Billboard for a Crisis Pregnancy Center

With a recent Supreme Court ruling, anti-abortion centers are now free to advertise their services without any disclaimers.


The Supreme Court has granted controversial “crisis pregnancy centers” new freedom to operate without mandatory disclaimers about their views on abortion.

These pregnancy centers – many of which are run by religious organizations – frequently pose as medical clinics, though they don’t offer medical advice. Instead, their aim is to get women in the door and persuade them not to get abortions.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a California law which sought to prevent these anti-abortion centers from masquerading as legitimate women’s health clinics violated their First Amendment rights and was therefore unconstitutional.

A protest outside a fake abortion clinicCenters for Treatment, or Deception?

Roughly 2,700 pregnancy centers have popped up across the country in recent years, eventually outnumbering clinics that provide abortions by three to one.

They might seem innocuous at first, but concerning details began to emerge that these religiously-motivated pregnancy centers were employing deceptive practices to lure women into their facilities. First of all, many use confusing names – such as “Pregnancy Care Center” or “Center for Pregnancy Choices” – which mimic those used by actual medical clinics.

Once women are inside, employees pose as medical professionals – complete with white lab coats and surgical scrubs – but they offer no viable alternatives aside from carrying unwanted pregnancies to term. They also routinely fail to inform women about free pregnancy-related services available elsewhere – from prenatal and delivery care, to birth control, to abortion services.

To make matters worse, these “professionals” provide verifiably false information – such as abortion being linked to breast cancer and other health problems. They also lecture women and make every attempt to shame them into keeping the child – whether they are prepared to care for it or not.

California Fights Back

When California legislators were presented with this evidence back in 2015, they passed a law called the Reproductive FACT Act to combat such predatory behavior.

The law required “crisis pregnancy centers” to disclose to their clients, both in writing and throughout their advertisements, that they refused to offer medical services such as abortions. They were also required to provide references for other organizations that do offer such services.

But anti-abortion organizations viewed the law as harsh and authoritarian – arguing it was essentially a mandate from the government that dictated what they were and were not allowed to say. They were ecstatic when the nation’s highest court agreed with them.

Strong Reactions

Unsurprisingly, reactions to the ruling were passionate on both sides. “One vote made all the difference today, and it could also be the only thing between upholding Roe v. Wade or outlawing legal abortion in America,” declared NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue. “Fake women’s health centers, with the rest of the well-funded and well-connected anti-choice movement, have been working towards this moment for decades.”

Pro-life activists who saw the law as unconstitutional, meanwhile, praised the Supreme Court for allowing these pregnancy centers to deliver a firm Christian message unimpeded by restrictive laws. Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, wrote:

“To be clear, this case was not about abortion. Malicious abortion politics definitely were the motivation behind it, but the case centered on the inappropriate mandate of the state compelling pro-life clinics to promote abortion in violation of their consciences. The case was about forced speech.”

What Does It Mean Moving Forward?

In defending free speech, the Supreme Court has inadvertently signed off on the highly-suspect practice of luring unsuspecting women into facilities purposely designed to confuse and deceive.

A good argument, it’s often said, should be able to stand on its own merits. If their side really is right, pro-life groups shouldn’t have to rely on deception to get their way. Why not just present your case and let women decide?

And from a faith perspective, religion certainly has its place in this debate. However, it only seems fair that women be granted the right to know whether the “health worker” trying to talk them out of an abortion truly has their best medical interests in mind, or is simply doing God’s work – consequences be damned.

Your thoughts?

 

43 comments

  1. David Lay says:

    What about the consequences of murdering an unborn child? I agree that truth is important, but life and the woman’s mental health is equally important.

    1. Alan Meunier says:

      In your bible life doesn’t start “until first breath”. In your bible, not only is abortion condoned it also gives concise instructions as to why and how. Is your bible incorrect?

      1. bob fluetsch says:

        Where in the Bible does it condone and give instruction on abortion? Where?

        1. Rev. Cosimo says:

          Agreed, please provide a fact or actual scripture. Hear say does not apply.

        2. SeekerOfTruth says:

          Seriously? Numbers 5:11-31

      2. John Owens says:

        Actually, that is a misinterpretation of the Bible. It does speak of those with the breath of life in their nostrils, but Jeremiah was known to God in the womb. Jesus and John recognized one another while in their mothers’ wombs. Then there are Esau and Jacob, Ephraim and Manasseh, both of whom were sets of non-identical twins that competed in the womb. Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist were sanctified from conception. Isaac was destined before conception to be the father of the chosen lineage. Just pointing those things out. I am curious where you think it gives instructions on abortion.

