(VIDEO) Baltimore’s Pregnancy Ministries Must Now Disclose Their True Mission. And They Don’t Like It


If you are a woman between the ages of 18-24 and you are having sex, you are a target. A local pregnancy ministry, also known as a “crisis pregnancy center,” wants to have a heart-to-heart conversation with you. The nice lady won’t tell you that she believes birth control is bad. But she will offer you a free pregnancy test and even an ultrasound. She will make you feel just like a patient in a health clinic.

Over 1,100 evangelical Christian pregnancy ministries across the US seek to create “a culture where lives are transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and every woman chooses life for her unborn child.”* Volunteers and staff lead women to Christ by keeping them away from birth control and abortion. These ministries are devoted to ensuring that sexually active women and girls get pregnant, stay pregnant, and become mothers. After all, that is what happens to women who do not have birth control, regardless of whether they are willingly having sex.

A new law took effect earlier this year in Baltimore City compelling local pregnancy ministries to post signs that say that they do not provide or refer for birth control or abortion. Now they are disgruntled, shocked, appalled. These signs give a hint to unsuspecting women that they are not at a doctor’s office. A simple sign helps women make an informed decision about whether they want evangelistic help or a gynecologist.

But this means that pregnancy ministries must give women–wait for it–a choice. No wonder they’re appalled.

“Why doesn’t Planned Parenthood have to post signs?” they protest. Well, Planned Parenthood (1) is not a religious ministry; (2) is a respected gynecological health care provider; and (3) follows CDC and AMA guidelines, just as city health clinics, private practice gynecologists and hospitals do. 

Maybe pregnancy ministries don’t like the fact that Planned Parenthood provides affordable birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and referrals for adoption and prenatal care. These ministries certainly don’t like the fact that women trust Planned Parenthood as a safe and non-judgmental abortion provider. 

Pregnancy ministries are not concerned about the practice of gynecology. They are evangelists spreading a form of Christian anti-birth control, anti-abortion morality, which they carefully shroud in the guise of a health clinic. (If they were merely reaching out to their flock of already converted, then why try to look like a health clinic?)

The crux of the problem for pregnancy ministries is that the economic and social structure of the Western world depends upon the ability of individuals to plan families and space children.  Nearly every person, when given a choice, will choose a health care provider who offers factual, science-based options to them and their partners. 

If these ministries want to pray and offer baby formula and diapers to women who want to start families, that’s one thing. Not fully disclosing their true evangelical, anti-birth control mission, however, is another. Thank goodness we have a government that recognizes the public health value of truth-in-advertising.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • crackbaby

    This is classic “bait and switch”.  The only way that these manipulative cults can attract vulnerable women is to be deceptive.  Their sign advertises “all options” for women who are pregnant and potentially in crisis but when they come in, the anti-abortionists’ ruse begins.  At least now, women will have a bit more information when they need it. 

  • cpcwatcher

    The Truth in Advertising regulations would be a huge step.  It’s no wonder they’re so angry about it… women who want to go to a CPC will actually know what she’s getting into!!!  

  • ack

    Their intention is exposed in their outrage at regulations like this. If they truly believe they’re right in not referring for/providing contraception or abortion, they should be screaming it from the rooftops, advertising their “respect for life” at every turn. The fact that they don’t, and fight these regulations, shows that they blatantly intend to deceive women who are looking for those services. It’s repugnant.

  • kitty

    I’d like to see that law all across the land!  Of course the hypocrites don’t like it.  They can’t deceive the innocent anymore!  

  • grayduck

    As I pointed out several times before, this law is blatantly unconstitutional. Case law clearly establishes that the right to free speech includes the right to refuse to convey a message that is contrary to a citizen’s belief system.

  • prochoiceferret

    As I pointed out several times before, this law is blatantly unconstitutional. Case law clearly establishes that the right to free speech includes the right to refuse to convey a message that is contrary to a citizen’s belief system.

    Yeah, that really was a winning strategy for cigarette manufacturers.

  • jrm83

    How exactly is this unconstitutional?  The law simply requires crisis pregnancy centers to disclose that they do not provide or refer for birth control or abortion.  I don’t see how requiring CPCs to give people accurate information about the type of services they provide is a violation of free speech.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Surely applies to forcing women and doctor’s to enter into unnecessary counseling, unwanted and medically unnecessary ultrasounds, providing blatantly untrue information about links between abortion and breast cancer and…..

     

    you get the point.  On one hand, the anti-choice movement wants to impose all sorts of restrictions based on medically inaccurate and clinically unnecessary requirements, just because, and yet you want to cry foul when a religious mission masquerading as a health clinic must disclose it is *not* a health clinic?

