(Untitled)
Well, the state of Maryland may be the last sane place on Earth...
They're introducing a bill to force crisis pregnancy centers (anti-abortion clinics, basically) to admit that they are not medical providers and stop deceiving women who are seeking reproductive health options...and the bill is likely to pass, according to the article.
Read about it ( Read more... )
They're introducing a bill to force crisis pregnancy centers (anti-abortion clinics, basically) to admit that they are not medical providers and stop deceiving women who are seeking reproductive health options...and the bill is likely to pass, according to the article.
Read about it ( Read more... )
But thank you for that insight, that CPCs do other things than the excesses that have caught Maryland's attention. Does gronko's work put out literature regarding the "post-abortion trauma syndrome" that's mentioned in the article? chiyo_no_saru's college had an anti-abortion group spreading that quasimedical scare stuff not too long ago.
I mean, I'm an adopted child and I'm all for letting women know their options and make their own choices. (Places billed as "abortion clinics" do present more options than abortion, of course.) If expecting women *choose* not to abort, they should have resources like that available to them, certainly...but doing things like delaying sonograms is ethically suspect. (I'm not implying that gromko's work does this, obviously, just citing back to some of the concerns in the article.)
I wouldn't be with it if MD was trying to shut them down. But making it clear what they are and are not - because right now, under "Abortion" in my telephone directory, there are at least three of these places billing themselves as something they're obviously not, and that's bad - serves good purpose, in my opinion.
/hugs tboner and gromko and appleysauce
Reply
I probably should read up on what Lifeline does and what they preach. I know they are Christian-based, but I don't know how forceful they are about it. I've been to their benefit dinners, but it's not like they say "We coerce people into doing things that they don't really want to do."
And thanks for the hugs. Hugs are always welcome!
Reply
I know that the adoption agency I was placed through , which is also Christian, is a better model of appropriate approaches to crisis pregnancy than the clinic in my college town. But even they basically focus on pregnant teenagers with religious parents, and there are some concerns there. Not that adoption is bad, adoption is a-plus. Not that teenagers choosing to give up a baby rather than abort is bad, either; abortion is not the solution for everyone. But I guaran-damn-tee you that most of the girls who go through the agency that placed me aren't given a full range of options or necessarily even allowed to make that decision for themselves, because of what I know about the religious focus of the agency, and it's fairly reasonable to think that many of them are being subjected to undue pressure to make certain decisions. Any decision you make in that situation is a big one and big decisions require, like you said and I said, transparency and honesty, not disinformation and emotional appeals.
Obviously we can't ask groups that are religious in nature and morally opposed to abortion to offer abortion services. That would be unreasonable. But lying to clients about the potential *medical* effects of abortions in order to sway their decisions is serious business indeed, and that's one of the complaints most often leveled at CDCs in my admittedly limited experience. Saying to a woman "We don't offer abortions because we don't find that a morally acceptable option" is a lot different than saying "You'll get a [fake, not recognized by the APA] mental illness from having an abortion!!!!" to someone who's already dealing with serious business.
If this new legislation will cause a greater amount of transparency and limit the degree to which CPCs can bill themselves as abortion service providers in order to get women in the door, I'm fer it. Because one thing that I don't see is pro-choice organizations spreading disinformation about non-abortion options; this new law seems like maybe it'll put the two on a more equal footing.
I'll recommend, as I generally do, the documentary Lake of Fire, about the state of abortion and reproductive rights in this country, because it features both sides of the issue. Admittedly, the anti-choice side makes itself look bad in several cases, but it's a fascinating look at How it Is here, as well as featuring many famous folks - Alan Dershowitz, for one - talking about their own thoughts on abortion, the right to life, and other issues related to reproductive choice. Some of the stuff going on on the anti-choice side is pretty scary, particularly how less and less doctors are being trained to even perform abortions because of pressure from anti-choice groups and because of the very real threat of physical violence against doctors. It's hardcore and hard-hitting, including some graphic footage of abortions being performed, but it does walk you through one woman's decision, including the counseling she received before and after from her PP representative. So it's thought-provoking, for sure. It's had us talking since we saw it, and that was nearly three months ago.
I'd be interested, once you have a spare moment in addition to being a new daddy, in learning what you find out about the organization gromko's involved with in terms of their focus. :D
Reply
Leave a comment