Lies and the federally-funded pregnancy centers that tell them.
By Emily Amick, Wellesley College
Wednesday August 2, 2006
What if 87 percent of all health information centers gave out false information? Smokers would be told that a pack a day adds years to their lives.
Luckily things like that just don’t happen … right? Actually, investigators from Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) office have found that 87 percent of pregnancy resources centers (PRCs) provide false information about the consequences of abortion. PRCs are facilities that provide free pregnancy tests and counseling services, and sometimes offer parenting classes, baby supplies, and sonograms. Since 2001, PRCs have received over $30 million in federal funding.
For Waxman’s recent report, False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers, the congressman’s staff contacted 25 PRCs that have received money from the new $150 million Compassion Capital Fund, a fund of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services designed to support faith-based and community organizations. Twenty-two of the centers received an estimated $650,000 from the Institute for Youth Development, a middleman agency that has been awarded $7.5 million from the Compassion Capital Fund over three years. Fifteen of those groups were given funds to specifically pursue a “medical model” of service delivery.
The investigators posed as pregnant 17-year-olds deciding whether or not to have an abortion and successfully made contact with 23 PRCs. Twenty centers provided the callers with false information about the affects of abortion in an effort to convince her to carry her child to term.
Eight centers said that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer; one center said that it increases the risk by as much as 80 percent. Several studies have found no increased risk of breast cancer following an induced abortion, including a major 1997 New England Journal of Medicine article. Seven centers told the caller that having an abortion has severe negative affects on future fertility, despite the fact that researchers have compiled studies from 21 countries that prove that abortion poses no risk to infertility, low birth weight, “miscarriage, stillbirth, infant death or congenital malformations.” Lastly, thirteen of the centers warned of the long-lasting psychological effects of an abortion—the so-called “post-abortion stress syndrome.” One center said that the suicide rate for the year after an abortion “goes up by seven times.” Neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Psychiatric Associations recognizes this syndrome. An American Psychological Association expert panel found, “persuasive evidence that abortion is usually psychologically benign.” A British study followed 13,000 women over 11 years and found that abortion did not affect need for psychological treatment.
Abortion, compared to childbirth, is actually a relatively safe procedure. A woman is 11 times more likely to die from childbirth than from an abortion.
As more and more restrictions are placed on abortion, PRCs are becoming the only places in many regions for women to turn to with an unintended pregnancy. In states such as Mississippi, where there is only one struggling clinic left that performs abortions, there are at least 36 pregnancy resource centers. But as Vicki Saporta, President of the National Abortion Federation (NAF) said, “[PRCs] exist to sway women from having abortions and in order to do that they give women misinformation that could in fact be harmful to them in the long run.”
Indeed, PRCs are in the business of ensuring that women don’t have abortions. Thomas Glessner is the former President of CareNet and now President of the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA). He wrote an article for At The Center, the professional magazine for PRCs, with the tagline, “Many centers are acknowledging frustration over the fact that their ministries are becoming more social welfare agencies than cutting edge forces to reduce abortion.” These centers specifically target “abortion-vulnerable women.” In the report “Crisis Pregnancy Centers: An Affront to Choice,” NAF chronicles PRC-targeted outreach strategies for the “abortion-minded”—women who are young and low-income. PRCs capitalize on the lack of abortion accessibility in rural areas; 97 percent of non-metropolitan counties lack a provider. PRCs offer free pregnancy tests and locate themselves near universities to attract young women who are most “at risk” for abortion.
Historically, PRCs have used underhanded techniques to lure women into their centers, such as advertising in the Yellow Pages under “abortion” or choosing names similar to that of full-option reproductive health clinics. In 1986, Planned Parenthood won a logo infringement suite against a PRC that obtained an office on the same floor as the Planned Parenthood Clinic and then placed a sign outside their door that read, “PP, Inc.” In a 1994 speech, the founder of the first Crisis Pregnancy Center, in Hawaii, Robert Pearson, said, “A killer, who in this case is the girl who wants to kill her baby, has no right to information that will help her kill her baby. Therefore when she calls and says, ‘Do you do abortions?’ we do not tell her, ‘No, we don’t do abortions.’”
