Crisis Pregnancy Centers Under Attack

posted at 11:30 am on November 17, 2010 by Matt Lewis

On Tuesday, the New York City Council held a hearing on whether or not to require crisis pregnancy centers to post signs at their entrance saying they do not offer abortions or give out contraception.  (They would also be required to include such a disclaimer on advertising).

Similar ordinances have been recently proposed in Austin, Texas and Baltimore, Maryland.

Predictably, pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL are behind the push.  As The Wall Street Journal reported, Kelli Conlin, president of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, said:  “Unfortunately when a woman enters a crisis pregnancy center…she is confronted with bias counseling, anti-abortion propaganda and deception…”

This strikes me as interesting for a few reasons.

First, the name “Planned Parenthood” is, of course, a misnomer.  NARAL, whose acronym originally stood for “National Abortion Rights Action League,” was, perhaps, more honest (which is probably why they dropped their full name).  As such, it is ironic that these groups are accusing crisis pregnancy centers of misleading the public.

But I’m willing to suggest a modest compromise here.  If crisis pregnancy centers are forced to post signage at their front door saying they don’t offer abortions, then Planned Parenthood should also required to post a similar signs saying they do offer (or encourage, as the case may be) abortions.

After all, if a woman entering a crisis pregnancy center can be confronted with biased counseling, isn’t it also possible — or likely — that a woman entering a Planned Parenthood might also receive biased counseling?  My hunch is that many women who go to a Planned Parenthood have no intention of seeking an abortion … until after their counseling.

If a woman wants an abortion, and a crisis pregnancy center will not perform it, she can simply go to a facility that will.  The only thing that might happen to her at the crisis pregnancy center is that she might hear an argument for keeping her baby, or for adoption.  Nobody there can force her to keep her baby.  So why would pro choice groups want to limit the amount of information a woman has before making that choice?

Of course, the real answer here is that Planned Parenthood and NARAL aren’t just pro-choice … they are really pro-abortion.

Note: This is my first guest post at HotAir! I’m honored to be a guest blogger here.  Check out my Politics Daily column, my blog at MattLewis.org, and follow me on Twitter.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And a picture of a 20 year old barefoot woman next to a trailer trying to control three children under three outside the Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 11:36 AM

I would think that such pictures (and multicultural counterparts) would be appropriate…but for a high-school ‘sex ed’ class. Realistic portrayals of what happen to most pregnant teenagers might just get through to the little darlings.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 1:49 PM

the pro-aborts (as you call them)

To be fair, I’m not calling all pro-choicers pro-aborts.

Ironically, the best thing for your friend may be for her to contact a crisis pregnancy center. Many of them offer free (like all their services) post-abortive counseling. They don’t judge or condemn, in fact, she will probably run in to volunteers who have had abortions themselves.

It’s a rough place she’s in, and she may never fully recover, but she doesn’t have to be there alone.

29Victor on November 17, 2010 at 1:46 PM

That might have been a good idea, but it’s been several years, and we’re no longer close. I don’t know if she still feels the same way she did a year after the abortion. I hope she doesn’t, but she does have a little girl now, and that might have been difficult. Oh, and she’s raising that girl by herself and somehow manages to keep out of the poor house.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM

If they are required to do so, shouldn’t PP be required to tell women about adoption agencies and Crisis Pregnancy Centers?

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Even if this were the law, there is no reasion to believe that it would ever happen. There is tremendous evidence of PP ignoring what are common sense statutory rape and parental notification laws to encourage young girls to get abortions.

Don’t ever accept a compromise of, “if you will make these notifications we will make those notifications.” It will only serve to give them (and the media will only report their) talking points of our non-compliance, while they will never comply and it will never be reported by anyone but Lila Rose.

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM

And a picture of a 20 year old barefoot woman next to a trailer trying to control three children under three outside the Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 11:36 AM

How about a picture of new adoptive parents welcoming their new baby? Since that is much more likely to be the advice given out at these centers.

BakerAllie on November 17, 2010 at 1:56 PM

And a picture of a 20 year old barefoot woman next to a trailer trying to control three children under three outside the Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 11:36 AM

How about a picture of new adoptive parents welcoming their new baby? Since that is much more likely to be the advice given out at these centers.

BakerAllie on November 17, 2010 at 1:56 PM

How about both?

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

How about both?

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Here is the problem with negotiations about legislated policy: you have to negotiate in a half-truth in order to present the truth.

How about we get the government to stop pushing an agenda that kills babies?

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM

How about a picture of new adoptive parents welcoming their new baby? Since that is much more likely to be the advice given out at these centers.

BakerAllie on November 17, 2010 at 1:56 PM

+ infinity

rukiddingme on November 17, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Here is the problem with negotiations about legislated policy: you have to negotiate in a half-truth in order to present the truth.

