In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Lies

Jill

In Maryland, pro-choicers have pushed for a bill that would require so-called “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” to inform women that they are not health care providers and that they are under no legal obligation to tell the truth. In practice, these centers routinely lie to women in order to coerce them out of terminating their pregnancies. They pose as health care providers when they aren’t, offering ultrasounds but not having qualified doctors on site to actually read them. They flat-out lie about abortion and contraception.

So it would be nice if they were required to tell the truth, but of course that won’t happen. The last part of the article, though, is pretty great:

Delegate Joseph Bartlett, a Frederick County Republican, said the centers should be able to continue to operate normally.

“The premise that we’re going to require these organizations to disclaim that they don’t have to tell the truth is just about the silliest thing I ever heard,” he said. “We certainly don’t do that in the case of politicians, do we?”

Well, no, we don’t, but perhaps we should.

Thanks to Anne for the link.

69 thoughts on Lies

  1. is that a typo? do you mean pro-lifers?

    in any event, here’s one case i actually agree with you. when it comes to regulation, if the government has any role at all to play, then it is ensuring transparency. it is the most economically efficient, least-obtrusive, and usually most successful way to ensure fairness.

    clearly based on his statement this guy is hardly much of a politician since any decent politician would not try to justify their actions to the public by claiming they themselves lie all the time.

  2. I’ve always wondered if these CPCs ever get the same sort of protesting, etc., that abortion providers do. I’ve wanted to go over and hand out pamphlets, etc., telling the truth about CPCs but at the same time haven’t wanted to stoop to that level.

  3. I don’t think this bill would pass constitutional scrutiny due to the first amendment. forcing speech on someone is extremely frowned upon though their are exceptions of course, like cigarette advertisements and their disclaimers.

    But this is not commercial speech and is therefore afforded higher constitutional protection. i suppose one could make a heatlh argument and thus the state has a compelling interest but that’s a high standard and could open a Pandora’s box to regulate pro-abortion groups.

    freedom of choice should not be restricted to abortion. Pro-chiocers should live up to their name.

  4. AHAHAHA!!!!

    I imagine a few recent posters here will have their heads implode at the read of this!

    Good for Maryland. Although, I would change the wording from “under no legal obligation to tell the truth” to something more along the lines of “Under no obligation to refer persons to abortion services or providers of reproductive care, including contraception” And make sure that wording is prominently displayed in their lobby/waiting room or in each “examining” room.

    Make a negative into a positive….afterall, if they are into telling “the truth” they should have no problems with this.

  5. I’ve always wondered if these CPCs ever get the same sort of protesting, etc., that abortion providers do. I’ve wanted to go over and hand out pamphlets, etc., telling the truth about CPCs but at the same time haven’t wanted to stoop to that level

    .

    After the March for Womens Lives a few years ago, Faux Noise for the metro DC area ran a “special” on violence CPC’s endured after the protest. One center in MD was broken into, had its lobby trashed, its office ransacked and had “pro-choice” graffiti sprayed outside on its wall.

    Now granted this was Faux Noise and the people interviewed ad nausieum were the CPC staff, who were certain “militant PC activists” did the vandalism and B&E. Could very well have been pro-choicers who did that, or it could have been the ACers who wanted to draw attention to themselves.

    I don’t believe any group of people is above tactics like that, but history shows it isn’t the PCers who have a fettish for property destruction and/or acts of domestic terrorism.

  6. I imagine a few recent posters here will have their heads implode at the read of this!

    sorry ellebeme your wrong (as you’ll see if/when the prior post i submitted shows up).

    you’re a stereotyper who assumes you know people and read far more into their comments than is there.

    you’re no better than the people you presumably dislike who find out a few of your strong feelings on women’s issues and think they know you.

  7. I don’t think this bill would pass constitutional scrutiny due to the first amendment. forcing speech on someone is extremely frowned upon though their are exceptions of course, like cigarette advertisements and their disclaimers.

    Not when it comes to reproductive choice, apparently. Abortion providers all over the country are required to read a script — often a medically inaccurate one — to their patients. This would be far less intrusive than that.

    freedom of choice should not be restricted to abortion. Pro-chiocers should live up to their name.

