Fake abortion clinic sues real abortion clinic for not being fake

FUN, originally uploaded by tejana.

Today in bizarro world: A crisis pregnancy center is suing Dr. Emily's Abortion Clinic of the Bronx and Brooklyn for false advertising.

For those of you who don't know, anti-choice groups run fake abortion clinics they call "crisis pregnancy centers". These facilities present themselves as medical clinics or medical advisory services, but they are really pro-life propaganda centers.

Now, a real doctor is taking out ads alongside the crisis pregnancy centers, and they're suing her.

[Hat tip to R. Mildred.]

Comments

[belledame222]

"When life imitates The Onion, part XXXVIII"

[Equal Opportunity Cynic]

I don't think it's warranted to call these "fake abortion clinics." Are you saying that presenting a pro-life option to women facing unwanted pregnancies is inherently wrong? That hardly seems "pro-choice", as differentiated from pro-abortion.

Full disclosure: I'm passionately pro-life and will probably never see eye-to-eye with you on abortion policy in general. Nevertheless, I'm asking this in good faith -- I really want to know if you have evidence that these crisis pregnancy centers are passing themselves off as abortion clinics, or if you're just basing this assertion on the assumption that abortion is the only legitimate means to deal with unwanted pregnancy.

[MattT]

"Nevertheless, I'm asking this in good faith -- I really want to know if you have evidence that these crisis pregnancy centers are passing themselves off as abortion clinics, or if you're just basing this assertion on the assumption that abortion is the only legitimate means to deal with unwanted pregnancy."

The point is this. A clinic like Planned Parenthood is not going to say "OK, time for your abortion!" to every pregnant teenager to come in the door.
If someone comes in and is not sure what to do, they'll tell them what the options are in terms of abortion or carrying to term, what the medical risks of both are, what to do after an abortion or what health measures they should take for a healthy pregnancy if they decide to keep it, etc. "Crisis pregnancy centers" claim that they provide information for pregnant women, but leave out all of the abortion related parts (and in some cases, also leave out birth control information to prevent future unwanted pregnancies). Saying that they'll tell pregnant woman what their options are and then not actually telling them is dishonest.

[R. Mildred]

actually it's worse than that - many forced pregnancy centers say they offer medical help and tests to detirmine if a woman is pregnant, but all they do is give the woman's stomach a quick run over with an ultrasound machine, which is not just useless because a microscopic womblump is somewhat hard to see on a ultrasound, but it often leads to women not seeking the proper pre-natal care they need to ensure that complications do not occur during the pregnancy - and that's the ones that don't advise women to only try to get an abortion after a random and arbitrary date designed to put the women over the legal cutoff date for an abortion.

Thankfully women are actually inhuman members of the undead or else the term "pro-life" would be deeply ironic.

[Alon Levy]

I don't think it's warranted to call these "fake abortion clinics."

I don't think it's warranted for these CPCs to advertise using language and signs similar to these of existing abortion clinics, in order to deceive women looking for Planned Parenthood.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

(reading post)

c-c-c-could s-s-someone please p-p-put their hands on me until I stop boggling?

Emperor Sues to Block Publication

[Equal Opportunity Cynic]

Alon et al.,

I agree -- mimicking signage and/or advertising is fundamentally dishonest. Likewise with playing games with the dates. Do you have any data on how prevelant these tactics are? I'm specifically interested in names of national organizations that use these practices, so that I can make sure any support I give goes elsewhere.

I've always thought that one of the more cogent rebuttals made toward those of us who are pro-life and at least somewhat conservative is, "If you support all these pregnancies being taken to term, then why don't you support the mothers after the pregnancy?" It's a fair argument. But I think that building that sort of support network can't just begin after the pregnancy, so I think it's admirable for non-profits to step in and build relationships beforehand. Moreover, there's nothing certainly fundamentally dishonest promoting awareness of abortion alternatives in a professional manner.

If the client wants to hear about abortion options, those CPCs should certainly give a referral. Asking them to give unbiased information about something they find morally abhorrent is a bit much, but asking them to act in a way that earns the trust of the client isn't. In the long term it's the only way to win respect for your efforts and to stay in business.