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Kindly tell me which of these is a lie:

(1) Portraying someone impoverished by unwanted child(ren).

(2) A happy couple celebrating the adopting of a new family member.

Both of them happen
every day of the week.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Well Texas was working on passing a law (I think it failed) that would force everyone who wants an abortion to see an ultrasound and hear the heartbeat. Pro Abortionists, like P.P., said that was horrible and that people should not have to see or hear the baby.

All of this garbage about wanting to get information out so that people can make informed decisions is a load of garbage.

jeffn21 on November 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Kindly tell me which of these is a lie:

(1) Portraying someone impoverished by unwanted child(ren).

A half-truth. Yes, they are impoverished. Possibly even partially becuase they have more children than they can afford. It is not becuase they failed to get abortions. It is because of a million small choices that they make every day. Am I gonna spend $1.49 on my 44oz fountain drink three different times today and eat all my meals at fast food restaurants (FYI this is a very expensive and yet still low class way to live)? I work in both financial counseling and foster care. I pretty much have the moral high ground from every aspect of this particular argument. I live the evidence for why people are poor and what happens when people have too many kids. If lack of abortion causes poverty, how is it that abortions are most common in poverty stricken populations. And how is it that the people who have had abortions are most likely to remain poor?

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Vera on November 17, 2010 at 12:33 PM
ORconservative on November 17, 2010 at 12:34 PM
JannyMae on November 17, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Know ye not, Jimbo3

I have not been involved in an abortion, so far as I know, but I would counsel my daughter to have one and would pay for it. I also have given money to PP.

Jimbo3 on February 1, 2010 at 5:43 PM
rukiddingme on November 17, 2010 at 12:50 PM

And I did promise I would counsel my daughter to accept your offer, rukiddingme. I haven’t forgotten that.

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 2:35 PM

You should be flattered Jimbo, with that comment you outdid yourself.

ORconservative on November 17, 2010 at 12:32 PM

You must not read comments much
No, Jimbo. Your disgusting disregard for life is just that horrific.

Vera on November 17, 2010 at 12:33 PM

You must not read comments much.

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM
I notice you don’t respond to points made about your comments. Why am I not surprised?

JannyMae on November 17, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Oh, come on now with the faux outrage, whines and sickness.

Have you read anything that is pro-choice? Do you know anyone who is pro-choice? There’s nothing different about what I said hasn’t been written and said thousands of times before within ten minutes of the start of any debate on abortion.

I’m not responding to you because I do truly believe–if you’ve done any of those things–that you must be lying when you say that my comment was the most disgusting thing you’ve read or made you physically disgusted. There’s just no way that’s possible unless you’ve been totally sheltered all of your life.

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Well Texas was working on passing a law (I think it failed) that would force everyone who wants an abortion to see an ultrasound and hear the heartbeat. Pro Abortionists, like P.P., said that was horrible and that people should not have to see or hear the baby.

All of this garbage about wanting to get information out so that people can make informed decisions is a load of garbage.

jeffn21 on November 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM

That’s a bill that will be considered in the legislature in January. I’m against it because I think it is too intrusive. It forces the woman to hear the heartbeat and view the ultrasound (she can avert her eyes but does’t, as written, have the ability not to hear the heartbeat).

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 2:42 PM

You are the king of stereotypes, aren’t you?
The answer to your question is of course.
It doesn’t change the fact that your comment was disgusting but, as you point out, probably typical.

ORconservative on November 17, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, Oh abortion king Jimbo.
Abortions are a money maker for PP. The more abortions the more money PP has to promote it’s life ending opinion that certain people should not “be burdened with” a baby.

Correct?

ORconservative on November 17, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Funny the things the pro-abortionists do and don’t want regulated.

Pregnancy-terminating surgery? Protected by the constitution!

Speech that might dissuade a mother from terminating a pregnancy? A danger which must be suppressed!

Tres Angelas on November 17, 2010 at 2:54 PM

That might have been a good idea, but it’s been several years, and we’re no longer close. I don’t know if she still feels the same way she did a year after the abortion. I hope she doesn’t, but she does have a little girl now, and that might have been difficult. Oh, and she’s raising that girl by herself and somehow manages to keep out of the poor house.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM

I have a friend in the same situation (except that she’s married now). She became a Christian a few years back and changed her stance on abortion. I believe that she had always been traumatized by what she had done, but after becoming a Christian all of her liberal defense mechanisms (“it’s my choice…,” “it wasn’t a baby…,” etc) went away and she had to confront her emotions directly.

She has forgiveness and, I think, she has some peace, but she still looks at her four kids and sees the two that aren’t there.

