Secular Government by the People, For the People, Not by God or for/against God

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment XIV - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
[Note: The bolded words mean that states may not pass laws violating any citizen rights or liberties in the US Constitution, including freedom of religion.]

Anti-Choice = Anti-Morality & Anti-Liberty, Pro-choice = Pro-Morality & Pro-Liberty

Anti-Choice is Fundamentally Wrong

I admire Deathroe.com for being more consistent, than anti-choicers who make abortion-ban exceptions, with the doctrine that "all human life is sacred" (this means that regardless of circumstances, people should do everything possible to make an organism with human DNA stay alive, except killing another organism with human DNA).  Deathroe.com argues that abortion should never be allowed, even if the mother will probably die giving birth.  But would Deathroe.com's supporters force a woman go into labor even if it would kill her, depriving her husband of a wife and her children of mother?  Hopefully not.  Their argument is fundamentally flawed by being based on assumptions about supernatural reward and punishment from a supernatural authority figure, on which I will elaborate later in this essay.

Anti-Choice Ideology: Religious Totalitarianism

Extreme anti-choicers want to all bans abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, and contraception that prevent uterine implantation of a fertilized egg; while opposing all wars, death sentences, and suicides.  (To be more consistent with their doctrine, they should also support banning life-shorteners, or slow suicide, like cigarette smoking and pollution.)  They make such public policy decisions because they assume that a supernatural being exists, presume that this being desires that only he is to allowed to kill organisms with human DNA, and they expect everyone to do whatever they presume this deity desires.  They make other assumptions about their deity too.  According to them, God as a plan?and reates?every life for a urpose,?nbsp;meaning that their deity pre-destines fertilized human eggs to do particular things in his grand plan for all of humanity, which makes them worry that abortion and other things they oppose are thwarting God plans (ex. of rhetoric they use: hat if Jesus were aborted??.  They assume that God gives a soul/consciousness to fertilized human eggs, which makes them imagine embryos protesting to being aborted.  On the other hand, they assume that God gave people free will, which contradicts the notion of predestination.  They also believe that fetuses are innocent, while assuming that no one is innocent because of riginal sin.?nbsp; The religious assumptions of Christian anti-choicers are based their own interpretation of their religious text, the bible, and/or on what they hear other Christian anti-choicers say.  What does the bible actually say about abortion? This website says that the bible does not condemn abortion, and is actually anti-women and anti-babies: http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php. According to another site: he Biblical God is NOT pro-life, he advocates child murder, infanticide, child abuse and abortion?(http://www.evilbible.com/god's%20not%20pro-life.htm).
 

Anti-Choice Propoganda: Make People Emotional, Then Mislead Them

Since their assumptions are not based on sufficient evidence, they use misinformation, blood, gore, and death to scare people into following the anti-choice doctrine.  Although they say that they are against a "culture of death," the "pro-life" websites actually focus on death.  They talk about murder, genocide, the Holocaust, and women who've died.  They often use the same gory pictures of supposedly aborted fetuses.  The point is to make people emotional enough that they have difficulty sorting out factual information from misinformation.

Anti-choicers deliberately mislead people about the harms of abortion.  They insist that abortion causes breast cancer, contrary to what researchers have found: "having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman subsequent risk of developing breast cancer" (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage).  As a medical/surgical procedure, abortion carries risks like many other procedures.  However, going into labor/having a C-section carries more risks than an early-term abortion, a fact that "pro-life" websites ignore or brush off.  Furthermore, they deny or ignore that a ban on abortions would lead to more illegal/unregulated abortions, which have greater health risks.

The extremists also stereotype women who get abortions as immoral, uncaring about children, or ignorant about abortion.  The fact is that women don't get abortions on a whim or out of some hatred of children.  Most women who have aborted either already had children or planned on having children in the future.  They care about children, but abort an unintended pregnancy because they are unprepared to be what they think a good mother should be.  Whether or not a woman aborts depends pon circumstances surrounding specific pregnancies rather than characteristics of the mother?(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=623164&dopt=Abstract).  While some women who got abortions in the past may have been ignorant about the effects of abotion, this is not as likely today.  Laws and regulations require that patients be informed about alternatives and medical risks, and some states, if not all, require counseling before an abortion can be performed on a patient.  Also, there is plenty of information about abortion on the Internet, and the vast majority of people in America have some access to the Internet by now.  Unfortunately, many are mislead by "pro-life" websites.
 