Once a woman is lured into the center, PRCs do everything in their power to prevent her from having an abortion. A variety of techniques are used – everything from promises of emotional and financial support (which are sometimes available) to grotesque slide shows, scare tactics about the effects of abortion, and religious-based threats centered on Christian beliefs. Some PRCs go as far as to show movies depicting graphic images of dismembered fetuses that have allegedly been aborted. And a new technique has emerged in recent years, one that is proving to be an extremely effective tool for influencing women’s decisions—showing the woman ultrasound images of the unborn fetus.
“Once an expectant mother is able to see the life growing inside of her and hear its heartbeat, her callous resolve to abort that life begins to fade. Awed at the life growing within her, she bonds with her baby,” said Angie Vineyard, a writer at Concerned Women for America.
Ultrasound machines have become number one on Santa’s wish list for PRCs all over the country. A Baton Rouge clinic reports that 98 percent of their “abortion-minded” clients, “chose life” after receiving an ultrasound. The Pregnancy Resource Center of Dallas has found a 243 percent increase in the number of “clients” that have chosen to carry to term after they started doing ultrasounds. But according to Focus on the Family, only 15 percent of PRCs currently have ultrasound capabilities.
The high efficacy rates of the ultrasound technology model of “introducing a woman to her unborn baby” have motivated two major organizations, Focus on the Family and the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA), to take on the crusade of getting ultrasound machines in centers. Focus on the Family has started a program called “Option Ultrasound” to raise money for PRCs to buy ultrasound machines and become “professional in their day-to-day operations, fundraising and public relations.”
In order to legally have an ultrasound machine, a PRC must be a state-registered medical clinic. NIFLA’s “Life Choice Project” provides centers with a comprehensive package of everything needed to convert to medical clinic status. In most states, the only requirement is to have a physician serving as the Medical Director and supervising all the medical services. Alice Thompson, executive director of Heartbeat Pregnancy Center in Beloit, Kansas explained to CampusProgress that the doctor can in fact be in “his office across town” and still serve in this function legally.
Pro-life politicians have also joined in the effort to get ultrasound machines in PRCs. In 2005 Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) proposed the Informed Choice Act, legislation (still stuck in committee) that would allow HHS to provide PRCs with grants to buy ultrasound equipment.
PRCs want ultrasound machines not to provide women with healthcare services, but rather simply to convince them to carry the fetus to term. The executive director of a Florida center that received a grant from the Institute for Youth Development said they wanted to have an ultrasound machine for women “to have accurate information regarding the pregnancy, which is what the girls are seeking and what they need to make an informed decision.” The Waxman report proved, however, that these clinics are providing women with false information. Vicki Saporta of NAF reported that some of clinics are even showing women ultrasounds of a fetus from a woman much further along in her pregnancy than the individual woman is.
“I think it’s unfortunate that taxpayers’ dollars are used by centers who mislead women who are very vulnerable with misinformation about abortion and health,” Representative Waxman told CampusProgress. “It was clearly a way to scare them into not having an abortion even though it’s a legal option.”
By providing this “service” under the auspices of “medical care,” PRCs are misleading the public and endangering women’s lives. An article in the Christian news publication World Magazine published in 2000 says that one of the positives of a PRC being classified as a medical clinic is that “pro-abortion groups” can no longer accuse PRCs of being “fake clinics.” A real clinic provides medical services in an unbiased and accepting setting. At a PRC, the lines between medical care and faith-based counseling are blurred. PRCs are not there to help a woman make her own decision, but to convince her to make their decision. In that process, they disregard scientific evidence and a constitutionally protected right in exchange for furthering their cause.
Representative Waxman said, “If we allow these groups to get money, they should do what’s required of them, which is to provide accurate information and counsel women, but not scare them and push them into a choice which may not be their choice if they were given all the accurate facts.”
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, "Anyone looking for health-care information or services deserves full, unbiased, and relevant facts. This includes a woman facing an unintended pregnancy. … Taxpayer dollars are being spent to spread deceptive and false information through crisis pregnancy centers. Political propaganda should never take priority over women’s health—it’s time for Congress to step in and hold these fake ‘clinics’ accountable."
