RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Get Real! Should I Visit a Crisis Pregnancy Center?

Heather Corinna's picture
Jessica asks:

I heard about a really good organization that helps girls who are pregnant and don't want an abortion. It's called Birthright. I have seen one in my town, but I can't find it on your site. Do you have any information about Birthright or stuff about the way the baby is developing so that we can find out more about our options?

Heather replies:

Birthright is one of many antichoice/pro-life organizations (like CareNet, Heartbeat International or the NIFLA) which supports a certain kind of pregnancy "help," and we would not recommend anyone go to one of the centers affiliated with them, which they help fund, or others like them; even women who know they are pregnant and intend to remain so.

It is (and helps fund) what is called a CPC, or a Crisis Pregnancy Center.

CPCs don't usually discuss all available options for women, and grossly -- and knowingly -- usually misrepresent both abortion and pregnancy. CPCs like Birthright often use deceptive advertising in order to give the impression that women can come in for help no matter which choice they want to make: they do not advertise themselves as only for women who do not want to terminate, but commonly do quite the opposite, purposefully giving the false impression that even women considering or wanting termination may be served there.

Some will purposefully delay returning the results of pregnancy tests to women in order to make it harder for those who want an abortion to get one within the legal window. They will often show women images of what they claim are aborted fetuses, but which are often something else entirely (such as stillborn fetuses or miscarriages); they usually inform women of unsubstantiated risks of abortion but also don't fill them in on the actual -- and important for any pregnant woman to know, especially if she's remaining pregnant -- risks of pregnancy. Most misinform women about emergency contraception, and most list long-term effects of abortion which are completely false. Because most have no medical licensure, they also are not required to provide patient confidentiality the way an actual medical center or doctor's office is, which is no small deal for any woman, no matter what choice she is making.

What CPCs do, as their job, and those staffing them very much consider their job and their mission, is primarily talking or tricking women out of abortions: not really serving women in any real way who are choosing to remain pregnant. If a woman comes to an abortion clinic saying she absolutely does not want an abortion, she'll be given referrals for prenatal care, financial assistance, and to adoption resources, if she wants them. If a woman shows up at a CPC and says she absolutely WANTS an abortion, the staff will do everything they possibly can to try and get her to make a different choice, including prayer and knowingly manipulative information.

As mentioned in the link just below, The Pearson Foundation has a publication called "How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center." That book outlines, in detail, how CPCs should use misleading names that make them sound like abortion clinics, ways to present the appearance of providing abortions, and how to do what they can to hide their pro-life/antichoice positions. For example, the manual suggests answering the question, when a woman calls in, "Are you a pro-life center?" with "We are a pregnancy testing center. What is pro-life?" It is, quite literally, a manual on how to purposefully mislead women and how to be a fraud.

Here is a very good, balanced student-written article on CPCs. I have also provided a link to an extensive report on CPCs from Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) below, but to give you a taste of what he found:

87 percent of CPCs reached in the investigation provided misleading, medically inaccurate information about abortion. CPCs often withhold essential, medically accurate reproductive health information from women who are led to believe that they are visiting a neutral and objective medical facility. Despite the fact that the women who come to them are clearly sexually active and at risk for unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection, CPCs lecture them about abstinence instead of explaining contraception, if they provide any sexual health information at all.

A 2006 NAF report on CPCs (Crisis Pregnancy Centers: An Affront to Choice) quotes the following as reported from one young woman's experience at a Birthright center:

When I was 17, still in high school, I missed my period and my sister recommended what she thought was a clinic, because it had a sign for a free pregnancy test and was called ‘Birthright.' In the front hallway there was a statue of the Virgin Mary. I went with a friend, but the two counselors separated us. They had me pee in a cup and then one said that she had to talk to me separately in her office. The counselor asked me about my sexual activity, about why I thought I was pregnant, then asked if I believed in God, and what I planned to do if I was pregnant. I responded that I was Christian, my father was a minister, and that I would have an abortion. ‘What do you think that God will think of that?' the counselor asked. I responded that I believed in a forgiving God who would want me to go to college. The counselor argued that God thinks that an abortion is murder and then showed me pictures of fetuses."

Pregnant women -- or women who suspect they may be pregnant -- can get accurate, truthful and compassionate advice -- help no matter WHAT choice they want to make, and in considering their options to determine which is the right choice for them, not by anyone else's standards -- through their general physician, gynecologist and/or through family planning clinics. Abortion clinics -- which are staffed with real medical professionals -- also usually provide options counseling for women who want to discuss all their options. I assure you, no abortion clinic wants a woman to have an abortion who is not sure that is what she wants, and all take many steps to BE sure that is truly what a woman wants, even when she has come in expressly for an abortion procedure. If and when a woman comes to an abortion clinic and clearly is not sure she wants an abortion, the general procedure is to make clear to her that she then cannot be given an abortion that day, and only if she changes her mind and DOES want one should she return.

A CPC does not operate that way: they feel only one choice -- remaining pregnant -- is acceptable, and if a woman who comes to one is not sure if she wants to remain pregnant (or comes in thinking, based on their deceptions, she can obtain an abortion there and wanting one), they will employ all sorts of methods to convince her to do otherwise, based on what they want, not that woman. So, while you can get accurate, unbiased counseling on ALL your options even at an abortion clinic: you cannot at a CPC.

