HB 2837 puts additional regulations on some pregnancy centers if they do not offer referrals for abortions. So two clinics that are exactly the same, except that one offers abortion referrals and one doesn't, and the latter is defined as a "limited service pregnancy center," and must disclose to each client -- both verbally upon first contact, and in writing on the wall, on any advertisement, and on the home page, in English and Spanish -- that it "does not provide medical care for pregnant women."
As if offerring abortion referrals means it does provide medical care for pregnant women? Newsflash: providing a referral for "medical care" is not, itself, providing medical care. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but it seems it's necessary.
The center that does not provide abortion referrals also must not administer over-the-counter pregnancy tests, but instead inform the client that it is over-the-counter and give it to the client to self-administer. As if offerring abortion referrals means it should have to do differently?
It also introduces new requirements for disclosure of health care records ... again, as if offering abortion referrals means a center shouldn't have to do such disclosures?
This bill is not about protecting potential clients, it is about trying to harm anti-abortion pregnancy centers, plain and simple. If the state wants to make these restrictions apply to everyone, fine, but to single out centers for restrictions where the only differentiating factor is that they do not offer abortion referrals is so completely off-the-wall that there's few places it could possibly happen. We in Washington just happen to live in one of those places.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 27, 2010 09:42 AM | Email ThisSo where are the legislative proposals saying PP can't pretend to "counsel" when they are abusing the word and using it to hardsell death for profit?
Posted by: Michele on January 27, 2010 12:26 PMI suspect that the sponsors didn't include full-service centers because they are already covered by existing disclosure laws and ethical rules, and because they have not had the problems that the law seeks to prevent. You know, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nonetheless, your suggestion to apply the law to all providers seems reasonable, at least without knowing more background on why the law was written this way.
Posted by: Bruce on January 27, 2010 02:06 PMFalse.
the bill does not distinguish based solely on abortion services
If you mean that there are OTHER factors that CAN distinguish between what is and isn't a "limited service pregnancy center," you're correct, and I never implied otherwise. I did not say, nor imply, nor mean to say, that this is the only factor in the bill. It is absolutely true what I said: take two centers that have exactly the same services, except that one does abortion referrals and one doesn't, and that is enough to cause one to be a "limited service pregnancy center" and the other, not.
I suspect that the sponsors didn't include full-service centers ...
Irrelevant to my point: why didn't they include the centers that offer NO medical services, but DO offer abortion referrals?
Maybe, in their warped minds, it is "because they have not had the problems that the law seeks to prevent," but that runs afoul of the fundamental idea in the American tradition that laws should apply equally to everybody.
"You know, if it ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't allow us to pick and choose whom a law should apply to, especially since this really amounts to a First Amendment issue, based solely on the POINT OF VIEW of those engaging in the speech: if you do NOT tell clients where they can go to have an abortion (which you would only do, pretty much, if you think abortion is wrong), then you MUST tell them -- in several different ways -- that you don't offer medical services (even when other centers that do not offer medical services do not have to say that).
I also find it interesting that it has recently come out that the National Cancer Institute has finally admitted that there really IS known connection between abortion and breast cancer.
Posted by: Michele on January 27, 2010 03:56 PM1) You didn't answer my question.
2) The NCI website (nci.gov) says "the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer".
3) If you're concerned about a woman's health overall, an abortion is much safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. Of course that's not a good reason for an abortion, but it means your false breast cancer claim is ironic as well.
Posted by: Bruce on January 27, 2010 06:48 PMif you had bothered to read the whole bill, you'd see that abortion referrals and even abortion are not the major crux of the bill.
"Limited service pregnancy center" means an organization that advertises, offers, or provides pregnancy tests or ultrasounds, and information about adoption or abortion, whether for a fee or as a free service, but does not provide any of the following: Prenatal medical care, comprehensive birth control services, abortion or referrals for abortion...'
'A limited service pregnancy center shall make the following disclosures to a person seeking services:
(a) That the center does not provide abortion or comprehensive birth control services;
(b) That the center does not provide referrals to individuals or organizations that provide abortion or comprehensive birth control services; and
(c) That the center does not provide medical care for pregnant women.
in plain english. not providing medical care for pregnant women? then you're a 'limited service pregnancy center'
do you really believe the dissemination of medically inaccurate information is good for the public, even if it conflicts with your worldview?
