46 comments
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Lola1994!
Unfortunately, I was stuck doing marketing for an agency who had this niche. Left the agency but the pregnancy centers said shocking and terrible things. They also treated my coworkers (who didn’t primarily work on pregnancy centers) terribly. They were very needy and actually paid less because of their beliefs.
Avatar Placeholder
SS
And you still moss the fact that this is a secular country and religion has no place in decision making.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Anonymous
It’s not a secular country (the Declaration of Independence states that all men were created equal), it’s a country with no state religion where free exercise is constitutionally protected. That means women can seek help from religious charities when they’re in need.
Avatar
josfregosoedelstein
You did't prove Oliver lied or took anything out of context, you simply provided lame excuses for the lies and deception of CPCs.
You also didn't prove that the "medical advice" provided by unlicensed charlatans at CPS are nothing more that false propaganda and religious inspired superstitions.
Stop pretending you are promoting "better dialogues".
.
Avatar
AtwoodsNobel
As someone who has received services at a CPC, I can vouch for every anti-CPC trope out there. John Oliver's segment had every right to hold an indignant tone over these centers. He even frames it at one point, "regardless of where you fall on the abortion debate, why is it alright to legally give women false medical information?"
CPC operates under the safety of being a non-profit without being a medical clinic. Pregnancy is the only medical condition I can think of where is it alright to give misinformation and not be sued in this country. If I had a center of some sort under the same pretenses, but was (without a license) performing free ultrasounds on people who were worried about kidney diagnoses, and yet telling them it might be a kidney stone when it in fact turned out to be a tumor, I would get sued and put on the street before the month was up. Wouldn't matter if I was trying my darn, tootin' best. My actions had very real and tangible effects on a person, and Good Samaritan clauses do not apply here.
My own experience at a CPC involved repeating, "NO, NO, NO, this has been dunked, NO, NO, NO, and that is false," in response to a "counselor's" claims regarding abortion and mental/physical health. Imagine that I hadn't received a good education earlier in life? Imagine I hadn't been so brave at that moment? This woman would have shamed and scared me into refusing actual medical care after I literally moments ago found out I was pregnant.
Without hearing anything about an actual clinic that could offer prenatal care (check-ups, blood tests, etc), I left after awkwardly agreeing to an ultrasound session two weeks later. John's claims about trying to run the clock out on abortion legality? I can vouch for that. Here is where the malpractice comes into play. Why would a health-minded worker schedule an ultrasound so far in advance if something could be wrong?
How was this unlicensed "counselor" even supposed to give me an ultrasound? They market it in the way a clinic would, but what if something is horribly wrong and they don't know to look for it? I surely don't know that they are inept, since they have never revealed to me that they are not a true clinic. They do everything in their power to look like one, however.
They prey on the assumption women make, "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." to lure them in. As soon as I heard the word, "God," I knew to get the hell out of there. But before that? They have an awfully clean facility. They have a waiting room, a check-in receptionist, a sign-in sheet, medical questionnaire, registration, staff in scrubs, etc. Have you ever walked into a doctor's office and had the staff exclaim, "Hi there! We are a legally licensed clinic for medical advice and treatment!"?
Yeah, I didn't think so. That would be beyond unconventional and strange, since no one in this country is raised thinking that impersonation of a medical clinic is a legal possibility.
I walked down the street to Planned Parenthood, costs be damned. (I was uninsured at the time). They immediately scheduled an ultrasound three days later to rule out an ectopic pregnancy at my first mention of a positive test. My appointment was scheduled so far in advance because they were booked from open until close to that point.
Here's why it's important.
Ectopic pregnancy is a very real, deadly implantation that occurs outside of the uterus. It occurs naturally in about one out of every two-hundred pregnancies. Sometimes the woman's body takes care of it, recognizing the mass as "not quite right" and expelling it without complication. In other cases, it implants somewhere fatal, like a fallopian tube, where its growth will eventually rupture the organ and very quickly cause death of the mother through acute internal bleeding.
