Anti-choice lawmakers have introduced legislation (H.R.195/S.340 in the 108th Congress)
authorizing federal funds for the purchase of ultrasound equipment for “non-profit tax exempt
organizations.” The bill is misleading and deceptive on several levels.
The legislation provides funding for “community based pregnancy help medical clinics.” These are so‐called “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs). While some centers provide an honest setting for pregnant women, many do not: they entice women to the center under the pretense of providing the full range of reproductive options, including abortion. Instead, the volunteers at these deceptive centers use anti-abortion propaganda, misinformation and intimidation to dissuade women from exercising their right to choose.
The sponsor of the bill announced on the floor that the “goal of the legislation is to
provide women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy with the full scope
of information such that they may make a fully informed decision.”
However, CPCs – the only beneficiaries under this bill – do not give women full information about their reproductive choices. Instead, many are designed to do exactly the opposite:
* they subject women to anti-abortion films, slide shows, photographs, misinformation and
lectures,
* and refuse to provide information about or referrals for birth control or
abortion.
One woman, in defending the CPCs’ lack of information, stated, “If you advertise yourself as an abortion alternative and you are an advocacy group, then you are not bound to present women’s choices.”The anti-choice Pearson Foundation, which published a manual on how to set up a CPC, instructs people to evade answering whether they provide abortion care in order to get women in the door and have the opportunity to persuade them not to terminate a pregnancy.
New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer even conducted an investigation into CPCs after receiving complaints that they deceive women into believing they offer a variety of reproductive services, including abortion, when they neither offer such services nor refer women to a legitimate provider
Section 2(b)(5)(C) requires that:
* “Each pregnant woman will be given information on abortion and alternatives to abortion such as childbirth and adoption and information concerning public and private agencies that will assist in those alternatives.”
By including a provision that women be given information “on abortion,” the bill gives the impression that it is neutral on the issue of abortion and simply concerned with giving women information. The problem, however, is that the language specifically does not require nondirective options counseling. This counseling, required of all recipients of Title X funding, is the appropriate standard of care for a pregnant woman who, in a legitimate medical facility, inquires about her options: it ensures that she is given non-biased, nondirective counseling on all her options and referrals for any option she chooses.
Under this bill, the organization receiving the funds is subject to no directive as to what information “on abortion” is to be given. The bill does not require that it be medically accurate information, or even that a woman be told she has a constitutional right to an abortion. A crisis-pregnancy center could comply with this requirement by passing on anti-abortion propaganda – such as the disproven claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. Moreover, the legislation is worded carefully so that grantees can deny women referrals to abortion providers, even upon request – referrals are only required for “alternatives” to abortion.
In sum, therefore, the legislation is deliberately designed to evade and undermine the
standard of care for pregnant women: nondirective options counseling
For years CPCs have disguised themselves, through advertising and appearances, as medical clinics.
Several times they have been investigated and injunctions have been issued preventing them from presenting themselves as such. This legislation would lend congressional and federal government “endorsement” to these centers, furthering their drive for credibility and future funding. These centers are not – and should not be – recognized as legitimate medical centers.
Furthermore, the bill’s requirement that the recipient organization be in compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements does not mean that the organization is a medical center. Importantly, the bill does not require that CPCs provide any specific clinical health-care services; it only states that if they do, those services are subject to the laws, regulations, and standards governing the delivery of those services. Crisis pregnancy centers do not typically offer medical services; therefore, this provision is an empty promise.
Its only benefit is a rhetorical one for its sponsors, who want to claim the mantle of protecting women’s health. While initially appearing beneficial, this language provides no additional protections or assurances for women.
Furthermore, this legislation would not only lend the government’s recognition to these
centers; it would also fund their propaganda. Rather than serving any public-health mission, CPCs’ fundamental purpose is to dissuade women from choosing abortion, often through misleading advertising, propaganda and misinformation. Many CPCs use sonograms as part of their propaganda.
Ultrasounds are good tools and can be medically important. However, this bill is not about ultrasounds and maternal health; it is designed to fund CPCs’ efforts not only to dissuade women from choosing abortion, but also to prevent them from even learning about all their options.
Buyer beware!!!!
Every word you wrote is the straight-up truth.
And this bill isn’t the only one to watch out for; next month Democrats for Life unveil their own version of this travesty, the hideously deceptive “95-10 Initiative“
Welcome to Gilead. Will the last pregnant woman leaving town please turn out the lights?
Yes… I was leading up to that. This has very good description of what is behind the CPCs. Hopefully it will make for good debates when Ryon drags the DFL crap to the floor in September.
