NYT's McKinley Omits Role Pro-Abortion Group NARAL Playing in San Francisco's Move Against Crisis Pregnancy Centers
An arguably unconstitutional effort in San Francisco at regulating the speech of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers was portrayed by New York Times reporter Jesse McKinley as an effort to “stem… misleading advertising”:
Seeking to stem what they call misleading advertising, San Francisco officials on Tuesday began a two-pronged attack on ‘crisis pregnancy centers,’ which are billed as places for pregnant women to get advice, but often use counseling to discourage abortions.
McKinley noted that the “first element was a bill introduced to the city’s Board of Supervisors that would make it illegal for such centers to advertise falsely about their pregnancy-related services,” noting that Supervisor Malia Cohen wrote the bill “to protect low-income women who are drawn into the centers, which often offer free services.”
Yet McKinley failed to note that the pro-abortion rights lobby NARAL Pro-Choice California took an active role in helping Cohen craft the proposed ordinance.
As the National Partnership for Women & Families noted in a June 7 press release:
Supervisor Malia Cohen is working with NARAL Pro-Choice California on legislation that would mirror laws in Austin, Texas and New York City, where centers are required to post signs that disclose whether they have medical professionals on staff and provide abortion care, contraception, or offer referrals for such services.
Also omitted from McKinley’s story, but reported by the liberal San Francisco Chronicle, was the presence and vocal concern of crisis pregnancy center supporters at yesterday’s press conference (emphasis mine):
Supervisor Malia Cohen and City Attorney Dennis Herrera today announced a joint effort to combat what they view as deceptive marketing at crisis pregnancy centers - and were peppered with questions from pro-life activists who attended the press conference.
[…]
Several pro-life activists in the audience pressed Herrera on the subject, including Audrey Richter of Oakland who held her 2-year-old son, Exodus, in her arms. She said places like First Resort are important because they show women with unplanned pregnancies that they have the choice to keep their baby.
"I want to make sure women have a choice," she said afterward. "If they're getting that at Planned Parenthood, great. If they're getting that at First Resort, great."
# # #
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Ken
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 10:37pm.
I am no fan of abortion at all. Partial birth abortion is especially barbaric
However I agree with this law. If you want to council women to keep their babies, then a business should advertise as such.
Implying you have medical professionals to provide abortions is wrong, no matter what side you are on.
I haven't seen the language
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 11:25pm.
I haven't seen the language of the law, but similar efforts have been quashed by courts as violative of the First Amendment. CPCs are generally non-profit entities, not businesses, and they're informed by a moral and/or religious conviction that abortion is murder and that it also is harmful emotionally, spiritually and psychologically to the mother who gets an abortion.
To mandate that they put a sign up saying essentially "we don't provide abortions, so if you want one, don't come here" cuts against their ability to get women considering abortion in the door so they can counsel them against abortion and about the alternative of adoption.
It's clearly an effort to decrease foot traffic into CPCs and indirectly promote abortion clinics. It's an effort to ensure more unborn children get killed because their mothers won't get talked out of having an abortion. It really is a vile legislative maneuver.
Besides, California already has a deceptive advertising law. San Francisco can merely enforce that one.
Ken
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 11:47pm.
I don't agree with abortions but I don't believe the majority of women that get them are nonchalant about terminating their pregnancy and not everyone that supports abortion is a bad person. A good example is Laura Bush. She is one of the classiest first ladies ever and I believe she is pro choice, same with Condeleeza Rice
For the majority of women, ending a pregnancy is an agonizing decision and if they want to seek council they will find it. If they want an abortion, it is wrong for a place to imply they provide this service.
Here ya go shawn*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 11:57pm.
This one and this one This is just but 2 of thousands of studies and reports done on the immediate and long term effects of abortion.
Cajun
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:06am.
I am sure the two sources you linked about the devastating psychological effects of abortion apply to many women, I am not disagreeing with that
I am disagreeing with people implying they offer abortion and use deceptive practices
exactly my point shawn*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:17am.
My argument against abortion is for many reasons. One, the death of an innocent human life, two, the discussion of abortion is always political, rights, choice, laws, all distanced from reality, simply "tissue" and "fetus". Third, women who choose abortion are never told the physical, emotional, and fertility issues that are direct results of abortion. In La, we have a law that says a woman contemplating an abortion must have a minimum of three one hour sessions with a counselor before the abortion. The rate of abortion in this state has dropped considerably. The mental health issues and long term effects of abortion are never discussed in the abortion debate, taxpayer funded clinics, nor the racial disparity among women who have had or have been "targeted" by abortion advocates.
Not arguing with you shawn, Just giving you something to read.
Thank you Cajun
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:30am.
What you say makes alot of sense.
No, they shouldn't say that
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 10:01am.
No, they shouldn't say that they do, but if their advertising is elliptical and hazy that's a different matter than saying they are outright deceptive.
The one CPC that San Fran's city attorney is targeting says they give counselees information about all their options, including what an abortion is and how it works and that they provide ultrasounds. They don't claim to offer abortions.
http://www.firstresort.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage_fr
"First Resort is a Pregnancy Counseling Women’s Health Clinic. We provide counseling and medical care to women who are making decisions about unplanned pregnancies."
REALLY
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:02pm.
How can you NOT know when you walk in the door and the first thing they do is tell you that they have the option of keeping your baby? Shawn the non abortion clinics DO NO ABORTIONS.... they Planned Parenthood........ (which SHOULD BE KNOWN AS Planned Population Control) want this clinics to have medical doctors to be in these clinics to provide counselling... (To make it so expensive to run that they have to shut down!) Shawn let me tell you what this is about...its about CONTROL! Planned Population Control (Which WAS founded by someone that truly belived in abortion, as a way to keep minority populations down) wants to be the only game in town they want to CONTROL the population Planned Parenthood is in fact a LIE its NOT what they do its FALSE ADVERTISING! If this is about putting signs up fine but closing the clinics (Which is what planned Population Control really wants to do) is JUST WRONG!
Like i said OJ77
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:34pm.
I'm not saying abortion is right. I am saying implying you offer a service that is not available is wrong
These folks can still council and comfort women about to make a tragic decision. Just be clear that terminating a pregnancy is not available.
Again as per what was given to you before
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 6:09pm.
THEY WERE NOT IMPLYING THAT THEY WERE!!
Good evening Shawn
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 6:22pm.
You should also demand that Planned Parenthood change their name to Planned Baby Murders.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you