As a true medical professional today, my given directive for all women of child-bearing age complaining of torso pain, or showing sudden loss of consciousness or de/compensated shock is this: evaluate and rule-out ectopic pregnancy as soon as humanly possible.
Thanks to the CPC's unethical practices, I could have bled out in the street for all they cared. They simply didn't want me going anywhere near an option for termination.
I understand first amendment rights, and I think NILFA v Becerra was botched in how narrowly the defendants chose to enfore the FACT Act (targeting CPCs when a blanket rule for nonprofits might have sufficed?)
CPCs are especially predatory since individuals who want to litigate must 1) Have the resources to bring the case against armies of Heartbeat International lawyers, and 2) Have been personally harmed by the practice.
Let me make myself clear: women with money, women with insurance, women with health care options will never choose to set foot in one of these clinics. How many impoverished women thanks to a "tricked" pregnancy have the time and resources to undertake such an additional burden? Or the flip-side, privileged women such as I cannot legally demonstrate any harm-- because we were educated enough to walk away.
In the future the actions of CPCs need to be treated as an impersonation of police officers: a crime.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Anonymous
If any of this really happened (a CPC delayed you from an accurate pregnancy diagnosis) I would suggest identifying where and when, and the name of the centre. Keeping it secret does a disservice to vulnerable women and some of them could end up bleeding out on the streets from ectopic pregnancy because they go to this sham clinic instead of a real health provider. It goes against the standard of care major CPC chains have in place, but there are still bad apples out there.
Avatar
AtwoodsNobel
Thank you for taking the time to write this! Thank you for being an ally. This author seems to only have a leg to stand by bloviating, invoking logical fallacies, and citing bunk medical studies (that the authors themselves admitted failed to prove causation, failed to establish directionality, lacked key variables, and chose not to use widely accepted reporting practices).
They're all fantastic reads if you have a pot of tea and are ready to laugh. I thank the true medical community for placing policies that force the disclosure of such things in published papers. (I don't think I am cynical in believing that the papers were published with an intent of having an attention-grabbing title rather than a deduction based on scientific practices.)
Avatar Placeholder
LBD
I have to join in here BC the big old morality ploy is really BS.
I used to be a Christian Conservative anti Abortionist female.
Then I grew up and realised that some women are TERRIBLE mothers and fathers and some children are horrible people that really don't deserve to live. Your "dear child" is more likely to rape someone, haze someone, threaten someone, get in a car crash with someone, and then die... than cure cancer. Statistically.
Now I am an atheist a libertarian and Pro Choice 100% and proud of it.
So with my bias aside let me explain why your morality ploy is BS.
Morality cannot be used bc EVERYONE'S MORALITY IS DIFFERENT as a standard of measurement.
Literally everyone.
Think i'm wrong? Ask the person sitting next to you in church what all their taxes should go to... (none of which goes to abortion anyway) and see all that you disagree with. You will.
In fact morality changes so rapidly that
300 years ago it was immoral for a set of colonies to break from it's "mother" country.
200 years ago it was MORAL for slavery to exist in the USA.
100 years ago it was IMMORAL for women to be allowed to vote BC "politics is dirty".
80 years ago it was "immoral" for a woman to show her knees because "knees are a temptation to men to sin".
60 years ago it was "immoral" for a married middle class woman to take birth control.
40 years ago it was "immoral" for gay men to be open in their relationships.
20 years ago it was "immoral" for a person to take weed due to needing to not be ill from cancer treatment.
10 years ago it was "immoral" to most politicians running for office to support gay marriage.
See how much changes how quickly! Morality changes almost by 50% every 5 years.
What is moral to a Muslim is not moral to a Roman Catholic
What is moral to a Jew is not moral to a Gentile (mixed threads etc...)
Avatar
meka3000
"CPC segment ends this way because John Oliver despises Christians"
Or maybe it's the Christian's who bare false witness that he has a problem with? Like the ones from CPC who bare false witness?
