So . . . this "Astoria's Door of Hope" place is offering abortions, then?

Are they cheaper? More safe? Less painful? How are they being competitive so that women will have abortions there rather than at Planned Parenthood?

Christ. I've read about the anti-abortion side using such consumer rhetoric against Planned Parenthood before (most frequently in the book How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America in which the anti-abortion side claims PP are always on the hunt for more consumers to have abortions or else they'll go out of business), but now it seems like they've adopted the attitude, "Well if you can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em."

Though I think I'm giving these centers too much credit there. Ugh.

Idiots. Yes, and Pepsi lies to you, pretending they'll give you cola and then waiting until it's too late and you blood sugar has crashed. Yeah, that analogy doesn't expand well.

Yeah, they know what's best for me while claiming to be in the same business as a place they despise. Cute.

This is the connection: they aren't competing for the women. That's why you think it doesn't make sense (and it doesn't, because they don't provide the same services).

They're competing for the babies (as they see it).

Well, if Planned Parenthood is Pepsi and CPCs are Coke, Diane Fell won't be happy to find out that 56% of people believe Diet Pepsi has more cola taste than Diet Coke. Take that!

"According to a recent Planned Parenthood email, a 17-year-old girl mistakenly walked into a crisis pregnancy center thinking it was Planned Parenthood, which was next door. "The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their 'other office' (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby)."

When she showed up for her nonexistent appointment, she was met by the police, who had been erroneously tipped that a minor was being forced to abort. The crisis pregnancy center staff followed up this harassment by staking out the girl's house, phoning her father at work, and even talking to her classmates about her pregnancy, urging them to harass her."

I find this a lot more alarming than the coke/pepsi analogy.

What the FUCK are they doing, and why are your tax dollars funding it?

No, see, it goes like this:

PP is Coke.
Crisis Centers are Pepsi.

You order a Coke, but the waiter- a Pepsi employee- brings you a Pepsi, tells you it's a Coke, then forces you to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against your will, all the while telling you "No, seriously- that's a Coke."

Er.

Something like that, anyway.

"then forces you to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against your will, all the while telling you "No, seriously- that's a Coke.""

greatest analogy ever ;)

Customer service report: food was late, waiter was rude, pregnancy was unwanted. Will not dine here again.

Speaking of soda, has anyone else heard the radio commercial for one of the brands? I want to say Pepsi, but I'm not sure. It's probably the stupidest ad in the history of radio ads (even stupider than the local mattress ads they air on the channel I listen to, and those make me want to MURDER the actor). It basically proceeds from the premise that putting a "disclaimer" on something means you get to tell blatant falsehoods (which is most DEFINITELY not the case. Disclaimers don't NEGATE blatant violations of fair business practice laws). Like, they'll say "Pepsi can cure the common cold! Disclaimer: Pepsi is not medicine" (seriously, I HATE this commercial in a way I never realized I could hate commercials). So -- if they're saying that they are like the company that puts out those ads, well, I guess I can be on board with that analogy :)

Law Fairy! I'd almost forgotten you also live in LA. And we're both still listening to KROQ in the morning because that's the only radio station I hear those commercials on which I do believe are Pepsi.

And yes, they are stupid. But not as irritating to me as those "You're killing me Larry" commercials.

I have no idea what to say about these crisis pregnancy centers, it seems that the wingnuts have gotten away with lying for so long it's almost pointless to point out their falsehoods and hypocrisies, it'll either go right over their head or they just won't listen. *sigh*

Last time I checked, pro-choicers HATE when pro-lifers try to micromanage abortion clinics. So why the intrusion into pregnancy crisis centers?

The analogy actually makes a lot of sense. It's not like they can do anything, legislatively, about abortion; their only options are to encourage women to not get abortions and to help them with prenatal care, childbirth, and adoption.

I guess what I'm saying is this: do you really want to to further open the door to state regulation of the pregnancy issue? That could backfire in a big way.

oneophile,

No one is trying to regulate pregnancy. These anti-choice clinics are LYING to women about the care they are "getting" and every single article I've read on crisis pregnancy centers show that their staff isn't equipped or trained to truly aid women during pregnancy, even if those women want to keep their babies.

The point of the centers is to shame and scare women out of abortions. The Pepsi/Coke analogy would ONLY work if the crisis pregnancy center were true competition for women, i.e. they're offering the SAME THING. Coke and Pepsi are both the same product; They have sugar, they have caffeine, they're both dark in color. they just taste different. The only correct comparison would be of Coke and beer or something.

It would be one thing if the centers WERE offering women good options about their pregnancy, like PP which doesn't FORCE abortion on any woman and offers poor women reasonable reproductive health care. Those crisis pregnancy centers actually try and force women out of a decision they have made and they can end up harming the babies they're trying to protect by giving unnecessary ultrasounds.

So a more apt analogy would be Coke and cranberry juice?

There is no obligation for pregnancy crisis centers to provide abortions and no obligation for them to act like abortions are on the same moral footing as bearing a child. There are many women who deeply regret their abortions (I know far too many of them, myself) and sincerely wish they could make that choice differently.

Last time I checked, women who want to abort are MORE than free to do so. What, are they too stupid and easily manipulated out of their decisions so we have to protect them from those big, bad pro-lifers? A rational person who goes to a crisis center and wants an abortion would quickly figure out that such were not available to her at that location and go somewhere else. It's like wanting to go to a synagogue and talk about how Jesus is your saviour.

Oenophile, we are talking about laws to prevent state funded organizations from lying to, conning, and/or coercing women who find themselves pregnant. And requiring them to provide accurate medical information, including telling their clients that they are not a true medical provider.

How can you have any problem with that? I don't hear you complaining about oversight on Planned Parenthood clinics. As far as I'm concerned, the moment you accept government money you open yourself up to government oversight. The government has the right to make sure that tax money is being spent the way it's supposed to be.

Besides which, how could you possibly support people who lie to women? Nobody said they have to say that abortion is moral. But lying about it to women who may not already have the correct information is pretty damned immoral in and of itself.

It's got nothing to do with women being helpless. It's got to do with truth in advertising, being careful of people presenting themselves in a medical context, and keeping state-funded organizations from fleecing the public in any way.

"What, are they too stupid and easily manipulated out of their decisions so we have to protect them from those big, bad pro-lifers?"

It's my understanding that CPCs don't do anything as subtle as "manipulate" women--they flat out lie. As in, they don't set out saying, "we are pro-life and want to talk you out of getting an abortion."
That I would be okay with, personally.
However, what I most frequently hear about CPCs is how they masquerade as PP, and use lies to delay or distract the women who come to them, and offer little in the way of actual help, such as prenatal care, baby formula or financial assistance. They don't try to persuade women to make what they feel is the right and moral decision--they just LIE to them. Apparently they consider that a more reasonable approach than allowing women to, you know, think for themselves.