In addition, the most CPCs can usually offer pregnant women medically is a pregnancy test, the kind any woman can buy at a drugstore for herself. Most of what they offer is simply anti-abortion propaganda. There are rarely real medical staff at these centers, and they can't often provide things like needed sonograms or prenatal care. (Because ultrasound technology is only supposed to be used as a diagnostic tool by medical providers, and CPCs don't provide actual medical services, few of them have ultrasounds or provide them, and for the most part, they aren't supposed to be using them when it comes to ultrasounds and medical/legal policies.) For women who go in and discover they are not pregnant, they also cannot offer birth control, and most CPCs oppose birth control outright. Plenty of CPCs fraudulently advertise that they CAN provide these kinds of services even when they cannot just to lure women in.

Many CPCs have violated state laws or had fraud charges filed against them for these reasons and more. CPCs like Birthright are not an appropriate place to go for prenatal care, and in some respects, can even endanger women's health, particularly those which promise medical care fraudulently they know they cannot and do not provide. When a pregnant woman needs medical care, a delay in that care can create health risks for her and her pregnancy.

No matter WHAT reproductive choice women are going to make -- or even what choices they are personally opposed to -- they need bonafide, accurate information that is not intended to influence them emotionally, and they need real medical care. Even a woman who is pregnant, who knows she intended to sustain her pregnancy, and who is against abortion is not helped by inaccurate information or a lack of real medical care. And I think we can agree that it's really insensitive and inappropriate to show a newly-pregnant woman bloody propagandist images of stillborns. How is that helpful?

We don't get much into embryonic and fetal development here at Scarleteen because it's a bit outside our scope -- most of our users are trying to avoid/prevent pregnancy -- and fetal development is usually only an issue for women who are pregnant and who have decided to continue their pregnancies. Certainly, when a woman who is pregnant and asking about abortion asks about fetal development, we talk about stages of development with her truthfully and refer her to good additional resources. We also counsel pregnant women asking for help in making a reproductive choice based on their questions, and they don't tend to ask about development, save when they are well into a pregnancy, intend to remain pregnant, and are either just curious or asking about prenatal health. Since it's best a pregnant woman directs these kinds of questions to her healthcare provider, that is who we will generally refer her to if she is asking about prenatal issues in-depth.

There are a lot of resources for pregnant women on the internet about pregnancy, embryonic and fetal development and growth (and I'll give you some links to a few of those below). Because that need is so widely and well served elsewhere, there's just no reason for us to invest a lot of time and energy in that arena here. In my book, I do, in my extensive chapter on reproductive choices, outline the basic processes for all three choices, which for continuing a pregnancy, includes information on a developing pregnancy and childbirth.

For women who are certain they want to continue a pregnancy, the right place to go first is to a doctor, OB/GYN or general public health clinic. Besides telling you what you need to know about what to expect during a pregnancy, and how to take care of yourself, they can also talk in-depth with you about fetal development and help direct you towards any resources you may need in terms of financial or other practical assistance.

Once you know you are pregnant and know you intend to bring a pregnancy to term, going to a medical professional -- such as your family doctor or your gynecologist -- or a real medical clinic is the best first step, for both your health and that of your developing fetus.

So, that is where we would advise you -- and advise other pregnant women who want to remain pregnant -- to go to find out about fetal development and pre-natal care. We don't suggest CPCs not only because they simply rarely provide that, nor just because we don't send our users to any source we know to be medically inaccurate. We also do not endorse CPCs because any business in the practice of fraud, misleading or tricking women, and not honoring a woman's right to choose for herself what is right for her is not in line with our ethics when it comes to understanding that it is not our right, or anyone else's, to do anything but respect an individual's own right to choice and the right to factual reproductive health information. For more on why we feel that way, see here.

Here are a few more links and articles for you on CPCs:

The FWHC offers this sound advice on how to find a reliable, bonafide clinic, no matter what choice a woman is making:

  • Select clinics that provide the full range of contraceptive alternatives.
  • Ask on the phone if they provide or refer for abortion services. Avoid centers that refuse to give a straightforward answer.
  • Do not use the ones listed in yellow pages under Abortion Alternatives.
• Be cautious when surfing the web. Often you will find anti-abortion religious-based websites disguised as pro-choice information. Keep searching for reliable information.
• Select clinics that have clearly established reputations. Avoid centers with ambiguous descriptions. Avoid clinics whose staff do not provide full, clear answers regarding their services. Ask friends or relatives you trust!

And here are some excellent online resources about the process of pregnancy, embryonic and fetal development:

If you are looking for information about practical or financial assistance for a pregnancy in your teens, or general information about all your options, Backline has an excellent page of resources here. They also have a toll-free hotline at: 1-888-493-0092.

If you're in the United States and are looking expressly for practical/financial help, here in the government's page for WIC, the programs available to help low-income women, infants and children, including pregnant women. Lastly, we have long loved Girl-Mom.com for all kinds of support for teen mothers, from other young Moms.