Waxman’s report shows that these centers will throw science and medicine aside in order to promote their ideological vantage point. Medical care is not the place for theocratic rule.
Emily Amick is a senior at Wellesley College and a summer intern at The Nation in New York City. You can reach her at EmilyAmick@gmail.com.
--------
Comments
I am disgusted that my tax dollars are going to a place that spreads lies and fear inorder to keep women from having abortions. Is there any way to put an end to these fake clinics?
— Krista M. - Aug 2, 03:24 PM - #The real problem is that the PRCs are actually showing a woman “the product of conception” and they can see that this product is a child! And unlike you, the majority of people once they see the ultrasound, are unable to abort their baby. All the PRCs are doing is being more truthful—sorry you can’t deal with that.
— Cheryl - Aug 2, 04:07 PM - #No matter how much Cheryl would like it to be, lies don’t become truth by simply calling the lies the truth.
— Dennis - Aug 2, 04:31 PM - #Cheryl,
— Catherine - Aug 2, 04:47 PM - #Your attack on Krista is unwarranted and cruel. If she has had to endure an abortion you are being cruel to attack her as being “unlike” “the majority.” She’s had to deal with something that is difficult at best and traumatic regardless of its supposed ease. If she hasn’t you are accusing her with what you consider to be a slur. Name-calling, shame, shame…
Since children are more than mere “products of conception” the choice to have and rear a child shouldn’t be manipulated by a group willing to lie to achieve their ends… especially since they wash their hands of mother and child as soon as the possibility of abortion has passed. Cheryl, you’re allied with liars and fearmongers diguised as caregivers, – sorry YOU can’t deal with that!
Waxman’s report says pregnancy centers wrongly tell pregnant women that abortion can increase the risk of contracting breast cancer, can lead to mental or psychological distress, and can cause future fertility issues.
— Steven Ertelt - Aug 2, 04:50 PM - #Yet, that’s what most research studies on the topic show.
A 1996 report published by the British Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health looked at 23 previous studies and found abortion increases the breast cancer risk by 30 percent.
A 1991 British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology article revealed that women with a history of abortion had a 1.5-1.7 times higher risk of ectopic pregnancy than women who had previously carried a pregnancy to term.
And recent research from Norway and New Zealand has reported an association between abortion and subsequent mental health problems.
The New Zealand study, published by the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicidal thoughts, were more likely to occur among women who had an abortion than women who had never been pregnant or pregnant women who did not have an abortion.
For more info, visit http://www.lifenews.com/nat2423.html.
The studies that Steven “cites” have been shown to have been incorrect and new studies have show the opposite. The breast cancer, suicide link, etc. has been repeated disproved. I am not surprised that the www.lifenews.com site didn’t list those studies. Check with American College of OBGYN, FDA and other reputable sources.
— Joe - Aug 2, 05:27 PM - #OMG people, let’s run for the hill LIFENEWS.COM has something to say! That couldn’t be a biased source at alllll!!!!
— Lauren Patrizi - Aug 2, 08:13 PM - #So much deceit and deception. Isnt this misinformation punishable by law? There has got to be something we can do to insure that this is not a continual practice nationwide.
— Corey Ponder - Aug 3, 12:03 AM - #Decisions about abortion are tough enough even when you have all the facts. It’s a crime to deceive people with misinformation to promote your own political or religious agenda. Like other readers/writers, what can we do to end such practices. I guess spreading the word and letting our governmental representatives know we are on to them is now an ethical imperative. Thanks, Emily.
— Bob - Aug 3, 09:03 AM - #Hey Lauren, way to engage in real debate and dialogue. I thought that’s what campus progress is all about, right? Talk about sneering and indignant.
I’m surprised that you discount LifeNews.com when this article cites NARAL and the National ABORTION Federation as two of its sources. Those sources couldn’t be biased at all, now could they?
Regarding the statistics presented, is anyone here actually interested in examining the evidence presented in each study, or are we content to have our sources, close our eyes and scream “I’m right, you’re wrong!”
Wouldn’t it make more sense to discuss the findings of contradictory studies and rationally prove why they are wrong rather than clutching the studies that conform to our ideologies? Perhaps campus progress should invite two people to debate the abortion breast cancer link.