"other CPCs are medical providers"
Where's your proof of this exactly?
"she has never encouraged a center to lie about what they do"
Appearing neutral, when the truth is not; is lying. What you brought up is a distinction without a difference.
Also Abby hasn't backed up her claims with anything other than hearsay.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
clinthenryespiritu
I too have come to despise Christians. You believe in a Genie in the sky, fine. But don't enforce your belief in others. Unless you can prove to me scientifically and logically that God exists.
Avatar
agneslongstaff
This is a wonderful comment. The points you referenced here were the exact ones that I found fault with in this article, and I'm so glad that you took the time to check the facts. I'm very sorry about your friend, and I hope logical people like you can help others to have a rational conversation about difficult topics like this one.
Avatar Placeholder
Justin Time
"Oliver also complains about CPCs buying Google ads for keywords like abortion, and for locating themselves close to abortion facilities. There is nothing wrong with these common practices. Again, it’s just good marketing."
I am sorry this isn't McDonalds vs Burger King where making the most money and selling the most burgers is the #1 goal, these are basically nonprofit organization who main goal should be offering a service to help people and give them the best possible information they have(and not by tricking people, they should be out right for instance that they don't do abortions and are personally against them).
When your marketing strategy is trying to fool it's "customers" then you lose any more high ground you believe you have. I am fairly certain their is a need for the services these crisis pregnancy offer for many pregnant females who don't want abortions or even undecided if they should get one, but they should be upfront about it before you go there, not try trick you into it and then use heavy handed tactics to get you to see it your way.
Beyond that if the person in question wants services the CPC doesn't offer(contraception or abortions) they should in the best interest of that person have a list of places they may contact about those kind of services after they give their pitch.
Hide Replies 12
Avatar Placeholder
Anonymous
There's nothing inaccurate about a CPC calling itself "Pregnancy Options Centre" or something along those lines. It accurately reflects the services offered. They may not provide the full range of legal pregnancy options, but neither do most abortion clinics (to my knowledge, there are only about four abortion practitioners that perform third-trimester abortions in the US). If it's okay for an organization that does virtually no prenatal care to call itself Planned Parenthood, it's okay for a pro-life CPC to advertise pregnancy options. If pro-choice advocates think this is too confusing for women, they should persuade the abortion clinics to use less euphemistic, ambiguous-sounding names. Nobody is ever going to confuse "Bob's Abortion Clinic" or "Pregnancy Termination Services of Peoria" with a CPC.
What if someone wants gay-conversion therapy or a hymen restoration procedure? In your view, would a nonprofit organization be obligated to refer for those services?
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
AtwoodsNobel
1) "Pregnancy Options Centre" - They offer post-natal options, not prenatal (pregnancy) options. Post-natal =/= pregnancy.
2) "If it's okay for an organization that does virtually no prenatal care to call itself Planned Parenthood..." Please cite your sources. This is untrue.
3) "It's okay for a pro-life CPC to advertise pregnancy options." They advertise pre-natal options while in practice only offering post-natal options. Post-natal =/= pregnancy. This is false advertisement.
4)"If pro-choice advocates think this is too confusing for women, they should persuade the abortion clinics to use less euphemistic, ambiguous-sounding names. Nobody is ever going to confuse "Bob's Abortion Clinic" or "Pregnancy Termination Services of Peoria" with a CPC."
Actually, most abortion clinics DO have the word in their name. It doesn't scare women away. CPCs will omit their "pro-life" stance and ties to the church. You will never, ever, ever find a CPC named, "Mercy of Christ Pregnancy Center," or "Children of Life Resource Center," they are only named misleading things like, "Choices," or "Community Pregnancy Center," completely obfuscating their mission while tricking women into thinking they will be getting impartial facts from a comprehensive medical provider.
This all is compounded by the fact that ethical medical professionals don't steer women to one choice or the other, they simply lay out all options for her and let her make a choice knowing all options with statistics accepted by the medical community at large (even if they morally disagree with that option for their own body).
