Tag Archives: crisis pregnancy centers

Pro-life blog buzz 6-5-15

pro-lifeby Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

  • At A Drop in the Ocean, Laura slams California’s attack on pregnancy resource centers by comparing the bill – which would force pregnancy resource centers to tell women where to get abortions – to forcing a Jewish deli to tell customers where to buy pork:

    Hello, and welcome to Shamash’s! Before you sit down to eat, we want you to know that New York has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive pork dishes (including all FDA-approved methods of smoked ham), pulled pork, and pork sausage, for eligible people. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social food services office at 1-800-YAY-PORK.


  • ProWomanProLife notes the work of organizations which are encouraging women to “ditch the Pill.” Natural family planning, once thought to be practiced mainly by Catholics, is gaining in popularity as we learn more about the detrimental effects of hormonal birth control.
  • Secular Pro-Life (which has also just launched a new outreach called PreventPreterm.org – check it out), addresses the reasoning behind a New York court which decided that Choose Life license plates are too offensive to some people, so they should be disallowed:

    Last week, a federal appellate court ruled that New York could ban Choose Life license plates because they are “patently offensive” — a legal term usually reserved for hard-core pornography. The ruling was met with instant derision from grassroots pro-lifers and legal scholars alike.

    At the time, SPL simply condemned the decision with a tweet, which was widely retweeted and even made it onto Twitchy….

    UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote up the decision in the Washington Post. (You should read the whole thing.) He begins with the obvious point that it’s a First Amendment violation. But then he explains the Second Circuit’s reasoning, if you want to call it that, and it is truly incredible. The logic of the opinion requires the assumption that pro-choice New Yorkers are so violent, pro-lifers have to be censored for their own safety.


  • A Voice for Hope shares this great graphic and quote from former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop (pictured right):
  • As Father’s Day draws near, Priests for Life highlights a ministry to post-abortive men:

    Healing the Shockwaves of Abortion was launched in January at the March for Life in Washington, D.C.….

    Janet Morana and Georgette Forney, co-founders of Silent No More, noted that men can play many roles in an abortion decision. Some men coerce women into abortion; others had no knowledge until it was too late. Some are complicit in the decision and some are just silent.

    “We know through our work with Silent No More that no matter what role a man played, he is often thrown off guard by his reaction to the abortion,” Mrs. Morana said. “Many feel they have failed as men by allowing, or insisting on, the destruction of their own child.”

    “Men are often pushed to the margins of the abortion debate, but after the baby and the mother, fathers are the most directly impacted,” Mrs. Forney said. “We want them to know they are deserving of healing and we want to help them restore peace to their souls.

  • [Photos via pinterest.com and A Voice for Hope]

Pro-choicer on CA law: Don’t make pregnancy centers refer for abortion

nolanbrownby Kelli

To be clear, some crisis pregnancy centers can be shady. They have been known to misleadingly portray themselves as full-service women’s health clinics, or to obscure religious affiliations. They may offer discredited info on things like “the link between abortion and depression,” or engage in what some describe as bullying or pressuring women into carrying pregnancies to term.

But the state really shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what completely non-criminal information a private operation may make available. And many businesses and non-profits have owners with religious beliefs that they don’t necessarily broadcast. In other words, you may condemn these pregnancy centers’ tactics or views, but they’re not de facto doing anything illegal. What’s more, they may doing some good: Despite not offering contraception or abortion advice, the centers do offer things like free pregnancy tests, screenings for sexually transmitted infections, ultrasounds, and baby clothes.

If particular centers are engaging in deceptive or fraudulent practices, then by all means, go after them for that. But the point should be making them be honest about what they are, not trying to turn them into something they’re not.

~ Pro-choicer Elizabeth Nolan Brown (pictured), voicing her objections to California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which “would require pregnancy centers to post notices saying that reproductive health services, including abortion, are available to pregnant women in the state,” Reason.com, May 27

[Photo via reason.com]

California goes after pregnancy resource centers

Amy_Everittby Carder

I find it extremely difficult to understand how people who claim to care about women find it so threatening to inform them about accessing affordable health care….

We can all agree that women deserve to have all the information in front of them when they make some of the most important decisions they will ever face.

~ Amy Everitt, the state director of NARAL Pro-Choice California, discussing California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which “would specifically crack down on unlicensed ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ (CPCs) that present misleading health information designed to dissuade women from choosing abortion,” as quoted by Think Progress, May 22

[Photo via sacbee.com]

Pro-life blog buzz 4-17-15

pro-lifeby Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

  • At Women’s Rights without Frontiers, Reggie Littlejohn shines a light on another problem in China – baby trafficking. 37 babies were recently rescued from a baby-selling ring:

    According to CNN, human traffickers were recruiting pregnant women in the area willing to sell their babies and hid them in the factory until they gave birth. Then, after the women had their babies, they gave the newborns over to the traffickers and left.