More importantly, why is it so insidious that PRCs show ultrasound images to pregnant mothers considering abortion?
And Emily, you’re reference to an “unborn fetus” is a tautology. A fetus is by definition “unborn”. If a fetus is born, it is called an infant or a baby.
You see, “embryo,” “fetus,” “infant,” “child,” “adolescent,” and “adult” do not refer to a kind of species but rather to a stage of development of a particular species—in this case, homo sapiens.
While information regarding breast cancer and suicide is important, the ultimate question is whether human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages (and infant stage if you listen to Sen. Obama or Professor Peter Singer from Princeton) have the right to life.
If you believe that human beings have the right to life, then when do they gain that right? The pro-life argument is that human beings deserve to have their lives protected from the moment a unique human organism is created i.e. human rights begin when human life begins.
So what do you think Emily? Do human beings have the right to life? If so, when does that right begin?
— John McCormack - Aug 3, 10:25 AM - #I beleive in the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but I would hope that if one was going to publish an article, they may research their information rather than base their article off of some one else’s report; that is irresponsible journalism. There are studies being done and debates still raging on about the connection between breast cancer and abortion. They only say it is a possible risk. As for the government funding; dig a little deeper and you will discover that that money went to abstinence programs, not counseling. Women like for women to be informed on the POSSIBLE future risks and POSSIBLE complications they may face in having an abortion. There IS the POSSIBILITY that having an abortion could having a negative affect on a woman’s ability to have children. It is a possibility that there is a linkage between abortions and breast cancer, and there is the possibility that women may have some kind of emotional after math to deal with following an abortion. If you would like to hear from women who have gone through abortions and what they are dealing with now, feel free to visit www.silentnomoreawareness.org.
— Annie - Aug 3, 11:32 AM - #Thank you John and Steven for providing facts regarding the possible breast cancer link to abortions.
Thank you Annie, for the link to actual women who have had abortions. Too often we hear from people (on both sides) that do not have immediate experience with abortion, but rather have a religious, philosophical, or hearsay viewpoint that is more important to them than the abortion issue itself.
BTW, since we’re talking about “controversial” places receiving government funds (read: our tax dollars), please see my post that discusses other controversial organizations that receive gov’t funds, including $130 million in federal grants to Planned Parenthood Federation of America (not including $60 million that went to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, and other PP affiliates) in FY ‘99/’00.
Also, if you’re interested in seeing what it truly means to be pro-life, see Tookie Williams and pro-life as well as teen murderers and the insanity of our culture
— Orthodoxy - Aug 3, 11:55 AM - #Catherine,
I am sorry you misunderstood my point. As I reread my initial comment I am still confused why you said I “name called” since I clearly didn’t. Anyhow, most PRCs are pushing to go medical because the stats show a dramatic change of mind for the mother once she is able to actually see her baby on the ultrasound. Furthermore, it is a standard line (aka lie) by the other side that after the baby is born nothing else is done. Numerous agencies across the nation are created just for that such as Summerhill House, Sisters of Life, Bethany Project, Nurturing Network. These and many other groups offer residential programs to assist women before and after they have their baby. So please do not use that tiresome line that pro-lifers do nothing after the child is born.
— Cheryl - Aug 3, 12:29 PM - #To get one thing straight, I am an intern and researcher for NARAL Pro-Choice New York. With little or no exception, our facts and research come from the FDA, the CDC, and government-provided state-based health data. We are extremely careful about our sources and will use only the most reputable when compiling our statistics.
— Cait - Aug 3, 02:21 PM - #Cheryl, what do you mean when you say that ”...most PRC’s are puching to go medical…” I am not attacking, I just want to be clear on what your point is.
— Annie - Aug 4, 06:44 AM - #You’re right! There IS a debate still raging over whether abortion increases risk of getting breast cancer. In the same way that the Catholic Church debated whether the Earth revolved around the Sun or vice versa.
— Dara K. - Aug 4, 09:45 AM - #I just hope it doesn’t take another 350 years for religious conservatives to admit they were wrong about this, too.
Sorry guys, but saying something is still up for “debate” changes neither heliocentricity nor the fact that choosing not to carry a child to term doesn’t adversely affect a woman’s physical or emotional well-being.