5) "What if someone wants gay-conversion therapy or a hymen restoration procedure? In your view, would a nonprofit organization be obligated to refer for those services?"
We are not arguing what a nonprofit has to provide. We are arguing the disclosures a nonprofit has to make regarding a life threatening condition and impersonation of medical staff.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Anonymous
  1. According to Planned Parenthood, you are wrong. Planned Parenthood states that a pregnant woman has three options (parenting, adoption or abortion).
    https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/pregnancy-options
    PRCs readily provide support for the former two options. One can also further subdivide them (marrying or living with the baby's father, single parenting, open adoption, closed adoption, safe drop-off, natural birth, hospital birth, type of prenatal vitamins, etc).
  2. See here, for instance:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/planned-parenthood-prenatal-care-not-groups-focus/
    Remember also that Planned Parenthood recently got rid of its president (a medical doctor) because she wanted to expand its healthcare services and was insufficiently zealous about promoting abortion.
  3. See 1.
  4. I looked for PRCs in California here:
    https://resources.care-net.org/find-a-pregnancy-center/
    The first five PRCs listed were named "Calaveras Door of Hope", "Tree of Life" (x2), "Bakersfield Pregnancy Center", "Trinity Pregnancy Resource Center", and "Silent Voices". Pretty pro-life sounding names for people that never, ever, ever use pro-life sounding names if you ask me.
    Meanwhile, it's pretty hard to find the word "abortion" in the names listed here:
    https://prochoice.org/think-youre-pregnant/find-a-provider/
    Lots of "Whole Women's Health", "Family Planning", etc.
    This all is compounded by the fact that ethical medical professionals don't steer women to one choice or the other, they simply lay out all options for her and let her make a choice knowing all options with statistics accepted by the medical community at large
    Wrong. If a woman wants to kill herself or amputate a healthy limb, any ethical medial professional is going to try to talk her out of doing it.
  5. California's coercive and unconstitutional law (the FACT Act), which was struck down by the Supreme Court, would have required medical professionals working for PRCs to advertise the state's abortion hotline. So yes, it absolutely is about compelled speech in the form of referrals.
Avatar
acyutananda
"these are basically nonprofit organization who main goal should be offering a service to help people . . . they should be out right for instance that they don't do abortions and are personally against them)."
You seem to say that the people they should be offering a service to should be only pregnant women. But if you think it's okay for them to be against abortions, isn't it okay if they think of themselves as offering a service to the unborn also? Just for the sake of argument, wouldn't it be okay if they thought of themselves as offering a service primarily to the unborn, as long as they had unconditional love for both and aimed for an outcome that was as happy as possible for both?
Hide Replies 8
Avatar
AtwoodsNobel
Not all women who test positive for pregnancy are pregnant, but can easily die from the condition that underlies their false positive.
CPCs will not tell you that this is a possibility, or that getting an ultrasound (in a real clinic) or other medical test is absolutely mandatory to making sure that the woman stays healthy.
Notice how I haven't mentioned the word abortion? This is the "service" all pregnant women get while there.
CPCs don't care about the woman's health; they are more concerned that she doesn't seek care anywhere that might poison her mind towards ending a pregnancy. It's infantilizing and deadly for the sake of a fetus.
How is that unconditional love? They are treating women like blood bags.
Hide Replies 5
Avatar
acyutananda
First of all, did you agree with my point that it might be okay for a CPC to think of itself as offering a service primarily to the unborn?
"can easily die from the condition that underlies their false positive."
What condition is that?
"CPCs will not tell you that this is a possibility"
How do you know?
"or that getting an ultrasound (in a real clinic) or other medical test is absolutely mandatory to making sure that the woman stays healthy."