Obviously, you have the right to think whatever opinion you have CPCs, but I'd encourage you to do some of this reading to make up your mind informedly. I'd also encourage you, if advising other women who are pregnant and in need of help, to direct them to services which DO provide the kind of real help they need, without bias or any agenda other than making sure that they are able to be assisted in taking the best care of themselves, no matter their choice. If we can't trust women to make sound choices for themselves, we can't very well trust women to be parents, and make sound choices for their children, either.


. . . . .
116 comments

Abortion will be illegal soon, so it doesn't really matter that much. Can someone please explain to me how killing a baby INSIDE a uterus is moral and dandy, but it isn't until the baby exits its mother's body that it is considered a human being and illegal to murder.... SMART.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 1, 2008 - 1:16pm.

The difference is exactly what you mentioned. As long as a developing fetus needs a woman's body (and quite possibly soul) to exist, the woman cannot be forced by law to share herself with that being. I am talking morning sickness here, restrictions on diet and movement, sciatic pain, four weeks of laying in a hospital bed, scars in private places, the loss of her uterus - all of them experienced in the course of pregnancy and childbirth by myself or close acquaintances. Sure, women submit willingly to this, but no government has the right to take this decision from us.

Submitted by Another nymous on August 1, 2008 - 3:57pm.

When you say "needs a woman's body" - do you mean nourishment?

I need nourishment (i.e. food, water, etc.)and I am 33 years old. Are you suggesting that I could be terminated at the will of the local grocer, farmer or government (since they subsidize most of our farms)?

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 2, 2008 - 12:13am.

You need nourishment but you don't have the right to have your body attached to another's in order to gather that nourishment.

Your analogy doesn't work because it assumes that the fetus is completely separate from the Woman and able to get resources the way that you get groceries from the store. It doesn't work that way. Because the fetus is physically attached to the Woman's body, the Woman has to decide whether she is capable of remaining pregnant or not.

You need nourishment and you have the resources to get it without the sacrifice of another person's body. THAT is the difference.

Submitted by Jenna on August 3, 2008 - 1:14am.

one that doesn't include being attached physically to the mother? Perhaps we should grow all of our babies in test-tubes!? This way, they wouldn't infringe on us for 9mos... Heck, why not make the abortion laws up to 18yrs old or subjective based on the person's maturity level. I know some people in the late '20 early '30s still dependent on their parents - should they be terminated! In fact, if you talk to these parents, they would say that the pychological attachment is worse than the physical attachment...

At what point do you allow nature to run its course and stop trying to manipulate it. I think your life would be a lot happier if you allow the master design for you and others to blossom. Nurturing others, especially helpless babies in womb, is one of the most (if not the most) basic of human tenderness and love. To go against this basic tenant of Love starts a negative ripple effect that can be very destructive for everyone.

It's almost like you just like holding the power (bestowed upon you) over the baby's head - like an evil-dictator or tyrant would with food or other resources for the population. We know you are a woman and have the power to terminate - but why would you? Is it just because you can?

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 3, 2008 - 5:45pm.

Truth Returns,
You just don't understand the concept of physical dependency and social dependency, do you? A fetus is physically dependent upon a Woman's body. No one else can offer support because it's not physically possible. Once born, the neonate and everyone else (including 18 year olds and on up), can be cared for by anyone because they are no longer physically attached to one specific person's body. This is merely social dependence. Since the fetus can only depend upon that specific Woman's body, the Woman is the only one who can decide whether she can allow that dependence to continue or not. Every pregnancy has risks for the Woman, even the healthiest Women.



At what point do you allow nature to run its course and stop trying to manipulate it.

At the point I decide that I can, physically, emotionally, mentally, and financially.



I think your life would be a lot happier if you allow the master design for you and others to blossom.

We each have the ability to determine what "design" we'd like for our own lives. And I am quite happy following that design, TYVM. I think it's quite arrogant and condescending to assume that you know what is best for people you've never met.



Nurturing others, especially helpless babies in womb, is one of the most (if not the most) basic of human tenderness and love.

How can I nurture anyone else when I still need to nurture and give birth to myself? You cannot force anyone to become a parent, to nurture another, when they are not ready to do so. People have to be prepared to do this job and the skills they need are not automatically given when a birth occurs. That's why it's so great that we have the freedom to decide for ourselves if we really can take on such an awesome responsibility or not.



It's almost like you just like holding the power (bestowed upon you)

That's right, it's bestowed upon ME and no one else because no one else is being asked to risk their body, health, or life. That's why Women hold the power, not governments, not doctor's, not ethics committees.



We know you are a woman and have the power to terminate - but why would you?

Because for whatever reason, I do not have the skills or resources available to take on the awesome responsibility of raising another human being. The reasons why Women choose abortion are as varied and individual as the Women themselves. Everyone has their own reason, everyone has their own story. Every Woman has her own life and body to worry about it. Every Woman has to make the decision about whether there is room in her life and body or not. I would never presume that I know more about each individual Woman's life than she does herself.



Peace,
Jenna

Submitted by Jenna on August 3, 2008 - 9:35pm.