     

     

  • princess-rot

    Your right to free speech and free religion ends at you. You don’t get to dictate, via false advertising and misleading information, what other people do with their bodies. Baltimore City Council has made it unlawful for CPCs to be misleading or covert about what they do in order to fraudulently push a patriarchal, evangelical agenda. If this was truly about respect for life, they wouldn’t be all over the old idea that babies are punishments for sex, and unwanted children, pregnancy, rape (mandating unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds, hello) and poverty because of the former two, are punishments for being female to ensure continued subservience. You know, the beatings will continue until morale improves? This is self-evident in their condemnation of birth control and providing accurate information about sexual processes and sexuality itself. Instead, they go with manipulative fairy tales like ignorance and marriage somehow provide a magical key to lifelong fulfilment and happiness, screw the realities: “everything will be fine as long as you follow our rules.” The cynic in me realises that what most people want in life is stability, especially those in a crisis of any sort, and a CPC seeming to offer that for free is mightily enticing. This doesn’t mean the person seeking free help bad, it just makes the CPC fraudulent: a human Venus fly-trap.

  • faultroy

    While I am in favor of this specific law, there is no question that the City is overstepping its bounds.  There are other ways to obtain this kind of “truth in giving services.”  The implication that these ministries are doing something unsavory is especially insulting and demonstrates a deep steated prejudice. Unfortunately as is usually the case with these inherently biased and bigoted stories, there is no indication as to how many women have been injured or misled. No statistics on complaints or  long term effects on other industries.  I would be very curious if anyone has complained–besides Planned Parenthood losing potential customers!  The idea that this is similar to cigarette smoking disclosure is patently bigoted–it implies that there is something inherently wrong with this kind of service.  There may be–but that is not the subject of the discussion, is it? This is really a perfect example of the total effeminization of our society.  At no point has anyone addressed the issue of damage that these ministries have caused.  This is all feel good, politically correct, emotionally charged assumptions.  To equate this with the direct relationship of cigarettes and lung cancer in which  tens of millions have developed cancer and suffered horrible deaths and where the manufacturers purposely withheld and manipulated medical research data is patently akin to out and out racism. The actions of the cigarette companies were considered criminal acts against the law. This clearly demonstrates how bigotedly twisted, illogical and irrational our system has become. It also dramatically highlights the the vitriolic systemic hatred, and knee jerk over-the-top hysteria of the liberal feminist establishment.  It is very interesting to see the city council be so concerned about the rights of  disclosure, but they seem perfectly comfortable with the FDA’s very close relationship with Big Pharma and at no point is there the clamoring for laws that require doctors to disclose to their patients the cozy relationships that they have with the pharmaceutical companies or requiring politicians to disclose cozy relationships with big business and major doners to their campaigns.  Gee I wonder how many of these council persons would have been elected if they had to disclose who in the communities was giving them monies for their elections and why  before every speech they were giving?  There is nothing wrong with disclosure when done in a level headed and appropriate to the circumstances manner, but this is just equivalent to out and out racism.  Instead of building bridges, this kind of ordinance just highlights the differences and creates even more polarization. Perhaps with these kind of ordinances, we will require Planned Parenthood to put up signs showing how much of our tax dollars are going to provide these “free” services!  That will get voters thinking.

  • ack

    This law isn’t asking them to post, “We don’t provide birth abortions or referrals for abortion, but we think it’s fine if you get one somewhere else.”

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    This clearly demonstrates how bigotedly twisted, illogical and irrational our system has become. It also dramatically highlights the the vitriolic systemic hatred, and knee jerk over-the-top hysteria of the liberal feminist establishment … this is just equivalent to out and out racism.

    It’s just a simple, factual sign. Grow up and act like a big kid.

  • princess-rot

    This is all feel good, politically correct, emotionally charged assumptions.

    Translation: Women are irrational hysterics for giving praise to a common-sense law that requires evangelical false health clinics to state their true intentions and the services they do and don’t provide.

    … this is just equivalent to out and out racism.

    Yeah, it’s clearly systemic oppression when fundamentalist religious bodies don’t get to consider themselves above the law and the judge and jury of women.

  • squirrely-girl

    You do realize that a CITY council only has so much authority right? I’m pretty certain they don’t get to tell the FEDERAL drug administration what to do :) And the last time I checked, political candidates DO have to disclose their campaign financing. 

    It is very interesting to see the city council be so concerned about the rights of  disclosure, but they seem perfectly comfortable with the FDA’s very close relationship with Big Pharma and at no point is there the clamoring for laws that require doctors to disclose to their patients the cozy relationships that they have with the pharmaceutical companies or requiring politicians to disclose cozy relationships with big business and major doners to their campaigns.

