If abortion clinics serve up abortions, do anti-abortion clinics perform anti-abortions?
I couldn't help but muse that as I read the Washington Post's Metro section below-the-fold front-pager "Disclaimer proposed for anti-abortion clinics."
The November 11 story by Michael Laris explained that "Montgomery County [Md.] officials" are considering a "regulation" that "would require pregnancy centers run by abortion opponents to give women a disclaimer so they don't mistake the centers for medical clinics and so they understand the source of the information given to them."
Laris painted these officials -- seven of the county's nine [all of them Democrats] county council members -- as proponents of "consumer protection."So somehow dissuading a woman from having an abortion is an affront to consumer protection?
The Post staffer went on to quote the regulation's author, Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), who insisted her bill was "just a disclosure regulation." Yet Laris failed to give readers details about Trachtenberg's affiliation with pro-abortion rights lobbies like the National Organization for Women (NOW) and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Trachtenberg's official county council biography notes her affiliation with the NOW, and a quick Google search yielded evidence of her sponsorship of the Maryland NARAL chapter's recent October fundraiser.
At the Maryland Democratic Party's Web site, Trachtenberg is listed as a "Partner of Choice" sponsor for NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland's 20th Annual Evening of Chocolate Gala.
What's more, Montgomery County Executive Ike Legett as well as Councilmen Roger Berliner, George Leventhal, and Nancy Navarro were similarly listed in the "Partner of Choice" sponsorship level, while Councilwoman Valerie Ervin was apparently considered even more dedicated to abortion as a "Protector of Choice" sponsor.
With a majority of the council already behind the regulation and a county executive who is unlikely to throw up a veto, the legislation is a fait accompli. Far from being neutral defenders of the "consumer," the Montgomery County Council is chock full of socially liberal Democrats, but readers of this morning's Post were not afforded that crucial context.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why is this a bad idea?
November 11, 2009 - 13:28 ET by moderncommentaries83I think crisis pregnancy centers should capitalize on this.
Post signs in the windows of their clinics that say explicitly something to the effect of:
Imagine the anger from the pro-abortion lobby if the signs said something like this.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
I can see how this would
November 11, 2009 - 13:38 ET by Ankharanpiss people off who want to control someone else's body. Solution is pretty simple. Don't want an abortion, don't have one. Otherwise let grown adult citizens in good standing do with their body as they deem fit. I know, I know, that concept is just to difficult to swallow for people that want to control other people. Yet, those same people have no problem complaining and moaning about it when others try to control them. Now... let us hear from the religious ones that feel life is soooo sacred. Yeah, we see that in full swing don't we. Freedom of religion does not mean one can push that religion on others well... unless you belong to the ELITIST religion, then it is all well and good to be able to force it down someone elses neck. Just make sure it is not Islam, Hindu, any one of the pagan religions... gota make sure it isn't one of those, lordy lordy that would just make the world melt down.
Your statement makes no
November 11, 2009 - 13:59 ET by MaximusBraveheartYour statement makes no sense as it is the city council that is trying to regulate a non-profit that simply helps people that want their HELP. And the ONLY ones who THINK they are the "sacred" agents of God are the ones that blow others up, shoot, & sniper the innocent because they love death more than we love life. I would call that the Muslims pushing it down peoples' throat no? But, it appears that you were speaking of Christians, no? M-B
Wow. Beyond wow. What
November 11, 2009 - 15:53 ET by moderncommentaries83Wow. Beyond wow.
What an asinine comment. For the record, the BODY that they're doing with what they "deem fit" is actually a separate, living, human being.
I am all for people doing what they want with their bodies, therefore, until they create a new, separate body. In which case, they should have no more right to kill that person than they do to kill their neighbor, or a stranger in the street.
Moreover, some 60% (and more) of women report that they were forced, bullied, or coerced into having an abortion - usually by the baby's father. Is that, my friend, a woman making a free choice? No, it isn't.
And, for the record, you may want to check out the Atheists and Agnostics Pro-Life League. Hardly a bunch of religioius zealots there. Simply human beings disgusted by the fact we think denying life to unborn human beings is somehow progressive, enlightening, and liberating.