    Sure. And women should be able to make fully-informed choice, not choices directed by coercion and lies.

    I don’t have any problem with the idea of crisis pregnancy centers — I think they sound great. It’s how they operate in real life that turns me off.

  8. But this is not commercial speech and is therefore afforded higher constitutional protection.

    How is it not commercial speech?

  9. It’s false advertising, even if no money is changing hands. I can’t go out on the street claiming to be a doctor and giving away FDA-unapproved “miracle cure” I made in my kitchen either, even if it’s free.

  11. Ugh, I’m from Frederick County originally. It would be amazing (and just) if this bill were passed.

  12. Thought experiment: let’s say a group of fundamentalist Christian Scientists operate an emergency clinic for illnesses of all kinds. You go in there because you feel sick, not knowing that the clinic adheres to a specific religious doctrine that proscribes it from practicing anything like the medicine you would get in a hospital. They run a couple of tests on you (chest X-ray, maybe, and possibly draw a little blood) but no one actually can interpret those tests at the center and they will not be sent out for reading. Then, they tell you that the reason for your feeling under the weather is mental/spiritual and that you should rest and try to heal spiritually. They do not reveal their religious affiliation and you can only guess at it by the diagnosis.

    We all know that a clinic like this would not stay in business for one hot second, for all sorts of reasons, but ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ operate on the same premise: people’s (specifically women’s) health is less important than their agenda and misrepresenting yourself as a medical professional is a small price to pay for saving the life of an unborn child.

    If women who have unplanned pregnancies want to carry them to term, then that is fine. But if they are doing so based on false information given by people impersonating healthcare professionals, then it is the responsibility of the representative they elect to take action to protect them. a fake ultrasound? please. One of the point of having a legislative body is to protect citizens from shams like this.

  13. Not when it comes to reproductive choice, apparently. Abortion providers all over the country are required to read a script — often a medically inaccurate one — to their patients. This would be far less intrusive than that.

    Well, medical procedures are regulated and if you receive govt funds there can be strings attached. the line between behavior and speech is a thin one, but i prefer to fault on the side of free speech.

    Sure. And women should be able to make fully-informed choice, not choices directed by coercion and lies

    plethora of 1st amendment problems here. who decides if its a lie, the free market of ideas or the govt? does lying constitute coercion (one can make an argument, fraud is illegal but if they don’t stand to gain financially its more problematic)?

    freedom is indivisable, they say. when you restrict free speech you undermine the foundation of abortion rights itself. there’s a connection here.

  14. sminbrookly:

    in the example yo give you’d have a”compelling state interest” of protecting the health of a person. the notion of a clear and present danger (like yelling fire in a movie theatre) is relevant here b/c in your example the person could die immediately.

    but that immediacy does not exist in the pregnancy centers. sure, its possible that it may get that far, but the American constitutional tradition really frowns upon “prior restraint” (see niixon vs. nytimes) b/c its an egregious form of censorship. in other words, we have to wait until real harm is done b/c we regulate.

  15. I don’t think this bill would pass constitutional scrutiny due to the first amendment.

    The first amendment allows unqualified people to pose as nurses and perform ultrasounds without training or a doctor to view them?

    And here I thought it was illegal to practice medicine without a license. Turns out all I have to say is, “Hey, it’s my freedom of speech to tell clients I’m an ultrasound technician!” and the law can’t touch me.

  16. Informing clients that the organisation is under no legal obligation to tell the truth or conform to medical standards does not seem troublesome from a freedom of speech issue. When someone is going to an organisation for health-related issues, they probably expect that it’s going to conform to standards other health service organisations are held to. The women deserve to know the standard of care they can expect. They also deserve to know about other rights they might reasonably expect, like doctor-patient confidentiality.

  17. The first amendment allows unqualified people to pose as nurses and perform ultrasounds without training or a doctor to view them?

    it doesn’t. that behaviour that can be and is regualted. either way, the bill in question doesn’t talk to this scenario and neither do i. strawman argument.

  18. who decides if its a lie, the free market of ideas or the govt?

    Neither. You misunderstand this law, I think. All it requires is that crisis pregnancy centers inform their clients that the centers are under no legal obligation to tell the truth and that they aren’t doctors. They can lie their asses off after they do that, and no one is trying to keep them from doing that.