     

    And last time I checked, clinics providing abortion services DO have to post all kinds of signs (coercion, minors, etc.) AND deliver canned spiels about the “effects” of abortion. Sounds to me like some people just can’t deal with fair turnabout… 

    Perhaps with these kind of ordinances, we will require Planned Parenthood to put up signs…

  • crowepps

    There are other ways to obtain this kind of “truth in giving services.”

    What other ways are you thinking of?

     The implication that these ministries are doing something unsavory is especially insulting and demonstrates a deep steated prejudice. 

    The implication being that unless the sign is posted, they will not be clear and open with new clients?  But that happens to be true!  They do indeed try to pretend they are ‘health clinics’ and they do indeed give medical/legal advice like ‘you’re too far along for an abortion to be legal’.

    Unfortunately as is usually the case with these inherently biased and bigoted stories, there is no indication as to how many women have been injured or misled.

    Surely if even ONE woman has been misled at ONE clinic, that is sufficient for the government to be proactive and require signs.

    No statistics on complaints or  long term effects on other industries.

    Long term effects on other industries?  You lost me here.

    I would be very curious if anyone has complained–besides Planned Parenthood losing potential customers!

    It’s my understanding that LOTS of people have complained.  Some have even SUED.

    The idea that this is similar to cigarette smoking disclosure is patently bigoted–it implies that there is something inherently wrong with this kind of service.  There may be–but that is not the subject of the discussion, is it?

    The ‘wrong’ is in providing one ‘service’ – spiritual counseling – and pretending that you are providing something else – health care.

    This is really a perfect example of the total effeminization of our society.

    Making people tell the truth is effeminate?  I thought it was guys that valued “telling it like it is” and “being upfront”.

      At no point has anyone addressed the issue of damage that these ministries have caused.  This is all feel good, politically correct, emotionally charged assumptions.

    Which anyone?  You mean in this article?  There have been numerous media reports of girls who went to crisis pregnancy centers being given incorrect information, being harassed by the staff in other places, and being “outed” as pregnant to their families and pastors.

    To equate this with the direct relationship of cigarettes and lung cancer in which  tens of millions have developed cancer and suffered horrible deaths and where the manufacturers purposely withheld and manipulated medical research data is patently akin to out and out racism.

    Are you saying that cigarette companies are racist?  Or people who want phony ‘health clinics’ to own up to the truth are racist?  Do you even know what ‘racist’ means?

    The actions of the cigarette companies were considered criminal acts against the law.

    And yet they still legally sell cigarettes, don’t they?  And I certainly never heard of any tobacco industry executives being thrown in the slammer for criminal violations.  I’ve only heard about “truth in advertising” administrative hearings that resulted in fines.

    This clearly demonstrates how bigotedly twisted, illogical and irrational our system has become. It also dramatically highlights the the vitriolic systemic hatred, and knee jerk over-the-top hysteria of the liberal feminist establishment.

    And again, just what is ‘liberal’ or ‘feminist’ about requiring people who hold themselves out to be disinterested ‘counselors’ and/or ‘health clinics’ to be truthful about the aim of their organization.  You would think they would be PROUD to announce the information in the sign.

    It is very interesting to see the city council be so concerned about the rights of  disclosure, but they seem perfectly comfortable with the FDA’s very close relationship with Big Pharma and at no point is there the clamoring for laws that require doctors to disclose to their patients the cozy relationships that they have with the pharmaceutical companies or requiring politicians to disclose cozy relationships with big business and major doners to their campaigns.

    So far as I know, this City has exactly the same conflict of interest ordinances that they have everywhere else.  Shoot, I live in a small town in Alaska and OUR council members are always ‘disclosing’ their cozy connections before votes of the Council.

    Gee I wonder how many of these council persons would have been elected if they had to disclose who in the communities was giving them monies for their elections and why  before every speech they were giving?

    Campaign disclosure rules mean that they have to do exactly that.

    There is nothing wrong with disclosure when done in a level headed and appropriate to the circumstances manner, but this is just equivalent to out and out racism.

    Again with the racism!  Geez.  Are you saying ‘everybody’s unfairly prejudiced against middle-aged white men whose ‘faith’ requires they not think about sex and who sublimate by showing a prurient interest in young women’s uteruses?”  I suppose that could be ‘racism’ but I think it has more to do with the ‘creep-o-meter’ buzzing.  It actually is TRUE that ‘we do not provide or refer for birth control or abortion”, right?  If it is TRUE why all the reluctance to put up a sign letting people know?  Does it cut down on the opportunities to put on a white lab coat and pretend you’re a counselor while asking young girls about their sex life?