You might consider that with the society we live in, in which we are governed without choice, there are many pressures that keep us from being able to simply give birth and raise a child in a loving, healthy environment. Our society is rather corrupt and is creating many corrupt minds that were once innocent children. Many of you believe we should send our living, conscious neighbors and brothers to war, at the risk of many lives, for a cold, greedy government, but an undeveloped child (which we all once were) deserves no such treatment. This thinking is shallow, absurd and not the least bit critical. There are many atrocities out there, where people and animals are tortured emotionally and physically, kept alive and with a developed form of language that further assists this torment because they are able to reflect and conceptualize the injustices done on them. Much different than the quick and unconceived process that occurs during abortion. If my husband and i could claim a piece of land and build our home out of found materials and feed ourselves in a natural environment where the work is the process of attaining food (hunting, gathering), then perhaps abortion would not be something I would consider. The problem is that I live in a corrupt place with arbitrary laws that suit the objectives of the governments and corps that pay me as they wish while concurrently charging me as they wish for the food (etc) that I need to survive in such a society. Life is tough for many and bringing a child into this world with social structures as they are is not always possible. Nobody wants to be a slave. Many people are not properly educated until it is too late. They need to make the right choice for them. Also, with the problem of population growth, if laws stated "no abortions", then we'd all be dying a lot faster as living conditions become less sanitary, women are less likely to be educated and therefore pass on such patterns to their children, we run out of nutrient-providing food.....the list goes on and on...Many warm-hearted people choose abortions. Many people know what they can provide to a child and if it is not to their standard, they may choose not to go through with it - for the sake of the child. This issue is far more complex than "you're killing a living being". Read some books, people! Learn about biases. Your biases will intellectually stunt you if you continue to support them with such passion.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 9, 2008 - 7:18am.

The theory of over-population was thrown out years ago, and not even the socially liberal economics professors will refute that... Old arguments die hard! Anyway, your reasoning has not logic whatsoever... You are going to kill babies because the world is a terrible place? Then don't get pregnant! Furthermore, this is a terribly hopeless world view and we are not to despair. In short, the issue is not "more complex" it's simple: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." It's not for you to decide life and death issues. You can neither create nor destroy life. As far as war is concerned the same applies, unless it is deemed a just war. You need to start reading philosophy and logic rather than your emotion-based liberal propanganda.

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 9, 2008 - 10:05am.

It's not for you to decide life and death issues.

Oh, yeah? Who should decide then? You? Don't make me laugh.
-

As far as war is concerned the same applies, unless it is deemed a just war.

Let me guess. You get to make that determination, too. Sounds like you've got delusions of grandeur.

Submitted by Dr. Dredd on August 9, 2008 - 5:06pm.

I am astounded at your lack of education and coldhearted selfishness . . .

Submitted by Nora Lacey on August 25, 2008 - 3:01pm.

You made the decision to have the child when you laid in bed with a man. Women who undergo abortions have no soul.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 2, 2008 - 11:07pm.

If we have no souls, then what's the problem? No use in trying to save what's not there, right?

Submitted by Jenna on August 3, 2008 - 1:16am.

Please explain how consent to sex is irrevocable consent to pregnancy.

That's like saying that consent to manual or oral sex is automatically consent to vaginal or anal sex. Or that consent to vaginal sex is consent to sperm in the uterus. Or that consent to ANY sex is consent to all sex in the future, or that one cannot withdraw their consent and has no right to say "stop".

It's like telling the victim of a terrible car accident that they made their choice when they got into that car, and that they deserve to "face the consequences" and get no medical assistence because they took the risk.

Submitted by Sayna on August 8, 2008 - 3:19pm.

vaginal intercourse has ONLY two outcomes which are known for sure ahead of time:

1. Pregnancy
2. No Pregnancy

You know ahead of time that sex leads directly to children. So if you make that choice you are stupid if you were to say, "But...I didn't know I could get pregnant!!!???" So your analogy is flawed and doesn't work.

As far as your, "...consent to ANY sex is consent to all sex in the future..." Not sure where your going with this, and what this has to do with getting pregnant and abortion/adoption/or keeping the baby?

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 9, 2008 - 10:16am.

vaginal intercourse driving has ONLY two outcomes which are known for sure ahead of time:

1. Pregnancy Wrecking
2. No Pregnancy Not wrecking

You know ahead of time that sex driving leads directly to children wrecks. So if you make that choice you are stupid if you were to say, "But...I didn't know I could get pregnant in an accident!!!???"

... You're not making any sense, Truth. You haven't actually shown anything about the risks of driving that isn't comparable to the risks of sex. It's only by special pleading that you've convinced yourself otherwise.

Submitted by DL on August 9, 2008 - 10:22am.

...has many different possible outcomes:

1. Go pick up a friend
2. Go to car wash
3. Go to McDonald's
4. Cross country trip
5. Car explodes immediately
6. Sit in the car
7. Clean inside of car
8. Racing the car
9. Pick up mother and go to lunch
10. ...

and the list goes on and on... Not true with having intercourse - there are only two outcomes:

1. Pregnant
2. Not Pregnant

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 14, 2008 - 10:57pm.

If those really, truly are the only two possible outcomes of the sex (and for many of us, intercourse is not the only kind of sex there is) you've been having, Truth...