But I rest soundly knowing that those of us who bring fecundity to this culture war will win.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
"a separate, living, human
November 11, 2009 - 16:18 ET by Ankharan"a separate, living, human being."
No, actually it is not, not until it can live on it's own without a host body and without medical aid. Otherwise it is not a "separate" being.
But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone else has the right to tell a woman that she MUST carry to term. MOST of those someone else’s are men who will never have to do such a thing. Imagine... the whole of women voters found a way to make men take sterility pills, effectively controlling their reproductive bodies. That would go over real well now wouldn't it? How about this, all you men that feel you have a right to tell a woman to carry to term, split your sides open and let doctors implant that fetus into you and you carry it to term. Oh, that is right, not possible just yet, how... convenient. I am wondering just how many of you men would do such a thing. I think, very, very few, and ladies and gents, we are moving ahead to an era where this is going to be possible. How many of you are going to step up to the plate and take that fetus into your body and carry it to term. Are your convictions that strong? I doubt it.
Tell you what, you support a mandated law that says women cannot abort but the first male that pops off with that notion is the one that has that fetus implanted in them. Sounds pretty fair to me.
A baby cannot survive
November 11, 2009 - 16:30 ET by Radical1979A baby cannot survive without a parent to care for it, but it is still a separate human being. Unborn babies have their own unique DNA, apart from the mother, making them separate from the mother. Thus it is a dependent human being.
Also, if a man is not the father of the baby why should he have to carry it to term? But with all the forms of birth control available today, women should not become pregnant unless raped.
"The issue is whether
November 11, 2009 - 16:39 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnson"The issue is whether or not someone else has the right to tell a woman that she MUST carry to term."
One of the benefits of sexual intercourse is the likelihood of pregnancy. The human body is biologically designed that way. Not be man, nor by woman.
Anytime a woman chooses to have intimate relations with a male, the odds are in favor of pregnancy, the best laid plans of mice and women usually end with unplanned results.
To pretend that normal, biologocal functions, actually function the way nature designed them is pure stupidity.
Condoms have a well known failure rate that should be advertised widely and loudly, but presenting the risks might prevent a few pregnancies, and THAT my friend is what the "STRICTLY FOR PROFIT ABORTION CLINICS" do not want to ever happen.
Margaret Sanger wanted unrestricted abortions in hopes of non-whites aborting themselves out of existence.
Abortion clinics don't care as long as they rake in huge quantities of cash.
Got anymore poorly thought out objections?
http://gjresult.com
Funny you should mention that
November 11, 2009 - 17:11 ET by moderncommentaries83It's funny you bring men into the discussion. Because the biggest proponents of abortion are men, approximately 18-34 years of age.
Why could this be?
Most certainly not because they care about women's lib. But because they want the ability to sleep with women and not have to worry about paying child support. Knock a girl up? Get her pregnant and send her off to Planned Parenthood. No consequences for sleeping with her and the added bonus of not having to deal with the phyiscal and emotional repercussions of abortion. Weren't feminists supposed to be all about stopping women from being used and abused by men?
The original, authentic feminists saw abortion for what it really is: the exploitation of women. And every day, men force, coerce, and bully their girlfriends/wives/mistresses into having abortions to get them off the hook for raising a child.
Now that's what I call sexist.
Second - if you want to talk about equality, why is it a father has no right to his child? If I got pregnant and had the baby, I could go after - and would most likely be granted - child support payments from the baby's father. True, he could choose not to make those payments, but that comes with the threat of jail.
Now, suppose I were pregnant and didn't want a child. The father did. Keeping in mind that he's genetically related to that baby, he has no say in whether or not I have an abortion.
So men and abortion fall into two categories: the cads that use and dump women at the nearest abortion clinic (yay, women's lib! Way to turn us into sex objects!) or the men who have no choice in whether their child lives or dies.
And, as someone else pointed out, my 3-month-old couldn't live without my support - feeding, diapering, dressing. Does this not make him human? Could I kill him and have it justified because he was a burden to me?