    2. T'Keren Valmaz says:

      Typical tripe spewing from blind devotion to a book rewritten countless times over 2 thousand years. Considering even a violent murder of a pregnant woman can only add a 2nd count for the unborn when it is developed enough to have lived outside the womb no sane person with even a basic understanding of the medical facts can call abortion a murder.

    3. J says:

      Part 1, Unborn child? Concerned for the health of? Oh, the mentality of humans… Always wanting to extinguish the fire from the most illogical points. IE; Cutting the tree down one leaf at a time. Mowing the grass w/ tweezers. Unfortunately there may be a time when aborting a growing life (Yes, the sperm & egg are both living organisms that have cellular intelligence to create & become) may be necessary / emergency based / rape, etc. Why is it that humans are unable to solve many of its problems at the root? The true problem here is at the base of the tree. Have no interest in children? Use a condom, get neutered / spayed. Many of these abortions are preventable by the egos having control over there actions that manifest short term gratification & forgetting the long term consequences. One can NOT regulate stupidity.

    4. J says:

      Part 2… I believe women Do have the right to choose, its their (good or bad) kuleana / karma & for universal laws of cause & effect to handle as they do. On a side note… But, what is “LIFE”? Is there LIFE on mars? OH, they may have found an amoeba or a single cell (dormant or not). That constitute life on another planet? Then what is a grapefruit size collection of “cells” in the human body classed as ? BTW, MEN, be responsible where you shoot your living cells / seeds w/ wisdom & discretion or you become part of the problem of HER aborting it.

  2. Rev. Theo. Klebes says:

    Fasten your seatbelts, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride!

    1. J says:

      Bumpy ride ? LOL… Thats what he said when he realized he should have used a condom or spilled the seed w/ a bit more discretion & wisdom.

  3. James says:

    Typical ,liberals hate Equality. Alan ,if you have no faith, why use snippets of a book to point out you point .Read the whole book and then you might figure out the order and importance of each book. After all, why read something you hate! If you’re a minister, is hate part of you? If so then why? Smile brother God has allowed you to breath air. It could be worse than being born in the greatest country in earth . Where you can express your beliefs. Unlike places where they chop off things for not believing the one religion! I mean your mom could have aborted you if the laws would have left her…..

  4. Diane Baum says:

    I read this and thought, “what? Planned Parenthood is so saintly?” Really, that road goes BOTH ways! Pregnancy Centers can now admit they are all about saving the child, the CHILD! Isn’t that what lives inside a mother for nine months? It isn’t a “thing” to get rid of at will, it is a gift from God. I say, “Yes!” Let it be! After all, it is supposedly a woman’s right to choose, yes? So why sugar coat it either way? She is a grown up, she can choose. I choose LIFE. And hopefully, so will every one else. May God be with you.

    1. T'Keren Valmaz says:

      They are not pregnancy centers you self righteous zealot and false christian spewing your venom and forgetting all that a christian is meant to be.

      They are Con Centers. places full of deceivers that clearly serve the lord of lies not the lord of love.

    2. SeekerOfTruth says:

      Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than all other efforts combined.

      Planned Parenthood prevents more late term abortions than all other efforts combined.

      Religious groups cause abortions.

      Abortion In the Netherlands

      In the Netherlands, abortion is freely available on demand. Yet the Netherlands boasts the lowest abortion rate in the world, and the complication and death rates for abortion are minuscule. How do they do it? First of all, contraception is widely available and free — it’s covered by the national health insurance plan. Holland also carries out extensive public education on contraception, family planning, and sexuality. Of course, some people say that teaching kids about sex and contraception will only encourage them to have lots of sex. But Dutch teenagers tend to have less frequent sex, starting at an older age, than American teenagers, and the Dutch teenage pregnancy rate is 6 times lower than in the U.S.

      1. J says:

        Seeker has good words. Netherlands is actually doing something at the ROOT of the problem. There is some question as to their effectiveness in the actual %. But, here-nor-there the Netherlands % (no matter where they are) are vastly more effectiveness and working FAR better than the US… https://gynopedia.org/Netherlands .

  5. John Owens says:

    Yeah, you really can’t spot any bias in this article, can you? Gag.