Posted by: mike on January 27, 2010 10:35 PMIf you had bothered to read my whole post -- or the comments where Bruce made the same logical error as you -- you'd see that your claim makes no sense in the context of what I wrote.
I wonder if you are falsely believing that a center must provide ALL of those services to not be a "limited service pregnancy center"? That's not what the bill says: you just have to provide ONE of those services to avoid that label. So if you don't provide prenatal medical care, comprehensive birth control services, or abortions, but ONLY referrals for abortion, then you are not a "limited service pregnancy center." But if you are exactly the same but also do not provide those abortion referrals, then you are a "limited service pregnancy center."
That's utterly illogical.
in plain english. not providing medical care for pregnant women? then you're a 'limited service pregnancy center'
Except that your "plain English" misrepresents the bill, as I've detailed. Unless you want to claim that providing abortion referrals constitutes "medical care for pregnant women" ... ?
Come on mike, don't be so lazy. Learn what you're talking about!
but this is obviously not true.
the PRC can offer prenatal services, birth control, or a referral to an org that provides birth control.
i'm not aware of any 'limited service pregnancy centers' only providing referrals for abortions.
and i guess since you intentionally skipped the question, you do in fact believe that the dissemination of medically inaccurate information is good for the public. or maybe you think it's a good thing for PRCs to not keep patient information confidential? HIPAA doesn't apply to PRCs.
now that's illogical.
Posted by: mike on January 28, 2010 12:14 AMYou're lying. You cannot quote me saying or implying that. As usual, you're just making things up.
i'm not aware of any 'limited service pregnancy centers' only providing referrals for abortions.
I could not care less what you are aware of, and even if none exist, it's still irrelevant to my point.
and i guess since you intentionally skipped the question ...
It was irrelevant to my point.
you do in fact believe that the dissemination of medically inaccurate information is good for the public
You're a liar. I never said or implied these regulations should not apply to them; in fact, I explicitly stated that if they are reasonable regulations for these, then they should also apply to centers that offer only abortion referrals. Even Bruce agreed with me on this.
Indeed, by arguing against my call for fair treatment of these centers, YOU are the one who is actually arguing for some centers to be exempt from the requirement of disseminating medically accurate information.
tensor: medically accurate information, such as "carrying a pregnancy to term is always more hazardous than a safe, legal abortion"
That's false, obviously. A "safe, legal," and successful abortion always results directly in death of a unique and distinct human life, whereas most pregnancies carried to term do not. This is an undeniable fact. Abortions are obviously more hazardous.
If you mean hazardous to the mother alone, well, that's still debatable (as well as horrifically callous): the psychological damage of abortion is undeniable (and even pro-abortion advocates have recognized it). And even if you mean only physical hazard to the mother, it's futher debatable, as abortion clinics do not keep or report records in such a way that we can reasonably know.
the anti-choice side
This BILL itself is anti-choice: it is trying to dissuade people from making the choice to go to a pro-life clinic. If they really cared about choice -- and obviously they do not -- they would force all clinics to have equal disclosure requirements.
after forty years of hopeless defeat
As a majority of Americans disagree with your call, "may every woman make the choice best for her," you're myopic to believe that any hopeless defeat has ever occurred.
Requiring medicine to be practiced ONLY by those who adhere to professional practice -- such as giving their patients clear and accurate information -- is one of the best functions of a state.
If you really believe that, then you necessarily must agree with ME, because I am the one saying that exempting a clinic that ONLY offers abortion referrals should not be exempted from this law's requirements. By arguing against me and for this law, you're the one arguing that these clinics SHOULD be exempt, ONLY BECAUSE they offer abortion referrals.
Posted by: pudge on January 28, 2010 07:09 AMyour first sentence:
HB 2837 puts additional regulations on some pregnancy centers if they do not offer referrals for abortions.
this is an outright (and unsurprising) lie. they don't have to provide referrals for abortions.
it really only takes 2 seconds to read the bill.
at least try to be a little less intellectually dishonest - you're usually pretty good at that.
Posted by: mike on January 28, 2010 08:23 AMFalse. In fact, it's entirely true.
they don't have to provide referrals for abortions.
Of course not. I never implied they did. But if they don't, then they either need to a. change their entire setup so they offer actual prenatal medical care OR comprehensive birth control services OR abortions, or b. they will be called "limited service pregnancy centers."
Those are the three choices: completely change what services you offer (a massive undertaking), give abortion referrals (a small, but significant, change), or be singled out as a "limited service pregnancy centers."
