnoxious, but you took it to a whole new level. Let's start with that license plate. It's not being used. That's the proposed design which has yet to be adopted. You can buy faux license plates for fundraising right now. Now the easy part: CPCs and their lies. Let's start right here at RH Reality Check with Maureen Stutzman.
The "dangerous addictive nature of sex?"
Then we have NARAL:
So, how's that? That enough lies for you, Crispy? I stand corrected on the availability of Florida "pro-choice" plates. The latest news I saw (from the "License to Choose" site, said that it still has to go through the process to be approved, including submitting a petition from 30,000 licensed drivers stating that they will buy the plates, if offered. Of course, the pro-choicers of Florida are. not. helping. to keep the numbers up.
Regarding CPC's, please see my response to Mellan. It covers most of the points raised.
The NARAL article was pretty humorous. For example, in Minnesota, Robbinsdale Women’s Center, an anti‐abortion pregnancy center that counsels women against abortion is located across the street from the Robbinsdale Clinic, PA, which offers a range of medical care from licensed medical providers, including abortion services. Can you guess the name of the town where these two facilities are located? Yup, Robbinsdale! Not only that, but calling it a "Women's Center" is entirely appropriate, since they don't offer services to manatees or giraffes. As far as advertising in the yellow pages, when you look up Pests, are you only expecting to see cockroach providers? Where do you propose to put "suicide alternatives" ... under "anti-self-termination choice counseling"?
Further, you have not addressed the fact that (as Eleanor stated) besides CPC's, the funds raised go to non-profit adoption agencies and maternity homes. Should we turn our backs on women who choose not to have an abortion?
Finally, in a textbook example of "straining at gnats and swallowing camels", you ignore the fact that the funds raised by license plates are trifling compared to the $336 Million in public funds that PP received. the only “abortion service” they provide is anti‐abortion coercion. You refer to "anti-abortion coercion" like it's a bad thing. So the woman has a baby. What business is it of yours why she chose to have it? Plenty of women have kids because they were brought up pro-life and think abortion is a bad thing. What's the big deal if the woman was convinced not to have an abortion after she entered the CPC, as opposed to having been convinced by watching something about fetal development on TV a week before, or having been convinced by her religion/values not to have one years before? I can't believe that people still haven't figured it out yet.... adoption isn't an alternative to an unexpected pregnancy, its an alternative to parenting. When you find out if you're pregnant, you either keep, or terminate. THEN and only AFTER the decision to continue pregnancy do you decide if you will parent or not. Many anti-abortion groups are connected to adoption agencies and it$ big bu$ine$$ if you know what I mean. If you don't let me be clearer... They won't support the pregnant women because they don't make thousands off of women choosing to parent, infact the states usually pay for single mothers to parent, vs. rich couples adopting where they make thousands, especially when the child is white and a newborn. THAT is why they ONLY support the agencies, so the money can spin full circle. Sadly, this doesn't surpise me at all, now how do I go about getting me an Adoptee Rights Open Records license plate cover? The difference is that most of us find lying unethical How about you stop pretending you know what you are talking about and conceed that CPCs do NOT help women in the slightest. Have you been to one? I have. I got yelled at for being a murderer because I wanted to know if i could get some condoms. Charming. And yet thousands of women claim to have received actual help from them. Are they all lying? Deceived into thinking that diapers and clothing are good things? I am very skeptical of your claim that thousands of women have had help from them in the form of diapers and clothing. We don't have such "clinics" in my country (thank space) so I have never actually been to one. Two of my own family members (both single mothers) and numerous friends were helped by Pregnancy Centers. I have heard stories from other people about someone they know being helped, or reading the stories published online or in publications, but those are somewhat anecdotal. Do you honestly think that with thousands of these centers out there, no one would be helped? a few thousand women, it is reasonable to deduce thousands (or even several thousand) women have been helped by REAL health clinics. REAL health clinics which offer more health services than just [quote]"free pregnancy tests,ultrasounds, and parenting magazines."[unquote] ...but don't offer free parenting classes, diapers, clothing, relationship mediation, formula, shelter for pregnant runaways, etc. There's plenty that CPCs provide that "REAL" (by that I'm assuming you mean ones that offer or refer for abortion) clinics don't offer.
You are incorrect when you offer your opinion that Womens Health Clinics (including Planned Parenthood) who provide or refer for abortion do not offer the same support (medical and/or psychological help) to women who decide to gestate their pregnancy. A quick search of these clinics provide proof to the contrary. These clinics either offer this help or provide referrals for these services and to claim anything less is to belie your staunchly anti-abortion stance and your personal disapproval of any clinic which may offer abortion as an alternative to an unwanted pregnancy. Real women's health clinics also offer Pap smears, breast exams, mammograms, basic health exams, birth control, family planning information, pre and post-natal care,pediatric care,etc. It may not be free, but it is much more comphrehensive viz a viz a woman's health. I've also been to a so-called "Crisis Pregnancy Center"--and they are nothing but baby mills for profit. They are run by the right-wing corporatist Christians who support higher birth rates and consumption along with the requisite lowering of working class wages. They don't give a crap about women, quality of life or our environment. They will do ANYTHING to coerce girls and women to pop out Precious Little Profit Center. Next time I go, I'll be wired and will load up the A/V anywhere I can. These people are hideous monsters with the foulest mouths I've ever heard anywhere. Have you been to one?
That doesn't answer the question. Even volunteers may not be aware of the tactics used by CPCs.
Do you have actual statistics on "a typical client", or just anecdotes?
CPCs don't distribute contraception, nor do they refer their clients to places where they can get contraception. A percentage of pro-life groups consider some forms of hormonal birth control as "abortifacients". Plus,you should think twice before throwing around the accusation of "liar".
The commenter didn't claim there was such a test. But CPCs are getting public money to continue their work. Well with misleading names like "Center for Reproductive Health" and "Womens Clinic" I assumed that they would have condoms or at least tell me where I could get some. We just moved here and I was driving past. As a man, I am disgusted with your idea that men can't be willing to provide the protection for when they engage in sexual activites with their partner. Just to clarify. Pro-choice plates are available in both hawaii and Montana... Well with misleading names like "Center for Reproductive Health" and "Womens Clinic" I assumed that they would have condoms or at least tell me where I could get some. We just moved here and I was driving past. Actually, the one I went to was called "Center for Reproductive Care" but I have seen some with the other names I mentioned. What "hot tip" are you referring to? I went there because I (at the time) didn't know where else to go. I had just moved here. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being how loud a woman giving birth will scream I'd say that the "receptionist" was a 6. It was quite a while ago but here is an approximate transcript: Me: *walks into clinic* My memory isn't perfect but that's about how it went. You still have not replied to why it's wrong of me, because I'm a man to provide the contraceptives. Post new comment |
|
pro-choice license plates are now available, PP will "leave the issue alone". We are so lucky that the Goddess has sent you to us!