..then all I can say is that I'm terribly sorry.

Submitted by Heather C. on August 14, 2008 - 11:05pm.

... and how!

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on August 15, 2008 - 5:21pm.

The commenter could have just as easily pointed out the known accident risk of driving the car.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 15, 2008 - 9:29pm.

That people write entire books, and devote permanent space in magazines, for "Pregnant/Not Pregnant"?


Educate yourself.

Submitted by DL on August 16, 2008 - 6:15am.

When you have vaginal intercourse there are only two outcomes. The books and magazines are written about things (feelings, STI's, etc.) surrounding intercourse. The reason for this is because it is one of the most intense feelings that humans can experience, and if you get an STI that wouldn't be a good day. The intensity of the feelings are so INTENSE that sex can be addictive and is abused in our society.

The term sex includes other activities but we aren't talking about activities that don't cause pregnancy (hence Crisis Pregancy Centers vs. Abortion Clinics). The point is that if a man and woman decide to have unprotected vaginal intercourse then they shouldn't be too surprised when they get pregnant since there are two major outcomes to this behavior: Prenant/Not Pregnant. You could also get a STI at the same time but the decision set for an STI does not have moral implications just like driving usually doesn't have moral implications (unless you purposely hit a pedestrian).

By the way, if we are going to believe something because people write a lot of books/magazines about the topic then we have reliquenshed are own intellect and deserve to be governed by the masses! At some point, you have to listen to the truth which (in our society) would very rarely be written since we are mainly a society that believes in Moral Relativism (i.e. Everyone's Truth is the Truth).

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 18, 2008 - 9:14am.

By the same token, driving has two major outcomes: wrecking and not wrecking. The fact that there are so many books and magazine articles on sex serves to demonstrate that there are far more outcomes than you included in your simple-minded analysis. However, if you want to restrict sex to its "major" outcomes then we ought to do the same for driving, and we end up with "to wreck or not to wreck."

Driving is full of moral implications because it is full of risks: for the driver, for the passengers, for other motorists and pedestrians, and for property. Sex has moral implications for the same reason. There is no material difference here.

The only difference is that sex has theological implications in your faith tradition while driving does not. I really don't give the rear half of a secondhand rat.

This is not an appeal to moral relativism, but to moral reasoning. You cannot simply set aside all other facts and analyses because your viewpoint is "The Truth" until you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.

Submitted by DL on August 18, 2008 - 4:18pm.

The comparison wasn't to getting INTO the car, it was driving. Driving has two outcomes, you either get to your destination without wrecking or you wreck. The least you could do is read through the comment before making yourself look like a fool.

Submitted by KWCM on August 18, 2008 - 7:24pm.

doesn't want women to have all the facts about what is inside the mother's womb, since they aren't willing to do pre-abortion screening:

"So consider these two facts: (1) Planned Parenthood of Missouri calls exposure to liability for pre-abortion screening for known risk factors a ban, and (2) Planned Parenthood of South Dakota closes its doors rather than accepting liability for informing women about statistically proven risk factors so they can do their own risk-benefit analyses.

What does this tell us?

In short, it tells us that Planned Parenthood would rather close its doors than face any liability for making even a minimal effort to avoid doing abortions that are unwanted, unsafe, or unnecessary. Perhaps it is because unwanted, unsafe, and unnecessary abortions provide the bulk of their business."

This excerpt taken from a recent article and a very interesting read... See link below...

See full article here:
http://www.lifenews.com/printpage.php

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 1, 2008 - 6:01pm.

Planned Parenthood of South Dakota closes its doors rather than accepting liability for informing women about statistically proven risk factors so they can do their own risk-benefit analyses.

Except that they aren't "statistically proven" nor are they medically or scientifically accepted. They are dogma dressed up in a lab coat in order to intimidate Women with exaggerated risks in the hopes that they won't have an abortion.


If at first you don't succeed, LIE, Lie again!

Submitted by Jenna on August 1, 2008 - 8:00pm.

dressed in a lab coat" is an insult to real scientists. A more accurate label is "dogma dressed in a cheap tuxedo."

Submitted by MargaretSangerWasFramed! on August 3, 2008 - 10:50pm.

doesn't want women to have all the facts about what is inside the mother's womb, since they aren't willing to do pre-abortion screening:

Do you know this for sure, or are you just guessing?

"So consider these two facts: (1) Planned Parenthood of Missouri calls exposure to liability for pre-abortion screening for known risk factors a ban, and (2) Planned Parenthood of South Dakota closes its doors rather than accepting liability for informing women about statistically proven risk factors so they can do their own risk-benefit analyses.

I'm not up on the Missouri case, but I have done some reading about the SD one and that statement is entirely bogus. The anti-abortion politicians in the SD legislature passed this nonsense law which requires abortion providers to tell women "this abortion will kill a whole, seperate, and unique human being."
NO WHERE does it say a thing about the supposed risks of abortion. I don't know what the judge who upheld this piece of state sponsored propaganda was thinking,but 1) as the forced recitation involves unwarranted government intrusion into a PRIVATE medical decision between a woman and a doctor, it is unconstutitional.
2)The law is repugnant as well because it assumes women are too stupid to know what they are getting into. This meme is complete B.S. and the sooner your disabuse yourself of the belief this law is somehow "helping" women, the better.