And that, I do object to. In any other business, pretending to offer a service and in fact offering NO service is considered fraud, or theft.

Oenophile,

I NEVER said that CPC had to provide abortions I simply said that if they were going to try and make the Coke/Pepsi competition analogy then they should be offering the same thing, that's also why I said the analogy was WRONG because they DON'T offer the same services.

If CPC don't offer abortions that's their decision, HOWEVER they cannot offer pregnant women the prenatal care they need like PP is able to do. They're sole existence is to shame women out of abortions and to offer sonograms so that women will be made to feel bad about their decision. Not all PP offer abortion services either but they do offer real reproductive medical care for women and if CPC wanted to "compete" with a PP that doesn't offer abortions but offers real medical care then they'd have to do the same WHICH THEY DON'T.

Add to that Crisis Pregnancy Centers often disguise themselves as an abortion service for women. Often young girls, like in the example Coast2Coast gave above, will find the in a phone book believing that they in fact do provide abortions and end up there. There have been posts on Feministing before of volunteers calling various crisis pregnancy centers and asking if they do in fact provide abortions and some of them out right say they do and set up appointments for these women, only to have the women come in and find themselves preached to. As in the post they are often right next door to PP for the very reason of confusing women and yes, when you're in distress sometimes you can be confused and go into the wrong building. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT, you don't see Coke's business of operations right next door to Pepsi now do you?

I suggest you read more about these pregnancy centers before you try to defend them because they are clearly trying to manipulate women out of having an abortion where as PP helps women make the best decisions for themselves and offers REAL MEDICAL CARE for their poor patients and I can't state this enough CPC DO NOT.

So, taking a PP that does not offer abortion and a CPC which we know doesn't offer abortion the comparison comes down to medical care, and CPC clearly loses so the Coke/Pepsi analogy is still a stupid one.

UltraMagnus,

I'm certain that 99% of what you wrote is a flat-out lie. I know people who work in pregnancy crisis centers and they do NOT do what you claim. In fact, Catholic Charities will pay EVERY SINGLE PREGNANCY expense if you give your child up for adoption to a Catholic family. That's medical care, prenatal care, hospital bills, even living expenses during the pregnancy.

The CC near my office has a big sign on it saying, "Catholic Charities."

What you're saying is that if a woman walks into a CareNet and spends an afternoon being preached to, that she's going to cave into anti-abortion pressure, or that afternoon is going to prevent her from getting an abortion? I'm calling b.s., because that's just ridiculous.

Sorry, I don't buy the lies that pregnancy crisis centers are what you claim.

How nice that Oenophile knows better than every single person who has had experiences that back up the stories UltraMagnus mentioned.

Again, Oenophile, if you don't think the CPCs are lying or taking advantage of women, then why would you object to laws that would only prevent them from lying or taking advantage of women?

Also, Oenophile, I'm curious. What do the Catholic Charities people do for the women who want to keep their babies? And do they only help the Catholic girls? Or will they pay for and help place the infants of protestants? What about nonbelievers? Otherwise, it's all kind of starting to sound sort of...icky. Like they only want to help nice Catholic families have more babies, and that's it.

I thought this was an awesome comment too: This is telling someone that they do have a choice, that here are the positives of childbirth,'' said Democratic North Dakota State Sen. Aaron Krauter who sponsored the bill

I'm wondering how "Aaron", assuming he's a man, knows the "positives" of childbirth. And now that I think about it, funny how he stops at childbirth. What happened to the baby that you get afterwards? And what about the positives of nine months of your life being take over by pregnancy? What about the positives of missing work before/after childbirth? What about the positives of scraping together money to pay for your childcare expenses? What about the positives of possibly be forced to raise the kid alone? Oh wait...that's right...the giving birth part is the only important part...

Oenophile - while your Catholic Charities organization may pay every single medical expense of a pregnant woman in its care, it is hardly the typical example of a state-funded crisis pregnancy center (CPC). I highly doubt an organization sponsored by Catholic Charities is trying to dupe unsuspecting pregnant women into thinking that it provides abortions behind its closed doors. I mean, one just has to look at the religion captured in its title: Catholic. I think most people would know that they would surely not be able to obtain an abortion there, or even unbiased information on pregnancy.

However, this does not excuse the disgusting and despicable behavior of the crisis pregnancy centers discussed in the AP article Jessica linked to in the original post.

Well OBVIOUSLY since oenophile's ONE EXAMPLE is correct in their minds then all of the other examples (including a fucking article in TIME magazine) must be WRONG and LIES.

I'm not going to continue trying to reason with you oenophile because much like in my first statement, you don't want to listen.

But for argument's sake let's look at this:

The CC near my office has a big sign on it saying, "Catholic Charities."

The key word there being CATHOLIC. It's a RELIGIOUS charity NOT FUNDED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT like a majority of these CPCs ARE. And I suppose there's a Catholic Charity in every town of every county of every state across America? Right? Right? Helping EVERY SINGLE PREGNANT WOMEN THERE IS IN THIS COUNTRY.

Oh wait, it's just the one you work near.

CPC, the centers we are discussing for this post, are funded by our fucking government the way PP is funded by our government and they LIE to women. Several posters have brought this up and I'm sure Jessica could provide you with the links to older posts about how CPC have been DOCUMENTED to LIE and coerce women against abortions.

I notice you haven't tried to debate that facts of your own with any proof of your own, just a "Well I know this ONE center and they're just swell".

What you're saying is that if a woman walks into a CareNet and spends an afternoon being preached to, that she's going to cave into anti-abortion pressure, or that afternoon is going to prevent her from getting an abortion? I'm calling b.s., because that's just ridiculous.

If Carenet is the Catholic orginazation then perhaps not but AGAIN, a thousand times AGAIN, there have been documented cases of CPC's LYING to women over the phone, or even when they come in TELLING them they provide abortions and then setting them up for a sonogram so that they can tell them this is the "baby" they are going to "murder" and that they should repent etc. etc. As in the example Coast2Coast provided earlier a 17 year old girl was tricked into giving her private contact information so that later, when she LEFT the CPC knowing she'd been LIED to, they could continue to HARASS her!!!!

I have no idea how many woman actually change their minds about the abortion they were going to have but from the articles and posts I have read the women left. If they had been there thinking it was a legitimate abortion provider then like the 17 year old girl they gave away personal information that was later used against them.