All of this is obvious to anyone who can actually read: my very clearly expressed point is that "abortion referrals" is not a difference worthy of the distinction between a pregnancy center and a "limited service" pregnancy center; that the ONLY REASON for them to do this is to try to either force pro-life centers to help women get abortions, or to dissuade people from going to pro-life centers in the first place due to all the disclosure nonsense.
Nothing I said is false, misleading, dishonest, incorrect, or inaccurate in any way. And you've not demonstrated otherwise. Instead, you're the one who has repeated lie after lie.
it really only takes 2 seconds to read the bill.
Then how did you get it wrong so badly? Again, YOU falsely said, for example, "in plain english. not providing medical care for pregnant women? then you're a 'limited service pregnancy center'."
And why did you not read my post so you wouldn't so clearly misrepresent what I wrote?
And as *I* said, we have a fundamental principle in this country that everyone (in the same situations) should be required to follow the same laws.
Your sudden desire for full disclosure by everyone is touching
I did not express such a desire. I just said it is obvious anti-anti-abortion for them to single out groups that will not provide abortion referrals. I think these specific disclosures are stupid (more in form than in substance ... anyone who contacts you must be immediately told that laundry list? insanely dumb), but worse, they are clearly designed to single out anti-abortion centers. That should be offensive to everyone, except for the anti-anti-abortion (as opposed to pro-choice) zealots.
just as it is touching to see the Republicans suddenly concerned about protecting Medicare
I am not sure if you are ignorant or dishonest, but the Republicans have NEVER been for just cutting Medicare. Republicans generally and widely believe that the government made promises and must live up to those promises. Many Republicans, like me, believe that Medicare should be phased out over generations, not cut for people currrently receiving benefits.
For example, I'd like to see Medicare and Social Security cut for everyone who is under ... say, 30. Or something like that. And if you're 30-40, you only get a small part of the benefits. If you're 40-50, a bigger part. 50-60, almost all. Over 60, all.
Not an actual proposal here, just saying ... I can't think of a single Republican who at any time in recent years would have been for cutting Medicare benefits for current recipients. The Republican view is usually about cutting it over a long period of time.
But you're not fooling anyone.
I apparently fooled you into thinking that I was for cutting Medicare for current recipients, or for -- or against -- these disclosure provisions.
Precisely -- just as in the ACORN investigation, or any undercover investigation. Have you got a problem with "info"?
Lacking any hard facts, they were just left with making allegations.
Actually, the opposite is true. Before the investigation, all they had were allegations. An investigation produces hard facts.
Since I didn't hear (or read) their testimony, I don't know what they found. But their "biased judge(sic)ment" would apply only to their judgments. Did they testify about the facts of what happened, and if so, are you saying they lied?
Posted by: Bruce on January 30, 2010 03:04 PMI do not know the details, so I am just speaking generally (as you appear to be), but allegations alone do not warrant investigation, in most cases. You actually need evidence. Evidence may include allegations made by someone who can verify they were there, or somesuch, but just random allegations ... no.
Also, while I share your dislike of the spelling of "judgement," it has unfortunately become accepted, and the "sic" is therefore inappropriate.
Indeed, it has a particularly interesting etymology: the British spelling was "judgement," but it was later dropped, primarily in American English; but it has come back, not because of British usage, but because of poor spelling by Americans (such as "truely"). So even before its revival in American English, it would not warrant a "sic" anymore than "colour" would.
That may be true for a criminal investigation, but not for things like the ACORN pimp actors, the state sending minors into stores to try to buy alcohol or tobacco, or this situation, especially if there had been credible allegations in the past.
Thank you for the edification on "judgement". However, pudg, I believe you may be biased and over-reliant on ancient practices, so much so that you fail to recognize the superiority of the American way of doing things. Why do you hate America? :)
Posted by: Bruce on January 30, 2010 04:32 PMHowever, this is not a rational basis for laws sanctioning such centers generally. Did the ACORN thing justify laws against sanctioning ACORN-like organizations? Of course not: only against ACORN itself.
I believe you may be biased and over-reliant on ancient practices
No. I am only describing usage. "Judgment" is still the "most proper" and well-accepted way of spelling, but -- again, unfortunately -- "judgement" has become accepted again, and not primarily because of British spelling.
Although I do realize you were (at least, mostly) joking.
Planned Parenthood is paid for with our taxes.
ProLife centers are not.