    On the other hand, I think you’re overly skeptical about the potential for figuring out whether something is a lie or not. I’m not a lawyer, but it looks to me as if our entire legal system revolves around being able to discern truth from lies, often scientific or medical truth from lies. Think about libel or slander cases in particular, since they deal with disseminating false information.

    freedom is indivisable, they say. when you restrict free speech you undermine the foundation of abortion rights itself. there’s a connection here.

    1. What does the foundation of abortion rights have to do with free speech, other than that they both are rights? I’d be curious about the specifics of how this slippery slope would work.

    2. This law has nothing to do with what crisis pregnancy centers can and cannot say. It only requires them to qualify what they say with an advisory. Like I said, they can lie, lie, lie away as long as they tell you first that they could be lying to you.

  19. “Well, medical procedures are regulated and if you receive govt funds there can be strings attached.”

    And if you don’t receive government funds but the government requires you to give out medically inaccurate information anyway?

  20. Also, I find it hilarious that Mr. Bartlett’s immediate inclination is to compare CPCs to politicians. Is there a single group more widely known for lying than politicians?

  21. And if you don’t receive government funds but the government requires you to give out medically inaccurate information anyway?

    not quite sure what you’re referring to, but the govt does regulate the medical profession, rightly or wrongly. but what it cannot (in most cases) regulate is speech, though the line is can be blurred.

  22. Neither. You misunderstand this law, I think. All it requires is that crisis pregnancy centers inform their clients that the centers are under no legal obligation to tell the truth and that they aren’t doctors. They can lie their asses off after they do that, and no one is trying to keep them from doing that.

    well if you forced the nytimes to disclose they’re not obligated to tell the truth it would violate the 1st ammendment. you really have to have a compelling state interst to force speech on someone.

  23. sorry ellebeme your wrong (as you’ll see if/when the prior post i submitted shows up).

    you’re a stereotyper who assumes you know people and read far more into their comments than is there.

    you’re no better than the people you presumably dislike who find out a few of your strong feelings on women’s issues and think they know you.

    Do go on Dr…

    http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/therapist.htm

  24. 1. What does the foundation of abortion rights have to do with free speech, other than that they both are rights? I’d be curious about the specifics of how this slippery slope would work.

    both are part of inalienable natural rights, an interlocking system. both assume the autonomy, rationality, agency, and sovereignty of the individual…thus children have less rights than adults.

    so if you restrict freedom of speech b/c you think individuals should be protected from lies, as opposed to them being adults that can make decisions for themselves, you raise the possibility that an individual may not posess the capacity to choose whats best for their own body. perhaps the state should then step in, thus underminig the right to privacy (abortion).

    now this is the abstract ideal and there are exceptions: perjury, fraud, fire in a movie theatre, etc. but liberal thought, as opposed to progressive thought, has always faulted in the favor of indiscriminate freedom, b/c of fear of the slippery slope, among other reasons.

  25. Manju, do you actually understand what constitutes commercial speech under the First Amendment? And what is the problem with requiring the clinic to inform women that they are *not* health-care providers?

  26. not quite sure what you’re referring to, but the govt does regulate the medical profession, rightly or wrongly.

    And many people practicing in areas which may be confused as part of a regulated profession very often have to issue disclaimers. People offering advice which appears to come from a regulated, licensed professional also often have to issue a disclaimer and sometimes are completely restricted from certain speech. A non-lawyer can’t put up an office that looks like a law firm, advertises its services to people in legal trouble, and give legal advice.

    There is a general understanding that a newspaper, while it may have the weight of its reputation, is not under an obligation to never lie. Similarly, an advice columnist can give advice but there is an understanding that the advice is not part of a therapist-patient relationship.

    However, pregnancy crisis centers DELIBERATELY market themselves as servicing women for a health-related issue and there is no general understanding among the public that this is an unlicensed practice.

  28. Manju, do you actually understand what constitutes commercial speech under the First Amendment?

    speech done for profit or a commercial transaction, thus accorded lower constitutional protection. presubambly, if the clinics where for-porfit youwould have a motive for fraud (stealing) and the govt would have a lower standard to justify regulation.