    Instead of building bridges, this kind of ordinance just highlights the differences and creates even more polarization.

    Why would anyone want to build a bridge and connect with an organization that is apparently so ashamed of what they do that they resist letting their clientele know about it up front?  It does indeed highlight the difference, but actually isn’t that extreme, since they COULD have asked them to put up a sign that says “THIS IS NOT A HEALTH CLINIC, IT IS A GUILT TRIP”.

    Perhaps with these kind of ordinances, we will require Planned Parenthood to put up signs showing how much of our tax dollars are going to provide these “free” services!  That will get voters thinking.

    Considering how much time and money the right-wing hysterics spend ‘exposing’ Planned Parenthood, it’s hard to believe that there could possibly be one person in the entire country who isn’t aware of not only what PP does, but also where the money for it comes from.  Considering that so many of the ‘voters’ will swallow the swill on FOX News, I certainly encourage any efforts to get them to ‘think’ but frankly, at this point that’s pretty much a hopeless dream.

  • crowepps

    the right to refuse to convey a message that is contrary to a citizen’s belief system

    So they DO refer for birth control?  That is NOT contrary to their belief system?

     

    They DO refer for abortion?  That is NOT contrary to their belief system?

     

    Or the signs are accurate, but ‘free speech’ should protect them from being required to post a sign telling that truth because doing so gets in the way of their conning people?  I was unaware that one of the aspects of ‘free speech’ was the right to hide your “belief system” and pretend to be someone else entirely until the fly had come into the parlor.

  • faultroy

      Again, I have no problem with the law, but I do have a problem with the way that it was initiated. One poster commented that there have been numerous complaints on the part of women that went to these centers.  That may be, or it may not be because the way the story was constructed, it is obvious that it is a hachet job against these ministries. Again I am in favor of disclosures. I just have a problem with hyposcrisy and a concerted targeting of specific organizations based on political opportunism. The story at some point should have discussed the reasoning behind it.  We could have heard from the council as to what led up to their decision. 

  • faultroy

    They could request consent disclosure forms, all literature must have disclosure and options rather than force them to put a sign outside implying that they are doing something wrong.  We don’t require retail outlets to put disclosure signs in their advertisements stating: “…Our discount prices may not reflect the actual savings on promoted items since we overinflate these prices in order to be able to show bigger discounts…”  We don’t require food manufacturers to disclose how much sugar and artificial products are in their packages and products and our government allows that to lie about natural/organic etc.  I could go on an on, but you get the idea. Again, I’m all for the law, but this was just a total hatchet job and it is very obvious.  Why did they interview Planned Parenthood? Why not the council only? If it wasn’t orchestrated, then what the hell is Planned Parenthood sticking their nose into it for?  By long term effects on other industries, I meant that this is is a lawsuit being heard in federal court. The ruling could have implications in other areas totally unrelated to this situation.  It can affect the financial industry, auto industry (disclosure issues I mean), the manufacturing industry etc.  Your point about people suing these ministries may be legitimate, but there was no mention by the council, no mention by Planned Parenthood, and no mention by anyone interviewed.  So if you have specific information, and documentation, let us know.  At this point since it never came up–and I agree with you that  would be a big deal, we have to assume no.  Funny when you imply that “spiritual counseling,” is not healthcare.  That’s funny since there is hundreds of millions, even billions spent on “counseling”. Part of every insurance policy that I have seen allows counseling. Why is “spiritual counseling” not considered “healthcare,’ while “secular counseling ” clearly is? C’mon, you and I know that the council didn’t just all of a sudden decide “Gee it’s Tuesday, we have nothing better to do so let’s just pass a “truth in services.” ordinance on ministries of faith serving our community..”  Again I don’t know what the facts are, but I can smell a dead fish when it starts to stink, and this article smells of collusion and hypocrisy to high heaven.  As far as my comment about the cigarette companies and racism (my apologies for being obtuse) was meant more in the sense of highly discriminatory.  You’ve probably forgotten, but every state attorney general was able to collect massive sums of money on a one time payout basis obstensibly to cover medical health care costs related to state expenditures for their residents. This was based on the fact that the cigarette companies knowingly and purposefully withheld both information and manipulated medical research for their own financial benefits.  In exchange for not prosecuting, the states took a one time payout.  Had they gone to court, the tobacco companies would have been not only liable for estimated damages, but for triple damages.  So yes, google the info if you want to check, they were going to be charged with criminal violations.  The problem with a criminal suit is that you have a far greater burden of proof. From what I remember it was well over 40 billion.  And my conclusion again related to racism means that this is out and out discrimination of the racist kind.  By that I mean that we are singling out a specific organization and holding them to a higher standard than we do anyone else.  I would be fine with the law if we required everyone unilaterally–from grocery stores to FDA to big pharma, to the Fed Reserve to Congress, to state legislatures etc… to be held to this standard.  But the point is that we don’t, and that is why I say this is mean spirited, reactionary and certainly bigoted and more than discriminatory.  Furthermore while in Federal Court, my position will certainly be used as a defense since the council does not require other businesses in the area to rise to the same standard of disclosure. And while I can certainly not prove it, there is no question in my mind that this was orchestrated by a feminist block in collusion with Planned Parenthood.  And this is what I mean by Reproductive Rights Organizations consistently shooting themselves in the foot. We could have gotten the same end results (giving women a true and unpressured option) without having to resort to a mafia style muscling and coercion. And as I said originally that is what makes it incredibly polarizing and the  people that  directly suffer are these poor women that have so few options.  Our Nation suffers as a whole because we are caught in this “he said–she said” type of argument and we never come to some definitive conclusion.  It’s always war with one side blaming the other. You think this is over?  No way.  There will be more repercussions and  next time it will be the faith based organization that will say: “gotcha!” and then it will be pro abortionists that will be whining about an unfair and discriminatory standard.  By the way, if the rolls would be reversed and this would be happening to reproductive organizations, I would be defending them just as agressively.   Somehow we have got to stop this vicious cycle. Ultimately the loosers will be women that desperately need the abortion option.  Neither side has a right to play these dangerous and vicious games with other peoples’ lives. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Again, I have no problem with the law,