Then she had to explain all this, and what she had done, to her ten year old daughter when they were discussing abortion and her daughter asked.

Abortion doesn’t just hurt the baby. And it hurts for a long, long time.

Also, I agree with your distinction between pro-abortionists and pro-choicers. Some simply want women to “have a choice,” while others actively lobby for individuals to have abortions. It’s just that sometimes up here in the Beautiful Pacific Northwest, the liberals are so militant that it’s a distinction without a real difference.

29Victor on November 17, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Funny the things the pro-abortionists do and don’t want regulated.

Tres Angelas on November 17, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Yes, I’ve always found it quite ironic that liberals, normally kings of government intrusiveness and regulation, are so militantly anti-regulation of this one thing.

29Victor on November 17, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Hey how about this…………fair is fair

Abortion Clinic (PP) sign– We’ll kill your baby but your rapist won’t get the death penalty

ORconservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:00 PM

That’s a bill that will be considered in the legislature in January. I’m against it because I think it is too intrusive. It forces the woman to hear the heartbeat and view the ultrasound (she can avert her eyes but does’t, as written, have the ability not to hear the heartbeat).

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 2:45 PM

I also live in Texas. I don’t like this law either, but from the point of view that I do not want the state forcing anyone to undergo anything. Plus, I see it as a limpwristed attempt at reducing the number of abortions when what we ought to be doing is making it against the law unless authorized by the doctor to save the life of the mother – and then the choice should ultimately be made by the parents, not mandated by the doctor or state. For lack of anything better though, I will support it.

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 3:00 PM

We want abortions safe, legal and rare!

Well, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

mankai on November 17, 2010 at 11:34 AM

I think you mean 1 out of 3.

Goldenavatar on November 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I think you mean 1 out of 3.

Goldenavatar on November 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Legal?

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM

And I did promise I would counsel my daughter to accept your offer, rukiddingme. I haven’t forgotten that.
Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 2:35 PM

That is what you stated in a different thread, yes.

Pardon me when I tell you that your promise doesn’t mean much.

You have a history of making comments that you later dismiss as unintended.

rukiddingme on November 17, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Even if this were the law, there is no reason to believe that it would ever happen. There is tremendous evidence of PP ignoring what are common sense statutory rape and parental notification laws to encourage young girls to get abortions.

Don’t ever accept a compromise of, “if you will make these notifications we will make those notifications.” It will only serve to give them (and the media will only report their) talking points of our non-compliance, while they will never comply and it will never be reported by anyone but Lila Rose.

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM

I get your point, but if it’s made into a law, it’s likely there would be a form stating that the woman has been informed of her options. They do this already with other medical issues and procedures, and it wouldn’t take a hidden camera crew to check. Either they have enough forms that correspond with the number of abortions they’ve performed, or they don’t.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Pro-choice IS pro-child.

Except for, you know, the dead babies.

Tres Angelas on November 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM

I get your point, but if it’s made into a law, it’s likely there would be a form stating that the woman has been informed of her options. They do this already with other medical issues and procedures, and it wouldn’t take a hidden camera crew to check. Either they have enough forms that correspond with the number of abortions they’ve performed, or they don’t.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I appreciate your intentions. Nobody (almost nobody) reads forms. You ask the person handing you the form what it says, then you sign it. While this is obviously foolish behavior, it is the behavior of most people. I think it would be an exercise in futility from our side, and as stated above, would only serve the purpose of the pro-abortion lobby.

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM

We want abortions safe, legal and rare!

Well, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

mankai on November 17, 2010 at 11:34 AM

I think you mean 1 out of 3.

Goldenavatar on November 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Well, they want them safe and legal (whether they’re safe or not), but they certainly don’t want them rare (hurts the bottom line).

mankai on November 17, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Abortion doesn’t just hurt the baby. And it hurts for a long, long time.

But acknowledging that is somehow anti-woman. Really, if PP wants to be truthful, they should let women know that some women have serious regrets. They should be counseling women on this so that they are sure this is what they really want. But they fight that too.

It’s just that sometimes up here in the Beautiful Pacific Northwest, the liberals are so militant that it’s a distinction without a real difference.

29Victor on November 17, 2010 at 2:58 PM

That’s probably true everywhere. I tend to call someone pro-choice until learning otherwise. The counselor from my earlier story is definitively pro-abort.

I’m glad your friend is doing well and that she didn’t let her past prevent her from having a family, even if that conversation with her daughter was a difficult one. Ideally, we teach our children to learn from our mistakes/regrets. It isn’t easy, but it’s important.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I appreciate your intentions. Nobody (almost nobody) reads forms. You ask the person handing you the form what it says, then you sign it. While this is obviously foolish behavior, it is the behavior of most people. I think it would be an exercise in futility from our side, and as stated above, would only serve the purpose of the pro-abortion lobby.

