I love how they tout themselves as being a place women go to make informed decisions. This isn't information, this is propaganda. Disgusting.

Registered to James Scannell, San Marcos, CA, who is, of course, a pastor.

If anti-choicers really have truth and righteousness on their side, why do they have to be so deceptive with parked domains, CPCs, etc?

Wow, I was expecting a cartoon. That fetus is going to give me nightmares for weeks.

did anybody actually go through the website? it's insane!
"Abortion... How much does it cost?
The ultimate price, your baby's life, your self esteem and maybe your life.
The financial cost can be very little to a lot. Rarely discussed is the hidden costs after the fact.
This could be understood being aware of the currently known risks and the costs (if applicable) to repairing them."

WTF?!

Oh it's not like they (the site owners) don't care about their bottom line either.

That's disgusting, but, I suppose, not surprising. Maybe an educational Google bomb is in order? Jessica's title seems like it would work just great...

Anti-abortion folks in Texas also jacked Jane's Due Process-- they swapped out the dot org at the end of janesdueprocess.org with a dot com, and now it goes straight to Texas Right to Life. Jane's Due Process is an agency that helps teens get judicial bypasses and/or emancipation petitions and/or protective orders.

Well I suppose it makes sense. Without misdirection and misinformation, where would they be? If they relied on facts they'd defeat their own argument.

Hey! Don't knock us pastors! We're not all right wing conservatives! :)

Let's take action- I've already written to them via their contact address.

I don't get why they have to use trickery to get their point across. Don't they realized that most women who are considering abortion have already thought about both sides of the argument and the only thing they're doing by putting this shit up is hurting them even more???

They claim to be all about saving lives, but what about the already established life that they're traumatizing because they feel that they're morally superior to the woman who's making the decision.

It makes me sick.

I don't get why they have to use trickery to get their point across. Don't they realized that most women who are considering abortion have already thought about both sides of the argument and the only thing they're doing by putting this shit up is hurting them even more???

They claim to be all about saving lives, but what about the already established life that they're traumatizing because they feel that they're morally superior to the woman who's making the decision.

It makes me sick.

"the dirty little secret is that internal specialists are interested in their bottom line YOUR MONEY."

Fixed it.

(I liked my gastroenterologist and all, but $75 to chat with me for 10 minutes, write a prescription, and poke my tummy is highway robbery.)

My point being, HEALTHCARE COSTS MONEY?? IMAGINE THAT! I don't agree with the high cost of healthcare in general, but come on--my colonoscopy wasn't fun, painful enough to wake me from whatever they did to knock me out, and cost $1000 or so. Please tell me how the abortion provider is more of an evil money grubber than my GI doc.

I don't get why they have to use trickery to get their point across. Don't they realized that most women who are considering abortion have already thought about both sides of the argument and the only thing they're doing by putting this shit up is hurting them even more???

They claim to be all about saving lives, but what about the already established life that they're traumatizing because they feel that they're morally superior to the woman who's making the decision.

It makes me sick.

Did anyone check out what they wrote about RU 486? It's disgusting.

http://prochoice.com/abort_ru486.html

RE: The language of the original post, and this comment too:
"Oh it's not like they (the site owners) don't care about their bottom line either."

There are plenty of CPC's who do good work to help women who need it. They are not all "coercive" and misleading. Some might offer a different take on when life begins, or when life demands equal consideration. The information given can be manipulated, but usually it is just your regular development of the fetus stuff. And (aside from questions of implantation, etc in the first six weeks) is pretty much science.

Also, c'mon people, there are plenty of abortion providers who do it for the money, and that's about all. There is plenty of money in it, and if you set it up the right way, in the right location, it can be quite lucrative. There are also plenty of abortion providers who HAVE hurt women through neglect.

I think that site is pretty cringe-worthy, myself, but I also cringe at how when this topic comes up we play right into stereotypes of feminists who protect the idea of abortion over everything else and don't care about real people.....isn't that the criticism of a manipulative anti-abortion organization?

I'm an intellectual property attorney, and honestly this web site just makes me angry at Planned Parenthood, etc. Because if PP's attorneys had just spent two hours registering some of these domain names, these problems wouldn't exist. As for sites which domain names that are confusingly similar to previously registered sites, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) may be an effective method to shut down some misleading sites. (See, e.g., PETA v. the guy who ran PETA.com -- People Eating Tasty Animals).

Note: This information does not constitute legal representation.

Of course abortion providers "do it for the money." They're professionals providing a service. Just like lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers ...

Nobody works for free. Nor should they be expected to.

"Of course abortion providers "do it for the money." They're professionals providing a service. Just like lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers ...
Nobody works for free. Nor should they be expected to."

Of course not. This isn't what I meant. I was responding to the outrage over the site suggesting that abortion providers want your money. ACtually, that really should have been my coment: Why is THAT the worst thing on the site? Out of all of it?

Certainly abortion providers do it at nonprofits for little pay, out of concern for women's health.

But when you have money involved, and potentially lots of it, you will have a good chunk of your providers of services, for whom money is THE reason, and nothing else--not even women's health-- will be more important. That was true when abortion was illegal and it is true today.