So, some pregnancies do kill the woman, and the fetus? I do believe that's the first time I've read an anti-choice advocate admit this. After forty years, you're actually learning something!
However, your claim that a fetus represents "human life" remains at odds with medicine, biology, and our laws, so you have quite a bit of work yet to do. Keep going, you'll enter the late twentieth century by 2100 or so...
As a majority of Americans disagree with your call, "may every woman make the choice best for her," you're myopic to believe that any hopeless defeat has ever occurred.
Got legislation to demonstrate how "a majority of Americans disagree"? I seem to recall this state making four votes over the past forty years, all of them pro-choice. A few years ago, in the Dakotas, a state legislature passed an anti-choice law, touting it as the case to have our Supreme Court overturn Roe. Yet, the voters of that state rejected the law! Have you any advice for such uppity citizens?
Posted by: tensor on January 31, 2010 10:07 PMYou don't get out much. Almost every pro-life advocate notes that they make a "life of the mother" exception. Seriously, you're the one who's been under a rock for "forty years" here.
However, your claim that a fetus represents "human life" remains at odds with medicine, biology
Completely untrue. Again, you've been under a rock. I defy you to explain how it is not, biologically, a human life. I've already explained how it is. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.
I seem to recall this state ...
I explicitly was not talking about this state. Try to keep up.
When I vote, I rely on the state's official voters guide. I read the initiative / referendum (yes, word for word). Then I look at the pro & con statements.
Pro HB 2837: Planned Parenthood, the so-called non-profit who not only charges client fees for abortion, contraception, counseling, etc but gets tax money (yours and mine) handouts from the state and feds
Con HB 2837: So-called limited pregnancy resource centers who NEVER charge their clients, work on shoestring budgets built from voluntary private, not governmental, donations, and their supporters
Follow the money; these pregnancy centers are eroding PP's revenue. Choice? Yeah, right, it's all about choice.
Posted by: Augusta Mia on February 1, 2010 04:52 PMThe antecedent to "this state" is Washington, in the context of an entire post which explicitly talks about a proposed law in Washington state. I was responding to your unsupported claim about "a majority of Americans"; you had given no indication, explicit or implicit, that you had excluded Washingtonians.
Really pudge, every time I look over my shoulder, you're panting more heavily as you fall farther and farther behind. Why not just quit your flailing, take a proper breath, and admit that you're not very good at this?
Posted by: tensor on February 1, 2010 10:04 PMIncorrect. You were, in fact, talking about a claim I never made, about a majority of Washingtonians.
Again: try to keep up.
Which part of that description invalidates the description "non-profit"? Please elaborate.
Follow the money; these pregnancy centers are eroding PP's revenue.
Evidence for which is...?
More likely, these fake clinics are increasing PP's (and other medical providers') workloads, by deceiving vulnerable pregnant women into delaying their informed choices until later in their pregnancies, thus increasing the complications (and costs) of any abortions. (Live births aren't exactly cheap, either.)
Yeah, right, it's all about choice.
Yeah, an informed choice. Why does the anti-choice side fear this enough to deceive a pregnant woman?
Posted by: tensor on February 1, 2010 10:12 PMPlease stop lying, tensor.
deceiving vulnerable pregnant women
Evidence for which is...?
Evidence for which is...?
Exactly the deceptive behaviors the bill seeks to eliminate: using over-the-counter tests without revealing their nature, refusing to inform a potential patient of her right (under Initiative 120, passed by a majority of Washington state's 1991 voters) "to choose or to refuse abortion," and refusing (again, without admitting such) to refer her to an abortion provider, even if she chooses abortion.
So, if a urologist belonged to a cult which believed "the suffering and agony of prostate cancer is God's punishment for man's original sin," you wouldn't want to be informed of this before accepting that urologist's medical advice? He should legally hide his belief from you, even if it meant any potential cancer went untreated for as long as you took his advice?
Posted by: tensor on February 1, 2010 10:23 PMEvidence for which is...?
Posted by: pudge on February 1, 2010 10:39 PMIt would also be interesting for you to explain why it matters that a potential patient is not informed of her legal right to abort her baby, nor referred to someone who will abort her baby.
So what? Show me where anyone was granted the right to be told where they can have an abortion, or even that they can have one at all.
Of course, in answering this, you will only prove my point: "This bill is not about protecting potential clients, it is about trying to harm anti-abortion pregnancy centers, plain and simple." This is all about pushing abortion and pushing harm on people who are against it. Obviously.