    And what is the problem with requiring the clinic to inform women that they are *not* health-care providers?

    the 1st ammendemnt frown upon forcing someone to say anything, thought its not absolutely prohibited. sminbrooklyn in 12 provides an example that would pass constitutional muster b/c there is a clear and present danger of an individual dying and of fraud (reasonable person standard)

    short of that, the law defaults on the assumption that women or men have the rational capacity to detect viewpoints, opinions, etc. if they where posing as doctors, however, they should be prosecuted and laws are on the books already for that.

  29. it doesn’t. that behaviour that can be and is regualted. either way, the bill in question doesn’t talk to this scenario and neither do i.

    Actually, it does, right in the part where it says they have to tell clients that they are not health care providers. You have an odd idea of what a “strawman” is.

    You may also need to watch a few more commercials if you think that free speech means no one has to provide a disclaimer. There’s a reason that “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV” is a cliche.

  30. the 1st ammendemnt frown upon forcing someone to say anything, thought its not absolutely prohibited.

    Interestingly, it’s perfectly constitutional to tell doctors that they’re not allowed to inform patients about the option of abortion or where they can get one.

    So is it only pro-life people who are allowed total freedom of speech, up to the point of pretending to be health care workers, or can we all do it? The Supreme Court seems to have one opinion and you have another, so I’m curious to see who you think is right.

  31. You have an odd idea of what a “strawman” is.

    well you brought up the scenario of practicing medicine without a license, which is already illegal. i’m not making a first amendment argument against laws that prohibit that behaviour. that was the strawman.

  32. This may be a little tangent, but is there any such thing as CPCs that are 100% Pro-Choice? Or any ideas to create them? Although such a place would not provide the medical care itself, I’m thinking a place that has licensed, pro-choice counselors that give respectful, non-partial advice to women who come to them about ALL of their options, including abortion, refer them for all medical services they need, including abortion and contraception options, informational courses on medically accurate sex education, how to use contraception, testing for STDs, etc, and printed material to hand out with that info. Also, Pro-Choice CPCs would aid women with any access issues to abortion (for example, finding pro-choice volunteers in other cities to house women overnight who need to travel a long distance for an abortion, and help women come up with ways to get the money if they don’t have it). Such a place would also provide any additional counseling and support a woman may need after giving birth, having an abortion, or giving a child up for adoption, create support networks for women who need it, and also provide career and educational counseling for women, especially single mothers, who want to empower themselves but may not have had access or encouragement before. Such a place would also have connections to and network with other places that help women, such as Planned Parenthood and women’s shelters, etc.

    And then we can set up the Pro-Choice CPCs next door to the Pro-Life ones, and make our advertisements ones that come right out and say “WE WILL GIVE YOU ALL OPTIONS”.

    I don’t know if that sounds like way too big a thing, but just a thought. Beat those lying f**kers at their own game.

  33. Interestingly, it’s perfectly constitutional to tell doctors that they’re not allowed to inform patients about the option of abortion or where they can get one.

    docs can inform their patients of this, they just can’t use govt funds to do so. not a wise law, but constitutional. likewise, organizations that receive govt funding may have their freedom of association restricted, ie not allowed to ban homosexuals, like the boy scouts discovered (i think).

    but if you want to discriminate against homosexuals its your constitutional right, just do it on your own dime.

  35. another 1st amendment problem is viewpoint discrimination. the way the bill is written it looks like the govt is targeting speech they don’t like. at the very least, they have to include all pregnancy centers, presumably planned parenthood as well, under this disclosure law saying that they can lie.

  36. ElleBeMe (post 23)

    good to know when you’re called on something you can’t even must up an apology. instead you resort to a pithy retort.

  37. at the very least, they have to include all pregnancy centers, presumably planned parenthood as well, under this disclosure law saying that they can lie.

    Well, no, because PP IS a medical clinic…

  39. Make a negative into a positive….afterall, if they are into telling “the truth” they should have no problems with this.

    Exactly. These same people never conceal their opposition to abortion in other circumstances. Why should they object to clearly stating that they are established to prevent abortion and that they are not doing actual medical care?

  41. docs can inform their patients of this, they just can’t use govt funds to do so. not a wise law, but constitutional. likewise, organizations that receive govt funding may have their freedom of association restricted, ie not allowed to ban homosexuals, like the boy scouts discovered (i think).

