(Prolifer)ations 11-18-09
by Kelli
Spotlighting important information gleaned from other pro-life blogs…
If we are going to say teens will be teens – they are going to have sex anyway, then I’d advocate for teaching them about marriage, making their already very serious sexual commitments permanent, and worrying less as a society about whether our kids have advanced degrees…. Enough already with engaging in adult behaviors while studiously avoiding – or glorifying – the sometimes difficult adult outcomes.
A new bill, to be voted on after Thanksgiving, “would require centers to post signs if they do not provide abortion or birth control. Failure to do so could result in a $150 daily fine.”
Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (pictured left) claims she introduced the bill to promote “truth in advertising” to “make sure no one is intentionally or unintentionally misled.” The bill (not surprisingly) has the backing of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland. An attempt to broaden the bill to require abortion clinics to post their services was rejected.
Pro-lifers have organized a petition drive in an attempt to prohibit the City Council from passing any such measures.
[Photo attribution: duburnsfoundation.org]
Nov.18, 2009 3:00 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I am not sure that forcing only pregnancy centers to have such a sign is legal. It seems discriminatory because of the many types of health info/counseling places that don’t offer abortions, only these pregnancy centers would be fined for not having a sign, while all of the other places don’t have to pay a fine for not having a sign. Because of the fine imposed on such a narrowly defined group, it seems they are outside the law. The ordinance would have to be written much more broadly and include far more establishments in order to be legal. I don’t know how they could actually come up with language that would be legal. Basically they can’t just say that only you have to have a sign or pay a fine while everyone else that doesn’t do what you don’t do doesn’t have to pay a fine for not posting that they aren’t doing something.
Here is a link to a related story about the Baltimore City Council. The article/op-ed letter expresses the pro abort/pro contraception point of view, labeling CPC assistance as “misinformation”.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/bal-op.pregnancy17nov17,0,4536953.story
I would like PP to hang a couple of signs.
We kill babies and wound mothers.
We lie, coerce and deceive.
We kill for money.
We only offer one choice here.
Tinker v. Des Moines already protects a student’s right to wear arm bands with a political message.
Re” the Bridgeton High School (NJ) story:
It’s getting very annoying that the demand for “separation of church and state” has morphed into the “separation of Church and the human race”.
Enough already. (No happy holidays from me this year. It’s going to be “Merry, Merry Christmas!”.)
An attempt to broaden the bill to require abortion clinics to post their services was rejected
Wouldn’t look too good, would it? Especially the part about assistance to child molesters.
Tinker v. Des Moines already protects a student’s right to wear arm bands with a political message.
Posted by: Ella at November 18, 2009 4:38 PM
Then I guess the ADF won’t have too much trouble. :)
Fed Up @5:22,
And if PP were forced to post their services, THEY WOULD HAVE TO USE THE “A” WORD!!
* * *
“A new bill, to be voted on after Thanksgiving, “would require centers to post signs if they do not provide abortion or birth control.”
Think about it, “no abortions” is a good thing to be advertising. If I had any doubt, as a pro-lifer, I’d be less likely to go inside what I thought might be an abortuary.
I’m actually okay with them saying, “We don’t do abortions here.” Like Janet said, it’s one more step to making actual choice- prenatal care, adoptions, whatever women who intend to keep the baby after birth need, et cetera- not only logical but also acceptable. Women are kind of demonized when deciding to keep a baby like, “Nooooz! You’re releasing mutant spawn!”
And would you PLEASE stop branding this as a religious argument, people. I don’t know about Xalisae or Pro-Life Atheist or all of the other pro-equality, pro-secular, or pro-religion-other-than0Christianity people out there, but I’m getting so annoyed. I’ve said this a thousand times but seriously- I’m a frigging agnostic.
Garg!
o_O
Pregnancy Care Centers are being targeted. They are going to have to post signs OR be fined $150/day. It is just another way to try and shut out those that really DO provide help to women and their children. Before birth and beyond.
This is happening statewide in Maryland. It has just been introduced in the Montgomery County Council by at-large member Duchy Tractenberg. It so happens that she is a former director of the Mid-Atlantic NOW. But of course, that’s just a coincidence -right? No conflict of interest here -nosirree!
Hmmm. Perhaps they should permanently mount a few graphic posters to show what they do not do. Why stop at words? No, wait. We do not want to be as childish as the councilwoman who is acting out.
If they want “truth in advertising,” the center could post statistics that confirm that minorities are the ones that are most exploited by abortion profiteers, and if the mothers agree maybe even post a picture or two of the infants saved through their intervention.
President Obama, nor any of these pro choice dunces, have even witnesed an abortion first hand, but whe some of them do, they become pro life, lke Abby. RJ
BS”D
What part of the First Amendment (… shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …) do the Baltimore City Council, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL Pro-Abort Maryland, not understand? I think this is likely to wind up working its way through the courts.