Annie,
Prior to ultrasounds, PRCs
— Cheryl - Aug 4, 03:04 PM - #had to explain the child’s humanity with only photos and facts of the child’s development—such as the heartbeat being detected after just 6 weeks after conception. But now with the increase of ultrasounds at PRCs, the woman can actually see their baby in the womb, hear his/her heartbeat etc. Basically it is the embodiment (literally) of the phrase a picture (or an ultrasound) is worth a 1000 words.
I find it fascinating how much time and energy these faith based organizations put into preventing abortions, which could end on their own regardless, when their are millions of children already alive, that die every year of malnutrition and war, the hypocricy is profound and sad.
— elise - Aug 4, 06:07 PM - #Also another point is that there are also a lot of studies indicating that giving birth at a young age creates complications with pregnancies later in life, and common sense dictates that many of these young mothers also have an increase in depression.
On the other hand, I’m sure that there have been instances where a woman had an abortion, and then later regreted it, and it led her to GOD? And if these people who prevented that was the cause of the woman losing out on GOD, could you live with that? Do you people want to be responsible for someone else’s sins? Christ was the only human who would be asked to give his life for the many. Don’t people read the scriptures anymore?
— Zena - Aug 6, 09:03 PM - #My point with stating that there are still debates on the link between breast cancer and abortions was that there could be a link, or there could not be. As for the centers, they have helped a LOT of women. A woman is in charge of her own body; and is going to make the decision she feels is best for her. The Pregnancy Resource Centers give information on abortions. They are not keeping information from women, they want women to be fully informed on what to expect AND on what they MAY POSSIBLY be at risk for. There is not a single person I have ever met that did not want to know all the possibile risks, even if they were not likely or completely proved to be linked, when it came to having an invasive procedure done to their body. ( By invasive, I mean a procedure being done inside the body). The centers are supposed to be sensitive to the girls, and if the girl does not want to hear or listen to any of their information, they should see that and stop. No body is claiming to be perfect or holier-than-thou here, we just offer information on ALL the options and help available.
— Annie - Aug 7, 08:53 AM - #Thank you Cheryl for clarifying that!
— Annie - Aug 7, 08:53 AM - #Elise,
Can you please give the citations to the studies you mention that state giving birth at a young age is a health risk to the woman? I am guessing this information would be helpful to everyone since it has only been recently where women are giving birth later in life. Thanks in advance.
Also, you mentioned the “hipocricy” (sic) of the right to life movement since children are starving and we aren’t doing enough etc.
— Cheryl - Aug 7, 12:23 PM - #As long as abortion is legal in the USA, I support my tax dollars going to clinics that provide ALL the options, including abortion. I do not support my tax dollars going to support a religious position, as a mock clinic pretending to provide medical care.
— Davis - Aug 8, 12:07 AM - #I sympathize with the anti-abortion folks, but fundamentalism (only I am right) does not excuse unethical behavior.
Davis, in response to your comment, I would like to reiterate an earlier comment I made; the only centers that receive government funding are Florida centers, and not all of them. And any other centers that receive financial help, only receive it for the abstinence programs. As for ” MOCK CLINIC PRETENDING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE” The centers actually want us to make sure that the women know right off the bat that the centers are not medical facilities, therefore do not provide medical care.