That fetus doesn't even look like it's waiving it looks like it's having some kind of seizure or there's something wrong with it. They would have done better to go with a cartoon.

There is plenty of money in it, and if you set it up the right way, in the right location, it can be quite lucrative.

Yes, because we know there are women lining up around the block for abortions! Those abortion providers are rolling in the dough on their private yachts!

Honestly crazylady, that's your pro-life defense? Abortion costs money? On average an abortion will run a woman between 300 and 400 dollars, where are giving birth in a hospital costs around $10,000 (if someone has those stats that'd be great) now look at that and compare and then tell me where the real profit is.

ULTRAMAGNUS: "Honestly crazylady, that's your pro-life defense? Abortion costs money? On average an abortion will run a woman between 300 and 400 dollars, where are giving birth in a hospital costs around $10,000 (if someone has those stats that'd be great) now look at that and compare and then tell me where the real profit is."

Actually, when you put it like that, the two seem comparable from the business standpoint (though obviously not from the individual women's standpoint).

If abortion is about $400 for an hour procedure, and many hospitals have a minimum 48 hour stay for giving birth (208 dollars an hour), the two seem around equally profitable for the medical clinic.

Also, $400 an abortion X 1.3 million abortions per year is more than half a billion dollars a year.

So it seems that financially, it is probably profitable, depending on other costs (security, etc.).

In any case, along with what Ultramagnus said, i don't see how that is a reasonable argument for or against abortion.

I was not offering a "pro-life defense." You'll note that I have not given any defense of the website itself, nor have I claimed (or wanted to claim) the role of pro-life defender.

I was pointing out that there is plenty of room for money-mongering in the business of abortions. I was actually suprised that Jessica chose that to highlight. Don't businesses want your money? Or are we claiming that all abortion is done by uncorrupted non-profits?

I hope I haven't given the impression that I think abortion providers are all money-grubbing, or that those who are are any worse than others who have people at their mercy, in the most vulnerable times of their lives.

I would level this criticism (and have, on this site) at such professions as OB/GYNs, other hcp's, insurance companies, baby food/formula companies, funeral homes and mortuaries....it doesn't matter the industry, the vultures are there.

Um, crazylady? That was kind of Jessica's point.

When anti-choice people say things like, "They are out for your MONEY!" as a talking point *against* abortion, they are conveniently forgetting to mention that having a baby is also a way for people to make money. It's mangling the truth to fit their needs, nothing more, and it's just as bad as an out-right lie.

Women are 51% of the American population. Crackpots get away with these stunts because so many women are silent. Women have GOT to learn to speak up. Not just a few, doing all the talking. ALL women.

Even though abortion providers charge fees for their services, I really don't think the "in it for the money" argument applies.

Given the threats of violence, real violence, frivolous legal action and general hatred spewed their way, I think it is pretty safe to assume that if making money was even among their top priorities, abortion providers would pick a less dangerous field to work in - one that is free from all the violence and danger, so they could concentrate on making money.

To Crazylady,
I'd much rather get accurate, unbiased information from money-grubbers than free brain-washing from CPC's any day.

You think that when they say "Pro-Choice," they mean that they'll choose for you?

You know, like they're relieving us of the troublesome burden of freedom.

CrazyLady:

If you don’t want to come across as an anti-choice defender, you might want to avoid such comments as:

There are plenty of CPC's who do good work to help women who need it. Some might offer a different take on when life begins, or when life demands equal consideration. The information given can be manipulated, but usually it is just your regular development of the fetus stuff.

-OR-

I also cringe at how when this topic comes up we play right into stereotypes of feminists who protect the idea of abortion over everything else and don't care about real people

If you are not truly defending the anti-choicers, then you may want to carefully read your comments before posting because they come across as concern trolling.

honestly this web site just makes me angry at Planned Parenthood, etc. Because if PP's attorneys had just spent two hours registering some of these domain names, these problems wouldn't exist.

Um, seriously? Why is it specifically Planned Parenthood's responsibility to protect every pro-choice domain name? Isn't there a possibility that this douche snapped it up first?

How about "if anti-choice asshats didn't insist on lying their asses off to everyone and their mom, these problems wouldn't exist." Victim blaming much?

Every anti-choice website is full of shit. It says EVERYTHING about their beliefs. Its just a bunch of nuts that want to hide from reality via mass bullshit.

Every anti-choice website is full of shit. It says EVERYTHING about their beliefs. Its just a bunch of nuts that want to hide from reality via mass bullshit.

Why is it specifically Planned Parenthood's responsibility to protect every pro-choice domain name? Isn't there a possibility that this douche snapped it up first? ... Victim blaming much?

Suggesting ways to avoid problems is not victim-blaming. Obviously, the owner of the web site in question shouldn't mislead. But a good attorney would have helped PP succeed in its goals -- e.g., making sure that people who want accurate information can find it without wading through deceptively confusing URLs. That is what a smart, strategic attorney does. Perhaps this advice will help another non-profit before this problem happens to it.