What Anti-Choicers Won Tell You about Abortion Effects

Anti-choicers also lie that abortion is traumatizing and more distressing to a woman than keeping her child or giving the child up for adoption.  Studies have found that females who gave up a child for adoption were usually more psychologically distressed than females who chose to have abort.  One study found that teen "aborters were found to have the most developed future time perspective, lowest demand for external approval, and lowest dependency needs" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7145498&dopt=Abstract).  Furthermore, a female stress and other negative psychological states tend to decrease after an abortion that she chose without feeling coerced.  The majority of aborters (over 80%) do not regret their decision.  Teens who kept their children, on the hand, "were found to have the least developed conceptualization of the future, highest level of anxiety and rumination, most external locus of control, and had internalized the most traditional notion of female sex roles" (ibid). 
 
Distressed teen mothers who feel little internal locus of control (low self-efficacy) and have plans little for the future of their children are probably more likely to be poor mothers (ability-wise and financially), which may be part of the reason why abortion has been correlated with better societal health.  Increased abortion rates have been correlated with decreased crime rates and increased educational attainment, labor market achievement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect, http://www.wws.princeton.edu/chw/lectures/lecture_pdfs/popeleches_abortionban.pdf). 
Legalization of abortion has also been "associated with a steady decrease in the homicides of toddlers" (http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclastat/papers/2002010112/) and a decrease in infant mortality rates: he increase in the legal abortion rate is the single most important factor [compared to edicaid, subsidized family planning services for low-income women, maternal and infant care projects,?and chooling and poverty in reductions in both white and nonwhite neonatal mortality rates?(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7030800&dopt=Abstract).  One study found that ohorts born after abortion was legalized experienced a significant reduction in a number of adverse outcomes. Our estimates imply that the marginal child who was not born due to legalization would have been 70% more likely to live in a single parent family, 40% more likely to live in poverty, 50% more likely to receive welfare, and 35% more likely to die as an infant?(http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/6034.html).  Contrary to anti-choice propaganda, abortion is relieving to many females with unwanted pregnancy, and legalization of abortion has had some good consequences for societal well-being.

General Universal Moral Guideline: Minimize Suffering & Maximize  Happiness

Anti-choice extremists ignore whatever facts don't fit their ideology.  They're so blinded by dogmas that they disregard intellectual honesty.  One of their dogmas is that after death, followers of God will be spared the punishment of "hell," or infinite suffering.  Instead, they will be rewarded with "heaven," or infinite happiness.  While it's nice that they're trying to minimize suffering and maximize well-being by saving people from doing things ("sins") that will make them go to hell, the anti-choicers' actions are misguided.  It's unfair for the anti-choicers to make others suffer in life just because they have dogmas about supernatural reward and punishment. According to Deathroe.com's anti-all-abortions-no-matter-what stance, it's better if a woman dies from birthing complications than if a fetus dies from abortion. Some "pro-lifers" disobey the doctrine by allowing abortion in the case of rape, incest, or threat to mother's health/life. These people, as well as the pro-choice majority in world, think that abortion is allowable in cases where forcing a mother to give birth would cause her fetus, her and society more overall suffering in life (not after death).
 

Some Factors to Consider in Order to Figure Out the Morality of an Abortion or of Abortion Bans

You could argue that once pregnant, abortion should be avoided because bearing the child is a less harmful alternative.  However, giving birth is physically more risky to the mother (the mother health and life has more suffering/well-being consequences for her community) than an early-term abortion and, depending on her circumstances, there could be other harmful consequences for her and society if she remains pregnant and gives birth.  So, bearing the child is not always the less harmful alternative.