— Annie - Aug 8, 06:29 AM - #I am from Mississippi where there are well over 30 PRCs and, yes, one abortion clinic left in our state. Why is there one clinic left? Legislation. The ACLU and other organizations are trying to promote bills that will prevent any government funded organization, such as PRCs from presenting false information to the public or have their funding revoked. This doesn’t mean that they will be shut down as they have a lot of private support through religious organizations, but at least government funding won’t be a involved…hopefully if we have different people in office, then it won’t be involved either. Basically the bill we are discussing testifying about to our legistature in January is about a guarentee of medical acuracy to any institution that is dispensing medical adivice. This type of bill is widely supported on both pro-abotion rights and anti-abotion right sides. The medical accuracy would have to be supported by reputable organizations such as the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization, etc. None of these organizations have found a link between abortion and cancer. (The link between abortion and breast cancer would be equally true for a women who had a history of miscarriages if there was such a link, but no one talks about that b/c the anti-abortionists want to stigmatize abortion…it’s not about actually caring about women’s lives or if there is a greater risk or not. It’s all about making abortion seem evil.) There is also no greater risk to depression or psychological problems that can be determined. People assume that a woman who has psychological problems and had an abortion must have had an them b/c of the abortion…one important factor when conducting any research, but particularly psychological research is that a coorelation does not equal causation. A woman who is undecided about getting an abortion needs facts about what an abortion is and what her options are. She doesn’t need biased information trying to sway her decision. She needs clear facts and support. Abortion clinics and organizations like planned parent hood provide this information—often it is already biased information in favor of the anti-abortion side b/c some of it is state mandated, and state printed material that is created by people in that camp—but these organizations are not persuading people to have abortions. In my state where there is only one clinic and more patients than the clinic can handle, the doctors and nurses are attempting to talk the patient into an abortion but present her with accurate information and options. Abortion is supposed to be legal in this country and we shouldn’t put up barriers for women esp in vulnerable positions to make the most informed and best decisions for themselves. Sorry for the run-ons and misspellings and length; it’s early.
— Katie - Aug 9, 08:19 AM - #Sorry, I meant to say “are NOT attempting to talk the patient into an abortion but present…”
— Katie - Aug 9, 08:22 AM - #You probably could have figured that out but I just wanted to clarify.
The Pregnancy Resource centers give information on all of the options. And, as I have said, the only government funding they receive, if any at all is for abstinence programs. And there are centers in Florida that recieve government funding, but the centers do not simply receive government funding, and they do not all receive government funding.
— Annie - Aug 9, 11:09 AM - #I have been to the websites of the pregnancy centers. They do not in any way shape or form give accurate information about abortion or refer women to abortion clinics. They do give information abort ways to adopt a child and resources available if you choose NOT to have an abortion. They do not give information about abortions, however. These are not centers about pregnancy PREVENTION, so the funds cannot go to abstinence programs. Not all of the programs receive federal funding, no, but many do and the president supports more funding for centers such as these.
— Katie - Aug 9, 11:21 AM - #I have been to the websites of the pregnancy centers. They do not in any way shape or form give accurate information about abortion or refer women to abortion clinics. They do give information abort ways to adopt a child and resources available if you choose NOT to have an abortion. They do not give information about abortions, however. These are not centers about pregnancy PREVENTION, so the funds cannot go to abstinence programs (unless they are talking about future family planning services). Not all of the programs receive federal funding, no, but many do and the president supports more funding for centers such as these. Of course these are only homegrown PRCs…I just did a paper about the Mexico City Policy/Global Gag Rule…ahhh don’t get me started. What a horrible administration that loves to watch women suffer all over the world needlessly….
— Katie - Aug 9, 11:24 AM - #www.optionline.org
— Annie - Aug 9, 02:35 PM - #READ CAREFULY
By the way, the centers are volunteer run, so they are not getting paid for the help that they offer
— Annie - Aug 9, 02:46 PM - #Thanks for the link. If you visit the websites of the actual centers, however, as I have you get a different picture. Here are some of the links to the ones that come up for the centers in my area (I actually found them on the search feature from your link, but I had been to them before.)
— Katie - Aug 9, 03:06 PM - #www.mypregnancychoices.org
www.cpcofmeridian.org
www.laurelcpc.com/
Read these carefully and you will see that there is zero information on there about abortion except to say that it will make you extremely depressed, give you breast cancer, make you sterile, or give you some horrible life threatening infection, ect.
Optionline.org doesn’t appear to actually be a PRC, but a referral service to PRCs. At least they do attempt to provide an overview of information but one only gear it in one direction and call it options??
Katie, thank you for the links. Ican see your point that they do not offer information on the types of procedures and what is involved in the procedure, the fact that they give information on possible furture consequences, is good. When women are faced with an unexpected pregnancy, they can make rash decisions and only relaize the consequences after making their decision. Both optionline and the PRC’s wnat to make sure women have a well-rounded view before they make a decision that may have emotional or physical complications. I think that is essential. Yeah, they do not refer to abortion clinics. Just like Planned Parenthood does not refer to adoption agencies for the woman to really look into before making this kind of life-long impactful decision. In any case; the centers know that it is the woman’s decision and just want them to get some kind of information.