    1. T'Keren Valmaz says:

      You know there was a time in this world a saner time when people pretending to be doctors and the like were considered to be committing a criminal act of fraud.

      This really isnt about abortions or if you agree with them or not, its about people putting on a false front, no different then in any other con game, and manipulating people through deception.

      A person seeking sound medical advice should be able to reliably find that advice without wondering if the person dressed up like a doctor is actually a medically trained specialist.

      Those who wish to offer counsel from the spiritual perspective should be honest in that approach. If they called their centers the spiritual crisis center for confused and distraught women Id have no issue as that would be honest.

      But these people, these people are monsters no different and just as bad as someone say for example claiming to be a LEO to force a woman to consent to a pat down or the like.

      Its clearly fraud but ofcourse honesty doesnt seem to be a virtue in the eyes of zealots practicing hypocrisy at its most blatant.

      1. John Owens says:

        I really have no experience to inform me about these clinics. I have been informed that the PP clinics really never did anything but abortions– no mammograms or anything else, and in some states, not near enough to a hospital in case something went wrong. I don’t think a person’s religious OR political values should give them the right or moral justification to commit vandalism or criminal negligence, medical malpractice or outright fraud. I’m just saying, this article is so biased that “article” is not the name for it. This a hit piece, like most articles have become. I mean these hit pieces are posted here so that we can argue over them, but I don’t think they qualify as “articles” if you can tell on which side the author is.

        1. T'Keren Valmaz says:

          J.O. you do understand that even main stream news outlets have what are called opinion pieces right? Nor has the ULC ever claimed to be other then what it is. A nondenominational ministry that holds up the right to be free, have enough to eat, and make our own choices when it comes to sexuality and intimacy.

          Those that oppose these things, such as closed minded bible thumper types that label women as property of their husbands, having enough to eat as a privilege of the wealthy rather then a social duty of those with to aid those without with classic sayings such as those that cant afford to feed shouldnt breed, and call people abominations and wicked souless sinners for their sexual orientation are indeed the enemy.

          For it is on these rights we who truly are in mind and heart ministers of of this Universe and all that watch the sun rise and wander under the sky within it will not bend upon nor yield to those that would have otherwise.

          As for abortion, personally as I have said before I am a proponent of eugenics and using gene therapy, retro viruses, and even one day nano machines made of protein to make the best possible form of human we can. And one day far in the future replacing our species with sentient machines that will endure for virtually ever and allow those descended from us and built in our image to roam into the farthest reaches of the universe and see things and walk on worlds we cant even imagine doing in our frail meat suits.

          1. John Owens says:

            No, T’Keren. ULC has not claimed to be OTHER than what it is, but it also doesn’t exactly claim to be what it really IS. It appears to be another front for the so-called progressive movement, following right along with NPR.

            I am not in favor of uncontrolled population growth. My grandparents on both sides had many children. My parents and their siblings had families about half the size of the ones into which they were born, and my wife and I had two children. The woman I married 9 years after my wife’s death also had two children. The propagandizing we received growing up convinced us not to have a house full of children.

            That propaganda did not reach many of the immigrants to our country, nor did it have the effect of reaching a lot of minority neighborhoods, where the original planned parenthood proponents were worried about. I don’t know if Margaret Sanger was jaded, pessimistic, prejudiced, or what was her story, but if planned “parenthood” (actually planned non-parenthood) would work on a message that actually prevented pregnancies instead of live births, a LOT more people could get behind it, and could prevent a lot more pregnancies for the same amount of money spent.

        2. SeekerOfTruth says:

          > “I have been informed that the PP clinics really never did anything but abortions– no mammograms or anything else, and in some states, not near enough to a hospital in case something went wrong.”

          Someone lied to you. Many of the clinics shut down by threats from insane people never have performed abortions. Even for those which do, it is a minor part of the procedures they perform.

          They provide medical services for people who cannot afford or cannot access doctor or hospital care.

          1. John Owens says:

            That is what they SAY they do, Seeker. Have you actually entered one of those clinics? I have not. It was on the news on television that most of them do not even have the equipment for mammograms. I don’t know.

      2. Judith Waldrop says:

        Planned parenthood pretends to be a women’s health center, but in reality that are abortion clinics. Try to get a mammogram or Pap smear at one.