    Thank you for supporting reproductive health!

    but I do have a problem with the way that it was initiated.

    Oh, that’s perfectly normal. It’s like they say… “There are two things you don’t want to see being made—sausage and legislation.”

  • emma

    Faultroy, successful operation of the Free Market requires informed consumers. When companies intentionally withhold information from consumers and intentionally mislead about the very nature of the services provided, they hinder the ability of the Free Market to function. The Invisible Hand of the Free Market cannot make decisions without informed consumers. What kind of hypocritical ignoramus of a conservative doesn’t want the Free Market to be able to function?

     

    And good god, enough with the over-the-top histrionics, self-righteous outrage and moral indignation. Anti-abortion religious fundamentalists do not have a special dispensation to lie their asses off to manipulate people into doing what they want. I can just imagine the screeching hysterics you’d be having if Planned Parenthood were pretending to be a church. Stop being such a bloody whining hypocrite.

     

    I have no idea wtf you mean re: the ‘feminisation’ of society, but it sounds as if you’re suggesting that there’s something wrong with femininity. What a shocker that you would come out with something like that!

     

    Finally, paragraphs are your friend. Your semi-literate ranting is even more unpleasant to read when presented as a wall of text.

  • grayduck

    “How exactly is this unconstitutional?  The law simply requires crisis pregnancy centers to disclose that they do not provide or refer for birth control or abortion.  I don’t see how requiring CPCs to give people accurate information about the type of services they provide is a violation of free speech.”

     

    Requiring a disclosure and requiring accuracy are not equivalent by definition. The law requires a disclosure.

     

    Here is the reasoning of the Supreme Court for why an ideologically-motivated disclosure requirement violates the First Amendment. “[W]here the State’s interest is to disseminate an ideology, no matter how acceptable to some, such interest cannot outweigh an individual’s First Amendment right to avoid becoming the courier for such message.”

     

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wooley.html

     

    If governments can require people to become the courier for a message, what would stop businesses from trying to get laws passed requiring their competitors to list all of the products and services that they do not provide in an attempt to divert customers from one business to another? In Baltimore’s case, the intent and effect of the law is quite similar; it is designed to promote the political and business position that all organizations serving pregnant women should provide, or refer for, abortion and that women in crisis pregnancies should consider abortion.

  • grayduck

    Jodi Jacobson, Editor-in-Chief, RH Reality Check on May 6, 2010 – 9:22am: “…yet you want to cry foul when a religious mission masquerading as a health clinic must disclose it is *not* a health clinic?”

     

    Actually, the law requires health clinics and non-health clinics alike to convey the disclosure. My understanding is that one of the centers covered by the law is a state-licensed medical provider.

     

    http://legistar.baltimorecitycouncil.com/detailreport/?key=4550

     

    Moreover, the law is not limited to organizations that claim to be a health clinic.