    A Chinese police official, Chen Shiqu, said that the incident is a “new criminal pattern” in which child traffickers take pregnant women to a specific place to give birth. Currently, police have 103 people in custody who are suspected of selling or buying children.


  • The Survivors discuss why they attend the San Diego Earth Fair, despite encountering opposition. Their goal on Sunday, April 19, is to “help bring an end to abortion” by spreading awareness and talking about abortion with the public.
  • Wesley J. Smith has two excellent articles about the slippery slope of assisted suicide, which is taking hold in the medical community. “Do no harm” appears to have gone by the wayside. The first highlights a recent survey which found that high percentages of Dutch physicians “would kill cancer patients, and 1/3 would be willing to euthanize the mentally ill.” The second discusses mental health practitioners’ “radically changing ethics” in favor of “rational suicide” among the healthy elderly.
  • Saynsumthn’s Blog writes about the recent interview between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and FOX’s Megyn Kelly in which DWS sticks to the Democratic Party mantra as she defends third trimester abortion.
  • At ProLife365, Kevin Kukla shares the latest study on Plan B and whether it is an abortifacient – and why it is distributed at Catholic hospitals:

    This study should immediately put to rest the practice of Catholic hospitals to prescribe Plan B to rape victims within their emergency rooms. Such a practice should be ended everywhere.

    If a child may die as a result of a woman taking the Plan B pill, I am not sure how anyone in good conscience could encourage she take it.

cohen barrack

  • ProWomanProLife spotlights a pro-life investigator who uncovered the reasons why a governmental agency in Canada decided to revoke funding for pregnancy care centers:

    Pat Maloney, Canada’s pro-life investigator, uncovered another interesting fact: Remember when Fake Person complained to Trillium, and then Trillium revoked funding to Pregnancy Options and Support Centre in Sarnia?

    Guess who the CEO is of the Ontario Trillium Foundation? Andrea Cohen Barrack [pictured]

    And guess who the Chairperson is of International Planned Parenthood for Canada? Andrea Cohen Barrack

    The one and the same person.

  • Pro-Life Action League rejoices that a video showing a patient being hauled away from an abortion clinic in Little Rock, Arkansas, ended up saving the life of a baby whose mother was considering an abortion:

    On Friday we learned that a pregnant woman who was considering abortion saw this video. After viewing this video and seeing how little the abortion industry truly cares for women, she chose life for her baby!

    The League is happy to have been a part of saving this life, but we could never have made this video if faithful pro-lifers were not on the scene with cameras to capture the ambulance transport as it happened!

MD officials consulted NARAL in effort to shut down pregnancy centers

by Kelli

Screen Shot 2015-01-14 at 5.30.07 PMEmails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request have revealed that Maryland government officials and activists with the state chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America have been working closely together on a legal effort to shut down a local pro-life pregnancy care center.

The emails have also revealed a seven-part plan developed by NARAL to shut down pro-life pregnancy care centers that could indicate a nationwide strategy….

The emails obtained… reveal that, unbeknownst to the public, Montgomery County dropped the case after conferring with NARAL. The county stopped defending the law the month after NARAL recommended that very action in a March 14, 2014 letter, sent a week after the judge permanently blocked the law.

“It is our hope that the Montgomery County Council (Council) will once again partner with us to ensure Montgomery Council citizens are aware of the misleading tactics used by crisis pregnancy centers,” Maryland’s NARAL chapter president, Jodi Finkelstein, wrote….

In the letter, sent by the county to LifeSiteNews along with other emails through a Freedom of Information Act request, Finkelstein “strongly” recommended that the county drop the case and implement seven other strategies.

Those strategies include:

  • Prosecuting volunteers and employees of pregnancy care centers for “consumer protection violations”
  • Forbidding [PRCs] from “participating in advertising” that county officials deem “untrue or misleading”
  • Allowing women who claim they were “harmed by limited-service pregnancy centers to collect monetary damages” from women’s centers
  • Denying taxpayer funding to crisis pregnancy centers
  • Instructing county officials not to refer women to CPCs for ultrasounds or to “very clearly differentiate the centers from legitimate medical providers”
  • Having the county undertake a “public awareness campaign” against pregnancy centers…
  • The regulation of ultrasound practices.

“We are pleased to offer our continued assistance in any way as you move forward,” Finkelstein writes.

~ Dustin Siggins, Life Site News, January 13

PDFs of email exchanges here.

Maryland county forced to pay $375k in legal fees for targeting pregnancy care centers

check Montgomery County Tepayac pregnancy care center pro-life abortion NARALUPDATE, 6/24, 10:40a: More good news! As reported by CBNNews.com today:

A federal district court struck down an Austin, Texas, anti-pregnancy care law that forced pro-life pregnancy care centers to post messages that encourage women to go elsewhere.