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Even all they do is hand the form over, that’s still significantly better than what we have now. Plus, it’s not as though finding an abortion clinic is that difficult, so the trade off is more win-win for those hoping a woman won’t abort.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM

I hope this thread isn’t dead yet.

Anyway, why folks want this is because of anecdotal stories of crisis pregnancy centers masquerading as abortion clinics, and abortion-seeking women getting misled. By and large though, something billing itself as a crisis pregnancy center should be well-understood NOT to provide abortions. What’s the point in making them have a sign out front?

A better idea would be a law mandating that facilities that do not provide abortions or birth control must disclose this information as soon as they are asked directly, and return property (prescriptions and the like) to the patient before sending them out the door.

Sekhmet on November 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, Oh abortion king Jimbo.
Abortions are a money maker for PP. The more abortions the more money PP has to promote it’s life ending opinion that certain people should not “be burdened with” a baby.

Correct?

ORconservative on November 17, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Correct.

Of course, the more people that CC prevent from having abortions, then the more successful it can be in its mission as well, correct?

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM

We want abortions safe, legal and rare!

Well, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

mankai on November 17, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Usually it is, but I think the eye-popping numbers say otherwise in this case. It’s truly sad that we’re giving a serious medical operation less consideration than tattoo removal.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Of course, the more people that CC prevent from having abortions, then the more successful it can be in its mission as well, correct?

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Not really. They don’t get paid every time someone chooses to not kill a baby. They are funded through private donations.

And there’s this post from earlier:

Well, that’s not accurate. The ones that kill babies get federal aid. The ones that nurture them are left in the cold.

KinleyArdal on November 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM

I do suppose that if they could report huge successes, they might drive more fundraising, but that would be purely anecdotal.

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Not exactly. Have you ever been to a cc?

ORconservative on November 17, 2010 at 5:46 PM

STD testing, post-abortive and post-miscarriage counseling, and in some — ultrasounds.

KinleyArdal, I wonder if you have heard of an all-volunteer nonprofit that I work with called 4US. The “US” stands for Ultrasounds and the 4…well it stands for “for,” you get the picture.

4US’s sole purpose for existing is to raise money to purchase ultrasounds (and US training and equipment) for crisis pregnancy centers. Because a woman who sees her child on an ultrasound has a 96+% chance of choosing life (which explains why NARAL and Planned Parenthood are working so hard to make using ultrasounds for “non medical reasons” illegal).

Every year our main fundraiser is run/walk/bike ride event here in Tacoma. In the last six years we’ve been able to purchase 16(?) ultrasounds and outfitted every crisis pregnancy center in Pierce County and a few others in Washington State.

Now we’re branching out to help people across the country raise money to buy ultrasounds for their local crisis pregnancy centers. It’s pretty darn cool.

29Victor on November 17, 2010 at 12:55 PM

I salute you, sir. I cannot think of a more worthy cause.

I shall send a donation to this group immediately. Thank you for your defense of the defenseless; the Lord will not forget your nobility.

KinleyArdal on November 17, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Jimbo you are ill and one day you will come to a reckoning.

Funny how you libs love death so much. Puke.

CWforFreedom on November 17, 2010 at 7:08 PM

And I did promise I would counsel my daughter to accept your offer, rukiddingme. I haven’t forgotten that.
Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 2:35 PM
That is what you stated in a different thread, yes.

Pardon me when I tell you that your promise doesn’t mean much.

You have a history of making comments that you later dismiss as unintended.

rukiddingme on November 17, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Now I have to step up and defend poor Jimbo3 here….he will NEVER walk back his bigotry, he intends every word of it with every fiber of his being.

runawayyyy on November 18, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Democrats are having abortions (mostly).

Never stop your enemy when he is making a mistake.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/11/letter-to-friend.html

MSimon on November 19, 2010 at 7:30 AM

You want to put government in charge of your mate’s vagina?

Are you insane?

MSimon on November 19, 2010 at 7:33 AM

Planned Parenthood also tells the truth to its patients. Meanwhile, “Crisis Pregnancy” make no effort to tell the truth. They are still trying to scare young women with lies discredited in the early 90′s like having an abortion increases your chance of breast cancer. In fact, having an abortion doesn’t increase your chance of breast cancer over not getting pregnant to start with. It is true that completing a teenage pregnancy appears to reduce your risk of breast cancer, but that certainly doesn’t mean we should force all teenage girls to have a kid.

thuja on November 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM

I’m not advocating having little girls get pregnant to reduce their chance of getting breast cancer, but aborting a pregnancy does increase the risk over not aborting.

You are a liar.

Slowburn on November 19, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2