Some thoughts on crisis pregnancy centers and telling the truth

It's May Day, the start of a new week and a new month.  I'm hoping it will also usher in the return of  regular blogging from Hugo. 

Today is, of course, the national "Day Without an Immigrant".  It's too early to tell whether large numbers of students here at PCC (the student body is made up largely of immigrants and their children) will participate by boycotting classes.  Given that I missed three out of four of my teaching days last week, and that I am far behind in the syllabus, I have no intention of cancelling class or of devoting lecture time to the subject. I'll let readers know if my attendance is affected.

Amanda at Pandagon has an article on crisis pregnancy centers published at Alternet: Exposing Anti-Choice Abortion Clinics.  She sent me a link to it, and I'd like to take this opportunity to break my long-imposed hiatus from discussing abortion issues on this blog.

I've been struggling for years with my own feelings about abortion.  More than on any other issue, my faith and my feminism, my heart and my mind lead me to contradictory conclusions.  When I talk about it, I end up waffling and equivocating.  Unlike some Catholic Democratic senators, I'm not frantically trying to please two diametrically opposed groups; I know damn well my agonizing ends up annoying and, ultimately, alienating both pro-life and pro-choice activists.   I'd be far better off pretending that my views were more solidly on one side rather than another, and thus at least assuring myself of some allies!

I'm not yet ready to weigh in on the larger issue of whether or not abortion should be legal.  But I can write a bit about how troubled I have always been by the topic that Amanda addresses today: the deceptive tactics used by so many "crisis pregnancy centers." Here's the website for Austin Life Care:

LifeCare Pregnancy Services is a non-profit pregnancy center committed to providing women and men with accurate, up-to-date information in order to make informed decisions about pregnancy, sexual health, and relationships.

Unlike Amanda, I'm very sympathetic to the goals of these crisis pregnancy centers.  Frankly, I'd like to see a great many more young women keep their babies and put them up for adoption, or commit to raising them themselves.  It's why I've always supported greater private and public financial support for programs and institutions which make it more socially acceptable and economically viable for the young and the unintentionally pregnant to commit to raising their children.  Of course, I break completely with my friends in the pro-life camp over the issue of stigmatizing unwed motherhood!  I've always thought that ostracizing unwed mothers while opposing abortion was a disastrous contradiction; I know very well how shame is often a strong impetus to choose to terminate a pregnancy "before others find out."

While abortion remains legal and accessible, I feel strongly about supporting those organizations that offer alternatives to women who are interested in carrying a child to term and either arranging for an adoption or keeping their baby themselves.  There is surely a place in the market for groups that seek to reduce demand for abortion by making these alternatives more financially viable.  But I feel strongly that those of us who offer alternatives to abortion must be absolutely frank with our potential clients and their unborn children.  Pretending to offer abortion referrals, for example, is a heinous and indefensible abuse of the trust of women at a particularly vulnerable time in their lives.  I have never been able to support the work of those crisis centers that do not offer full and complete disclosure of their goals and agenda up front.

I know that many of my pro-life friends believe that when it comes to preventing abortion, ends are justified by means.  If the only way to get a baby saved is to pass off your clinic as one that actually offers abortion, they argue, it's worth doing.  But as Christians (and almost everyone in the crisis pregnancy movement is Christian), we must remember that to follow Jesus is to match our language and our lives.  The means we use to accomplish any goal must be radically congruent with the ends we seek.  If we want to reach women with the truth that there are alternatives to abortion, we must be worthy of their trust.  How can a young, pregnant girl considering abortion trust an agency that misled her to get her in the door in the first place?  If we are going to commit -- as we should -- to helping young women discover options that honor life, we must do so candidly and openly.

If I were running a crisis pregnancy center, I'd use a slogan like this:

Confused about abortion?  Looking for alternatives? Crisis Pregnancy Center of Hicksville is here for you.  We are committed to you and to  your unborn baby.  Let us help you to find a way to make a choice that can give both you and your child the opportunity for a lifetime of happiness and possibility.

That, I think, would be honest and straightforward.  My pro-choice friends might still not like the insistence that every fetus is a human person worthy of life, but they would surely have far greater respect for us if we in the consistent-life camp would insist on truth in advertising in everything we do.

Comments

[Vacula]

Hicksville? Um...

[Hugo]

Stickstown? Ruritania? Greater Egypt?

[Xrlq]

This "expose" is the perfect reminder of why I don't read Pandagon. I've searched high and low on Austin Life Care's site and found nothing remotely deceptive. Even their name - Austin Life Care - makes it plain as day where they stand on the issue of abortion. All I see here is the usual whining by pro-abortion extremists who, while purporting to be "pro-choice," are really a lot more pro- one choice than the other.