Also the Democratic leadership needs to be taken to task for endorsing this group. Reid, Pelosi, Clinton all have to answer the question, what the fuck are you doing supporting this hate group that is against women’s rights?
Well, maybe, we should leave the fuck out of it. I’m still having a hissy fit over Reule Gerecht saying his ‘women’s social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy.’
When we put all the pieces together though that statement is more truth than not for these heathens. Women clearly are the enemy to them. Our rights muddy their purist wells of religion that spews hatred and rage against women. When Gerecht made his statements about women and democracy on Meet The Press it was more telling than the ire it raised upon hearing it. It was far more honest and thus more frightening than we could have imagined.
Where is our leadership after hearing what Gerecht had to say? Conspicuously absent. Seems women have no more respect from Reid, et al, than we have with the rightwingfanatics.
A question from a technology neanderthal. I can’t rate comments, I have the rating box, I put it on 4 excellent, it shows up in the box but it won’t take the next step to actually record the rating. Help?
Did you click the “rate all” button?
That’s where I’m confused. I don’t have a rate all button. It’s there on MLW and on Kos but I don’t see it here on Booman. Thanks for taking the time to help. I just hate it when I can’t give those 4s.
to make up for it.
You, my friend, always have my back. I seem to be able to give 4s to some post and not to others. I’ve given you 42 in spirit.
that Tom Kertes’ piece is an attempt to “message” this community to accept that excreble initiative. I spell out why in this comment here.
leglislation. I am opposed to it. I have no connections with anyone on the right – pro-life or otherwise. I can’t stand their agenda, I think they are using abortion for partisan gain, I think they are more pro-death than pro-life. I don’t buy their rationale.
the funny thing is have you folks noticed the new google ads? Everytime a diary is up the ads pertain to that subject. Check it out. Great diary Parker and this is so important to stay on top of. We pay our taxes so they can give it to these centers? I don’t think so. That must be stopped immediatley.
Good diary-I can’t fathom this crap-every time I think they’ve gone as low as they can go they lower the damn bar. The fact that they’re picking our pockets to spread their disinformation and out right lies is the icing on the cake.
We have to educate the masses on this… because Ryan is going to introduce the DFL bullshit initiative in September… so do what ever you can to inform and enlighten…
In the battle over abortion, opponents say they have discovered a powerful new tool: sonograms. And over the last 18 months, they have started major fund-raising campaigns to outfit Christian crisis pregnancy centers with ultrasound equipment.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/women_sonogram_times_feb2_05.htm
In a pregnancy center, 90% of pregnant women choose life, and from 10-30% of the mothers accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.
— Carol Everett, former pregnancy termination provider, now founder and CEO of The Heidi Group
http://www.heidigroup.org/women_in_need.htm
Dr. Leininger contributes heavily to groups that challenge the reproductive rights of women and the rights of gay men and lesbians, including the San Antonio Christian Pro Life,12 American Family Association, Christian Pro-Life Foundation, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Heidi Group, Institute for Basic Life Principles and Republican National Coalition for Life PAC.[13]
http://www.tfn.org/religiousright/leininger/
This is one of the mail pillars of the Democrats for Life Initiative that will be introduced by Ryan in the Fall…
That creepy Carol Everett is actually on the committee that writes our licensing rules for clinics in Texas — which is why we’re smothered in TRAP laws.
I recently had reason to do some background research on the Heidi Group and Ms. Everett. I was appalled and horrified at her history.
She claims she made a fortune in marketing abortions and made commissions on every woman she “persuaded” to have an abortion. She admits this was a natural transition from medical supply sales. So now she sees the money is in being a ‘born-again’ repentant on reproductive rights. Gaaa! No principles, no morals; just an eye on the main chance to enrich #1.
will be raking in their share of the $5,000,000 of our tax money diverted from community-based family planning and health screening clinics and funneled into CPCs all across the state. At the rate of about $20,000 per CPC, she should make out well.
And BTW, Carol Everett works with abortion abolitionist Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, who is also pushing the DFL’s 95-10 — although he has already made it plain that he expects them to “modify” 95-10’s provision for contraception.
medical care is dangerous and should be opposed.
Not only do I think that abortion should remain legal and safe, but I also think that there should be wall between medical care and partisan politics. We should support the development of professional health care force, and trust they they alone provide care.
Moral discussions on abortion may belong in the civic forum, but have no place in the doctor’s office. Period.
I think you are morally disgusting and a hypocrit…