If you are a poor woman or a teenager seeking an abortion then YES, wasting an afternoon in a CPC can hurt your chances for an abortion as you now have to refind the REAL abortion provider, either taking off of work or school, and with current laws in some states of a 24 hour waiting period it can end up being a big FUCKING HASSLE.

Not everyone can just up and take off work or school and some women have to drive for hours possibly into another state seeking abortion care.

Sorry, I don't buy the lies that pregnancy crisis centers are what you claim.

Then you're either a goddamn moron or you're a troll. Pick one.

I thought this was an awesome comment too: This is telling someone that they do have a choice, that here are the positives of childbirth,'' said Democratic North Dakota State Sen. Aaron Krauter who sponsored the bill

I'm wondering how "Aaron", assuming he's a man, knows the "positives" of childbirth. And now that I think about it, funny how he stops at childbirth. What happened to the baby that you get afterwards? And what about the positives of nine months of your life being take over by pregnancy? What about the positives of missing work before/after childbirth? What about the positives of scraping together money to pay for your childcare expenses? What about the positives of possibly be forced to raise the kid alone? Oh wait...that's right...the giving birth part is the only important part...

I think it's a little unfair to assume that every CPC is filled with liars. Certainly there are some that make a point to decieve women, and that shouldn't be ignored. However, I have had friends who were helped by CPCs, never coerced or lied to. At the same time, I know a few people who have had less than pleasant experiences at supposedly "pro-choice" clinics.

From my experiences, and those that have been shared by people I know, there are a lot of shitty, dishonest people on both sides, and I pity anyone who believes otherwise.

"This is telling someone that they do have a choice, that here are the positives of childbirth"

I would argue that another problem with this statement by Sen. Krauter is that it's setting up a false opposition. Planned Parenthood doesn't set out to tell women all the negatives of childbirth, or pressure them into having an abortion! They are there to provide a full range of ob/gyn services and counseling for women who are facing an unplanned pregnancy and trying to decide what to do.

Re: being unfairly harsh about CPCs.

I agree with many other posters on this thread. I think it's clear the issue here is not whether Christian (or other hard-line anti-abortion organizations) have a right to set up clinics and services for women who are facing an unplanned pregnancy and would like to explore the option of carrying to term. It's wonderful if they are willing to provide prenatal care and adoption services (if that's what the birth mother wishes).

Though, if they are religious organizations, they should not be getting money from the government, since usually the help religious organizations provide is conditional on some sort of acceptance of ministry.

The BIG problem is the track record that these agencies have of intimidation, evasion, and coercion. Women should not feel rail-roaded into a pregnancy or into giving their child up for adoption any more than they should feel rail-roaded into an abortion they do not want.

The pepsi/coke analogy trivializes women's health care and the decisions women who are facing a pregnancy have to make. It also makes light of the very real concerns advocates of reproductive justice have about the performance of CPCs.

annacook, the problem is that the majority of these places are NOT licensed in ANY way to provide either pre- or post-natal care, they often times don't even staff an actual nurse, just a staff member with sonagram training (one doesn't have to be a medical professional to purchase a sonogram machine in most states), and almost none of them can do more on the adoption front than hand out phone numbers of "appropriate" agencies...you know, the ones who won't give the poor baby to any singletons, or lesbian couples, or whomever else the agency decides isn't "good" enough...

*ignoring oenophile for the sake of my own sanity*

UltraMagnus, Carenet is the biggest and most influential CPC is the country. They are religious based, but it is also my understanding that they receive money from the federal government. Their ad in my local phone book says that they provide "accurate information." This is simply not true. Their ad also does not say that they are biased and do not provide abortion. To their credit, the phone book (put out by Verizon) has them in a separate section for "abortion alternatives" and has in big bold letters that the clinics under that heading do not provide abortions. Anyway, you didn't seem to know who they were, and I just love to spread the word about these liars.

I already blogged on this same topic earlier today, so if anyone cares what I think, you can go take a look. I just want to once again emphasize that my problem with CPCs is 1. That they lie about their services 2. They lie about the risks of abortion and 3. They provide all around inaccurate medical information, all the while pretending that they are a medical clinic. THAT is what is wrong and should be illegal. PP, on the other hand, is very clear about the services they offer-- most of their literature provides a list (I know, because I volunteer there and have some cards sitting on my desk right now). They are not biased and are not there to talk anyone into having an abortion, but to actually provide the medical services that these CPCs pretend to provide and then refuse.

Crisis pregnancy centers are like generic Kool-Aid compared to Planned Parenthood (Cherry Coke, for sure). How can they even say that they compete?

Oh, UltraMagnus, let me fall on my knees and cry because you called me nasty names. [/sarcasm]

I am not a moron nor a troll. I love how "intelligent, open-minded" feministing commentators slam anyone as a troll who doesn't fall into feminist orthodoxy - well, that is, when they are not trying to figure out if wearing heels makes you a bad feminist. Maybe feminism is about more than the 1960s stereotype. Shocker, isn't it?

RE: "Documented" instances of lying at CPCs:
There are also documented instances of abortionists who lie, coerce, or pressure pregnant women. Should we shut down Planned Parenthood?

There is a documented instance of a public school that refused support for pregnant students and counseled only for abortion. Should we shut down the school? Prevent schools from having abortionists on staff?

My friend nearly haemorrhaged to death after taking RU-486. Should we ban it because many women have horrible complications?

Or, as Manda pointed out, there's people who suck on both sides and they shouldn't be the standard by which we judge the entire movement.

Re: driving several hours.
Sounds like a personal problem. Honestly, if there aren't many people who want to provide abortions, how is that the fault and/or problem of the pro-life side? Isn't that the free market at work? If so many people really believe in abortion rights, why don't gynaecologists perform the procedure? Why should there be abortion clinics - shouldn't most gyns want to do this?

If you can't find anyone within a five-hour radius who is willing to abort your child for you, doesn't that indicate that abortion really isn't this fantastic thing it's made out to be?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1590444,00.html

Isn't misinformation a health concern that affects society as a whole? When an organization like CPC spreads lies like abortions can cause breast cancer or lead to infertility (extensive studies have proven that both statements are false), without giving the counter argument that unwanted pregnancies can lead to a long list of long term health concerns, then isn't it the responsibility of the state to step in an address the misinformation? If Coke caused severe long term depression for users, and denied it, then wouldn't it be an obligation of the state to step in an insure that correct information was provided to the consummers?