What does this tell us?

In short, it tells us that Planned Parenthood would rather close its doors than face any liability for making even a minimal effort to avoid doing abortions that are unwanted, unsafe, or unnecessary. Perhaps it is because unwanted, unsafe, and unnecessary abortions provide the bulk of their business."

BOGUS!! This is complete supposition without any evidence to back it up. If you knew ANYTHING about PP (it's clear you don't,plus you don't want to learn), then you would know only 3% of PPs nationwide provide abortion. The bulk of PP's business comes from providing healthcare to women - basic exams, cancer screenings, pre and post natal care, etc. I wish the PP hadn't closed its doors because women will have nowhere else to turn for basic health care. The CPCs certainly won't help them. Some kind of compromise could have been reached, perhaps a pre-propaganda statement along the lines of "I'm sorry to do this to you, but the law mandates I must now recite a line of anti abortion BS to you. Ready?"

Submitted by MargaretSangerWasFramed! on August 3, 2008 - 11:10pm.

If they make money doing other things for women other than killing their children then why would they close their doors? Why not just go through the disclaimer and move on. The reason is that Planned Parenthood's main business is abortion and the fact that you are arguing different means you are unable to maintain Intellectual Honesty in your argument.

As far as the risks are concerned, the fact that the young woman is "killing a unique human being" is the RISK. The law is making sure that Planned Parenthood is stating that which they are doing to make sure the "patient" has all the facts. Planned Parenthood wants them to have all the facts, right? That's what many are accusing the CPC's of, right, not giving all the facts. As Heather said in her article in the first place "...we don't get into educating about the development of your child here..." and neither does Planned Parenthood. It's kill or not kill, which do you want? Go to your OB/GYN for contraceptives or other women's care services like everybody else.

If Planned Parenthood made their money in other ways and were on the up and up then they would have had no problem with the law, right? Oh, they closed their doors...oops.

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 4, 2008 - 12:18am.

If they make money doing other things for women other than killing their children then why would they close their doors? Why not just go through the disclaimer and move on. The reason is that Planned Parenthood's main business is abortion and the fact that you are arguing different means you are unable to maintain Intellectual Honesty in your argument.

You must be insane. PP's main business is NOT abortion, the fact that only 3% of PPs nationwide provide abortion care is proof of that. Unless you really, really enjoy aruging against the facts. That particular PP just could not stomach being forced by an unconstitutional law that insulted women to recite a piece of state sponsored anti abortion propaganda. You can't prove YOUR argument and that shows your lack of "Intellectual Honesty" all too well.

As far as the risks are concerned, the fact that the young woman is "killing a unique human being" is the RISK. The law is making sure that Planned Parenthood is stating that which they are doing to make sure the "patient" has all the facts.

Each woman is a unique human being herself, and laws that treat them like stupid children aren't factual at all.

Planned Parenthood wants them to have all the facts, right? That's what many are accusing the CPC's of, right, not giving all the facts. As Heather said in her article in the first place "...we don't get into educating about the development of your child here..." and neither does Planned Parenthood. It's kill or not kill, which do you want? Go to your OB/GYN for contraceptives or other women's care services like everybody else.

Where's your evidence to back up these accusations about PP? You keep hammering away on the same baseless accusations, and that is very telling about your motives. You simply hate PP because some of the centers provide abortion care

If Planned Parenthood made their money in other ways and were on the up and up then they would have had no problem with the law, right? Oh, they closed their doors...oops.

I believe you just committed the logical fallacy called post hoc propter hoc. Because you hold to a particular belief about PP, therefore it must be true. Even with a complete lack of evidence to back you up.

Submitted by MargaretSangerWasFramed! on August 4, 2008 - 12:46am.

Planned Parenthood's business model is Abortion! You should know this...

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 4, 2008 - 1:40am.

Or will you back up this baseless accusation once and for all? It's time to put up,or shut up.

Submitted by MargaretSangerWasFramed! on August 4, 2008 - 9:38pm.

People go to Walgreens and CVS for contraception, and they go to Planned Parenthood for Abortions. You can't argue this point because that's their business - no one refutes this!

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 5, 2008 - 2:13am.

After reading a large number of your posts here, I've concluded that you're nothing more than an argumentative troll. When I lived in the US I did not have insurance and I went to Planned Parenthood for regular checkups AND for contraception! Why? Because the contraception was free or at a very discounted price. I would never have gone to CVS to get contraception, I couldn't afford it! Even now I get my contraception at my doctor's office, not a pharmacy.

Submitted by KWCM on August 5, 2008 - 12:23pm.

Our pal Truth also seems to somehow be unaware that pharmacies cannot write prescriptions, they can only fill them.

Unless a person is buying an over-the-counter method of contraception -- condoms, spermicides, emergency contraception or, in some areas, the contraceptive sponge -- they will need to see a healthcare provider for a prescription for other methods to be filled at those pharmacies. And indeed, many people choose to also purchase those methods through clinics like Planned Parenthood or others or via their own doctor's offices for the sake of convenience or due to lower cost.