Some who are personally against abortion have the good sense not to blindly impose their view on others through law.  Anti-choicers, however, often translate their personal dogmas into public policy decisions without thinking through public policy effects.  A ban on abortion does not simply mean keeping pregnant women from aborting.  It means forcing pregnant women to continue nurturing fetuses in their bodies and to go through labor or get C-sections.  It means that the government will have to keep track of women, like they do in China, to see whether or not they are pregnant and to make sure that they don't get illegal abortions.  In other words, it means that women would lose privacy rights and the right to control their own bodies.  In deciding whether or not to ban abortion, one should consider the harms of forcing people to do things against their own will, as well as other costs/harms, like imprisonment and/or execution of people, resources spent on implementation (including policing, court expenses, prison/execution), problems from over-population, an abortion black market, neglected children, etc.

Alternatives to Government Coercion for Decreasing Abortion Rates

Reduce the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion
Promote adoption. 
Is it viable to transfer an embryo to another uterus?
Reducing unemployment might reduce abortion rates, since a rise in unemployment consistently increases abortion rates (Blank, George & London. "State Abortion Rates." 1996). 

Prevent unintended pregnancy
Some women resort to abortion as a form of birth control because they failed to or improperly used methods of contraception (actions taken to decrease the chances of getting pregnant, including abstaining from intercourse, using barriers, using progestin pills/patches/rings/injections, & etc.) or because the objects used in contraception malfunctioned (ex: condom breakage despite proper usage).  "In several Eastern European countries (with very limited access to alternative forms of birth control) legalization of abortion was associated with 25 percent decline in birthrates [Frejka, 1983].  A smaller impact of abortion legalization on birthrates was observed in the United States, in the 5-10 percent range, perhaps reflecting better availability of contraception in the United States [Sklar and Berkov, 1974; Bauman et al. 1977; Levine et al. 1995]" (Kane and Steiger. "Teen Motherhood and Abortion Access." 1996. p. 475).

How to prevent unintended pregnancy:
1.  Educate
People are more likely to become pregnant when they don understand how pregnancy occurs, how to prevent it, or what the real costs and benefits of pregnancy are (like girls who mistakenly think that pregnancy will make their partners love them more).  To decrease pregnancy-out-ignorance, we should educate children before they become sexually active about sexual relationships (helpful vs. harmful relationships), human reproductive biology, contraception (proper usage and pros & cons of different methods), and pregnancy (personal & societal costs & benefits and what to do if pregnant). 
2.  Allow access to contraception, so that people will be less likely to use abortion for birth control.

Why Pro-Morality Requires Pro-Choice

The point of morality is for people to cooperate with each other so that everyone can live more happily than each would on his/her own.  Pro-choicers recognize that morality sometimes requires people to sacrifice their lives for others.  Otherwise, we would not have police, firemen, and soldiers risking their lives to help others.  Anti-choicers, on the other hand, think that each individual life is acred.?nbsp; Their stance is very individual life is the end and can be the means of others.? According to such a stance, it doesn matter how one life might help others, and one life is more important than numerous lives.  This is not morality, since it discourages cooperation by making people think that their individual lives are of utmost importance.  To pro-choicers, humanity (the lives of all of humans, present and future) is more important than just one life.   If anti-choicers agree that the survival and freedom of people are enough to justify killing terrorists and risk getting killed, then they agree with what John Stuart Mill said: ar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.?nbsp; Abortion is ugly, but sometimes it prevents worse things from happening.  It easy to argue that all abortions should be banned, period.  However, it is moral to recognize that government coercion may increase societal suffering.   Decreasing women control over their reproduction, by banning birth control, also decreases societal well-being, while men get to have babies whenever and with whomever they want.

Why Pro-Liberty Requires Pro-Choice

Like most things in life, morality is not one-decision-fits-all-cases.  If it were, we might as well be programmed like robots to automatically do the same things.  Some people won allow others to have the liberty of exercising their own judgment, preferring instead that everyone submit to a totalitarianism based on dogmas about a supernatural dictator.  The point of liberty, or ree will,?is to help maximize well-being.  Well-being requires freedom from coercion, since coercion increases anxiety and learned helplessness, while freedom increases happiness and self-control (with the exception that an overwhelming number of equally good choices can decrease happiness).  The right choice is pro-choice: opposed to government coercion of individuals' reproduction and supportive of better ways to decrease the number of abortions.