[Hugo]

XRLQ, I don't know that everyone would read "Life" the same way -- especially in a panic.

Read through this site in your own Orange County, especially this page, through the eyes of a frightened teenager.  I don't think you'd catch the tremendous subtlety.

It's actually a better example of deceptiveness than the one Amanda cites.

[Antigone]

I think that Amanda was trying to find the one closest to home. I'm fairly certain that Austin isn't going to be as bad as say, Del Rio, but Del Rio would probably have the better example of deceptive advertising. Or, it may be the ONLY place to go in a small town is a place that calls itself "Pregnancy crisis" or something.

[Starfoxy]

I really agree with you about stigmatizing unwed motherhood. As long as getting pregnant is something that ruins a woman's life and her reputation then how can we blame people for seeking abortions? I really believe that if being pregnant didn't have such high costs financially and socially then many more women would be willing to stay pregnant. I particularly noticed that while I was pregnant I had this nearly pathological urge to tell everyone that I *planned* on getting pregnant, and that I was married, and that my baby was completely legitimate. I can only imagine how it would feel if my baby wasn't planned or legitimate. (Even the word illegitimate is a horrible value judgement, ugh!)
Being judgemental, condemnitory, and misleading is most definitely un-Christian behavior.

[Sara]

Hugo, I think you might be sort of pulling a Will Saletan on us here. I don't think there are many pro-choice advocates that have a problem with helping women who want to keep their babies do that. And, for that matter, it's a lot simpler to help women avoid unintended pregnancies altogether than to scramble to ready them emotionally and financially for an ultimately welcome but difficult-to-support baby. I know that when I was fifteen and was lucky enough to have a condom break the very first time I had sex, I called one of these centers (CareNet, a particularly awful type of crisis pregnancy center) and got really weird treatment, lots of sighs and wagging fingers about being sexually active at such a young age. I ended up making it to Planned Parenthood, not pregnant, and getting on more reliable birth control, in case you're wondering. Anyway, my dealings with these centers and those of my husband who works in social services have been downright terrible. If you want access to their baby clothes, you have to sit through a lecture. If you want a pregnancy test you have to be given religious counseling. It's a humiliating set of hoops to make a woman jump through just so that she can make a decision that she is perfectly capable of making. There's just no evidence that pro-choice advocates aren't interested in helping women plan their families according to what they wish, and it's unfair to use the fact that the right to abortion needs such strident defense to imply that all we care about is helping women have abortions. You, the pro-life movement, and Will Saletan do not have a monopoly on the idea of helping women have the families they want. I think that the ranks of agitatators (often made up of many many pro-choice advocates) who ask for better maternal leave, better social services for mothers, and other social programs, are testament to this fact. Ultimately, I'm not asking that feminists or family planning advocates get credit for thinking of it first if the freedom to pursue family planning is attained and protected - it's the goal that's more important than the credit. It's just disingenuous in the extreme to imply that pro-choice means anti-baby and anti-mother.

[SUZANNE]

I'm pro-life and I don't think the ends justifies the means. However, I think the whole "fake abortion clinic" thing is hysteria. I do not see any lying in the advertizing. They do not make medical claims. It's no more dishonest than a weight loss clinic-- some have medical staff, some don't.

If you want an abortion, you'll go to an abortion clinic. If you want something different, you'll go to a pregnancy center. I think it's pretty obvious.

[Xrlq]

Read through this site in your own Orange County, especially this page, through the eyes of a frightened teenager.

Assuming this too is an anti-abortion group, I don't disagree. My point wasn't that no anti-abortion counseling clinics are deceptive, merely that Amanda's attack against a particular one was unjustified.

Last and least, O.C. isn't my county anymore; I'm a born again Virginian.

[Hugo]

Sara, I didn't mean to imply that no pro-choice advocates are in favor of greater support for those who choose to keep their babies. I simply was arguing that I think that that's where the pro-life movement ought to be putting the bulk of its resources -- into creating a world where the option NOT to abort is increasingly acceptable, inviting, and possible.

Suzanne, you and I know very different teenagers. If the teens you know can easily and instantly tell the difference between a crisis pregnancy center and a place that does offer abortion, please ask them to move to Pasadena and join my youth group.

X, I'd forgotten you were in Virginia. I'll be running around Albemarle County myself in another week or two.

[Random Lurker]

I'm one of those pro-choice people you mentioned, the kind that begins to roll my eyes the moment I hear 'that fertilized cell you got there is a BABY!' Seeing as this, and the whole idea of conception itself are religious ideas, I'm beginning to think of abortion more and more as a religious freedom issue. I'd appreciate being able to live free of religious doctrines that I don't believe in.