Another win for Alliance Defending Freedom and pro-life!

6/19 12:52p: This decision should go a long way in dissuading government bodies from passing unconstitutional ordinances that attempt to muzzle the life-saving work of pregnancy care centers.

Such ordinances may hurt their municipal pocketbooks.

A federal district court has ordered Montgomery County, Maryland, to pay $375,000 in legal fees to Centro Tepayac Silver Spring Women’s Center after the pregnancy care center won its 2010 lawsuit against the county for violating its right to free speech.

The ordinance attempted to force the pregnancy care center to post signage if counselors were nonmedical personnel, while giving a pass to nonmedical counselors at family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood.

The concept for this ordinance was provided by constitutionally-challenged NARAL.

After the ordinance was first introduced in Baltimore in 2009, a few other abortion-obsessed local bodies in Austin (Texas), Montgomery County, New York City, and San Francisco jumped on the bandwagon, only to be stopped in their tracks by pro-life lawsuits, all of which are still pending but have received preliminary affirmation. (Note: While dismissing some of  San Francisco’s First Resort pregnancy care center’s claims, a judge has allowed its “equal protection” claim of viewpoint discrimination to proceed.)

Since the prc ordinance microburst between 2009-11, no other local or county government in the U.S. has been so obtuse as to follow NARAL down the financially painful primrose path.

If NARAL were so sure of its “investigations” and ordinance, it would offer to cover legal expenses. Not.

Tepayac was represented by the great attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom.

NARAL lied: No “deceptive” pregnancy center ads pulled by Google

NARAL - Thank You Google On April 28 NARAL made a media splash by claiming it had gotten Google to remove a large number of “deceptive ads from anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers.”

And those “deceptions,” if true, were major whoppers.

From the Washington Post:

According to an analysis by NARAL, 79 percent of the crisis pregnancy centers that advertised on Google indicated that they provided medical services such as abortions, when, in fact, they are focused on counseling services and on providing information about alternatives to abortion….

Google said in a statement that it had applied its ad policy standards in this case and followed normal company procedures.

That’s a lot of pregnancy care centers supposedly posing as abortion clinics. The sheer magnitude should have raised a red flag with any objective journalist who bore in mind s/he had been fed those statistics by the opposition. I am aware of NO pcc that would do such a thing.

NARAL claimed:

We discovered that if you Googled “abortion clinic,” ads funded by anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) appeared 79 percent of the time. CPCs don’t provide or refer for abortion care, and they shouldn’t trick women into thinking that they do. 

NARAL further claimed:

[M]ore than two-thirds of the ads we identified have been removed or taken down. The ads in question violate several of the company’s advertising practices by misrepresenting the services the centers provide….

Pro-lifers were immediately alarmed by NARAL’s witch hunt and Google’s apparent capitulation.

But now that the dust has settled, it is clear NARAL fabricated this storyline.

All major national pregnancy care center organizations have confirmed to myself or fellow pro-life journalists that not one of their prc ads has been pulled from Google. These groups cover the gamut and include CareNet, CompassCare, Heartbeat International, Heroic Media, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Online for Life, and Vitae Foundation.

NARAL cited an ad by pregnanthelp.com as an example of the “deception”:


PregnantHelp.com is a CareNet affiliate. Today, Melinda Gipson, CareNet’s Vice President of Marketing and Communications, responded via email:

What NARAL objected to was the fact that this ad appeared when someone searched, “Abortion clinic Naperville, IL.” Yet the center never bought the search term “abortion clinic.” Instead, it is more likely that Google’s AdWords’ real-time bidding engine saw the word “abortion” and “Naperville” in its queue, weighed this against the text in the ad and the price the center was bidding for exposure, then deemed the ad appropriate.

If anything, Google was itself probably responsible for the juxtaposition of this search string and the Naperville ad, and the fact that the ad was not in fact removed, nor was Naperville identified of a violation, shows that Google agrees.

So it may be Google itself that is responsible for the ad words glitch, which would explain its ambiguous response to queries on this matter.

Gipson explained more about how Google places ads in a follow-up email, which I found quite helpful. Gipson is a Google ad word expert, having had 20 years of experience in online media and marketing before joining CareNet.

Indeed, when I googled “abortion clinic Naperville il” today, PregnantHelp.com’s ad appeared first, with another pro-life organization (freeabortionhelp.com) third:


When I googled “abortion clinic,” a pro-life ad came up second. For “abortion clinics,” two pro-life ads were among those listed on the right side.