No one wants to put CPC out of business (well actually I do), but no one wants misinformation spread without it being addressed by the state that is suppose to be looking out for the public good.

the problem is that the majority of these places are NOT licensed in ANY way to provide either pre- or post-natal care

I agree with you, redwards. I haven't done enough research into CPCs to know the details, but absolutely they should not be offering services they are not qualified to offer. I was only saying that there is not anything, per se, wrong with offering support services for women who want to remain pregnant. If they aren't doing so, or doing it badly, we should definitely call them on it.

On a personal level, the reason why I trust Planned Parenthood, et. al, more than I trust any CPC is that PP is committed to providing a full range of options for women. A CPC is starting from a position that only views one choice (carrying to term) as the morally correct one. That, regardless of their level of service, is going to compromise their ability to provide women with dignified care.

"If so many people really believe in abortion rights, why don't gynaecologists perform the procedure? Why should there be abortion clinics - shouldn't most gyns want to do this?"

If they didn't have to face the possibility of bloody-minded busybodies picketing their workplaces, vandalizing their homes, screaming threats at their families and children, shooting them or blowing them up, there would be more abortion providers.

Also, have you seen some of the idiotic legislature there is about putting up an abortion clinic? Example: "It has to be in a 'nice' neighbourhood." So that poor women have trouble getting there, that's great.

"RE: "Documented" instances of lying at CPCs:
There are also documented instances of abortionists who lie, coerce, or pressure pregnant women. Should we shut down Planned Parenthood? ...there's people who suck on both sides and they shouldn't be the standard by which we judge the entire movement."

No, we can judge a movement by what the majority of that movement does. There are more documented (without quotation marks) cases of CPCs and other pro-life movements purposefully deceiving women than there are of pro-choice organizations doing so.

And I would count pretending to be medical staff when you're not as purposeful -- and potentially dangerous -- deception.

CPC and PP are not competitors, because CPC only caters to women want to carry to term, where as PP offers information either way for those who want to carry or those that want to abort (or for those who haven't made up their minds). CPC and PP offer completely different services, and CPC should not be saying that it is the alternative to PP, because they are not.

Saying CPC is the alternative to PP is like saying TV is the alternative to the internet. Bot provide information, but one only provides it one way, and the other is interactive.

someone please correct me if i'm missing something, but what would be the logic in Planned Parenthood coercing pregnant women to abort? that makes no sense.

also, um, yes, there are differences of opinions within feminism, and that's a-ok with me, but i'm going to expect some hostile discussion if someone is opposed to an issue that, in my book, is somewhat central to feminism. if we lived in a world in which sex ed were amazing, women and men shared emotional, financial, and sufficient resources to raise every child, there were no sexual assault, childcare was accessible and of quality, and women didn't die of botched illegal abortions, then i'd be more accepting of anti-choice rhetoric. but we don't, so i'm not.

there are also a great many CPCs (the one in my town, for instance) who will tell women things like: you can just walk in for that abortion, or we'll write down your phone number and call you when an appointment is available, or just sit in this room and we'll show you a picture of your pretty baby, mommy!
And beyond telling lies, shaming women, and yelling at the women walking into the true pp clinic next door, this storefront is not just providing formula for women that want to continue their pregnancies. they are delaying a fairly time sensitive situation, in the HOPE of eradicating that woman's ability to make a choice, because she is too far along to terminate.
nothing, not one thing about that is ok.

and two more things: the demand for abortion is VASTLY GREATER than the facilities that provide them. it has little to do with free market this or that. it has to do with protesters, nail bombs, and ridiculously restrictive and particular laws. it has to do with politics and terror.

and i wanted to give a little shout out to this comment, "Yes, and Pepsi lies to you, pretending they'll give you cola and then waiting until it's too late and you blood sugar has crashed"...nail on the head. A+

"However, what I most frequently hear about CPCs is how they masquerade as PP, and use lies to delay or distract the women who come to them, and offer little in the way of actual help, such as prenatal care, baby formula or financial assistance."

Now I'm wondering what a typical crisis pregnancy center would do if a woman walked in with a crisis pregnancy and said she doesn't want an abortion in the first place. Since the mission of talking her out of abortion would be accomplished before it begun, what comes next?

"CPC and PP are not competitors, because CPC only caters to women want to carry to term, where as PP offers information either way for those who want to carry or those that want to abort (or for those who haven't made up their minds)."

Sounds more like CPCs compete with a small range of PP services and don't compete with the rest. It's like the way a mall shoe store competes with a department of Macy's or JCPenney and doesn't compete with the rest of that department store.

And yes, they are stupid. But not as irritating to me as those "You're killing me Larry" commercials.

LMAO!!! The "Larry" commercials were precisely the ones I was talking about (the ones that make me want to commit murder)!! Great minds think alike, I guess :D

"They [Planned Parenthood] are not biased and are not there to talk anyone into having an abortion"

While it may not be Planned Parenthood's policy, it does happen. I remember taking a friend of mine to a PP when we were in high school. She left in tears after being told she was stupid if she didn't have an abortion.

"Now I'm wondering what a typical crisis pregnancy center would do if a woman walked in with a crisis pregnancy and said she doesn't want an abortion in the first place."

In the case of the above mentioned friend, she ended up going to one in our area and they helped her a lot. They helped her tell her parents, put her in touch with a social worker, helped her find a part-time job, and helped with baby clothes and supplies. She never said anything about them being preachy or judgemental. They were really wonderful to her and helped her a lot.

ShifterCat,

Please provide a citation for your claim (regarding the differential between lying at CPCs and PPs). Otherwise, you're really not arguing anything.

I personally know people who volunteer at CPCs because they believe that women should have choices outside of abortion. They are compassionate, caring people who spend their time working on an issue that is important to them. I know people who went to PP to get advice and were basically told to abort, with absolutely no discussion of going through with the pregnancy. NO discussion, let me repeat.

As to why PP would want to push people into abortion: maybe because abortions in the US generate a billion a year in revenue?

Furthermore, I don't buy it that doctors don't provide abortions out of fear. There are very, very, VERY few people who are injured because they provide abortions - a dozen in the past decade, perhaps, while there have been roughly 10-15 million abortions performed. Sorry, it doesn't compute that doctors think that abortion is hunky-dory but don't want to do it themselves.

“There are also documented instances of abortionists who lie, coerce, or pressure pregnant women. Should we shut down Planned Parenthood?�

I’d very much like to see those documented instances, because I am pretty sure the number of such instances at Planned Parenthood would be zero. And if they did happen that would be a very good reason to cut federal funding for the organization. Oh wait, they are already not getting any of that, despite the valuable services they provide for very cheap.

If you can't find anyone within a five-hour radius who is willing to abort your child for you, doesn't that indicate that abortion really isn't this fantastic thing it's made out to be?