I am sympathetic to the idea of offering more social and financial support for women who would like to keep their surprise fetii around long enough for them to become actual babies. I'd agree that the pro-choice side should give this some thought.

But I'm afraid I have no sympathy for these centers, which seem to use fear, deliberate lies and predatory tactics to ensnare vulnerable young women. It's just vile, and I wonder how you, as a Christian who seems to be fairly reasonable, can condone their tactics. Forcing a young woman to carry her pregnancy to term isn't 'saving' anything, it's condemning two innocent people to a difficult life that you, the self-righteous religious teacher, will not have to deal with in any way.

Anyway, I do enjoy the blog. Pardon the vitriol.

[Anna]

Random Lurker, if you are interested in anything other than hijacking the place to deliver a rant, go back and read what Hugo actually said. His point is precisely that these centres should be more transparent about what they offer and what they do not.

Glad that you are feeling better, Hugo!

[Hugo]

Thank you, Anna -- given that the whole post was spent decrying the tactics of the crisis pregnancy centers, I find Random's criticism a bit mystifying.

I do support the broader mission of crisis pregnancy centers; I do not support the tactics they use. And for me, tactics are as good an indicator of morality as stated ends.

[Random Lurker]

In retrospect, you're right. That was ranty and inappropriate. My bad, I'm having a rotten day and I kneejerked. Please delete the comment (and this one too, it only serves to explain the last uselss comment).

Though overall, I'm speaking from ignorance rather then malice. I'm an artist, not an academic- and not a very sharp-witted artist at that. I'll stick to painting and let y'all talk.

[Allison]

Starfoxy, thanks for your comment -- I was single with an unplanned pregnancy, and I seriously considered purchasing a fake ring to wear for the duration. One of the message boards even had a name for it: the LHRC (left-hand ring check). As enlightened as people might think our culture is, um...it's not prepared for the idea that an unmarried woman might *gasp* have had sex.

After briefly (a couple days) considering termination, I chose to keep the pregnancy. Why? So that my words and my actions would line up. I'd been striving to build authenticity into my life for so long, termination--which I would have most definitely kept secret--would have run counter to everything I wanted to represent.

That said, I'm thankful that it was a choice I was allowed to make, not one that was thrust upon me (heh, heh, pardon the pun). My daughter is someone to celebrate, not resent!

[Amanda Marcotte]

X, if you actually read the article, you might grasp it a bit better. I call Austin Life Care to find out what care they offer and found that they don't. My main problem with them was not deception about their motivations, but deception about the services they offer.

As someone who actually wants women and babies to do well, I am appalled that Austin Life Care pretends to offer prenatal care and then does not. Women who think they've received prenatal care at a crisis pregnancy center may then not get it from an actual doctor. Worst case scenario is death of mother and/or child. Putting on a charade of giving care and then not giving it is deeply immoral and so-called Christians should be ashamed. The deception is in pretending they offer care when they do not.

Anyone who is opposed to abortion should think about this--the cuts that were made to Texas's family planning budget have stranded 17,000 women without access to the family planning services they had before. This is on top of the over one and half million Texas women eligible for subsidized family planning services that don't have them. That means that over one and a half million Texans alone are not getting the access to the contraception they need.

Out of the one and half million, how many will then be terminating pregnancies that they otherwise wouldn't have had in the first place?

Defunding family planning services is objectively pro-abortion, far more than any place like Planned Parenthood that actually tries to prevent women from being in a place where they need one could ever be.

[Amanda Marcotte]

BTW, thanks for the link, Hugo!

[RJ]

Look at it this way--would anyone for a moment have sympathy with a "Cancer Care Center" that was a front for Christian Scientists?

I get diagnosed with lymphoma, I'm totally freaked out, I find a "Cancer Care Center" that's close to my house, I set up an appointment to get some counseling and explore my medical options, and instead of a doctor, I get an evangelist telling me that I'll go to hell if I get chemotherapy.

And that's ethical how?

[my apologies to any CS folk out there--I don't even know if y'all evangelize. It just makes a good example]

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not yet ready to weigh in on the larger issue of whether or not abortion should be legal."

Hugo, this assertion is not only spineless, but nonsensical.

Thought experiment: does Hugo favour forcing women to continue ectopic pregnancies until their fallopian tube bursts, as is the current practice in El Salvador? Similarly, does Hugo favour forcing women to undergo labour that will result in the birth of a baby sans head, and its subsequent inevitable suffocation? I'm guessing Hugo does not wish to force women to risk their lives to deliver dead children, therefore Hugo supports legal abortion.

Assuming that this is in fact the case and that Hugo is not a misogynistic jerk, what did he really mean to say?