SearchEngineLand.com concurred with my findings:

Do Google’s actions mark a policy change on abortion related advertising? Is this an indication the company is taking a political stance on the issue? Are all ads from pregnancy centers banned on Google? Did NARAL tread new ground in “lobbying” Google to remove ads it found misleading?

The answer to all of these questions is, No….

A clinic that does not offer abortion services can still buy and advertise on “crisis pregnancy center” and “abortion clinic” related keywords. The advertisers can promote the abortion alternative services, adoption or pre-natal care they offer, for example.

Bottom line, NARAL fabricated the Google storyline, and the mainstream media willingly or ignorantly fell for it.

NARAL got what it wanted in the short term – free media to tarnish the brand of pregnancy care centers, plus an accomplishment to show its donors other than its president, Ilyse Hogue, going on The Daily Show to discuss penis pumps.

But NARAL also revealed the desperation of an industry that is bleeding its only source of income, abortion, to the pro-life movement, and the industry obviously and rightfully deems pregnancy care centers to be major culprits.

But NARAL better be careful what it wishes for. A Google search today of “crisis pregnancy center” turned up an ad for none other than Planned Parenthood


And as Tom Glessner of NIFLA pointed out at NationalRightToLifeNews.org:

Interestingly, if you do a search of “Abortion alternatives, city, state,” who do you think shows up in the paid advertising? Go ahead try it! The top three listing will most likely be abortion providers. Talk about deceptive and misleading advertising! Let’s tell Google about that!

Indeed. Perhaps MSM will be interested in doing a follow-up corrective story exposing the real deceivers – not.

[HT for “crisis pregnancy center”/PP ad: LifeSiteNews.com]

Pro-life blog buzz 10-29-13

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.

  • At Priests for Life, Fr. Frank Pavone reflects on the fact that so many Christians – even pastors – will say they are not interested in politics and don’t vote:

    Everything we can say about the tremendous moral responsibility of those who craft legislation and put it into effect really reflects the moral responsibility of those who put them in those positions in the first place – the voters.

  • Wesley J. Smith points out the mainstream media’s lockstep misuse of terms such as “fetus” even when children are born alive, and therefore no longer fetuses. This is deliberate dehumanization with an agenda.


  • Right to Life of Michigan links to a video and story about the Michigan State Board of Medicine’s chairman, Dr. George Shade (pictured left), who “single-handedly blocked an investigation into the complaints” about a Muskegon abortion facility which was closed down last year due to unsafe, unsanitary conditions. Apparently Shade and the ex-con abortionist, Dr. Robert Alexander, had a previous mentor-type relationship.
  • Foundation Life reports that at America’s oldest Catholic university – Georgetown – law students will be required to work with the National Women’s Law Center, an abortion advocacy organization:

    … [T]hat organization’s senior counsel, Kelli Garcia… a radical pro-abortion rights lawyer, wrote the poem titled, ‘Planned Parenthood, Why Do I Love Thee?’ in 2011. The poem was part of a larger effort by Garcia and her group to halt the potential defunding of Planned Parenthood, which is the nation’s largest abortion provider.

    But the real outrage is that Garcia is not just senior counsel for the NWLC, she is an adjunct professor at Georgetown. Her bio states that in her work at the NWLC, she “oversees the Center’s efforts to address religious restrictions on women’s access to reproductive health services, including its work on hospital mergers and crisis pregnancy centers.”

    Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society, believes forcing students to work with the NWLC makes Georgetown “an active agent of the culture of death. If allowed to continue, this puts Georgetown in direct opposition to the Church.”

    You know, I’m guessing if one of your adjunct professors is a staunch abortion advocate and your law school unashamedly advertises this fact, your institution is already in opposition to the Catholic Church.

  • At ProWomanProLife, Andrea Mrozek says she recently learned that New Zealand’s Dr. William Liley, who pioneered amniocentesis in order to save unborn life, took his own life years ago in part because “he saw how his technique was being used both for ‘search and destroy’ missions and to inject saline in a saline abortion.” How awful.
  • Pro-Life Action League’s Matt Yonke shares some thoughts after attending the showing of After Tiller, a film that glorifies late-term abortionists. He notes how engaged the audience was in the film:

    It was especially surreal sitting one row in front of a group of hard-core abortion-supporting feminists. Early in the film there is discussion of recent restrictions on abortion, including bans on abortion after 20 weeks. At the mention of the fact that a 20 week old fetus can feel pain, one lady behind us muttered, “Bulls**t!”

    But as the camera later panned across a shot of abortionist Leroy Carhart’s horses as he talked of other horses he lost in a fire supposedly started by anti-abortion activists (though this has never been proven), the ladies behind us gasped in horror….

    These conflicting sentiments were just one example of the contradictions and moral blindness that were at the root of After Tiller.

    He recommends that pro-lifers see the film to keep their passions alive. Here is the trailer:

YouTube Preview Image