But our pal isn't aware of much, nor does she seem to understand that she is at a reproductive health hub where many of us make our living in the field and have a much better idea of what does and does not go on than she does.

Wanna bet she tells you your BC is cheaper at Planned Parenthood not because of family planning funding, but because of how much they're rolling in dough due to all those abortion services, and how wretched you are for obtaining birth control on the backs of dead babies?

Submitted by Heather C. on August 5, 2008 - 12:44pm.

not more supposition. Which is utterly useless without a data set to back it up. You CLAIM you can walk the talk, but it is obvious that was nothing but hot air.

Submitted by MargaretSangerWasFramed! on August 6, 2008 - 8:55pm.

the fact that all health service providers get money when they prescribe a treatment, instead of saying not to do it?

Submitted by Harry834 on August 18, 2008 - 10:59am.

the planned parenthood in my city does not offer abortions.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 18, 2008 - 1:58pm.

The anti-abortion politicians in the SD legislature passed this nonsense law which requires abortion providers to tell women "this abortion will kill a whole, seperate, and unique human being"... as the forced recitation involves unwarranted government intrusion into a PRIVATE medical decision between a woman and a doctor, it is unconstutitional.

There had been a preliminary injunction against the statement, on the grounds that it violated doctors' free speech rights, but the injunction was recently lifted.
-
The pro-lifer groups wanted the law because, religiously, they believe that life begins at conception. I think we need to fight fire with fire. Not all religions believe this way; some, like conservative Judaism, believe that life begins at birth. Find a doctor who believes life begins at birth and have them once again bring suit under the 1st Amendment. But this time, it will be on freedom of religion grounds rather than freedom of speech.
-
If the courts still deny the injunction, they're in essence saying that one set of beliefs is overruled by another. In my book, that's an establishment of religion by the state, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Submitted by Dr. Dredd on August 5, 2008 - 2:21pm.

I mistakenly went to a CPC when I was 19, a sophmore in college, and two weeks late. The CPC was located in a strip center full of doctor's offices and specialized clinics. It shared a sign and storefront with these very official medical establishments. I was quite confused and thought it was an actual Health Clinic.


After being taken back to pee in a cup which I handed to someone wearing scrubs (who then stuck a regular, ordinary over-the-counter test into the cup for a few seconds), I was asked to sit and wait in an office. A "counselor" came in wearing a lab coat. She asked me why I was here and this further confused me because I thought it was rather obvious why I was there. She asked me if I had thought about what I would do if the test came back positive. I nodded and told her, "I'm not ready in any sense of the word to be a mother. I would choose an abortion."


She asked me if I believed in God and I told her I was agnostic. She stared at me for a few moments confused by that word and then asked, "what is that? like an atheist?" I then had to explain the difference between the two but the explanation didn't matter because she had made up her mind about me.


She told me that God never sent you anymore than you could bear to handle, that He wanted every baby girl and boy to be born, and that I needed to forge a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ."


I asked her, "if God wants 'every baby girl and boy to be born' then why does he create some of them so damaged that they die in utero?"


She ignored the question and launched into how bad abortion was, how much I would inevitably end up regretting it, how I would go crazy and depressed, how my relationship would end, how it would put my soul in danger, and how I would probably not only develop breast cancer but I would also have multiple miscarriages in the future or be rendered completely infertile. And that all of those things would serve me right if I made the decision to have an abortion.


After a good 45 minutes of giving me a sermon, showing me pictures, and trashing my faith and my ability to think critically, she finally gave me my test results. I was Not Pregnant according to their over-the-counter test.


I never encourage anyone to subject themselves to such judgmental and disrespectful treatment. If it's someone I know, I offer to buy them a home test so that they can find out in privacy. The more Women know what these places are really like, hopefully the fewer will go.

Submitted by Jenna on August 1, 2008 - 7:54pm.

Where was this?

Submitted by pro-life atheist on August 2, 2008 - 2:23am.

Huntsville. Where I went to college.

Submitted by Jenna on August 3, 2008 - 1:17am.

Hi Jenna--- I am the developer of a new website about CPCs and the dangers they pose to reproductive rights and women's well being in general. We have a testimonials page where women can submit their experiences to inform site visitors of what these "centers" are really all about. With your permission (and the permission of Ms. Corinna as well, as this is her column), I'd love to publish your story on the site. I'd just need a first name (first initial or fake name is okay) and location (wherever you were when you visited the CPC). Let me know! You can email me at cpcwatch@gmail.com or by visiting the page: www.cpcwatch.org

Thanks!

Submitted by cpcwatcher on August 4, 2008 - 5:38pm.

I went to a CPC right after I graduated from highschool. I was given a test and then counseled on the risks of abortion when I told them I was considering it. My test came back positive and I cried for a very long time. The counselor did comfort me but I wasn't going to change my mind. I had decided before I knew that I was going to get an abortion if the test came back positive.


Well, the counselor tried to talk me out of it but then saw I wasn't going to change my mind. She took me into another room and told me that an ultrasound was a standard part of the "services" they provided. When she started doing the ultrasound, she turned the screen around and someone had taped a piece of paper on the screen like a speech bubble that said, "Hello Mommy!"