    Actually, no. The Boy Scouts are still allowed to ban homosexuals. The Salvation Army is allowed to discriminate against homosexuals in hiring and still gets federal money. In fact, they’re even allowed to have prayer meetings in the facilities that they built with federal money as long as they’re “voluntary” and not mandatory as they originally wanted.

    Funny how doctors who get federal funds weren’t allowed to talk about abortion but religious groups who get federal funding are allowed to practice religion-based discrimination.

  42. “Well, no, because PP IS a medical clinic…”

    Maybe where Manju lives, you’re allowed to do pelvic exams, perform outpatient surgeries, and and dispense prescription drugs without having any medical training or licensing in uninspected and unregulated facilities.

  43. Funny how doctors who get federal funds weren’t allowed to talk about abortion but religious groups who get federal funding are allowed to practice religion-based discrimination.

    what do you mean by religion-based discrimination?

  44. what do you mean by religion-based discrimination?

    Not hiring gay people because homosexuality is against your religion but still getting federal funding.

    Religions have a pretty wide latitude in their hiring under normal circumstances, but once they start getting taxpayer money, that latitude should end.

  45. Funny how doctors who get federal funds weren’t allowed to talk about abortion but religious groups who get federal funding are allowed to practice religion-based discrimination.

    well, there’s 2 issues at stake, constitutional law/rights and federal/state laws. constitutionally speaking, the boy scouts and PP are on the same level. if they receive govt funds the govt may choose to restrict some of their freedoms in return (within limits) but they are not compelled to.

    but when it comes to federal law they are treated differently, with PP speech restricted but the salvation armys religious freedom intact. i think that’s what you mean. but that’s up to the voters to change.

    in either case, what the voters can’t do is restrict the free speech, free association, and religious freedom of private groups that don’t receive taxpayer $$.

    however, its a little iffy, as even if you get taxpayer $$, you don’t fully lose your 1st amendment rights. the govt has to justify the rules on a standard that’s lower than “compelling interest” but forgot what it is. recall Giuliani losing a case where he wanted to remove anti-catholic art from a public museum.

  46. I don’t get it- why does azok think “pro-choicers” is a typo here? Or are you making a joke I don’t get? Obviously it would be the pro-choicers who want to require CPCs to be honest about the fact that they’re not medical clinics- the pro-lifers are the ones running the CPCs.

  47. “why does azok think “pro-choicers” is a typo here?”

    Because azok is a troll?

    Speaking of which, did anybody ever figure out what “Christmas pussy” was supposed to mean?

  48. aestra: sorry; didn’t mean to be ignorant. I wasn’t sure what the range of Planned Parenthood’s services was.

    I’m just going back to school for an MA in counseling and I’ve been brainstorming lately ways to put that to good use for women when I’m done.

    And I don’t see where it violates 1st amendment rights to ask that CPCs be transparent about what they do. There should be disclaimers on their advertisements too. I think it is against the law to advertise something falsely, and lies of any kind (slander, detraction, etc) are never protected under the 1st amendment. CPCs should be requires to state EXACTLY what they are on their ads, and in their office. (ie, that they are Faith Based and Pro-Life, and that they offer no medical services or real professionals.) Especially if they get government $$

  49. I’ve always wondered if these CPCs ever get the same sort of protesting, etc., that abortion providers do. I’ve wanted to go over and hand out pamphlets, etc., telling the truth about CPCs but at the same time haven’t wanted to stoop to that level.

    Terri,

    NARAL did stage a protest at a CPC a few years back. If you believe that a CPC is lying to women you should picket it 24/7 or do whatever you think it takes to save its potential victims from harm. I don’t understand why you believe that exercising your First Amendment right to express your opinion would be “stooping” to some low level. Businesses get picketed all the time for engaging in unethical practices and CPCs shouldn’t be spared if they engage in deceitful or harmful behavior.

  50. Pregnancy isn’t a walk in the park Manju. There are many horrible problems that can come up during a pregnancy that can threaten the life of both the mother and the child. If someone goes into one of those clinics and they have Gestational Diabetes or an Ectopic pregnancy, do you think that the people there are going to catch that? Should we wait till someone dies and then say “oops we should have stopped them?” Come on, Free Speech does not give you the right to fake medical care.