Usage of Terms

Anti-choicers often call pro-choicers "anti-life" or "pro-abortion," but these terms are inaccurate, since the goal of pro-choicers is netiher to make people die nor to make them have abortions.  Anti-choicers argue that some pro-choicers are pro-abortion so that they can make money from the "abortion industry," but this like saying that doctors are pro-injuries so that they can make money from the hospital industry.  Pro-choicers and doctors would prefer that abortion and injuries were avoided in the first place, so that they can focus on other issues instead.  Pro-choicers are pro-liberty, esp. with regards to birth control.  The pro-choicers who understand that liberty is necessary for morality can be called "pro-morality." 
The term "anti-choice" is appropriate, since anti-choicers do not allow people to use contraceptives, and their ultimate agenda is a totalitarian society based on their interpretation of their edition of the bible.  Not all people who advocate banning abortion are anti-choice, but abortion bans would deprive women of liberty; so these people are still, in a sense, anti-women's-liberty. "Pro-life" might be appropriate for those who oppose one organism w/ human DNA killing another organism w/ human DNA (which means opposing abortion, war, death penalty, etc.) and oppose an organism choosing to kill itself. As I have already explained in my essay, morality is not about individual organisms staying alive regardless of suffering; it's about minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being of as many individual organisms as possible.  Thus, "pro-life" is anti-morality.  Any way I cut it, people who advocate abortion bans are anti-liberty, anti-morality, and/or anti-choice.

Notes

Feel free to post questions, comments, or suggestions.  I will be adding to this essay as I come upon more evidence and points to address.  To better understand liberty and morality, read John Stuart Mill On Liberty and Utilitarianism at http://www.utilitarian.net/jsmill/.  See also an article on "an atheist's view of morality" at http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html.

Pat Robertson Supports Forced Abortions in China, Opposes Voluntary Abortions in America

[article from http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=507]

In a CNN interview on April 16, 2001, [Pat] Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and head of the Christian Broadcasting Network, was asked how he reconciles his support for close ties with China with Beijing's ruthless one-child policy, which has forced unwanted abortions on tens of millions of women.

"I don't agree with it," Robertson said. "But ... they've got 1.2 billion people, and they don't know what to do. If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable.... They're doing what they have to do."

It would be hard to overstate the moral bankruptcy of those words. China's population-control laws are a horror. Couples are forced to sign "one-child" agreements, and may not have that child until they are issued a government quota. Couples who evade the rule are heavily fined, publicly humiliated, and often sterilized. Women found to be pregnant without a permit are forced to undergo abortion. Often they are in their eighth or ninth month.

At times, the government does not even scruple at infanticide: In a widely reported case last year, officials seized a baby who was born alive despite an attempted abortion and drowned it before its parents' eyes.

When pro-lifers expressed shock that Robertson could excuse such things, he issued a "clarification:" He repeated that he personally opposes abortion, but was unwilling to fault Beijing [!]: The Chinese, he said, "will face a tragic dilemma of massive proportions if they permit their population to explode."

There is a reason Robertson is so mealymouthed: He has invested millions of dollars in Chinese cable and internet operations. His partner in one broadcasting deal is the communist government itself. To protect his financial interests, He depends the regime's goodwill, and to win it, he is apparently willing to say anything -- even to defend China's savage destruction of reproductive freedom.

It is a myth that China is too crowded; its population density is one-fifth that of Taiwan, one-200th that of Manhattan. China suffers not from too many people but from too little liberty. If Robertson doesn't understand that, his ignorance is shocking. If he does, he is a contemptible hypocrite. Either way, he is a disgrace, and conservatives should be the ones to say so.

Mis-Conceptions: Debunking Birth Control Myths

Three experts set the record straight on the most common misconceptions about birth control.

By Colette  Bouchez WebMD Medical News

Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD on Friday, May 06, 2005

Does the birth control pill cause cancer? Can an IUD cause painful sex? Will a diaphragm protect against a sexually transmitted disease?

Among the most troubling of those myths says Goldstein, is fears about a link between the birth control pill and cancer; a common misconception that keeps many women from using this highly effective method of birth control.

The good news: "The pill is not a cancer-causing agent, but a cancer-reducing agent, with good science to show that with continued pill use there's a dramatic and continued reduction in the incidence of ovarian cancer, and even uterine cancer," says Goldstein.

But what about breast cancer? Gynecologist Margaret Polaneczky, MD, puts those fears to rest as well.