Even if they don't always tell women about the possibility (I have asked you for your evidence), they are functioning responsibly if they are alert to the possibility themselves and qualified to detect it and if they follow up with any necessary steps, including necessary referrals. Many CPC's do free ultrasounds and other medical tests. Do you have any evidence that they are not qualified or do not do the necessary follow-up? (Even if some are not or do not, you seem to have leveled your accusations at ALL CPC's.)
Hide Replies 4
Avatar
AtwoodsNobel
First of all, did you agree with my point that it might be okay for a CPC to think of itself as offering a service primarily to the unborn?
No one is arguing what they can believe, neither am I. They can offer a service primarily to the Sacred Cookie Monster, Al-Qaeda, whoever. No one really cares. What I and millions of others take issue with, is that the core model they use to get women to use these centers rests on making them think that they will be receiving medical care while there. The CPC can of course provide a service to the unborn. But they need to be upfront about it. As of now they are doing it 1) in as much secrecy as legally possible, 2) to the direct detriment of women-- legally full persons as enumerated by the Constitution 3) there are no legal repercussions for them to give false medical information because they are not licensed. They aren't subject to the same laws as a licensed doctor or social worker in a practice.
This "whoops, GOTCHA!" of CPCs delays women from seeking out time sensitive diagnoses and treatments at real clinics because they think that they have an appointment with one. This "pretend" care for women while having ulterior motives should come with a forced disclaimer, much like cigarette packaging or alcohol.
The extremely rare ones that are licensed are subject to state medical board complaints, though women may never even become aware that they received debunked and false statistics, therefore never submitting a claim.
What condition is that?
Ectopic pregnancy, a naturally occurring morbidity in 1 out of 50 to 100 pregnancies. Other deadly conditions that afflict pregnant women (assuming implantation is successful): infection, sepsis, diabetic complications, cardiac complications. I could go on, but pregnancy is not safe without prompt, legitimate medical oversight.
A CPC will tell you that abortions can lead to death by sepsis. This is technically true, just like it's technically true to say that you can die of sepsis caused by a wooden splinter. The chance in both scenarios is there, but not remotely dangerous when compared to the EXPONENTIALLY HIGHER rate of death by sepsis due to childbirth.
"CPCs will not tell you that this is a possibility"
CPCs' sole mission is to convince a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. The vast majority are unlicensed. Therefore they are not subject to a whole host of permitting, liability, and legal downfalls that would bankrupt the country's networks within months if it were subject to state oversight. The way out of this? Just weave a story based on what is legal to say. "We have licensed nurses do all sonograms." A licensed nurse might be the one doing the sonograms, but they are not legally allowed to give medical advice in that setting. Who the hell would go to one if they knew that? On their websites, they can give "ultrasounds," but not "diagnostic ultrasounds," because the latter could be litigated in court thanks to medical malpractice laws.
How do you know?
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=njlsp
Court documents from the California FACT Act levy claims that "CPCs employ “intentionally deceptive advertising and counseling practices [that] often confuse, misinform, and even intimidate women from making fully-informed, time-sensitive decisions about critical healthcare." What did NIFLA do? Argue that it is within their First Amendment rights to do so.
#
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2015-04-17/millions-for-propaganda-nothing-for-womens-health/
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2018-07-20/crisis-pregnancy-centers-money-for-nothing/
"Even if they don't always tell women about the possibility (I have asked you for your evidence), they are functioning responsibly if they are alert to the possibility themselves and qualified to detect it and if they follow up with any necessary steps, including necessary referrals. Many CPC's do free ultrasounds and other medical tests. Do you have any evidence that they are not qualified or do not do the necessary follow-up? (Even if some are not or do not, you seem to have leveled your accusations at ALL CPC's.)"
I am allowed to level accusations against CPCs, not just one, because spreading misinformation and appearance of certification is a feature of their model, not a bug.
https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/fake-abortion-clinics/55e0dbc4ca0b0b2c784ce599
Because of extenuating circumstances in late 2016, I found myself at a CPC. "Necessary referrals" in mine and other cases would include a prompt, diagnostic ultrasound. The physically nearest healthcare provider to the CPC I could have gone to was, ironically a Planned Parenthood. Had the CPC cared about my health more than the fetus', they would have said, "You know what? We don't offer diagnostic ultrasounds, and I can't squeeze you in for an non-medical ultrasound for another two weeks. This place next door should be able to fit you in."