What the fuck? Really, I had no idea that the sole indicator of something's worth is how easy it is to obtain!

If you can't find someone within five hours' drive to abort your pregnancy for you it might have something to do with all the anti-choice assholes making abortions difficult to offer without legal obstacles and various forms of harassment already detailed in this thread. They make it difficult, or they make it impossible in some cases, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the desirability of an abortion to someone who doesn't want to be pregnant.

What, you think an eight-hour drive or something is going to make seven more months of unwanted pregnancy the more desirable option?

"I personally know people who volunteer at CPCs because they believe that women should have choices outside of abortion."

Really!
But are they willing to allow women to at least look into information on abortions?

In my entire life I have never met a women who was told to get an abort (except from their BFs). If you really know of PP workers who told someone to get an abortion, then that worker should be reported, but I don't believe you when you write that someone you know knows a PP worker who told someone to get an abortion. To the best of my knowledge I don't think PP workers every tell anyone to do anything, unlike CPC workers who will tell women walking to PP not to get an abortion.

As to why PP would want to push people into abortion: maybe because abortions in the US generate a billion a year in revenue?

Oh, wow! Imagine, in a capitalist economy a much-sought-after service generates REVENUE! Amazing!

Now consider into your calculations that there are about 1.4 million abortions performed annually in the United States, and it is a fairly expensive medical procedure, is it really so surprising that it gets revenue (not profit, but revenue) in the billion-dollar range?

Sorry, it doesn't compute that doctors think that abortion is hunky-dory but don't want to do it themselves.

Hmmm... I think tax law is hunky-dory, but I wouldn't in a million years want to be a tax lawyer...

Uh oh! Am I gonna get audited now?

"As to why PP would want to push people into abortion: maybe because abortions in the US generate a billion a year in revenue?"

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't PP always operated non-profit?

It is insulting to us pro-choicers to insenuate that giving choice, and protecting the reproductive rights of women is profit driven.

MT, I don't know exactly how you meant your comments, but they ended up disturbing me. I fully agree that there would be a drastic reduction in abortion numbers in the ideal world that you detailed. I would still not support anti-choice rhetoric, though, because some women simply do not want children. I am in an equal relationship with my husband, we probably could find a way to care for a child if we absolutely had to, but we would not want to. There are many other women who would also have an abortion for such reasons (do not want a child, feels she is too young for a child, is done having children). Regardless of whether or social ills were corrected, I would still believe that every women has the right to control her own body.

Mina, I went to a crisis pregnancy center when I thought I was pregnant at age 19. I was thoroughly anti-abortion at the time, and I was still subjected to pamphlets urging me not to abort the minute I walked in the door. They had a video they wanted me to watch after my test, if it came back positive. Then I took a pregnancy test, and by took, I mean they watched me administer a store test to myself. It came out negative (I actually was pregnant, it was just too early to show up on the dollar store test I took) and I received a lecture about my choice to have sex. Then she accompanied me to the waiting room and proceeded, without my permission mind you, to inform my friends of the results of the test and refer to me as if I was 2. "Julie is very relieved tonight..." And keep in mind, I was adamantly oposed to abortion when I went in and planned on carrying the pregnancy to term. I cannot even imagine if I was on the fence, or if the test came back positive that night. I later found out I was pregnant and ended up miscarrying. From then on, I went to PP for my reproductive health and had nothing but fabulous experiences. Really, I can't even describe how fantastic they were. I would never in a million years refer anyone to a CPC, simply because of my experience. I don't doubt that there are some that are wonderful, I've heard really good things about the one in my town. However, I think the good ones are the exception to the rule, unfortunately.

That is absolutely insane, jmcchesney. I'm sorry you had to go through that.

“To the best of my knowledge I don't think PP workers every tell anyone to do anything, unlike CPC workers who will tell women walking to PP not to get an abortion.�
That’s right. PP workers never tell anyone what to do, it’s just part of the training. I know that because I work there as a volunteer.

“Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't PP always operated non-profit?�

That’s right too. And Oenophile I am sure knows that, she is just being willfully ignorant. Doctors who work at PP could be making a whole lot more money in private practice, the reason they choose not to because they care about women and women’s health. If a woman cannot afford to pay they perform all services for free from the “Women in Need� fund which comes entirely from donations.
I find it really pathetic that anti-choicers feel the need to bring up the “maybe because abortions in the US generate a billion a year in revenue?�.It didn’t surprise me when the catholic little lady with 6 kids protesting in font of the clinic made that claim but Oenophile seemed to be smarter than that. I guess they all lie when they run out of logic and reason. An abortion at PP costs around $300-$400, giving birth costs around what $10,000?

Cara
I don't know how many people out there consider couples who don't want children in their homes selfish, but I am not one of them. I have 2 kids, but I did not have them because society says I have to have them. If you want to have kids I am 100% supportive of you, as everyone should be, but we should all be equally supportive of you (or anyone else) if you choose not to procreate. Such is the beauty of choice. I don't want to forced anyone to do something they don't want to do, and it is obvious that sciety is not dependent upon a high birth rate. Also even in a perfect world it is still possible to care for the next generation in other ways, other than actually having to give birth to it.

“If you can't find anyone within a five-hour radius who is willing to abort your child for you, doesn't that indicate that abortion really isn't this fantastic thing it's made out to be?�

Nobody says abortion is a “fantastic thing�. It is a necessary thing. Who says abortion is fantastic? Nobody.

If someone lives in a sparsely populated state and is 5 hours from an abortion provider, or 5 hours from a pediatric nephrologist, it means the person requires services that are needed infrequently, not that the services should be voted off the island for being insufficiently fantastic.

“As to why PP would want to push people into abortion: maybe because abortions in the US generate a billion a year in revenue?�

PP does not exist to get rich from performing abortions. Doctors wanting to cash the big checks would doubtlessly enter another field.

“Sorry, it doesn't compute that doctors think that abortion is hunky-dory but don't want to do it themselves.�

My periodontist sent me to somebody else to have a tooth pulled. She’s brilliant, fully qualified, pulled plenty of teeth in school, but said she just doesn’t like pulling teeth. She does gums. No moral problem with pulling teeth, I bet she would even call it “hunky-dory�. But just doesn’t want to do it. How does that compute?

sojourner

My children were born in Japan, so I actually got money off of the deal, but in America I think 10,000$ is about how much it cost to give birth, and that's just the natal expenses. Let also take into account lost pay, new clothes, home redecorating, and etc, which would bring the cost to around 30 grand. In other words unless someone in the home has a decent paying job, then put off procreating till later (if you live in America).