Of course, it's not PP's obligation to do so, but registering relevant URLs supports its goals. The value of URLs was well-established by the time "prochoice.com" was registered in 1996. (I checked the date.) And, c'mon -- it's a fairly obvious URL to use to discuss the subject matter.

I don't get why they have to use trickery to get their point across. Don't they realized that most women who are considering abortion have already thought about both sides of the argument and the only thing they're doing by putting this shit up is hurting them even more???

Yes, they probably do realise that. At least, a lot of them likely realise that.

The objection, fundamentally, is to the woman's freedom to make an informed decision at all (an objection that extends well beyond the abortion context for many right-wing fundamentalists).

As long as they can't take away that freedom outright, they seek to undermine it through coercion, violence, and propaganda.

There's an extra special feature to the "how is it done" section- if you click on any of the buttons, it links out to a website featuring pictures of tiny arms and other body parts being compared to the size of a quarter. Any one of the pictures is worthy of an anti-choice picket sign.

While it is a good idea to snap up domain names in as wide-ranging a net as possible (.com, .org, .net, etc.), I'm not angry at Planned Parenthood or any other actual pro-choice organization. It's too bad that they didn't grab up prochoice.com, but I hope something can be done about it.

gems such as "[abortion is] the death of another less developed human being"
Which is 100% accurate. In fact, it is what we would like to call "the point" of an abortion.

Break it down, ladies:
*death = was living before, dead now. Check.
*less-developed: check (unless you're arguing that foetuses are equally as developed as adults, because they contain all major body organs....)
*human: check.

Is there anything in there that is not true? Or is your problem that it is a 100% accurate statement about abortion, which really interferes with a "woman's right to choose"?

There's an extra special feature to the "how is it done" section- if you click on any of the buttons, it links out to a website featuring pictures of tiny arms and other body parts being compared to the size of a quarter. Any one of the pictures is worthy of an anti-choice picket sign.

What's wrong with that? How does it not square with reality and truth?

Why is it that pro-choicers, who are intent upon dehumanising the unborn, never come out with 4D ultrasounds of "uterine tissue"? Why is it only the pro-lifers who utilise the best technology, the best imaging, and the remains of aborted babies (gestational age determined by standard medical practise and confirmed by OB-GYNs), if it's not a human, not alive, or what-have-you?

Gee - would it be because those evil pro-life picket signs tell the TRUTH? Truth hurt those who want to ignore the fact that abortion is about taking human life?

I refuse to believe that feminism demands that I dehumanise others the way that women were degraded; I refuse to believe that feminist strictures mandate mass violence against vulnerable members of our population; and I refuse to believe that feminism elevates orgasms above human life, in a twisted attempt to stick it to the man - sadly, an attempt that destroys an innocent third party.

Still not seeing the problem, and eyes wide open to the humanity of the unborn. Is it not a human? Not alive?

Blerg. I can't see the tiny names at the bottom of the posts and I can' figure out how to make the type bold, or anything cool, so here goes, and excuse me if I got the name wrong:

Marileco:
Interesting. It hadn't occured to me that that was what Jessica meant. Are you sure? Anyway, it i shard to tell. I love Feministing an all, but sometimes when it comes to responding to anyone even remotely looking like a porlifer (not to mention crazy sites like this), the language can become, let's jsut say, less -than-articulate. So it is hard to know WHAT is meant.

Ladylike:
I have heard people say that before, and I find it a strange argument. Are there no bad people working as schoolteachers because the violence in schools is too bad? And I would wager that H2 drivers probably get flipped the bird more than clinic workers do.

ShelbyWoo:
I thought a lot today about how to respond to your post. I think you were trying to be helpful? But, being old and grumpy it just sounded condecending. I don't like being told how to talk.

I am not even sure what a "concern troll" is, but I think you are right: I DO need to think more carefully about what I post b/c I have noticed that you can't say anything even remotely resembling a critique of critiques of antiabortion... because everyone assumes and says you are "trolling."

And then there is no further discussion allowed. Which is sad, and not what feminism is about, I think.

"Break it down, ladies:
*death = was living before, dead now. Check.
*less-developed: check (unless you're arguing that foetuses are equally as developed as adults, because they contain all major body organs....)
*human: check.

"Is there anything in there that is not true?"

Everything in there is also true about the healthy wisdom teeth I had removed.

Feminism is about choice.
Full stop.

Everything in there is also true about the healthy wisdom teeth I had removed.

How so?

Your teeth are human teeth, but they themselves are not a "human being", nor "less developed".

It's a completely different thing. Apples and oranges.

DHI - it was created in 1996 and you're still mad at planned parenthood? It was created before google! No one realized in 1996 how essential the internet would be in our lives by now. Plannedparenthood.com wasn't even created until 1999, and they're far from the only major organization that waited until the late '90s to have a web presense. Besides, why would it have to be planned parenthood to get it, they're not the only prochoicers out there. Why aren't you mad at NARAL or Hillary Clinton or Feministing or yourself (assuming you're pro choice) for not snapping that up before the anti-choicers could get there?