— Annie - Aug 9, 03:30 PM - #I don’t think that PRCs give women a “well rounded view” of anything, they give a very one sided view. No, Planned Parenthood does not refer to adoption agencies. However, PPH would not deter a women from chosing to have her child adopted unlike a PRC which would for a woman who wishes to have an abortion. PPH provides many invaluable services that go ignored…HIV testing and counseling, prenatal care, sex education, gynecological care, etc. Anti-abortionists choose to ignore these services all the time. My state’s PPH doesn’t even provide abortions b/c it is too expensive.
— Katie - Aug 9, 04:34 PM - #I think when you start to hear things like abortion-breast cancer, or abortion-depression, this is fear-mongering, that really dilutes the debate, because they have nothing better to say. Both issues have been proved WRONG. Wingnuts will hang on for dear life to these issues to scare women. Shocking, I know
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/27/1728_60593.htm
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/84/98158.htm
but really now, did we ever expect the right-wing to tell the truth about almost anything?
Didn’t think so.
— Lauren Patrizi - Aug 10, 10:18 AM - #Perhaps, Lauren, it might do you good to speak to some women who have actually had abortions. Not all of them suffer emotionally or physically, but enough of them do to be able to put 1 and 2 together.
— Annie - Aug 10, 04:09 PM - #www.silentnomoreawareness.org
“Nearly 70% of women reported being satisfied with the decision, and 72% reported more benefit than harm. Of those who reported depression or regret after the abortion, most were depressed or had emotional problems prior to becoming pregnant.”
Also, can you blame some women for feeling guilty and confused for having an abortion in the society we are living in? How would you feel if you were a 17 year old girl coming with your dad to the clinic and there were 20 people standing outside screaming at you while you went inside calling you a murderer? Then as she leaves the clining a lady asked her to roll down her car window and “prays” that God will forgive her for the the murder she just committed and gives her pictures of bloody, dismembered, so-called aborted fetuses….yes, I actually have this on video tape of an abortion protest that occurred last week here in Jackson, MS. Awesome work the anti-abortion protesters are doing. Or how about the bomb threat that was called in across from the MS Governor’s mansion to break up a pro-choice rally all in the name of the the “pro-lifers” cause? What hypocrites who kill doctors and clinic workers and want women to die around the world….
— Katie - Aug 10, 08:45 PM - #www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp
— Katie - Aug 10, 09:21 PM - #Good article. Abortion has many sides and abortion laws affect women and pregnancy in a lot of ways.
Hey, I don’t agree with the throngs of people that stand outside of clinics telling women they are sinners, nor do I agree with the extreme pictures they pass out. But I have spoken to women who had an abortion 20+ years ago and are still grieving and struggling. I have also spoken to girls/women who had an abortion not too long ago and are having a hard time coping with it or want a child now and are having issues. I talk to these women, on a regular basis. Not all of them have a hard time with it, but a majority of the women I talk to do. I do agree with your last comment however: ” Abortion has many sides…”
— Annie - Aug 11, 06:39 AM - #What a scam abortion is wrong and sinners will pay with their own Heartbeat in America by selling their soul to the devil.
— Heartbeat of America - Sep 22, 03:14 PM - #Where is the heartbeat of America? Sounds like a scam to me!
— Joan Marks - Sep 22, 10:26 PM - #Every living thing has a right to life. Depriving someone of that is a horrible thing to live with. Don’t let these life haters change your mind.
— Heartbeat of America - Sep 29, 12:37 PM - #The Heartbeat of America is freedom of choice and speech. It is a scam on our race not to encourage everyone of this right.
— Cassandra - Oct 4, 09:54 AM - #John Kerry said “You can be certain and be wrong.” This is how I feel about myself after having worked in the prolife ministry for over 9 years for CareNet and their affiliate “prolife” centers as a software vendor.
I believe that personal information between a client and her counselor should never leave the room. My client intake software is designed to store data on-site at the center so that I never see it. No one has any business seeing personal information except a client and her counselor.