One of the biggest arguments that anti-choicers completely ignore, is that fact that most women who get abortions do procreate later, when they are ready.

An abortion at PP costs around $300-$400, giving birth costs around what $10,000?

Yeah, the average cost of childbirth without complications, and excluding all the incidental costs like, say, food and clothing for the child, a crib, childcare, etc, etc... it's about 10k, maybe a little higher.

There are, what? 4 million births per year?

Yeah, nobody is making money on childbirth.

Furthermore, I don't buy it that doctors don't provide abortions out of fear. There are very, very, VERY few people who are injured because they provide abortions - a dozen in the past decade, perhaps, while there have been roughly 10-15 million abortions performed. Sorry, it doesn't compute that doctors think that abortion is hunky-dory but don't want to do it themselves.

If the big bucks really were in abortion, doctors would be flocking to perform them. I just want to get the argument straight: abortion is a huge multi-million dollar industry whose proponents use Planned Parenthood to pressure unwilling women into abortions to reap the vast financial awards, but nonetheless doctors, who we all know have no interest in worldly rewards, eschew the procedure out of sheer moral righteousness? That seems more likely than the facts that due to nasty and intimidating pressure from pro-forced-birth groups, abortion training is not required at many medical schools, and in fact, there is not much money in that particular specialty, and the fear of bodily harm might combine to lower the numbers of abortion providers?

A dozen deaths in the past decade may seem like small potatoes to you, but compare to how many dermatologists, or pulmonologists, or ear, nose, and throat docs have been killed by right-wing lunatics on account of their work, and you can see why, when choosing among options, the average med student might read the recent news about the bomb found outside an abortion clinic, and go a different way.

I'm just gonna pop in to thank all the other posters like LF and sojurner for taking oenophile to task. As much as I like banging my head against a wall, at some point you realize it's pointless.

Seeing as oenophile believes that abortion makes a "billion" dollars a year I think we can safely assume s/he is operating from an irrational perspective that logic and facts aren't going to aide.

And oenophile, when you don't provide facts and data to back up such claims, then yes, we can call you names and deem you a "troll" for that is what you're doing. Everyone is free to disagree, hell I've disagreed with people on a few posts but as long as I presented my argument rationally there was no problem. YOU don't do that.

"One of the biggest arguments that anti-choicers completely ignore, is that fact that most women who get abortions do procreate later, when they are ready."

Really? I thought the majority in the U.S. had procreated earlier but a smaller percentage procreated later. Are you talking about a global statistic instead of a U.S. one?

Oenophile, I'm still waiting to hear why you're against a bill that will keep people from lying about medical issues. If the CPCs aren't lying, as you claim, where's the harm in the bill? And even if the percentage of lying CPCs were small, it would get rid of them and clear the name of the non-lying majority. How could you object to that?

Of course, I don't believe that the majority don't lie, since all the evidence I've seen points to the contrary. But even using your own reasoning, I can't see how you could object to the bill.

Again, once you accept state or federal money, you accept a certain amount of oversight about how the money is spent. That's just a fact of funding.

There is a documented instance of a public school that refused support for pregnant students and counseled only for abortion. Should we shut down the school? Prevent schools from having abortionists on staff?

Public schools have abortionists on staff? Holy crap! When I was in school we just had teachers, a principal, a nurse, a couple janitors, and the odd secretary or cafeteria worker. Public schools must really be branching out!

"If you can't find anyone within a five-hour radius who is willing to abort your child for you, doesn't that indicate that abortion really isn't this fantastic thing it's made out to be?"

Oenophile, aren't you the one who was complaining about doctors being unwilling to do tubal ligations on young women who want them? Isn't that just the free market at work? If you can't find anyone within a five-hour radius who is willing to perform a tubal ligation on you, doesn't that indicate that tubal ligation really isn't this fantastic thing it's made out to be?

Or is it just fucking unfair that SOMEONE ELSE gets to make YOUR reproductive decisions FOR YOU?
If it’s your body, shouldn't it be up to you what you do with it?

cara, i didn't mean to disturb! i'm on the same page! your reasoning is number one, but after that (in my head, a woman's choice to control her body is a given), there are other reasons that were on my mind at the moment...

Vervian,

The problem with the pro-abortion crowd is that they cannot distinguish between reproductive control (i.e. preventing reproduction) and abortion (i.e. the deliberate ending of human life; once you're pregnant, you've already reproduced).

If I get my tubes tied, it affects no one but me. If I abort a child, it definitely affects my body and the child's body (and life). It is utterly illogical how you cannot comprehend the fact that abortion impacts more than the woman's body - because, frankly, the only reason anyone wants to abort is because someone else's body is at stake.

Congratulations, Oenophile. I don't think I've ever seen anyone take women completely out of the pregnancy equation before. I'm impressed.

I'm also still confused as to how you can be against preventing misinformation.

Sojourner:

If you disagree with the billion/year (which is under $1,000/abortion), then what do you think it is?

I don't think those doctors could make more in private practice. Do the math. An appendectomy takes several hours, but will be reimbursed for about $700 by insurance companies. An abortion takes about 15 minutes and costs $500.

Do the math - it's pretty freakin lucrative, actually!

Kimmy,

Please find where I stated opposition to the bill. My issue is that the pro-abortion side HATES when there is anything resembling informed consent for abortion (emotional risks, infertility, breast cancer - please see American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, 2003, peer reviewed article - depression, suicide) and throw a certifiable fit at the thought of having women look at ultrasounds of their child before killing it. Yet, you want to micromanage CPCs. It's the hypocrisy that kills me, not the bill itself.

Oenophile -
There are pro-lifers who would say that the decision to have your tubes tied affects the lives of the children you would have had.

And you didn't really answer my question:
Do you honestly think that your decision to have or not have children should be dictated by doctors and the free market economy?

Good to know, MT :)

I'm confused by your reference to breast cancer and all, Oenophile. It's been shown that there is no connection between abortion and breast cancer, or infertility. Likewise, it's been shown that abortion is not likely to cause emotional problems. So why bring it up? That's exactly the kind of misinformation that we're talking about.

It's got nothing to do with micromanaging CPCs. It's got to do with women being provided with accurate medical information by people who actually know what they're talking about (and preferably actually want what's best for the woman herself).

Again: If you accept government money, you should expect at least some government oversight. How can this come as a shock to anyone?