Also, you tragically (for you) apparently think that you're making a reasonable point when you compare killing a human to trying to eliminate cancer cells. You're not. There is no biological doubt that the "thing" growing in the womb is a human: it is a complete and distinct organism, of species homo sapiens. No amount of anti-intellectual deceptions can change that fact, and thus make rational your comparison to practices that do NOT kill a human.
If you were honest, you would recognize the fact that it is unlike almost every other medical practice, and that the only question is not whether it is a human (which science has settled) but whether that human gets the same rights as everyone else (which science likely cannot settle).
1. The fact that PRCs are usually not staffed by medical professionals, but usually feature staff dressing up in lab coats attempting to give "medical" advice. On the face of it, this is deceptive, as many of the young women are not informed and/or unable to ascertain that the persons they are dealing with are not medical professionals.
2. The practice of offering free, over the counter pregnancy tests, but then withholding the results for days or even weeks at a time, while contacting the pregnant women during the time the results are withheld.
If the PRCs simply counseled pregnant women about their options (even omitting abortion) and handed over the pregnancy results at the time of the test, I don't think anyone would have a problem. If they were staffed with medical professionals instead of theologians, no one would have a problem. PSCs are, as many have pointed out, privately funded. It's the deception involved that will be their legislative undoing.
Although this particular bill probably won't pass due to the fiscal note.
Posted by: Starks on February 1, 2010 11:37 PMUm, because a reputable medical practitioner will inform his or her patients of all legal medical options? Must I explain this to you in greater detail? (Explanations available upon request, or upon pathetically obvious need.) But, please, do inform us of why a reputable medical professional should deliberately withhold medical information from his or her patient? (And, why such deception should be legal in our state?)
This is all about pushing abortion and pushing harm on people who are against it. Obviously.
This is all about making sure each patient has all reputable medical advice given to her. Obviously.
Also, you tragically (for you) apparently think that you're making a reasonable point when you compare killing a human to trying to eliminate cancer cells. You're not.
Untreated prostate cancer cells can kill their (male) host. An attempt to carry a pregnancy to term can kill the (female) host. Obviously, my equation of male = female is foolish. Care to elaborate?
Again, would you knowingly patronize a urologist who believed that "prostrate cancer is God's punishment for Original Sin?" Should your state not require said urologist to reveal his/her religious views to you?
...it is a human (which science has settled) but whether that human gets the same rights as everyone else (which science likely cannot settle)
Voters in Washington state have settled that issue on four separate occasions, spanning four decades. Why do you hate your fellow Washingtonians?
Posted by: tensor on February 2, 2010 01:24 AMAnd even if it exists, how does it justify sanctions against ALL clinics that don't offer these services, instead of the ones that engage in those practices (again, I mention the ACORN sanctions)?
And even if that is justified, how is it justified -- by anything other than malice toward anti-abortion centers -- to exempt centers that offer the EXACT same services, except for the addition of abortion referrals, where -- under this law -- such pro-abortion centers are free to have people who aren't medical professionals wear lab coats without offering any disclosure that they are not medical professionals and that they offer no medical services?
And no, you're completely wrong that wearing a lab coat is deceptive anyway. That's complete nonsense. If you're handling materials like urine, then wearing a lab coat is reasonable, whether or not you're a medical professional. And you might argue "fine, but some people are stupid and think that means they are a medical professional, so disclosure is warranted," but again, this cannot possibly explain or justify why the same center would be exempt from such disclosure if it offered abortion referrals.
False, obviously. Even if this were normally true -- which it is not -- it certainly wouldn't be true for "medical" practices that are a violation of conscience. That's even worse than saying that any financial counselor in the 1700s would, under circumstances where it might help, suggest that a person buy slaves. (No, I am not saying abortion is as bad as slavery ... I am saying it is WORSE than slavery, because slavery deprives a human of the right to liberty, while abortion deprives a human of the right to life.)
But again, it's not true in even normal cases. I have been to many doctors who have left out potential treatments from a discussion because they didn't agree with the treatment, or because they thought it wouldn't help much in my case, or because they didn't think I would be interested in it. This is very, very, normal, so you're just making things up.
And, why such deception should be legal in our state?
You're a liar, tensor. Withholding information about how to kill your baby is not "deception" ... again, even if the normal practice were to give ALL "legal medical options," a "medical" practice that kills a human life would be different, just like it is not deception to not tell your terminal patient that he now has the right to suicide.