  51. Manju, your last post reads like an eighth grader’s who spent most of civics class doodling and is frantically trying to write something on a pop essay quiz.

  52. in either case, what the voters can’t do is restrict the free speech, free association, and religious freedom of private groups that don’t receive taxpayer $$.

    Except for things like libel and slander and fraud and Jesus Christ, are you really this stupid or are you pretending in order to wind us up?

  53. Should we wait till someone dies and then say “oops we should have stopped them?”

    actually you do. prior restraint. you can’t regulate a person’s free speech rights b/c it may lead to illegal beahvior, you have to wait until it does.

    i suspect the standard here is if a “resonable person” cannot tell this is a pro-life center and not an emergency room or MD offfice, then the state may have a “compelling interest” (public health) to regulate.

    however, we can’t take narals word for it anymore than we can could take a pro-lifes group word that PP is lying. after all, they may just be trying to shut down speech they don’t like.

    likewise, i can’t ask the govt to prevent mythago (50) from commenting here b/c she may libel me, i have to wait until she actually does. until i’m harmed.

  54. Except for things like libel and slander and fraud and Jesus Christ, are you really this stupid or are you pretending in order to wind us up?

    yes obviously there are exceptions, nick: perjury, fraud, obscenity, etc; i mentioned them. earlier. but that doesn’t change the fact that the first amendment faults on the side of freedom.

  56. Free speech does not cover putting people at risk. Just like you can’t use the word “organic” on food or clothing without meeting some standards, you shouldn’t be able to slap “health clinic” on something without proving you actually have doctors and equipment there. What I think is that the AMA (American Medical Assoc.) should step in and smack ’em around.

  57. Manju, you can throw around terms like “prior restraint,” but you can’t figure out what commercial speech is?

  58. Simply put, these centers are outright fraud. If our polis weren’t so chickensh*t the police and courts would have shut them down long ago. But who likes the great unwashed protesting at their door?

  59. Manju, you can throw around terms like “prior restraint,” but you can’t figure out what commercial speech is?

    what do you mean? i answered the commercial speech question. if this is a non-profit i don’t think it’ll fall under commercial speech standards. its true, the line between commercial speech and non-commercial is often blurred, as libertarians have long maintained , but for the sake of argument, i wasn’t going there.

  60. Free speech does not cover putting people at risk.

    true. fire in a movie theatre. but you can’t just assume people are at risk b/c you don’t approve of the speech, you have to demonstrate it either by real harm or a “resonable person” standard like any resonable person would run out of a theare if someone yelled fire.

    Just like you can’t use the word “organic” on food or clothing without meeting some standards, you shouldn’t be able to slap “health clinic” on something without proving you actually have doctors and equipment there.

    you’re getting closer to a resonable person standard if they are posing as a “health clinic” but the one we’re discussing does not use those words, as far as i know. we have to assume women are intelligent enough to discern theses CPCs from doctors offices or emergency rooms. its very dangerous to infanatlize women, especially where the law is concerned.

  61. the police and courts would have shut them down long ago

    the real agenda. certainly not pro-choice.

  62. the real agenda. certainly not pro-choice.

    By all means, let’s enable fraud.

    Manju, you’re just determined to excuse these centers from having to tell the truth, aren’t you?

    you’re getting closer to a resonable person standard if they are posing as a “health clinic” but the one we’re discussing does not use those words, as far as i know.

    And yet they offer bogus pregnancy tests and ultrasounds.

    if this is a non-profit i don’t think it’ll fall under commercial speech standards.

    Planned Parenthood is a not-for-profit organization as well, yet they’re required by various local governments to recite medically inaccurate anti-choice propaganda when someone comes in asking for an abortion.

    CPCs may be organized as not-for-profit organizations, but they offer services to the public and they advertise those services to the public. A number of years ago, the AG in New York prevented them from advertising their services under “abortion” in the phone book because they were deliberately trying to defraud people who were seeking an abortion — by advertising under “abortion,” they were deliberately creating the false impression that they offered the services that someone who was looking for an abortion was seeking, only to pressure them, once there, not to get an abortion — or to string them along for so long that they could no longer obtain a reasonably-priced, safe abortion.