Ranter: “When an organization like CPC spreads lies like abortions can cause breast cancer or lead to infertility (extensive studies have proven that both statements are false), without giving the counter argument that unwanted pregnancies can lead to a long list of long term health concerns, then isn't it the responsibility of the state to step in an address the misinformation?�

Yes, I agree. In my state (NC) CPCs have been known to say that all condoms have holes in them and don’t work, and that emergency contraception is unavailable in the US and other LIES that harm public health. Anyone who doubts that CPCs LIE should read the government report entitled: "Federal Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers Mislead Teens About Abortion Risks," which was released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) in 2006.
It says that 87 percent of the centers questioned (that received federal funding) provided false or misleading information about the physical and mental health effects of abortion and grossly exaggerated the medical risks.

“I don't think those doctors could make more in private practice. Do the math. An appendectomy takes several hours, but will be reimbursed for about $700 by insurance companies. An abortion takes about 15 minutes and costs $500.
Do the math - it's pretty freakin lucrative, actually!�

Oenophile you compare apples to oranges which is very misleading.

For appendectomies you site a reimbursement amount (I assume to the surgeon), while for abortion you site the cost, of which the doctor will get a portion, not the whole fee. At least compare apples to apples.

For the benefit of anyone who may have been gulled by your misinformation, appendectomies cost several thousand dollars, not $700. And if an abortion clinic charges $500, a doctor would get a portion, which would vary, but they don’t pocket 100%.

If you think a doctor dedicates only 15 minutes to the preparation, performance, and post-care of an abortion patient this is so obviously false that it would be difficult not to find you disingenuous at best.

Abortion is not lucrative and it waters down your entire position to claim that it is.

Um. Why does my comment keep getting withheld? Does it have too many links?

It seems that I must post this without links. Grr.

"Please provide a citation for your claim (regarding the differential between lying at CPCs and PPs)."

Okay.
I did a search for investigations into Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and came up with the following:
"False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers", a study by Rep. Henry Waxman
"Crisis Pregnancy Centers Seek To Increase Political Clout, Secure Government Subsidy" the Guttmacher Report's profile of CPCs. This one mentions that "New York's attorney general launched an investigation of 24 CPCs based on allegations that they use misleading advertising and practice medicine without a license."
"The Grassroots Abortion War" from Time Magazine. Some of the CPCs cited here sound okay; they seem genuinely misinformed (on breast cancer, for instance) rather than lying on purpose, but others cited in the article are.
"Legal Momentum Goes Inside Dr. Keroack’s Fake Abortion Clinic" The title alone speaks for itself.
So there's four, just from a cursory search. And that's not counting numerous articles on this subject by various branches of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, which I figured you might discount out of hand.

Then I searched for investigations into Planned Parenthood. After sifting through a lot of "PP is evil because they're doing what they say they're doing!" I found a few references to PP not having reported incidences of statutory rape, because they felt it would conflict with doctor-patient confidentiality. I'll let someone else debate the morality of that, but the fact is that that's a case of PP withholding information from the authorities, not lying to their patients.

"Furthermore, I don't buy it that doctors don't provide abortions out of fear. There are very, very, VERY few people who are injured because they provide abortions..."

Something you seem to be missing is that doctors aren't just going to say to themselves, "Oh well, the odds are against them actually succeeding in killing me, so I'll cheerfully put up with the assaults, arson, harassment, threats, kidnapping, vandalism, and whatever else those nutbars will do to make my life and my family's lives hell*." And all over something that, certainly for Planned Parenthood, they're doing at a distinct financial loss!

*Wikipedia and ReligiousTolerance.org both have decent overviews of all this.

Oenophile, your financial "arguments" just don't hold water. You failed to explain how come doctors would talk women into having a 500$ abortion instead of a 10,000$ childbirth... allegedly for profit. As far as business is concerned, childbirth is obviously a much bigger industry than abortion (9-months prenatal care, childbirth itself, not to mention the booming business of IVFs).
A doctor refusing to perform a tubal does the same as one who refuses to perform an abortion: HE is making reproductive choices for YOU. And yes, abortion IS a reproductive choice because you CHOOSE not to carry the pregnancy to term.
It's well within your right (ans anyone else's) to refuse abortion for YOURSELF. It is YOUR CHOICE. Just don't support taking away other people's choices.

It's well within your right (ans anyone else's) to refuse to be a rapist for YOURSELF. It is YOUR CHOICE. Just don't support taking away other people's choice.

Whoops! Slight misquoting. Wow, that "choice" rhetoric really sucks now, doesn't it?

The "choice" to abort is the moral equivalent of the choice to rape. It, by definition, involves bringing terrible harm to another human for one's own pleasure.

An economics lesson for the ladies who don't do math:
Profit and revenue are different things. The profit margin on abortion is huge; the profit margin on delivering babies is incredibly small, and, combined with malpractice premiums, have doctors leaving the business in droves.

Yes, ladies, it's hard to find an OB-GYN these days. Many, in states like Florida, refuse to carry malpractice insurance because the premiums total a half-million dollars per year. So anyone who thinks that delivering babies is financially a great thing is either living in 1960 or needs her head examined.

Now, about that whole profit-revenue thing. Revenue is just how much money you take in. Profit is revenue minus costs. Of course, there's always the issue of time: people would prefer to engage in an activity that pays $40, costs $30, and takes ten minutes than one that pays $50, costs $30, and takes two days.

If I set up a lemonade stand, spend $10 on materials, and make $100, I'm doing a lot better than if I set up a bakery stand, spent $1000 on materials, and brought in $1050 of revenue. Abortion has minimal associated costs, low malpractice premiums, and is incredibly quick. Babies are not delivered in 15 minutes and the bulk of that $1000 never becomes part of the doctor's paycheck - and even then, the bulk of it is taken for malpractice premiums.

Anyone who screams about revenue as the sole determinant of profit isn't worth reasoning with, though.

oenophile:

It was very difficult linking abortion and rape as one in the same, at first. You were using a shock idea to preach your belief. That's okay, but understand you are dipping into a philosophical debate ("at what point does a fetus become a person?") to which there are no unarguably right and wrong answers, only opposing beliefs.

I recommend reading this CBC News article.

The article frames many of the sick hoops women who want abortions have to go through. It's not something confined entirely to New Brunswich, Canada; Parallels can be found easily, and it is no less relevant on its own anyways.

The "choice" to abort is the moral equivalent of the choice to rape. It, by definition, involves bringing terrible harm to another human for one's own pleasure.

I've never seen an argument that was more offensive than that one. Yeah, women abort for pleasure. Sure.
Talk about "reasoning".

The problem with the pro-abortion crowd is that they cannot distinguish between reproductive control (i.e. preventing reproduction) and abortion (i.e. the deliberate ending of human life; once you're pregnant, you've already reproduced).