  • grayduck

    ack on May 6, 2010 – 12:41pm: “This law isn’t asking them to post, ‘We don’t provide birth abortions or referrals for abortion, but we think it’s fine if you get one somewhere else.'”

     

    No, but the intent is to promote the ideas that women in those situations could benefit from abortion and that the services provided by such organizations are deficient. If not, then why not require all organizations serving anyone to disclose that they do not provide abortions?

  • prochoiceferret

    If not, then why not require all organizations serving anyone to disclose that they do not provide abortions?

    Because not all organizations serving anyone try to falsely pass themselves off as organizations that provide (or refer for) abortions. Or is it just a coincidence that many CPCs give themselves names like “Women’s Health Clinic,” or open up shop right next door to a Planned Parenthood office?

  • prochoiceferret

    I liked this argument better the first time, when it went something like…

    If governments can require people to become the courier for a message, what would stop businesses from trying to get laws passed requiring their competitors to list all of the negative health effects of their products in an attempt to divert customers from one business to another?

  • emma

    No. What the law does is prevent crisis pregnancy centres from misrepresenting themselves as comprehensive health clinics. The fact that they need to lie in order to get clients would seem to suggest that their services are deficient and they know it.

  • grayduck

    “What the law does is prevent crisis pregnancy centres from misrepresenting themselves as comprehensive health clinics.”

     

    The law goes beyond that objective to requiring all crisis pregnancy centers- whether they misrepresent themselves as abortion clinics or not- to promote the belief that women in crisis pregnancies should get abortions.

     

    http://legistar.baltimorecitycouncil.com/attachments/5334.pdf

  • prochoiceferret

    The law goes beyond that objective to requiring all crisis pregnancy centers- whether they misrepresent themselves as abortion clinics or not-

    Yeah, I guess they could go on this show and talk about that.

    to promote the belief that women in crisis pregnancies should get abortions.

    I didn’t know the law mandated signs that say “Hey there lady, you really oughta have an abortion, mmmkay?”

  • crowepps

     Funny when you imply that “spiritual counseling,” is not healthcare.  That’s funny since there is hundreds of millions, even billions spent on “counseling”. Part of every insurance policy that I have seen allows counseling. Why is “spiritual counseling” not considered “healthcare,’ while “secular counseling ” clearly is?

    Psychological counseling is theoretically based on objective science, is theoretically being used by a counselor who has no axe to grind, and theoretically is focused on assisting a patient who has a biochemical mood disorder or in helping a patient make a good adjustment to past traumas.  It is about HEALING the patient.

     

    ‘Spiritual counseling’, on the other hand, is not objective, is being used by a counselor who does indeed have an axe to grind, and is focused on getting the client to accept a ‘religious faith’ on the assumption that faith alone will help the client.  Promoting a religious faith is about affirming the delusions of the counselor, NOT about helping the client, but instead SAVING the client’s purported soul, and in my opinion is not health care at all.  If it were, there wouldn’t be so many ‘spiritual counselors’ treating schizophrenia with demon exorcism or ‘counseling’ battered women that they need to be more submissive and pray harder.

     

    Professional counselors have education, a code of ethics, and a governing board that can look into complaints against them and bar them from the profession if they are incompetent.  ‘Spiritual counselors’ just need an unctuous tone, a good line of patter, and the urge to relieve people of their money.  ‘Spiritual counselor’ is the dream job of con artists and egomaniacs who want to run the lives of others because there are absolutely no rules, no supervision, and no way they can be unmasked as frauds.

  • crowepps

    We don’t require retail outlets to put disclosure signs in their advertisements stating: “…Our discount prices may not reflect the actual savings on promoted items since we overinflate these prices in order to be able to show bigger discounts…”

    Why don’t we require such signs?  They sound like a really good idea to me!

    We don’t require food manufacturers to disclose how much sugar and artificial products are in their packages and products and our government allows that to lie about natural/organic etc.  I could go on an on, but you get the idea.

    Actually, we do indeed require exactly that information on food.  Don’t you ever read your food packages?

    Again, I’m all for the law, but this was just a total hatchet job and it is very obvious.  Why did they interview Planned Parenthood? Why not the council only? If it wasn’t orchestrated, then what the hell is Planned Parenthood sticking their nose into it for? 

    People who were exploring the idea of abortion, and who felt ripped off by these CPC’s, ended up where?  At PP!  And just who did they complain to about feeling ripped off?  PP!  As the place whose personnel would be most likely to HEAR those complaints from the people who felt damaged and who ended up there eventually, wouldn’t it be the DUTY of PP to pass those complaints on?