I left there not knowing what to do. She did not tell me ANY risks of pregnancy, she did not even encourage me to seek prenatal care. I made an appointment at an actual clinic in my town but the soonest they could see me was three and a half weeks later.


With one week to go before my appointment, I began experiencing severe abdominal and back pain. I didn't know what was going on or anything. It got so bad that I finally told my mother that I needed to go to the emergency room. Once there, I informed the nurse that I had had a positive pregnancy test and I pulled the ultrasound out of my pocket and handed it to her. They called an ultrasound technician down to look at it and she immediately became alarmed. She talked to the doctor and they ordered a vaginal ultrasound. They determined that I was experiencing an ectopic pregnancy. I was rushed to a non-religious hospital in the city an hour and a half away for emergency surgery to remove the pregnancy.


The CPC was not a health clinic, the Woman who performed the ultrasound was not a trained or credentialed professional, and NO ONE told me that I could be at risk for a pregnancy that could KILL me.


I don't want to say that they cannot or should not exist but if they are going to pretend to be a health clinic, if they are going to perform ultrasounds, and if they are going to attempt to dispense medical advice, they should at least have some training and be credentialed to do so. That pregnancy could have killed me.

Submitted by Christy on August 1, 2008 - 8:21pm.

Unfortunately, Christy, there was most likely no way the CPC *could* have known you were ectopic. In receiving testimonials from women who have visited CPCs for the webpage I'm developing (www.cpcwatch.org), I'm shocked at the number of women who believe they were seeing actual doctors because the staff wore lab coats and operated a sonogram (ultrasound) machine. This, of course, does not require a medical degree or a license of any kind actually... just a lot of money (much of which are your tax dollars!) and an operation manual. They don't know WHAT they're seeing, except that they see throbbing, indicating pregnancy. You or I could tell this with the right equipment ourselves, but unlike experienced medical professionals (of which CPCs usually staff none), we could never tell if the fetus was ectopic or detect any other life threatening irregularities.

The only thing CPCs know about ectopic pregnancies is that they're supposed to tell women that abortion will make them more likely to have ectopics later in life. Which is not true by thew way... both Mayo Clinic and BMJ have done extensive research on the matter and have deturmined there's no connection between termination OR spontaneous abortion and risk for ectopics. Or breast cancer or infertility for that matter... while I'm in abortion-myth-debunking mode :)

Submitted by CPC Watcher on August 4, 2008 - 9:09pm.

Actually ultrasonography is an imperfect method for detecting tubal pregnancies.

One reason methotrexate is better for medical abortion than RU-486 is the methotrexate will kill a tubal pregnancy but the RU-486 will not.

Submitted by SoMG on August 11, 2008 - 5:16am.

Yes, I know ultrasounds are a good way to detect ectopics. What I meant was, ultrasound machines operated by non-doctors ARE NOT a good way to detect them. Hence, the folks at the CPC couldn't tell she was ectopic the way a REAL doctor could have.

Submitted by CPC Watcher on August 16, 2008 - 4:34pm.

The only LIE or, at the very least, egregious disregard for human life occurred on January 22, 1973 by MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN.

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. 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."

Then don't speculate...!!!???

Blackmun's error was that he set aside from his decision-making process the question of when life begins. He claimed, in the opinion of the court, that is wasn't his responsibility to determine when life begins but rather the world's medical, philosophical and theological world's responsiblity and because they disagreed he wasn't going to "...speculate as to the answer." In doing this, he couldn't possibly make a fully informed decision about whether or not someone has a right to terminate what "might" be a human being.

Think about it - Blackmun was saying that because the argument of when life begins was/is too controversial that he wasn't going to decide this -- so he set it aside stating, "...at this point in the development of man's knowledge..." we don't have enough information to make this decision. If you don't know when life begins then you have a duty to error on the side of life. To do anything else is to "possibly" commit murder.

Imagine you are a police officer testing your new state-issued weapon at the firing range and you are hitting the target and doing a great job... Then someone taps you on the shoulder and says, "Hey...there is a 50/50 chance that there is a human being directly behind that target your shooting at!"

What do you think that police officer has a duty to do?

Blackmun had the same responsibility.

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 1, 2008 - 11:22pm.

Life began millions of years ago. Sheesh.

Submitted by Clara on August 8, 2008 - 7:58pm.

What does life beginning billions of years ago have to do with life beginning at conception in the womb?

Submitted by Truth Returns on August 9, 2008 - 10:22am.

Truth Returns,
What does your rant have to do with CPC's posing as health clinics and LYING to Women in order to manipulate them into keeping a pregnancy?



If you don't know when life begins then you have a duty to error on the side of life.

The SCOTUS DID "err on the side of life." They chose to recognize the Life that DOES actually exist, the life that is not potential but actualized. In short, they recognized the Life of the Woman and her right to determine the use of her body and the scope and direction of her own life.
Peace,
Jenna

Submitted by Jenna on August 1, 2008 - 11:44pm.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <iframe> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <h2> <h3> <h4> <br> <img> <blockquote> <b> <i> <span> <div> <center> <strike> <del>
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Glossary terms will be automatically marked with links to their descriptions.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
Are you human?
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.