"I'm not yet ready to weigh in on the larger issue of whether or not some abortions should be illegal."

Since illegality involves both prevention and punishment, you should state that explicitly:

"I'm not yet ready to weigh in on the larger issue of whether or not some women should be forced to continue pregnancies that they wish to terminate, and punished if they succeed in obtaining an abortion."

Holy rusty coathanger Batman, he is a misogynistic jerk after all!

[Hugo]

Oh, to be anonymous, cowardly, and full of absolute certainty uncheckered by doubt!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hugo, you like to admit doubt, and to be honest being uncertain can sound more wise and profound than being naively certain about something. And yet, it comes across as even more offensive when the subject being discussed does not admit to that kind of doubt.

For example: "Many people are passionate that women deserve the right to vote. Others are equally passionate that they do not. As for me, I wish I had their certainty. The issue is too complex and nuanced for me to fully support either side. I will have to weigh in on this issue at some future date, for now I am still consumed by doubt."

Admit it, anyone who said that would be a misogynistic jerk, attempting to withhold autonomy from women under the pretense of "seeing both sides of the debate" and being unwilling to take a firm stand themselves. Throwing up your hands and saying "a plague on both their houses" is not an adequate response to issues of social justice, nor is it an impartial response.

Anyone who expresses doubt about whether women should be permitted to terminate a pregnancy has placed themselves firmly on one side of the debate, end of story.

Hypothetical statement: "Should women be punished for terminating a pregnancy? I just don't know; let's leave the option open."

But anyone who challenges you on that must clearly be lacking doubt, and thus blind to the true complexity of the issue, and thus you don't have to explain yourself to them, justify your position, or admit that you've already taken a stand.

Sorry to slip into gendered language, but be a man for crying out loud! What would Jesus do?

"Should women be stoned for adultery? Well, some people believe they should, and some believe that a mere beating is sufficient. It's a complex issue, with serious ethical implications for society. As for me, I just don't know. Anyway, I'll be over there if you need me."

Who is the real coward?

[Hugo]

Well, by your definition, I am indeed a misogynistic jerk. I surrender to your exquisite logic, which of course marginalizes from the ranks of the sensible, the kind, and the thoughtful all those who oppose abortion.

It is so easy to turn the rhetoric around, as some of my pro-life friends do! How easy is it to use the same logic on behalf of the unborn, and claim that all those who aren't rigidly pro-life are selfish baby killers!

I don't call anyone a baby-killer, ever. I believe it's possible to be committed to women and families and be on all sides of the issue. I realize that most folks don't share that belief. Rest assured, my uncertainty is not rooted in a desire to avoid conflict. Indeed, if I were to pick a side, I could be assured of having at least some allies. By expressing my very real agonies (it's not a pose), I attract vitriol from both sides. It would be masochistic of me to do this for fun, and contrary to the perception of some of my critics, I am no masochist.

You remind me why I gave up posting about abortion in the first place, and why it is so damned tempting to resume my hiatus.

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to miss the point, Hugo.

Please don't say "oppose abortion", when you mean oppose abortion in some circumstances.

Or do you actually think that ectopic pregnancies are not reasonable grounds for abortion?

Because I would definitely consider that someone who held that position is not sensible, not kind, and certainly not thoughtful.

I believe that anyone who pushes for a blanket ban on all abortions in any circumstances as seen in some parts of the world today is a misogynistic jerk, and I can't believe that could possibly be a contentious point. How can forcing women to suffer to deliver a dead baby be the position of a sensible/kind/thoughtful person, let alone a "pro-life" person?

Once misogynistic jerks have been marginalised, we are left with potentially sensible/kind/thoughtful people who oppose abortion for some women in some circumstances.
(Presumably, the circumstances in which the woman has a reasonable chance of successfully giving birth to a healthy baby).

But if you leave out the qualifier, don't be surprised when people jump on you, as it indicates a certain lack of consideration.

[Antigone]

AC, maybe you shouldn't do a thread drift. We're not talking about Hugo's stance on abortion, he's already posted on that (help me out here Hugo). We're talking about the Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Please put your coward comments in the appropriate thread.

[Oriscus]

Um, at risk of intruding upon a private argument...

Abortion is, all circumstances, a horrible, monstrous thing. There are things much more horrible, much more monstrous, like, for instance, ectopic pregnancies, which might make abortion a necessary evil.

There are many aspects to this "issue." The shame with which our society continues to surround sexuality, the burdens and handicaps under which the mother of an unplanned child must live, whether she elects to raise the child or risk its life to the adoption system, are *not necessary, but they frequently make abortion appear to be the lesser evil. So long as they exist, so long as these conditions persist, there will be abortions, and the ultimate moral buck stops ... where?