An unborn baby has a wholly unique set of DNA, his own heart, eyes, lungs, limbs, and body. He is as separate individual. Don't pretend the science isn't clear on that issue.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Living human
November 11, 2009 - 17:25 ET by dmaley1714Ankharian arguement of unless your are in someone elses shoe. So only women could tell women you can not drink, smoke or do drugs while pregnat. The real problem is the fetus would continue to grow unless actrion is taken to stop it, and as a former fetus I know what it is like to continue living untill full term as do you ankharan. The choice is made at inception.
No, actually it is not, not
November 11, 2009 - 17:34 ET by Dan The Man 2No, actually it is not, not until it can live on it's own without a host body and without medical aid.
You are an idiot, this is a stupid uninformed definition. I guess all those premies are not human yet or someone that has to use oxygen to live is not human. There are so many holes in your argument. You obviously did not give much thought in your answer.
A better question is what defines being human? Will the baby inside the mother be a dog or cat instead of human? Recently a Planned Parenthood Clinic Director saw and participated in an abortion performed during an utrasound and she was convicted enough to quit and change her views.
Now what is the problem with showing teh mothers what actually happens to the baby and let her make an informed decision?
No, actually it is
November 12, 2009 - 10:24 ET by misterbee241I suppose by those standards all the old people in nursing homes should be euthanized. Because they sure cant live on their own.
One other thing - before I had my pacemaker put in I was very close to congestive heart failure. So without medical aid, i.e. pacemaker, I should be left to die.
I agree - an utterly stupid comment.
"I dont need to read a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber."
Walter Brennan, The Colonel, Meet John Doe, 1941
Just wondering how you feel
November 11, 2009 - 16:32 ET by Radical1979Just wondering how you feel about the government health care plan that is going to dictate we all get approved health care or pay a fine/go to jail? Do you see that as someone trying to control someone else's body?
I'm in favor of
November 11, 2009 - 15:04 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonI'm in favor of disclosure. A 10X25 foot billboard.
WE RESPECT THE LIFE OF BOTH YOU AND YOUR UNBORN BABY.
OR
WHY KILL YOUR BABY TO MAKE A LIBERAL POLITICIAN FEEL GOOD?
http://gjresult.com
How come these same libtard
November 11, 2009 - 16:20 ET by eaglewingz08How come these same libtard politicians don't also want 'disclosure' by abortion mills, such as the effects of abortion psychologically on women who undergo the procedures, the sonograms of babies undergoing abortions, the sonograms of babies at various time periods in the womb, the disclosure of procedures being done to unemancipated children to one or both of their parents, etc., etc.
Where is their zeal for "consumer protection"
November 11, 2009 - 16:26 ET by motherbeltWhere is their zeal for "consumer protection" and "providing information" when a woman shows up at an abortion clinic and they refuse to show her or tell her what the "fetus" that is about to be destoryed is like at that stage of development?
I guess "informed" decisions are only sometimes important....
Hear, hear! And from a legal
November 11, 2009 - 17:45 ET by Ken ShepherdHear, hear!
And from a legal perspective, I think this law cannot pass free speech muster. Even if not all the information is medically accurate, this regulation is basically a means of stifling speech, not protecting consumers. The crisis pregnancy centers are non-profit, free-of-charge, whereas abortion clinics do perform a service for a fee and that service, abortion, can have various side effects and other things which call for proper regulation by the health department, etc.
If a God given right to gun
November 12, 2009 - 10:18 ET by misterbee241If a God given right to gun ownership and self defense can be regulated by government, then a court-given right can certainly be regulated too. Without abortion the democrat party would be out of business.
"I dont need to read a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber."
Walter Brennan, The Colonel, Meet John Doe, 1941
"regulation" that "would
November 12, 2009 - 13:33 ET by fdew"regulation" that "would require pregnancy centers run by abortion
opponents to give women a disclaimer so they don't mistake the centers
for medical clinics"
There is a clever way around this. Do the work to become a medical clinic. Woman don't want to have an abortion. They feel they are in a position where they need to have an abortion. Good credible information, answers to her questions, Ultrasound, and STD testing are useful tools for the woman to become educated and chose life.
When a woman is offered the information she needs she chooses life over 80 % of the time.
Frank