Did they tell me any of that? Absolutely not. They didn't even do a referral for any of the three hospitals in the city that could have also helped me. They simply scheduled me so far in advance that had I followed their advice I wouldn't have been able to find an abortion provider in my state.
An ultrasound is a procedure that you and I and other people come to think of as a medical procedure, always conducted by a licensed professional, and always objective. We never think that women would get lied to about the age of the fetus, or hear that it's too early to start seeking comprehensive care (it is NEVER too early, regardless if a woman is leaning to a termination or continuation).
It's just like you would not question if a woman in scrubs tells you they are measuring your white blood cell count: you are not expecting them to be a non-HIPAA compliant entity who is simply going into a back room and swirling the swab in lemonade while writing down an arbitrary number. If that sounds fucking crazy, that's because it is. No one in America is conditioned to level that sort of skepticism towards someone posing as a medical provider, but that's unfortunately what women are put through.
Hide Replies 3
Avatar
acyutananda
Just three hours after posting my previous reply, saw this tweet thread from a day ago. It doesn't address all your points directly, but does address your skepticism about unconditional love:
https://twitter.com/LauraEchevarria/status/1130476888475000832
LauraEchevarria

@LauraEchevarria
Follow Follow @LauraEchevarria
More
For all those who say the pro-life movement doesn't care about the mother or baby after the baby is born, here are some numbers and facts:
  1. 2,752 locations--That's the number of pregnancy centers in the U.S. Some of these do ultrasounds by trained nurses). #prolife
    12:22 PM - 19 May 2019
    140 Retweets 342 Likes JimJoseph P. PelaezRoberto Peña-GonzálezAlexisA CostaChad LeeBlue Eyes Bailey~💜 Yohan's Mermaid 🐬💗Trump💗D
    18 replies 140 retweets 342 likes
    Reply 18 Retweet 140 Like 342 Direct message
    No Termination w RTweet text
    New conversation
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
  2. Of the 2,752 pregnancy centers in the U.S., 6 out of 10 offer ultrasounds but all offer some kind of assistance during pregnancy and AFTER birth. #prolife
    2 replies 16 retweets 112 likes
    Reply 2 Retweet 16 Like 112 Direct message
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
  3. 81,630 pregnancy center volunteers--these volunteers consult with clients, teach parenting classes, staff the boutique where new moms can find maternity and baby clothes, car seats, etc. #prolife
    1 reply 19 retweets 109 likes
    Reply 1 Retweet 19 Like 109 Direct message
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
  4. Prenatal and classes and parenting classes are available at a majority of these centers and they cover pregnancy, childbirth and parenting up to age 2. #prolife
    1 reply 14 retweets 100 likes
    Reply 1 Retweet 14 Like 100 Direct message
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
  5. Because they are community based, pregnancy centers have relationships with other resources in the community and find help for clients in need. #prolife
    1 reply 15 retweets 95 likes
    Reply 1 Retweet 15 Like 95 Direct message
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
  6. How does the pro-life movement off all of this help? 6.5 million VOLUNTEER hours. No taxpayer funds. IT'S FREE!! They have no financial interest in a woman's decision, no quotas, no incentives. #prolife
    1 reply 20 retweets 122 likes
    Reply 1 Retweet 20 Like 122 Direct message
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
  7. I can't speak for every pregnancy center but where I worked, we held baby showers for new moms and lined up donors to supply a year of diapers for clients who wanted the help. #prolife
    1 reply 12 retweets 97 likes
    Reply 1 Retweet 12 Like 97 Direct message
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
  8. We held parenting classes for moms and separate classes we called "Developing Dads" for fathers. We offered Christmas photo sessions for clients who wanted photos of their children for Christmas. #prolife
    1 reply 11 retweets 91 likes
    Reply 1 Retweet 11 Like 91 Direct message
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
