New York's Expectant Mother Care Frontline Pregnancy Centers, headed by pro-life hero Chris Slattery, launched a new weapon this week on the war against abortion. On Feb. 27 EMC, which has 15 pregnancy care centers in NYC, began sending an RV mobile pregnancy center to park on streets in front of NY abortion mills.
(Giving credit where it's due, to my knowledge this concept originated with Angela Michaels, another pro-life hero who, as an RN and sidewalk counselor at the inaptly named Hope Clinic abortion mill in Granite City, Illinois, began employing this strategy years ago.)
Well, here is the headline the New York Daily News used Feb. 28 to relay this news: "Abort-foe RV gives sonograms, but critics say it 'hurts women'."
I read the article to see how pro-aborts could possible maintain ultrasounds showing photos of what women are about to abort would hurt them. Here is the total and complete explanation of the headline:
"This is going to hurt women," said a clinic administrator.
That's it. What terrible journalism. But there's more:
Three women visited the RV, although they said they already had decided to continue their pregnancies.
The only example the writer, Jordan Lite, gave for that statement proved it false:
Jenny, 24, said she chose not to get her scheduled abortion before being approached by a sidewalk activist from Expectant Mother Care Frontline Pregnancy Centers. The ultrasound "helped because I was still undecided. I didn't feel pressure," she said.
Lite continued his biased story with this dig:
EMC, which has 15 offices in the metro area, has been investigated by state officials in the past for unauthorized medical practices and deceptive advertising.
The rest of the story Lite didn't report is the short-lived investigation was launched in early 2002 and folded after just two months by then-NY Attorney General Elliott Spitzer (now guv), after it became impossible to spin himself from looking like anything but a creep.
NYC acounts for 10% of all abortions nationwide - 100,000 annually. Chris and his group operate in the belly of the beast. Kudos to them.
[Cartoon courtesy of Shelley the Republican.]
Comments:
many years ago, some folks determined that drinkers would cease their-boozing ways if they were confronted with their obnoxious behavior. So the drinkers were video-taped. When confronted (by viewing themselves on video) they did indeed stop - (could hardly believe it was them) and they were remorseful ... for 2 weeks.
They then went right-back to their former habit. 'Why?' "So what?" was the response. Is what EMC does here different?
Posted by: John McDonell at March 2, 2007 12:53 PMJohn, statistics vary (see below), but somewhere between 60-95% of abortion-minded women decide not to abort if shown an ultrasound of their babies.
Even if we equate your unverified statistic of drunks changing their minds two weeks after seeing themselves, the difference is babies grow and situations change. Two weeks can mean a kick, or a more expensive abortion, or a fellow saying, "Let's get married."
From Massachusetts News:
... Glessner told of a center in Columbus that has seen a huge positive impact in offering ultrasound. Without ultrasound, only 20% of their abortion-minded clients chose life. But that figure increased to 95% with ultrasound. A center in Dallas saw a threefold increase in the number of abortion-minded clients coming to the clinic, and a threefold increase in clients choosing life. A Baton Rouge center reported that 95% of its clients now choose life, thanks to the new technology.
According to National Right to Life, at a San Francisco center offering ultrasound, 60% of the women they worked with who were seriously contemplating abortion decided to carry to term, after seeing the baby�s ultrasound. The director of Heartbeat International said that as many as 60-90% of clients will change their mind and decide not to abort.
Keroack is skeptical of the nationally reported turnaround rates of 90-95%. He suspects these centers are not keeping careful enough records, for instance counting follow-up clients two or three times. He also gives the example of women who come into a center to get a free ultrasound just for Medicaid certification, but who were never abortion-vulnerable. His prediction is that when more careful statistics are kept, turnarounds at centers using ultrasound will come out to 60-75% for abortion-vulnerable women.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 2, 2007 1:40 PMThis just proves that the pro-aborts are not really pro-choice. If they were they wouldn't be so upset about women getting all the information about their babies before they abort. They don't want the information out there because they know it will turn pregnant women away from abortion, the only "choice" that is really acceptable to the pro-aborts.
How does an ultrasound hurt women? That is not explained. If it did hurt women, the person saying so would have explained how. He/she just wants to stop women from having these ultrasounds so that they will be more likely to abort.
I don't think ultrasounds hurt women, but I do think that it hurts the abortionists profits. Abortions cost between $300 to $700, depending on your geographic location. If a woman thinks she will have an abortion and then changes her mind, that's $300 to $700 dollars that some abortion mill did NOT get.
Are we surprised that these death peddlers are crying foul when someone convinces women not to abort? It's not out of concern for the women, that's for sure. It's out of concern for their profits
Ceecee,
what do you base your suspicion on? The fact that what you are saying fits your ideology?
Why would the government have an interest in lying to women in this matter? Do you think they did a cost-benefit analysis, i.e. what are the profits we make from abortions vs. what are the costs when detering women from having legal abortions? Why would the government deliberately vote for the absence of an additional 1.5 million people annually, which could be boosting the labor force and pay taxes? To save the money they'd have to pay teen mothers on welfare? It seems ludicrous.
It is the same with the "abortion leads to breastcancer" myth. Why would the government want to withold such vital information if it were true? Surely the health system would profit more from treating less women for cancer than the profits it reaps from abortion services.
Sadly, it is the anti-choice movement that uses false or outdated information and fake pictures for emotional appeals to bolster their cause. Surely this would not be necessary if the arguments were convincing in the first place.
Posted by: Andy at March 5, 2007 9:40 AMAndy,you are obviously pro murder.Where do you get off saying thatpro-life material is outdated.
Posted by: Holli at March 8, 2007 12:18 PMAndy,you are obviously pro murder.Where do you get off saying thatpro-life material is outdated.
Posted by: Holli at March 8, 2007 12:18 PMAndy,you are obviously pro murder.Where do you get off saying thatpro-life material is outdated.
Posted by: Holli at March 8, 2007 12:19 PM