[zuzu]

Do you have any data on how prevelant these tactics are?

Rep. Henry Waxman did an investigation of crisis pregnancy centers (because they receive federal funding), and he found that 87 percent of federally-funded crisis pregnancy centers offeres false or misleading or medically inaccurate information about abortion.

[choice]

1984: when you say "likewise playing games with the dates", are you referring to the fact that CPCs often misinform women of the gestational status of their pregnancy? I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

In any case--you sound like a fairly reasonable pro-lifer. As a hard-core pro-choicer, I respect where you're coming from and your beliefs. We might have to agree to disagree on the issue fundamentally, but just wanted to establish that before I dive in to my next point.

Which is: OF COURSE for women who are interested in information about any pregnancy related options, she deserves to get that information in a professional, non-biased manner. And if it is *her choice* to continue the pregnancy, she should be fully supported to make that choice a reality for her.

The problem for those of us who are pro-choice is when her options are not presented fully, fairly, or in an unbiased manner to her. I work for a pro-choice organiation that has done several investigations into CPCs, and what we have found is truly alarming. We've also done lots of activism around this issue, and I used to work at an abortion clinic that had a CPC set up right across the street. So I've got so many shocking stories, let me share some of my "favorites":

1. "Mary" was 18 and pregnant, and hadn't told anyone. She went to a Birthright in St. Paul, where they scared the shit out of her with all sorts of propaganda including that abortion would give her breast cancer and/or cervical cancer, and that she was a sinner and had to have the baby to make up for it. She left the CPC feeling more alone, scared, and isolated than when she had entered. She told her sister that she was pregnant. Fortunately, her sister was a pro-choice activist with access to lots of resources. She took Mary to one of the abortion clinics in downtown Minneaplis for some *real* all-options counseling. With the help of the counselor at the clinic who walked her through all of the options--adoption, abortion, or parenting--Mary decided that parenting was the right choice for her at that time. She now has a beautiful 2-year old little boy (who I have helped watch at various events), and she struggles every day to make ends meet for them. But she feels confident that she made the right choice for herself.

2. A patient at the clinic I worked at was having an abortion, and told us that the last time she was pregnant she had gone to the CPC right across the street because she thought they were the abortion clinic. (They deliberately named themselves nearly identically to our clinic). After listening to their promises of assistance, support, and help, she was persuaded to continue the pregnancy. She gave birth to twins. The help that was offered by the CPC?? Ten diapers. Yes, you heard me correctly. TEN. With twins, that'll last all of--oh, a day.

3. A woman who was pregnant and friends with one of our volunteers who was investigating CPCs went to a CPC and was counseled. She was truly struggling with her decision, and her guilty feelings were only compounded by the CPC workers. She ended up deciding to have the abortion, even though it was a difficult choice for her. Around the time of when her pregnancy would have been full term, the CPC worker showed up at her workplace (she was a server at a restaurant), made a cradling motion with her arms, and asked "Where is it?? Where's your baby?"

4. A patient that I was counseling at our clinic had accidentally called the CPC trying to set an appointment for an abortion. (We had lots of patients with this type of confusion, because of the similar names and the misleading advertising) She gave them all of her personal and medical information before they told her "We're sorry honey, but we don't kill babies here. You should still come in though, so we can give you an ultrasound and show you your baby."

Now, of course I can't say that *every* CPC treats women this awfully. But it's a pretty pervasive trend among them.

So in short, 1984, if you are looking to give your money to an organization that supports women who decide to continue their pregnancy, I would recommend supporting women's shelters, organizations like the YWCA, and child care centers for low-income parents. That way, the women and children are supported by your contribution--but you're not supporting manipulative, dishonest tactics intending to strongarm women in one direction.

[choice]

oops, i guess my comments were more for Equal Opportunity Cynic.