  9. Our center (and a vast majority do this), offered free diapers, wipes and formula to anyone who came in off the street who was in need. No questions asked. No need to prove the need. #prolife
    1 reply 12 retweets 92 likes
    Reply 1 Retweet 12 Like 92 Direct message
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
  10. Our center also worked with a couple of churches to help out moms who were under great financial need. #prolife
    1 reply 10 retweets 89 likes
    Reply 1 Retweet 10 Like 89 Direct message
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
    So, next time I see someone write that the pro-life movement doesn't care, I say, "Prove it." Find me some facts, hard evidence that all across this country, every facet of the movement stops caring at the moment of birth. You won't find it. #prolife
    3 replies 18 retweets 122 likes
    Reply 3 Retweet 18 Like 122 Direct message
    LauraEchevarria

    @LauraEchevarria
    May 19
    More
    Do we care about women? YES. Do we care about children with special needs? YES. Do we care about mom and baby's physical needs? YES. Do we care about mom's emotional needs? YES. Does the pro-life movement charge a dime for what we do? NO #prolife #prowoman
    3 replies 20 retweets 122 likes
    Reply 3 Retweet 20
Avatar
acyutananda
I tried to watch the Vice video, but a message says "unavailable in your country" (I am in India).
Regarding your first link, Beth Holtzman's paper, I read the Introduction and sections I-III, which seemed to be all the material that might contain substantiation of your allegations. Am I correct to say that Holtzman did no original research? (Is "meta study" the correct name for such a study?) None of the footnotes are hyperlinks. Holtzman seems to have relied a lot on the Waxman Report, which I note was commissioned by a California Democratic politician. The only name in the footnotes with which I had had some prior familiarity is that of NARAL. From some of NARAL's tweets I have seen, and http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/08/the-democratic-national-convention-pro.html at the last Democratic National Convention, I would have very low expectations for NARAL's honesty. Have you read the Waxman Report and other items of the original research?
I will assume that the Pearson quote is accurate. It was 25 years ago. I don't think that being forthcoming with information, just for the sake of being forthcoming, is more important than saving unborn lives, but CPC's should be careful not to cause delay of any abortion that might be necessary to prevent the death of the mother or severe injury to the mother.
I believe that on the internet there are some ringing testimonials to CPC's by women whom they have served. It doesn't appear that Holtzman covered any of that material in her study. Unless I missed it, I don't think she even mentioned searching for any positive material.
At this point it appears that coming to any conclusion about your allegations would take more time than I can invest, and until I can invest more time, I'll have to suspend judgment, beyond what I have already said, on CPC's.
Avatar
acyutananda
What condition is that?
Ectopic pregnancy, a naturally occurring morbidity in 1 out of 50 to 100 pregnancies.
I thought at the outset that maybe you were referring to ectopic pregnancies, but I was confused by your saying that women with ectopic pregnancies are not pregnant.
I'm going to be tied up for a couple of days, but I'll get back to this. I know little about CPC's, and will approach everything you say completely open-mindedly. But my common sense and my acquaintance with many pro-lifers tells me this: pro-lifers make colossal efforts, and unlike many pro-choicers, they very rarely stand to obtain any selfish gain from their efforts. This asymmetry is just an empirical fact about the situation. Pro-lifers are motivated by compassion. The idea that there are large numbers of pro-lifers who see the unborn as ends but see their mothers only as means seems unrealistic to me, and it seems to me that such pro-lifers could only exist (in large numbers) as caricatures. I can't see how the idea computes.
I appreciate the work that you put into your reply.
Avatar Placeholder
Justin Time
My basic point is they should be upfront about their services and not try trick people into using them
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
acyutananda
Do you consider being upfront a moral absolute, or at least the highest of all values?