This is all about making sure each patient has all reputable medical advice given to her.
You're a liar. If it were, then it would require abortion information to be provided, or it would include ALL such centers, including ones that merely offer abortion referrals, to have all the same requirements under this bill as ones that do not.
Care to elaborate?
No, I do not care to elaborate on how a HUMAN LIFE is different from a CANCER MASS. If you cannot even understand this basic biological fact, then you're either hopelessly stupid, or, more likely, a liar (more likely because we already know you're a liar).
Voters in Washington state have settled that issue on four separate occasions
Voters deciding that human lives do not get rights RECOGNIZED does not settle whether they actually HAVE those rights. Obviously. Our country did not recognize the rights of slaves, for many years ... those slaves still HAD those unrecognized rights. Our country merely chose to violate those rights. (This is obviously true, unless you believe that the rights of slaves were NOT being violated: your rights cannot be violated unless you HAVE rights.)
Why do you hate your fellow Washingtonians?
I never implied I do. I do, however, hate their callous disregard for human life in the name of personal selfishness.
Cancerous cells in a human body are not human life? Please do explain. We'll judge your knowledge of biology and medicine by your explanation.
Voters deciding that human lives do not get rights RECOGNIZED does not settle whether they actually HAVE those rights.
So, you've now admitted your earlier, unsupported claim about "a majority of Americans" is false? Because you've failed to provide any evidence we agree with you. I've shown how five different elections, with only Americans as the electorate in each case, have flatly contradicted your claims -- and you've now agreed that four of those elections have done just that.
This bill exists because the anti-choice side, having been drubbed in election after election after election, in states as diverse as Washington and South Dakota, for forty long and barren years, has finally resorted to outright deceit. A woman in Washington state has the right "to choose, or to refuse, abortion" (I-120), and nothing you can legally do can deprive her of that right. Any person who claims to operate a medical facility will have to inform her of her rights, thanks to this great new law. I again applaud our legislature, for acting to protect our rights. No higher calling can a legislature answer.
Posted by: tensor on February 2, 2010 11:15 PMObviously.
Please do explain.
They are not a distinct organism (or organisms) of species homo sapiens.
This is not complicated.
Any person who claims to operate a medical facility will have to inform her of her rights
You're a liar. On the contrary, nothing in this bill requires any such thing.
I again applaud our legislature, for acting to protect our rights.
You're a liar. Even if that were in the bill, it would do nothing to protect anyone's rights, because -- self-evidently -- no rights are violated by the inaction of private citizens to inform people of their rights.
It is no more a violation of your rights that I do not inform you of your First Amendment rights, than it is that a pregnancy center does not inform you of your ill-gotten right to kill your baby.
(I skipped most of what you wrote, since it had nothing to do with anything I wrote.)
From the non-partisan committee materials:
"Limited service pregnancy center is defined as an organization that does
not provide prenatal care, comprehensive birth control services, abortion or referrals for
abortion."
So it's a not quite true to say that PRCs are exactly the same as 'exempted' (and by exempted, you are referring to the centers that haven't drawn the medical community's ire for misprepresenting facts and withholding results) clinics minus the abortion issue. The definition is broader.
Also from the non-partisan committee report on PRCs:
"These clinics do not provide abortion or
referral to abortion services. They are not regulated as medical facilities in the state because
they do not provide medical services to pregnant women. Many of these clinics are
associated with churches or religious organizations. There is concern these facilities may not be fully disclosing their anti-abortion focus to prospective clients. There is further concern they are communicating misleading or false information regarding abortion and that health
information about women may be disseminated without their consent."
These concerns mentioned in the non-partisan report were represented in written and spoken testimony by the Washington State Nurses Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists, both of which testified regarding the misrepresentation of non-medically trained staff as medical experts and the practice of delaying result transmission. You can either believe these sources or not.
However, let's just assume for a second that an amendment it offered and ALL pregnancy centers must list what services they provide. This seems reasonable.
At this point, how can you defend the withholding of instant pregnancy results and the prevalence of non-experts giving medical advice in the PRCs as sited in the committee report and testified to by the medical experts?
You should note that there was no medical professional testimony stating that the 'exempted' abortion referral clinics were giving incorrect information or using staff to pose as medical experts. If this were indeed happening, don't you think the Con side would've rounded some testimony up? Don't you think the Washington State Nurses Association or the American gynecological professionals would be peeved about it? Or do you just see these groups as fronts for abortion as well?