[Count Zero]

In my opinion this is definetly a case where religion is attempting to make policy to dictate women's rights. No law forces any religious person to get an abortion, and if their belief is that life is sacred, then their believers are entitled not to get an abortion. However, if a person is not of a faith where abortion is a problem, why then do religious institutions feel they have a right to dictate the actions of non-believers? Euthanasia is a similar relgious vs. civl rights connundrum. If all life is sacred, then why is it that so many followers of Christian religions support war? Isn't war by it's very nature opposed to the "all life is sacred" argument? Apparently, life is only sacred before birth, or when you want to die a peacefull death.

"To thine ownself be true" - Shakespeare

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

1984: when you say "likewise playing games with the dates", are you referring to the fact that CPCs often misinform women of the gestational status of their pregnancy? I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

In any case--you sound like a fairly reasonable pro-lifer.

So, in short, 1984

Aaah!!!!

:D) choice, although you noticed this and made it clear in your second post, I need to make this extra clear: I, 1984, am not pro-life/anti-choice. I believe that abortion through the first trimester should be available as an option, though I would also prefer that far fewer unwanted pregnancies occur, and to that end, that we educate liberally on condom use, since the Netherlands have done this, and they have 1/10 our teen pregnancy rate.

As choice mentioned, choice's comments were not directed at me, but at the poster after me. This blog puts the commenter's name _after_ their post, unlike many other blogs.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

(Sorry, had to be sparkling clear--on this issue, as with other very controversial topics, I don't want _any_ confusion on it.)

[Alon Levy]

I believe that abortion through the first trimester should be available as an option, though I would also prefer that far fewer unwanted pregnancies occur, and to that end, that we educate liberally on condom use, since the Netherlands have done this, and they have 1/10 our teen pregnancy rate.

Just the first trimester?

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

To be conservative (I started to go further and say "or longer, if the mother's life is in danger," but figured that was enough for now).

[DAS]

Somewhat OT, but perhaps this thread is still active:

Does anyone know about the history of abortion clinics as separate entities? I've heard a pro-life argument that if abortions were ever really medically necessary or even appropriate, they'd do 'em in hospitals and there'd be no need for clinics.

Of course, the "if it's a real medical procedure, why ain't it being done in a hospital" argument is silly considering how many things are done in outpatient clinical settings (including MRIs, etc.), but still it's there. It would be interesting and useful to know something about the history of abortion clinics in responding to this sort of argument.

It would be particularly disingenuous of an argument if it were the case that abortions are not done in hospitals 'cause anti-abortion protestors would be too problematic for a hospital to have around ...

[NBarnes]

A point I'd like to clarify is that one of the problems that PP or any genuinely concerned clinic that does offer abortions is that women come to them when they're looking for an abortion. And the counselors at PP, of course, don't want to get in womens' way. And so from a committed but sympathetic pro-life perspective, sometimes I think that it can seem very much that PP is 'pro-abortion'. I don't think they really are, they are pro-not-getting-in-the-way-of-women-getting-abortions. It's my understanding that PP does present the full range of pregnancy options to women that come in wanting help, but because pressure tactics are anathema to them, getting them to set up an appointment for an abortion is pretty hassle-free most of the time.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

It should be nearly hassle-free if you are committed to true choice. If a woman came in seeking pre-natal care for a child she intended to raise, it would be the height of insensitivity to ask whether she'd considered aborting her fetus or giving the baby up for adoption. Likewise, if a woman comes in and asks to make an appointment for an abortion, there's very little you can ethically say. Even "there are other options" seems condescending and possibly shaming.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Obviously, if a woman comes in for a pregnancy test, and turns out to be pregnant, all her options should be laid out straightforwardly.

Likewise, if a pregnant woman shows up and asks for counseling all options should be discussed dispassionately and non-judgementally.

However, it's arrogant for a HCP to assume that he or she has the right to second-guess an adult's considered healthcare decision. We know this because we wouldn't want a doctor to suggest and abortion for a determinedly pregnant woman. By the same logic, we shouldn't press birth propaganda on a woman who is already determined enough to ask for an appointment for an abortion.

