Time: Cover story on pregnancy care centers

timebig.jpgThe cover story in the Feb. 26 edition of Time magazine is on the "new face of an old movement," medically-modelled pregnancy care centers that perform ultrasounds and conduct STD testing.

I read the article first from a pro-life activist's perspective (me!) and thought it exceedingly placed pccs under a microscope and on the defensive.

Would, for instance, that Time reported on undercover investigative calls to abortion mills on the hunt for misinformation, like it did pccs. Or that it had a young woman pose as a pregnant patient in an abortion mill, like it did a pcc.

Then I read the article from the abortion industry's perspective and thought they must certainly be depressed about it, likely reworking their talking points as I write. They were pathetic. Here was the worst....

"What is really tragic to me is that a woman goes into a center looking for information, looking to be able to make a better, healthy choice, and she doesn't get all the facts," argues Christopher Hollis, Planned Parenthood's vice president for governmental and political affairs in North Carolina. "That's taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it."

Only because pccs don't counsel to abort? I'd say the pregnancy health center that most endangers someone's life would be the one where at least half going in die.

Here was another good one:

It is this discussion of risk that most enrages defenders of abortion rights, especially doctors who routinely see terrified women who come in for an abortion after hearing such warnings and ask over and over, "Am I going to die?"

Oh, please. Certainly one of the two patients in the room is going to.

Overall, pccs came out looking professional, savvy, and compassionate. My one complaint was they agreed with pro-aborts that the horror of abortion should be deemphasized.

And I loved the cover photo!

[Hat tip: reader Wynette.]


Comments:

"That's taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it."

Funny I thought it was abortion clinics who were taking someone's life.

Posted by: Jeff Miller at February 18, 2007 2:59 PM


How can they make that argument and then turn around and fight informed consent laws??

Posted by: Michelle Potter at February 18, 2007 6:13 PM


I particularly disdained the line (pg. 30, first column, last paragraph) about Lorrie, the abortion provider, and how she is "constantly working to put herself out of business". Really now? Or how she refuses to go through an abortion if she senses the woman has doubts, and has at least one such case a month. One case a month, when an average abortion clinic completes 500 or more "terminations" a month. Are you kidding me?

So much for time being a neutral media outlet!

Posted by: Sandy at February 20, 2007 9:55 PM


Sandy, yes, I noticed that, too, and also her comment, "decreasing abortion is a goal we all strive for."

Why? What's wrong with abortion? It is the only supposed constitutional right that isn't trumpeted or a source of pride. Again, why?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 21, 2007 7:26 AM


"Abortion is a sad, often tragic, choice." Remember?

I read the Time article, and I thought it was very good. Yeah, they let the pro-choicers have their say ... but they also let the goodguys have their say, too. That's what an unbiased journalist is supposed to do!

(I know, I know ... we haven't seen an unbiased journalist in quite some time.)

One thing that surprised me was this line from the article:
Even among pro-life activists, there's an argument about emphasis: Do you focus on fear and guilt, to make choosing an abortion harder, or on hope and support, to make "choosing life" easier?
Um, who? Which pro-lifers are focusing on fear and guilt? Aren't we all on board with the positive message by now?

Perhaps Time thinks that giving women the facts about possible abortion complications is "fear and guilt". But any surgical procedure -- even one as unholy as abortion -- has its risks. I prefer to think of it as informed consent.

Posted by: Naaman at February 21, 2007 8:58 AM


Naaman, I think they may have been referring in part to showing photos of aborted babies or the movie, "Silent Scream."

I don't have a problem with this, btw. It's the truth. And if a girl is leaving the prc to go to an abortion mill, what's to lose?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 21, 2007 9:08 AM