"In general, the message is that it does not impact the risk of breast cancer in most women," says Polaneczky, an associate clinical professor at the Joan and Sanford Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York City.

The birth control pill's other health concern -- the risk of blood clots -- is slightly more complex, but again doctors say not an issue for most women.

The risk of blood clotting complications such as leg clots or lung clots is about 1 in 1,000 for all women; the risk rises to 3 in 1,000 for women on the pill, so clearly it's not something the majority need to worry about," says Goldstein.

That, however, can change as you age or if you smoke, since doctors say both factors can further increase risks.

In addition, Polaneczky says women who suffer from severe migraines, particularly with neurological symptoms such as arm or leg weakness during a migraine, may also be at increased risk for clotting complications from being on the pill. He says they might want to consider a different form of birth control.

"This should not be an issue if you have a menstrual-related migraine; only if you have neurological complications," says Polaneczky.

While the pill certainly has its share of myths, so too do other forms of birth control. Among the most misunderstood, say doctors, is the intrauterine device (IUD).

Initially it was removed from the market due to the safety issues of one particular IUD design known as the Dalkon Shield (in use from 1971-1974). Today, however, the redesigned IUDs are believed to be both safe and effective.

Still, among the top concerns: That it can interfere with tampon use; that it can dislodge during sex; that it can cause sex to be painful; that it can be felt by a partner. Experts say the answer to all is "no."

"An IUD will not interfere with tampon use, and, when properly inserted, it should not get dislodged during sex or cause you any pain, and your partner should not feel it either," says Erika Banks, MD, associate residency director of obstetrics and gynecology at Montifiore Medical Center, Bronx, N.Y.

If any of these things do happen, says Banks, it's likely the IUD was not properly inserted, so see your doctor. And while sometimes a woman's body can expel an IUD on its own, experts say that is rare and usually occurs only in women who have never had children.

"This is one reason why most doctors continue to suggest an IUD only to women who have had children; generally, the uterus is larger and it not only holds the IUD better, it also is easier to insert it correctly," says Banks.

The other common IUD myth: That it can increase your risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Doctors say that it won't; only unprotected exposure to an infected partner can do that. However, if you should contract an STD while wearing an IUD, then Goldstein says you may have a greater risk of infection to your reproductive tract and pelvic inflammatory disease.

"The wick or tail of the IUD can carry the bacteria deeper into the body, allowing it to reach both the uterus and the fallopian tubes," says Goldstein. For this reason most doctors do not recommend an IUD to any woman who is not in a guaranteed monogamous relationship.

To help break the myths and deliver the facts, our three experts set the record straight on these additional birth control concerns.

1. Myth: Missing 1 pill will increase my risk of pregnancy.
Fact: It won't. Simply take two birth control pills the next day. It is encouraged that you take your pill the same time every day. Doing so can help reduce your risk of breakthrough bleeding. Progesterone-only birth control pills need to be taken at the same time every day, otherwise effective birth control is decreased.

Also note: If you are on the birth control patch and it falls off, put on a new one right away. If more than two days go by without it, then use an alternate form of birth control for the remainder of your cycle.

2. Myth: Antibiotics reduce the pill's effectiveness.
Fact: While there have been individual case reports of women for whom this is true, doctors say overall studies have failed to prove it. The only antibiotic known to impact the pill is rifampin, used to treat tuberculosis. That said, if you are using antibiotics on a regular basis -- to treat acne, for example -- you might experience higher than normal rates of breakthrough bleeding. To solve the problem, switch to a higher-dose pill.

3. Myth: The pill will make me gain weight.
Fact: Most women do not gain weight on the pill. But if you do it is likely to be water retention, limited to about 2 pounds. However, some women find the pill increases their appetite, which in turn causes overeating and weight gain. The solution: Switch to a different birth control pill.

4. Myth: The tighter a condom fits my partner, the more I am protected.
Fact: A condom that is too tight is more likely to burst during intercourse. It's also important to leave some space near the tip to safely catch the ejaculate without straining the condom. Incidentally, neither ordinary balloons nor Saran Wrap are effective substitutes for a condom.