CareNet doesn’t feel this way. They heavily endorse an internet based company ekyros.com. Hundreds of their affiliate pregnancy centers use the internet based ekyros.com client intake software. These centers make clients think that their pregnancy history and other confidential information will never leave the room, then they turn around and enter it online and this personal information leaves the center and gets into the hands of ekyros employees.
I am losing my business because I will not change my software to send client data outside the walls of the center. A client already has enough on their mind. They do not need their right to privacy violated.
I don’t care about losing my company. The client’s right to confidentiality is more important than my business.
I only bring up the point to say that I worked for CareNet and their centers for years for 15 thousand a year and without health benefits and now my wife and I are going under. My wife is ADHD and her medicine is expensive. My situation has convinced me that CareNet and their affiliates don’t respect the women who visit them. I know this because they had no respect for my wife and I even though we worked for them for years without medical benefits barely above the poverty line. They won’t help the girls after they have their child and have proved this time and again. My situation just helped bring this fact home to me through personal experience.
The very name ‘prolife’ is deceptive, because it implies that pro choice is pro death. It is fringe prolifers that have murdered innocent people at abortion clinics.
CareNet and their prolife affiliates treated my wife and I like a non-person.
They don’t do anything to help the young girls who visit them stay off welfare. These prolifers wash their hands when the child has to grow up in low income housing projects and does nothing keep the child from turning to crime to support the household.
Check out CareNet’s financials. They take in millions a year. Their president and board members each make over 100,000 a year, yet they give 0$ back to their affiliates or to the girls they say they serve.
Ask a center who uses ekyros.com if it bothers them that they promise absolute confidentiality to the client and then place the client’s information in the hands of the employees of an outside internet company. Ask them if they inform the client where their information is going? You will see that the client is a non-person to them and (in their eyes) doesn’t even deserve the basic respect of asking the client whether they are comfortable with their personal information leaving the center.
All this is just to say that when the prochoice people say the prolife centers are deceptive and don’t look out for the welfare of the client in the long run,
I know this to be true, BECAUSE MY WIFE AND I HAVE WITNESSED WHAT KIND OF HEART THESE “prolife” PEOPLE HAVE FIRST HAND.
The prochoice side is the side that really looks out for the mother and offers family planning and even works with the mother to have her child and looks out for her and her child in the long run if she decides to have the child.
The prochoice side is the side that is not deceptive and really treats the mother and others with respect.
— Cherokee - Oct 23, 11:02 AM - #The “prolifers” call prochoice people “life haters” and talk about people “selling their soul to the devil” and are quick to judge others and say that they will “pay” for their sins. The poem below is for the evangelical “Christians” who forget that God is love and who are so quick to judge and deceive.
An Evangelical “Christian’s” Night-time Prayer
Now I lay me down to sleep
Pray to God my soul to keep
I voted for Bush the Texacutioner
Who put more people to death than an executioner
The highest execution rate of any governor in history
How he was elected president is still a mystery
The biggest serial killer since Timothy McVeigh,
mocks Karla’s pleas for clemency during her final days
I hold stoutly to my world view
Despite being contradicted by what is proven true
I believe the earth to be only 4000 years old
“Intelligent” design is the view I hold
Even though evolution explains how life changed and adapted
verified by countless experiments not retracted
the scientific facts should be stricken as inadmissible
teaching creationism to our children is permissible
Take some parts literally, others out of place
And I can use the Bible to judge the whole human race
Pat Robertson said 9/11 was a punishment from God
That innocents died instead of him he didn’t find odd
For lifestyles of feminism, liberalism, and being gay
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said over 3,000 people died that day
That God will punish them for their remark
Pride has hidden from a judgmental heart
“After the last tree standing is felled”
“Christ will come back” I heard James Watt tell
you see evangelicals don’t care about generations
because they won’t have to be here to face elimination
“compassionate” conservatives fantasize about journeying through the air
As Left Behind: The Series plays out below everywhere
While pollution they caused brings about ecological collapse
It doesn’t bother them that people will die perhaps
by Cherokee American
— Cherokee - Oct 23, 11:18 AM - #