    There’s a term for that. It’s called “bait and switch.”

    As for your government-funds argument, a lot of these centers *do* receive government funding. Yet they’re still allowed to defraud the public.

  63. Nobody is talking about making it illegal for crisis pregnancy centers to lie, the issue is that women who go to them for help need to know they are not doctors or obligated to tell the truth. I don’t see how that is a violation of free speech.

    This isn’t about forcing speech on individuals in their private lives. It’s about forcing a certain type of organization that routinely decieves people to make it clear to their clients that they are not medical professionals or bound by law to tell the truth.

  64. You know, it isn’t that women are stupidly stupid dummies who wander into any old building and ask for a pelvic exam. Crisis pregnancy centers are marketing themselves as medical clinics. They have exam rooms and ultrasound equipment and lab coats and that tissue paper you have to sit on and those thin changing gowns. Why, they even have stethoscopes! Sure, those stupidly stupid dummies could go up to the person who looks like a doctor in what looks like a doctor’s office and ask to see some credentials, but I don’t know too many people who insist on qualifying paperwork from their doctors unless something seems suspect. And again, most (and I’d wager all) CPCs look just like any other health clinic. The one in my area looks just like the Urgicare center three buildings away.

    People, male and female, young and old, generally trust doctors. And yes, they will trust people who look and speak like doctors in a place that looks and functions like a doctor’s office.

    Disseminating false information under the guise of being a licensed medical professional is WRONG. It’s unethical whether you’re a fake-dermatologist or a fake-gynecologist or a fake-dentist. And in the case of crisis pregnancy centers specifically, it’s exploiting a situation to promote an agenda with no regard for the person who will have to live with the results.

    If a CPC chooses not to provide abortions or think abortions should be illegal, fine. The problem is that it presents its agenda as medical fact and guilt-trips a woman into birthing a child that she does not want and cannot afford and possibly is not healthy enough to carry.

  65. A number of years ago, the AG in New York prevented them from advertising their services under “abortion”

    No, not “them.” After serving subpoenas on 24 clinics statewide, then-AG Spitzer reached a voluntary settlment with exactly ONE upstate facility and withdrew the subpoenas as to the rest — with his own spokesperson conceding that pro-life counselors “do good work.” In 2006, an abortion clinic settled a similar suit for advertising under “abortion alternatives.”

    Legislation has been pending in Congress to forbid CPCs from advertising under “abortion services.” The bill lost the backing of the ACLU, with a very pro-choice ACLU board member, Wendy Kaminer, saying:

    I find it quite appalling that the ACLU is actively supporting this. I think this is precisely the kind of legislation we should be opposing, not supporting. I am troubled by the assumption in the legislation that abortion services, as a matter of linguistics and a matter of law, cannot include discussing with a woman why she shouldn’t have an abortion. I don’t believe the pro-choice movement has the copyright on the term ‘abortion services.’ That seems to me a very clear example of government being the language police.

  66. preying mantis (47)

    you’re unbelievable. I read the sentence incorrectly, then went to edit my post but couldn’t, as i mentioned in a subsequent post.

    more importantly, in that very post I agreed with jill and yet you still have a need to make ad-hominem attacks??

    your MO appears to be to personally attack someone even if they agree with you if the ever disagreed with you. pathetic.

  67. Impersonating a doctor usually gets you fines and jail time. Not for these clowns.

    Why can’t they advertise truthfully? What are they hiding and what is their true agenda?

  68. CPCs may be organized as not-for-profit organizations, but they offer services to the public and they advertise those services to the public.

    zuzu: i think we’re at an impasse on the larger issue, but as far as commercial speech goes what you described is a public accommodation, not commercial speech, which necessitates a proposed financial/economic transaction.

    but that doesn’t mean you can’t restrict or force speech on these pregnancy centers, after all yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre is not commercial speech either, but you have to rest your argument on these centers creating an immediate and clear and present danger to the health the women, like yelling the proverbial “fire” would.

    short of that, these centers have to be treated like those “curing homosexuality” centers: wrong, unscientific, lies, dangerous even…but ultimately something between 2 consenting adults who are free to stay or leave.

Comments are currently closed.