  6. kathleen kelley says:

    .BURN IN HELL YOU BLASPHEMOUS FOOLS THERE IS NOT ONE MENTION IN THE BIBLE OF ABORTION ALTHO THERE ARE NUMEROUS MENTIONS OF “THE QUICKENING”” THE TIME WHEN A SOUL FIRST INHABITS THE BODY WITHIN A MOTHER. PRETENDING ALL THAT DOESN’T EXIST, EH? YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A CHOICE FOR ANOTHER PERSON. I’M A PERSON WHO CHOSE NOT TO HAVE AN ABORTION WHEN IT WAS RECOMMENDED, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE IF I’D BEEN RAPED THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST THING I’D HAVE DONE AND I’D HAVE TRUSTED PLANNED PARENTHOOD TO DO IT. THEY GAVE ME ALL THE MEDICAL CARE I GOT WHEN I WAS A YOUNG TEENAGER LIVING ON MY OWN AND ALWAYS TREATED ME WITH RESPECT. YOU PEOPLE TERRORIZE PEOPLE AND DEMAND THEY GIVE BIRTH WHETHER OR NOT SOME MALE FILTH RAPED THEM OR NOT. NO WOMAN SHOULD BE FORCED TO BEAR THE FILTHY SPAWN OF A RAPIST OR DIE BECAUSE HER BODY HAS BEEN WORN OUT BY SOME PSYCHO MALE WHO THINKS MAKING BABIES SHOWS HOW STUDLY HE IS. WHEN YOU PEOPLE BEGIN ASSURING THAT EVERY CHILD BORN HAS A HOME, FOOD, SHELTER, MEDICAL CARE AND EDUCATION, THEN I MIGHT LISTEN TO YOUR SO CALLED RATIONALE. RIGHT NOW YOU ARE USING GIVING BIRTH AS A WAY TO MANIPULATE, DISGRACE AND PUNISH WOMEN FOR SOMETHING A MAN DID. REVOLTING.

    1. John McAllister says:

      Actually, the Bible is rather blunt. Right off,in Genesis, we are clearly told to “Be fruitful and multiply.” It isn’t speaking about having sex for fun. And, here we have all sorts of problems. Abortion, birth control, masturbation, homosexuality, and so on. Of course, you hit on something.

      Men.

      Men rarely have to care for the baby the way a woman does. The courts only recognize child support for the baby.

      Men also have a problem with male homosexuality. When it comes to women, men seem to think she just needs a good man to change her. They are terrified of gay men. I see the same thing about prostate exams, so…

      Abortion can happen naturally. It is the same thing for “birth control” and homosexuality. Yet, we accept natural abortion by not homosexuality? The way I hear it, gays don’t choose this, they are like this the same way we are. Why can’t we accept them in the same way? And, many a man and woman is sterile, but we don’t condemn them, why?

      Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m against abortion. Maybe it’s good that I’m male, huh? But, shouldn’t this be the woman’s choice? It is her body. She has to deal with the abortion or raising the child. If it is mine, then I should have a say. But, if the man isn’t around, it is her call. Forced pregnancies happen all the time and most people have problems with them. So, what is the difference here? She isn’t forced to get pregnant, but she IS forced to keep it. I call foul on that.

      The way I see it, we can’t just take the Bible without looking at a bigger picture. At the time of the OT, centuries ago, multiplying made sense. Today, not so much. We didn’t have all the problems we do then, either. Most have accepted birth control, which is against the Bible. When there is a family to care for the child, a home to shelter it, and it will be protected, then we can push for accepting the child. But, when none of this is there, is it fair to bring it into the world? Honestly, everyone screams about saving its life but no one is there for it in its time of need.

      No where, that I recall, does the Bible suggest raising a child outside of the family. In the past, we had strong family units. Where are they today? Without a family to support and raise a child, what does it have? We don’t even have a strong support system for orphans. Is it just me or is something very wrong here?

      The way I see it, we should give the woman the CHOICE, presenting both sides fairly. Let her decide. Take in medical factors, income, family, and all that. Then, we SUPPORT her in her choice. She, after all, has to live with it. In the end, all we can do is go before the Creator with our conscience and be judged. Aren’t we told to not judge others?

      1. J says:

        It does say “be fruitful & multiply”. The way humans are living, acting & treating this planet. I think we missed the mark on the spirit of the intent of “be fruitful”. It has become materialistically egotistical.