That's so completely and ridiculously untrue that I'm having a hard time even knowing where to begin. If you think that Planned Parenthood is just about abortion, you're off your rocker. Abortion is one of the most visable and hotly debated topics of the pro-choice crowd because it's the topic that the anti-choicers spend the most time trying to destroy. You don't see many people lobbying to make birth control illegal, so it's not a topic that gets as much attention. But, if you look at the website, you'll notice that PP offers all kinds of information on: preventing pregnancy in the first place, abortion, adoption, being a parent, STD prevention and treatment, general sexual health, relationships, and more.

It is utterly illogical how you cannot comprehend the fact that abortion impacts more than the woman's body - because, frankly, the only reason anyone wants to abort is because someone else's body is at stake.

Yes, because no woman who aborts realizes that the fetus is, you know, human, or, like, alive. Please. Can we stop acting like women who get abortions are morons? If the fetus weren't a living thing, then women wouldn't be seeking abortions.

I don't think those doctors could make more in private practice. Do the math. An appendectomy takes several hours, but will be reimbursed for about $700 by insurance companies. An abortion takes about 15 minutes and costs $500.

And giving birth takes a few hours, and costs in excess of 10 grand. And there are 4 million births per year, as opposed to fewer than a million abortions.

My issue is that the pro-abortion side HATES when there is anything resembling informed consent for abortion (emotional risks, infertility, breast cancer - please see American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, 2003, peer reviewed article - depression, suicide) and throw a certifiable fit at the thought of having women look at ultrasounds of their child before killing it.

No, people are opposed to legislation that would force women to look at ultrasounds. Women are not children, and it's patronizing to treat them like they are. All of that information should absolutely be made available. And if you visit PP, they do discuss the risks associated with abortion, and the other options that are available.

I think that the more information that is made available, the better informed women are, the more likely they are to make the choice that's best for them. What I'm not okay with is force-feeding them information like they're stupid, or trying to provide biased information intended to make one choice look better than the other. The anti-choice crowd want to talk about the risks of abortion and provide misinformation about depression, but would have an absolute fit if the same sorts of information were made about childbirth. They'd be up in arms if we demanded that women considering giving birth be told about the risks of postpartum depression and psychosis, or of the risk of death, or of the risk of infertility, or any of the dozens and dozens of other serious medical complications that can come up.

Yet, you want to micromanage CPCs. It's the hypocrisy that kills me, not the bill itself.

Nobody is trying to micromanage PCCs. What we're saying is simple: They shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent what they are, and they shouldn't be allowed to lie to patients. If they're not doing either of those two things, then they're free to carry on as normal. If they are, then they should be held accountable. The same thing goes for PP. If a PP center is lying to patients then they absolutely should be held accountable for that.

Whoops! Slight misquoting. Wow, that "choice" rhetoric really sucks now, doesn't it?

The "choice" to abort is the moral equivalent of the choice to rape.

Again, and again on this topic you show a remarkable lack of respect for women, all the while claiming to be so very pro-woman. If you think that rape and abortion are so very similar, morally speaking, then how in gods' names can you possibly support exceptions for cases of rape or incest?

And, really, do we need to get into a detailed analysis of how very insulting and wrong that comparison is? I'm fine with you being morally opposed to rape, but do so in an intellectual honest manner. Make a ridiculous claim like that makes it seem like you're arguing in bad faith, and makes it really hard to take you seriously.

It, by definition, involves bringing terrible harm to another human for one's own pleasure.

That's bullshit. You're pushing your own biases onto it, now.
Abortion is the ending/termination of a pregnancy.
The reasons why one might choose to end a pregnancy are almost infintie. It could be for financial reasons. It could be for health reasons. It could be because the fetus is going to die soon after birth. It could be because the pregnancy is high-risk and likely to permanently harm the woman. If you're claiming that abortion is for pleasure, show me evidence that women are out there thinking "Man, it sure would be fun to get an abortion today."

Roymac, really thank heavens for you for responding to Oenophile. It is really like banging ones head against a wall. And Jesus! I can’t believe she is still talking about the breast cancer risk, when it has been debunked time and time again.

My opinions of abortion have really changed since I started coming here. And a lot of that is due to the most intelligent reasoning I have ever heard of on the subject.

Roymac:"What we're saying is simple: They [cpcs] shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent what they are, and they shouldn't be allowed to lie to patients. If they're not doing either of those two things, then they're free to carry on as normal. If they are, then they should be held accountable. The same thing goes for PP. If a PP center is lying to patients then they absolutely should be held accountable for that."

Exactly. On this thread we have seen a government report saying that 87% of CPCs lied to women and no statistics at all to support the fact that PP has.
The fact that these lying CPCs were FEDERALLY FUNDED (and many are also state funded) means they really should be held accountable, I mean who wants their tax dollars to be used to misinform women (besides oenophile-- just a joke :))?

“An economics lesson for the ladies who don't do math:
Profit and revenue are different things.�

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. To think of all that time I wasted reading Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes. All I really needed was Oenophile.

“Anyone who screams about revenue as the sole determinant of profit isn't worth reasoning with, though.“

You compared revenue (for abortion) to a surgeon’s take-home share (for appendectomy), effectively the doctor’s “profit�, which basically makes *you* the person calling revenue the sole determinant of profit for abortion, which I pointed out, because it is wrong. As you then state later, revenue is NOT the sole determinant of profit. The $500 abortion fee doesn’t all go to the doctor.

I think you have effectively said that you yourself aren't worth reasoning with. I might be forced to agree with that.

“The $500 abortion fee doesn’t all go to the doctor.� Exactly. I don’t know how much the Doctor makes, I can ask and get back to you with the number, but it should in general be pretty obvious that people who are after making money don’t work for NOT-FOR-PROFIT organizations. The $300-$400 fee (depending on whether you are getting medical or surgical abortion, local or IV sedation, etc.) at PP includes the pre-abortion counseling, the lab works, the ultrasound, aftercare, medication, and the follow-up appointment. All those people need to be paid. Any other kind of medical procedure I have ever had, I had to pay separate fees for everything including for example a shot that I needed before an MRI. My local PP performs surgical abortions only once a week and the rest of the week is family planning follow-ups, etc. It’s really easy to see that they can’t pay staff very high salaries.

Wow, I really shouldn't have come back to this thread. Abortion is the moral equivelant to rape? I feel like puking. Tell that to a woman who has both been raped and chosen to have an abortion. Even better-- tell it to a woman who has chosen an abortion because she was impregnated by her rapist. Jesus Fucking Christ. I need to stop typing before I call oenophile something that gets me kicked off this board. Although, if anything should get you kicked off of a feminist board, saying that abortion is the moral equivelant of rape is probably it.