  • emma

    The law goes beyond that objective to requiring all crisis pregnancy centers- whether they misrepresent themselves as abortion clinics or not- to promote the belief that women in crisis pregnancies should get abortions.

    No, it doesn’t. That is untrue, hysterical, hyperbolic nonsense. All it means is that women who want abortions will be aware ahead of time that CPCs are not places that will provide the services they require, which will save them from wasting time and energy.

     

    But that’s your problem, isn’t it? You want women who want abortions to be evangelised at, guilt-tripped, and talked into doing what they don’t want to do, and in order for that to happen, women who want abortions would need to be tricked into thinking CPCs are real medical clinics that provide abortion services. You want CPCs to be able to lie and misrepresent themselves because it serves your agenda.

     

    Please at least be honest about the reason for your objection to CPCs being prevented from intentionally misleading people. (faultroy, in case you’re reading, that goes for you, too.)

  • wendy-banks

    I think that ‘free’ is far too high of a price to pay when is comes to CPC’s. Their ‘free’ comes with a pricetag of lies, shame, intimidation, and decepcion– I’ve been to one, and they tried to play their games with me– My bullshit meter went off the scale right away. They tried to sucker me with the ‘lie video tape’ that all the pro-lifer’s around here seem to take as ‘the truth’– Sorry, not buying. I turned the tape off at the first lie, walked out and desided to BUY a damn PG test– It cost me less than their ‘free’.

    Young and female does NOT equal stupid and gulible.

  • wendy-banks

    I am also getting very tired of the trolls and stalkers on this site as well. Ignore and report is what I intend to do from now on. Yes, duck, cm, Paul, cmaire, faulroy, etla– I am talking about you. I am tired of your crap– Grow up, get some help, and stop takeing your screwed up life out on pro-choicers. But, most of all take it out of here. You bring nothing to this place and you bring no-one to your cause.

  • grayduck

    “No, it doesn’t.”

     

    I provided a link to the law. What wording in the law limits its effect to pregnancy centers that misrepresent themselves as abortion clinics?

     

    “All it means is that women who want abortions will be aware ahead of time that CPCs are not places that will provide the services they require, which will save them from wasting time and energy.”

     

    No, it will also mean that pregnant women- whether or not they want abortions- will be given messages that imply that they should consider getting abortions and that the centers will not necessarily support them if they choose to continue their pregnancies. Such a message would undermine their function.

     

    “You want women who want abortions to be evangelised at, guilt-tripped, and talked into doing what they don’t want to do, and in order for that to happen, women who want abortions would need to be tricked into thinking CPCs are real medical clinics that provide abortion services.”

     

    These assertions have three inaccuracies. First, the law is not limited to crisis pregnancy centers that lack certification as a medical provider and contains no requirement that such centers disclaim such a status. Second, the law does not prohibit anyone from falsely claiming to be an abortion provider but rather requires people to convey an ideologically-motivated message. Third, what I want is for people not to be denied their free speech right to inform women about the options available to them if they choose to complete a pregnancy and the consequences of not doing so.

     

  • wendy-banks

    You, know Emma, I think faulroy is just all pissy because at what, 37 no woman has ever/will put up with his crap and lay his sorry ass. If he got it once and awhile he might be less of a jerk. Kind of makes you wonder what his ‘rents are like. I know mine were/are pretty disfunctional–  But, come on, at least I got help.

    Instead, comes here and whines about us ‘uppity women’ that ‘don’t know our place’. *snerk*

     

  • wendy-banks

    Someone call a waaaaaambulance

    *LMAO* Have a ferret munchie *toss* Too funny!

  • lightning

    GrayDuck, have you ever heard of “truth in advertizing?” Are you also against that? Is it unConstitutional to demand that businesses or agencies represent themselves accurately to the public?

     

    There aren’t many ready comparisons, but what if an airline, for instance, neglected to tell passengers that they would be flying without seats or safety belts? People do expect to have seats to sit in when they fly, after all, and leaving the seats out of the plane would be a violation of at least common courtesy. Of course that’s not much like the ministries case — if people walked onto a plane without seats, they’d know in a second there was something wrong, and they likely wouldn’t fly on that plane. In the case of the ministries, of course, they discover the lack later — once the plane’s left the ground, as it were. Imagine the uproar on board your next flight, as the seats disappear.

     

    What you, GrayDuck, seem to be defending, is the ministries’ right to mislead people, to get them to sit still for an ideologically-driven lecture about how they should be having every child they possibly can. Just because a large compilation of texts written a very long time ago by many different people — and repeatedly rewritten and picked apart since — opines that people ought do that. So friggin’ what? What — is there a population problem still, as in not enough people?