    2. J says:

      I think it is Psalm 100:3) reads something to the effect of ~”Life is a gift of God / Love. It should be cherished. It should be nourished. It should be protected”~. (Exodus 20:13) states something to the effect of ~”You shall not murder”~. (Proverbs 24:11-12) states something to the effect of… ~”Hold back those staggering toward slaughter”~… Lets see? What is “life”? They may have found life on Mars. Altho microscopic, they class it as LIFE none-the-less. Sperm is living organism (soul or not) that has the cellular epigenitic knowledge to peruse its partner & perform its duties. The egg is a living cell that has the ability to germinate into production of a larger being. Does the bible use the verbiage of “abort, pro-life” or the like? If one sets their personal phaneron aside and thinks like the orignal writers may have 2k years ago there are verses that could be viewed as taking sides. As I see it, biblical teaching take sides. Using 2k year old etymology. That is emotional, mental, physical & spiritual murder, thou shall not kill. With that said; This is a planet where one life form MUST consume another to survive. Balance & understand the paradox of the teachings and one will be a true master. BTW… Kathlene K… Abortions are NOT a clear cut Y/N. Rape, incest, medical dangers or the like should be taken into acct. There are times it may be needed to terminate cellular life (soul or not). But, may it be suggested you employ discretion in cancerous angers as it is a form of emotional murder. No matter how wrong or right others may be.

    3. J says:

      Terrorize ppl? There is nothing to fear.. but fear it self. Ezekiel 34:11-24 or John 10:1-21 reads something to the effect of ~ Tho I walk thru a valley of death-shade, I fear no evil. At the true core. Fear is a choice, many times programmed.

  7. Gerry says:

    Women should have the right to choose, despite my own misgivings about the issue.

  8. Dark Gray says:

    Don’t most states have laws against practicing medicine without a license? If “employees pose as medical professionals – complete with white lab coats and surgical scrubs” in a self-described “clinic”, it seems to me this isn’t a free-speech issue.

    1. T'Keren Valmaz says:

      Exactly, as Ive said above, this isnt about abortion,its about fraudulent behavior. People using deception to manipulate others for their own ends. Its disgusting and needs to be ended.

  9. Jim says:

    If they are advertising that they counsel woman on pregnancy and only try and manipulate them to keep the baby without giving them legal options then they are wrong. I’m against abortions but they are legal and as long as they are the person seeking advice should be given all the options available. That said a place called Planed Parenthood is a bit off considering from what I have read and been told pushes abortions. This to should be shut down and Neither should get Government funding.

    1. SeekerOfTruth says:

      > That said a place called Planed Parenthood is a bit off considering from what I have read and been told pushes abortions.

      You were lied to. None of this is true.

      > This to should be shut down and Neither should get Government funding.

      Then poor women will get no care and will die along with the fetus.

      1. Jim says:

        There are medical programs in this country for the poor therefore that is not true. If there is an emergency and you go to a hospital you could be broke, illegal what have you the hospital must treat you they cannot by law turn you away. I will check out what I can on PP

  10. John Owens says:

    I still say that if people are REALLY concerned about women’s physical and emotional health, as a society we should address promiscuity, and underage promiscuity in particular. Unwanted pregnancy is totally avoidable, and should be almost totally eliminated among women under the age of 18.

    To a large extent, that would necessitate the cooperation of MALES from 13 to about 30 or so, and that would require some rather forceful coercion from society, which society obviously does not have the intestinal fortitude to practice.

    Abortion should actually be about 1% of what it is. I cannot comprehend how a society allows its males to go around impregnating its young females with no intentions of being a parent to their offspring. It is a recipe for poverty and dependence, or ABORTION, which is only treating the symptom, and not the cause. Runaway promiscuity is actually the elephant in the room that no one wants to address. We sit around arguing and judging one another over our positions on abortion, while the kids are just out banging away, creating a bigger mess for the future.

    Did I mention the chances of contracting an STD? STAGGERING in this day and age. Considered a fact of life by many. If people want HEALTH, they need to be very selective about partners, because virae are not selective about their hosts or their victims. I know our standards are not what they were 60 years ago, and people were cheating even then. Still, if you are with a different person every week or almost every week, that is a LOT of people in a year. If they are doing the same thing, one could easily come into contact, virally speaking, with 500 to 2500 people in a year, and if they have been with 30 -50 people in their lives, it just grows exponentially, until you are risking exposing yourself to the viruses of a fourth of the planet or so.

    I know, everyone knows all that, but for some reason, we don’t mention it much. Why is that? Are we afraid of offending one another? I’m not sure, but I’ll just repeat, if we care about the fictitious political football known as “healthcare”, we should really care about sexual promiscuity. That is not a religious point of view. That is a healthcare point of view. Any ideas?