In fact, the only people testifying against the bill were politicians, folks who run PRCs and lay people. No medical professionals or womens health advocates were present to present any benefits the PRCs provide for women.
So if PRCs give bad medical advice and withhold instant pregnancy tests for days or weeks, why are you defending them?
Surely you can admit that the anti-abortion argument could be better represented by more reputable outlets. Say, an outlet that isn't built on deception and delay? Or are you okay with giving a pregnant teen a free instant pregnancy test and then ferreting away the results for an indeterminate amount of time while she is counseled by unqualified personnel spouting innaccurate information?
Posted by: Starks on February 3, 2010 12:46 AMTake two pregnancy centers. Neither one offers prenatal care, comprehensive birth control services, or abortions. But one offers abortion referrals, and the other does not. This act of offerring such referrals makes that center exempt from the regulations of this bill.
I am asking someone to explain how this is justified. So far, no one has done so.
Further, there is no rational and legitimate government concern that a center is anti-abortion. There's nothing in our law, nor in our tradition -- medical or legal -- that justifies government taking action because a center is anti-abortion and not "fully disclosing" that ... even if it's true. So the concern that "these facilities may not be fully disclosing their anti-abortion focus to prospective clients" is utterly an irrelevant concern for the state, unless that lack of disclosure somehow constitutes fraud, which it doesn't on its face. You need more than a lack of disclosure for a claim of fraud in this case.
However, let's just assume for a second that an amendment it offered and ALL pregnancy centers must list what services they provide. This seems reasonable.
Well, the disclosures themselves are nonsense. Having it be prominently displayed on the home page, on the wall, on a flyer, and told to every first contact with a prospective client? Ridiculous. This is designed to scare people away. That said, yes, if it should be forced on one center, it should be forced on all centers that do not provide medical services, including those that merely offer abortion referrals. It's otherwise unfair (and perhaps unconstitutionally so).
At this point, how can you defend the withholding of instant pregnancy results and the prevalence of non-experts giving medical advice
I never did. On the contrary, I a. asked for evidence that it happened, and b. asserted that if it IS happening, it justifies sanctions only against the centers guilty of such practices, rather than against all similar centers "just in case" they might be guilty of such practices.
You should note that there was no medical professional testimony stating that the 'exempted' abortion referral clinics were giving incorrect information or using staff to pose as medical experts.
There's also no testimony stating that all centers that do not offer abortion referrals etc. were giving incorrect information or using staff to pose as medical experts. You're making my case for me here.
This is being used by pro-abortion legislators and their pro-abortion allies to punish anti-abortion centers, otherwise it would include pro-abortion centers too, or it would be targetted only at the clinics guilty of supposed wrongdoing, rather than all of these centers that oppose abortion.
This is why I mentioned, earlier, the First Amendment implications. In the end, a center is being punished with these restrictions simply because it does not offer abortion referrals: if it DID, it would be exempt from the restrictions of the law.
Again, we have a fundamental principle in our system that everyone is under the same laws. Saying to two nearly identical clinics, neither of which has any evidence of wrongdoing against it, that one does not have to obey certain regulations, but another does, simply because one does not offer abortion referrals ... it's patently unfair.
So if PRCs give bad medical advice and withhold instant pregnancy tests for days or weeks, why are you defending them?
To sum up, I am asserting the fact, Starks, that you have no evidence that the centers covered by this law are doing what you say. You MAY have evidence -- unpresented here despite multiple requests -- that some are doing what you say, but unless you have evidence that all are, you are not actually defending this legislation with this argument; on the contrary, you're just helping to highlight how (intentionally) unfair the legislation is.
Take three centers: center A does not offer abortion referrals and has been proven deceptive. Center B also does not offer abortion referrals, but there is no evidence of deception by them. Center C offers abortion referrals, and likewiese, there is no proof of deception.
The argument offered by Starks and others, as implemented in the text of this bill, is that center C should be exempt from the regulations of this bill because there is no evidence of deception by them, and that center A should be regulated by this bill because there is, supposedly, evidence against them.
But they happily include center B under those regulations too, despite there likewise being no evidence of deception by them, either.
The trigger for including center B under this bill is not that they did anything wrong, as has been claimed, but simply and only because they are anti-abortion.
This is, again, patently unfair, and it demonstrates that this really is about harming anti-abortion pregnancy centers.