     

    What you don’t seem to get, is that having ministries disguised as stealth reproductive “health” clinics, waiting around to snare the unwary, BOTHERS a lot of people. They go in, thinking they are getting one thing, and discover after twenty or so minutes that they’ve just been snookered into wasting twenty minutes! Or more like a couple of hours, counting the trip and parking. You are defending people who want to waste our time, just so they can talk Jesus at us. Because that’s what it comes to, when you drill past the and-here’s-its-little-foot talk.

     

    Who wouldn’t resent that — unless of course the one-in-a-million’th visitor decides, based on the “staff’s” stirring testimonials, that she does so after all want to devote her own life, forthwith, to similarly hoodwinking complete strangers? And even if you were right, that labelling this sort of stealth “ministerial” behavior WERE unConstitutional, do you really not see the drawbacks of alienating women like this?

     

    But I would just like the Christians to be honest about what they are doing (they are allowed to be honest, right?), so let’s just hear you say, “I think they should be allowed to snare the unwary and talk religion and Jebus at them, just in case they can confuse some of them long enough to get them past the first trimester…”

     

    Once you say that, we can then have a REAL conversation about the REAL issues, without resorting to a fake Constitutional offense.

  • lightning

    Thank you so much, crowepps!

     

    I cringe sometimes at the depth of the ignorance I see from the Jebus folks. You hit the high points, and quite well indeed.

     

  • lightning

    So its what I said above — you are defending the “right” of the ministries to lie IN ORDER TO get face time with a seeker of services, and get a chance to push their own pill on them.

     

    That’s what really gets me — that in your mind, it’s okay for a Jebus Witnesser to LIE, in order to hopefully snare someone into the same belief faith, religion, um, thingy.

     

    Doubtless you figure that no one is going to notice, that their first contact with these Holy God Folks is based on a central dishonesty (on teevee, this premise never works for long). And just how do they think they are squaring this with The Man Upstairs, who expects the best effort from all of his worshippers?

     

    “Um, God,” they must pray at night, “I, um, lied again today, to get some people in to talk Jebus at, but they got mad when they found out I was lying. But I’m doing it for the Glory of You, after all, so I’ll go out and sin again tomorrow. Um, take care of Grandma, she’s pregnant again, you know the rest…”

  • lightning

    Emma, it may not be his fault, about the wall-of-text effect. My browser or something gave me the same thing until I played with the settings.

     

    Try disabling rich-text, and double-spacing the paragraph breaks, Faultroy. Your screeds will be sOoo much more clear — easier to read, and easier for us to find the lies in it…

  • grayduck

    Lightning Joe on May 11, 2010 – 3:49am: “Is it unConstitutional to demand that businesses or agencies represent themselves accurately to the public?”

     

    The law at issue does not address fraudulent misrepresentation. It only requires that providers of pregnancy services that do not perform abortions help with advertising for those that do. Read the text of the legislation.

     

    “There aren’t many ready comparisons, but what if an airline, for instance, neglected to tell passengers that they would be flying without seats or safety belts?”

     

    That example raises safety issues, so I think a better analogy would be a law that required Burger King tell every customer that they do not serve McDonald’s hamburgers.

     

    “What you, GrayDuck, seem to be defending, is the ministries’ right to mislead people, to get them to sit still for an ideologically-driven lecture about how they should be having every child they possibly can.”

     

    Again, the law simply does not address misrepresentation of facts either by organizations that do not provide abortions or by those that do provide abortions. It is designed to violate their Constitutional right not to be the courier of an ideological message- that all women with crisis pregnancies should consider abortion. I do not know whether any of these organizations are urging women to bear every child they possibly can, but the First Amendment protects that message, as well.

     

    “What you don’t seem to get, is that having ministries disguised as stealth reproductive ‘health’ clinics, waiting around to snare the unwary, BOTHERS a lot of people.”

     

    What you do not seem to recognize is that there might actually be some women who welcome, value, and seek out the services that these centers provide and specifically wish to seek out an organization that does not provide abortions.

     

    “…let’s just hear you say, ‘I think they should be allowed to snare the unwary and talk religion and Jebus at them, just in case they can confuse some of them long enough to get them past the first trimester…'”

     

    OK. I think they should be allowed to snare the unwary and talk religion and Jebus at them, just in case they can confuse some of them long enough to get them past the first trimester… If you are against the right to free speech, why not move to a country where people lack that right?

     

    “Once you say that, we can then have a REAL conversation about the REAL issues…”

     

    Wonderful. Just go to http://www.abortiondiscussion.com to begin that discussion.