For instance, Raoul Gustaf Wallenberg . . . was a Swedish architect, businessman, diplomat and humanitarian. He is widely celebrated for saving tens of thousands of Jews in Nazi-occupied Hungary during the Holocaust. . . , Wallenberg issued protective passports and sheltered Jews in buildings designated as Swedish territory. . . . Due to his courageous actions on behalf of the Hungarian Jews, Raoul Wallenberg has been the subject of numerous humanitarian honors. . . . Although not legal, these documents looked official and were generally accepted by German and Hungarian authorities, who sometimes were also bribed. (Trickery.)
To save children from abortion by tricking their mothers into using their services would not be exactly the same moral proposition as what Wallenberg did. But let's just start with the question, Do you consider being upfront a moral absolute, or at least the highest of all values?
And suppose a new mother of a born baby were to say, "I'm so thankful they tricked me into going to them. I would have killed my own baby! I know now I wouldn't have wanted to live if I had done that. I was so scared and so confused." In that one instance, did that CPC do right or wrong?
Avatar
chrisw10
Where exactly is this audio from the 2012 Heartbeat International conference? I cannot find it and a friend is questioning me about the context of those quotes from Abby Johnson that were pulled out of context.
Hide Replies 3
Avatar
joshbrahm
We asked Abby if she had it and she doesn't. Not sure where Last Week Tonight got the audio from. Could have been recorded by a plant. Not sure. So Abby explained the context of both quotes to us and that's what we included in this piece.
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
dan_rouse
Wait, so "Abby said" is rock-solid evidence? LOL
Avatar
chrisw10
That audio sounds like it came right off the room's sound board, so I'm doubtful the source was a plant. And it also seems a little odd for a plant to sit on it for 6 years. Perhaps the organization has the conference audio archived and it was requested and provided directly.
Either way, I'm afraid my conversation has hit an impasse because the explanation you provided and I attempted to provide didn't stick with my friend who is already skeptical of the intellectual honesty of pro-life activists in general (think about how we tend to view pro-choice activists).
Oh well. At least it didn't become a shouting match. Thank you again for the reply!
Avatar
Elahatterol
First, I want to say that I found the 'hit job' on CPC's by "comedian" John Oliver to be both dishonest and despicable, and your article tearing that segment apart is mostly 'right-on' accurate.
The one thing that I DO have a disagreement with you on in your blog is where your article seemed to imply that even if you felt that contraception WERE effective in preventing abortions, you would still oppose it.
Then you went on to discuss sex outside of marriage.
You DO realize that-- 1) Many MARRIED couples use contraception, and some are, unfortunately, all-too willing to resort to abortion if they don't have access to it, or if it fails.
2) The vast majority of the population--including pro-lifers--either use or have used contraception, and many 'undecideds' will "tune the pro-life message out" as extremism when pro-lifers express opposition to both in anything CLOSE to the same way.
I will concede that evidence about contraception's effect on abortion rates is controversial.
The widespread use of contraceptives seems to greatly reduce abortion rates in places where abortion had been used as a
PRIMARY method of birth control for decades (such as the former USSR), but, in places where contraception is already established as the "first line" of birth control, making contraception even MORE avaliable has not, in my estimation, consistently lowered abortion rates, and has sometimes seemed to INCREASE them.
An example would be the higher than average rates of both contraception AND abortions in such states as California and New York.
I definately think that any one who opposes both contraception and abortion should make it clear that contraception IS a is a personal-choice, because its use only effects TWO people, while abortion is a HUMAN-RIGHTS issue, because it involves a THIRD person.
Avatar
skeptic_thinking_power
Hello. I have posted a comment detailing a response to this article two times now, however it keeps on getting deleted. What is the issue here?
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Rachel Crawford
I was able to figure out the problem. Disqus was marking your comment as spam, my guess is that it may be because of the number of links, but I am not sure. I was able to manually fix it, but I did not see that before. I'll try to keep an eye out for this in the future because I am not familiar with the nuances of what the program marks and what it does not.
Load More 30View All 46