5. Myth: You can safely remove a diaphragm as soon as your partner loses his erection.
Fact: If your partner has ejaculated, you must keep your diaphragm in your body for six to eight hours -- the time it takes for the spermacide to effectively kill all the sperm. Additionally, you must apply a fresh dose of spermacide each time you have intercourse. Without it, you have almost no protection.

6. Myth: The new contraceptive sponge works like a disposable diaphragm.
Fact: Both methods act in a similar manner, as a receptacle for spermacide. However, a diaphragm is fitted to your body and is less likely to dislodge during sex. A sponge may be easier to insert, but it can become dislodged during sex.

7. Myth: My body needs a 'rest' from all birth control at least once a year.
Fact: It doesn't. Regardless of the type of birth control you use, your body does not require you to stop at any point.

An IUD that does not contain hormones should be replaced every 10 years. Some IUDs contain hormones and should be replaced less than every 10 years. A diaphragm may have to be refitted and resized if you lose or gain a significant amount of weight.

Woman who use extended-regimen birth control pills have three months of active pills and extend the time between your scheduled periods.

8. Myth: Using birth control pills may mean it's harder to get pregnant when I finally do try.
Fact: The pill will not harm your fertility, or cause irregular cycles, or prevent you from getting pregnant in the future. You also do not have to wait any specific period of time after stopping the pill in order to safely conceive. The reason some doctors recommend staying off the pill for three months before conceiving: It could take that long for your cycle to regulate. There is, however, no harm in trying sooner.

9. Myth: It's not safe to use birth control pills to manipulate your cycle.
Fact: It is perfectly safe, and doctors have been using the pill in this fashion for decades. Indeed, because you aren't ovulating on the pill, the lining of your uterus does not build during a monthly cycle. Therefore there is no need to shed or "cleanse" your uterus with a menstrual bleed. In fact, the "period" you get while on the pill is not a menstrual bleed at all but instead your body's reaction to hormone withdrawal -- which occurs when you take the seven "placebo" pills in your pack at the end of each month. As such, skipping the placebos and continuing to take the pill without a bleeding break, is not harmful.

10. Myth: All birth control pills are the same, only the dosage changes.
Fact: All birth control pills use the same type of estrogen but can differ in the progesterone formulation. If you are having a problem on one pill -- such as breakthrough bleeding, extreme hunger, or loss of sex drive -- switching to a different brand or formulation will often make a difference.

Colette Bouchez is the author of The V Zone: A Woman's Guide to Intimate Health.

Published May 9, 2005.

SOURCES: Steven Goldstein, MD, professor, obstetrics and gynecology, NYU School of Medicine. Margaret Polaneczky, MD, associate clinical professor, Weill Medical College, Cornell University, New York. Erika Banks, MD, associate director of residency, Montifiore Medical Center, New York.
?2005 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.

Planned Parenthood's description of a case involving an anti-abortion center

Fake "Clinic" Cons 17-Year-Old Girl

An Indiana mother recently accompanied her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend to one of Indiana's Planned Parenthood clinics, but they unwittingly walked into a so-called "crisis pregnancy center" run by an anti-abortion group, one that shared a parking lot with the real Planned Parenthood clinic and was designed expressly to lure Planned Parenthood patients and deceive them.

The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their "other office" (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby). When she arrived for her appointment, not only did the Planned Parenthood staff have no record of her, but the police were there. The "crisis pregnancy center" had called them, claiming that a minor was being forced to have an abortion against her will.

The "crisis pregnancy center" staff then proceeded to wage a campaign of intimidation and harassment over the following days, showing up at the girl's home and calling her father's workplace. Our clinic director reports that the girl was "scared to death to leave her house." They even went to her school and urged classmates to pressure her not to have an abortion.

The anti-choice movement is setting up these "crisis pregnancy centers" across the country. Some of them have neutral-sounding names and run ads that falsely promise the full range of reproductive health services, but they dispense anti-choice propaganda and intimidation instead. And according to a recent article in The New York Times, there are currently more of these centers in the U.S. than there are actual abortion providers. What's more, these centers have received $60 million in government grants. They're being funded by our tax dollars.

A bill has just been introduced in Congress to stop the fraudulent practices of fake clinics, but it desperately needs more support. Tell your representative to take a stand: anti-choice extremists must not get away with this any longer!

Go to: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fakeclinics