[NBarnes]

Oh, note: I am entirely in favor of hassle-free abortion services. I'm just saying that from a committed pro-life perspective, the line between 'hassle-free' and 'pro-abortion' is not necessarily as obvious to them as it is to those of us on the pro-choice side of things.

It's patronizing to think that women need to have a wall put between them and an abortion, such that they have to prove that they really want or need one by overcoming the arbitrary obstacles placed in their way by medical practitioners. And, yes, I do feel that Equal Opportunity Cynic is acting patronizingly, despite their apparent sincerity and honesty. I appauld the willingness to dialouge, though.

[R. Mildred]

And so from a committed but sympathetic pro-life perspective, sometimes I think that it can seem very much that PP is 'pro-abortion'.

Except that PP is really all about the contraceptives, it's what it was founded to provide for the poor, and that's what it still does largely - it's only the imminent repealment of Roe Vs. Wade, which is fundamentally an attack on all sexual freedom (including the freedom not to be pregnant in the first place so that you need an abortion) that has made PP synonymous with abortion providing - if PP was all about the abortion, then sure, it'd be "pro-abortion", but on the other hand it does provide contraceptives to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford them, as well as pre-natal advice and other such lovelinesses. Contraceptive use = less abortions, pre-natal care = stops medical complications that require an abortion. Everyone with me so far?

Forced pregnancy clinics don't offer any of that, but do offer religious pamphlets with bad theology culled from a 18th century papal decree.

so while PP supports a woman's choice to not have an abortion (whether by allowing them to not get pregnant in the first palce, or by helping them to give birth), anti-choice clinics do nothing to stop abortions, but everything they can, within or without the law, to stop a woman's a choice either way.

And you want to call PP "pro-abortion"?

[R. Mildred]

Or to shorter myself: Why the fuck is "not standing in the way of a woman's choice" the same thing as being "pro-abortion"? Are all mothers that way unwillingly? Do they not have real agency? Choice means choice, the freedom to follow through with your choice, irregardless of waht that is, without stupid incumberances, the freedom to be a mother relies on the freedom to not be a mother, because if you can't choose not to do something, then you don't really have a choice in the matter, do you?

[NBarnes]

No, I don't want to call PP 'pro-abortion'. I'm aggressively pro-choice myself, and I adore PP in the abstract. I'm trying to think about how one takes PP, which you and I know could hardly be more earnest in their attempts to be fair, even-handed, and open with their clients on all topics from sex to birth control to pregnancies, covering both having one and terminating one, to the 'PP wants women to have abortions, they are opposed to carrying to term' perspectives of the anti-abortion side of politics.

[Xboy]

"I've heard a pro-life argument that if abortions were ever really medically necessary or even appropriate, they'd do 'em in hospitals and there'd be no need for clinics."

Total and complete BS. Here in New Orleans the head of ob/gyn at one major hospital is a devout Catholic (a convert) and has stated that he won't allow abortions under his watch no matter what. In other hospitals pressure from anti-abortion groups keeps them from being performed.
And there is one fake abortion clinic in town that is exactly that -- they string women along by asking them to consder various "options" until it is too late to have one done.

[DAS]

So my worst thoughts about the "pro-life" movement are true? They hound hospitals out of the abortion business and then make claims about abortions based on them being done primarily in outpatient clinics operated by organizations with an interest in the abortion debate?

Somehow the general public needs to be aware of this disingenuity.

they string women along by asking them to consder various "options" until it is too late to have one done. - xboy

Someday (before the GOP pushes through a corporations are above the law bill, er, "tort reform" they've convinced people is so necessary and sufficient to deal with frivolous lawsuits) some victim of one of these clinics better sue big time: the clinic should have to pay for the cost of rearing the kid, any costs associated with pregnancy, etc. And all the people who are involved in the clinic should also be subjected to labor pains, etc.

I'm tired of people, whether chickenhawks or pro-lifers (even if they've been pregnant, they've not walked a mile in the particular shoes of she whom they are wanting to do unto), coercing others to do something they are not willing to do themselves.