    1. Diane Baum says:

      You’ve hit the nail on the head here and I applaud you. It is true that this IS the elephant in the room. Because you see, if abstinence once again were taught in the schools as a part of sex ed (like it was when I was in school) what would happen is that PP would likely go out of business–and a big business it is!. Parents then MUST teach their sons and daughters all about respect for their bodies m(again as I was when I was a kid and did for my own kids!) To respect your body means that you control those natural urges just because it is the right thing to do! And respecting your own body means that others will also respect you and you, they. Today we have those who willingly give that up because they are “looking” for something to fill an empty space, be it “love” because they haven’t received it at home, be it attention, be it any number of things. There is an emptiness of the soul that goes far beyond what we could talk about here.

      1. SeekerOfTruth says:

        > what would happen is that PP would likely go out of business–and a big business it is!

        Nonsense. Most of what Planned Parenthood does is to care for the medical needs of poor women. Legal abortion is a small part of this.

        And ‘Christians’ fight against all sex education in schools. The Trump government is banning everything except your suggestion (“control those natural urges”) which has failed everywhere and every time it has been tried.

        1. Jim says:

          Where have you seen or heard that the Trump government is banning Sex Ed?. Just curious

        2. John Owens says:

          Seeker of Truth, all information available is contrary to PP meeting “medical needs” of poor women. They don’t do anything but abortion, which admittedly CAN be a medical need, but that is all they do. Who are you trying to kid?

  11. SeekerOfTruth says:

    Here in Canada, a very interesting experiment has been going on with regards to abortion (well, I see it as an experiment). The DOOMSDAY scenario for Republicans has been law in Canada for decades – NO restrictions on abortion whatsoever (we are the only Western country to have this policy). Practically speaking, if you want a 33-week abortion, any doctor you see will just deliver a live baby (barring fetal abnormalities, disease, health of the mother, etc.), but in removing basically all barriers to abortion (I say “basically” because there are some provinces in which abortion providers are few and far between, so that’s a barrier) what has happened? Do people with normal, healthy pregnancies get 25 or 30-week abortions?

    Obviously the answer is no. Because abortion is available and easy to access for the vast majority of Canadian women, it is only the abnormal pregnancies that are terminated in the late second and third trimesters. Terminations by people who don’t actually want a baby (as opposed to those by people who want a baby, but not a baby with a debilitating disease who will suffer and die quickly) typically happen within a few weeks of the discovery of pregnancy. For example, 2015 statistics list (this data is for hospital-provided abortions only; data excludes Quebec):

    – 31.1% of abortions happen at 9 weeks or less*

    – 36.9% happen between 9-12 weeks

    – 29.5% happen between 12-21 weeks

    – 2.5% happen from 21 weeks and up

    Data for clinics skews much more to the earlier terminations, so much so that it is estimated that in total, just 1 in ~170 abortions (0.59%) in Canada is performed after 21 weeks**.

    So abortion is accessible, free (well, if you live a long way from a clinic or hospital, your travel costs might add up), and without barriers (like unnecessary ultrasounds, speeches from doctors on “alternatives” and risks that aren’t actually scientifically valid, waiting periods in case you change your mind). Not only that, but sex ed is generally pretty comprehensive in Canada (though Alberta law permits a parent to prevent their child from learning sex ed if they want…Alberta – Canada’s Texas) so people know about condoms and other birth control, which lowers the chance of pregnancy in the first place. And a new development – certain provinces (BC, NB, PQ, ON, MB, AB, and possibly others, those are just the ones I could find quickly) have made Myfegymiso (abortion pill) available for free, reducing the number of hospital and clinic abortions (these pills are only safe and effective up to 10 weeks or so, though some people have used it slightly later than that with success). Therefore so-called late-term abortions are almost unheard of (and when they do happen, it’s for a good reason).

    The experiment has produced results that I think Americans should pay attention to. By making abortion easy to access, you don’t NEED to ban it in the second and third trimester. Nobody (at least nobody who learns of their pregnancy within 6 months of conception…I guess some people might not figure it out) decides to have a late-term abortion unless there is a medical reason – ease of access means that anyone who wants an abortion can have one MUCH earlier. Now clearly, the Christian Right won’t care about any of this because their collective goal isn’t the reduction of late-term abortions in favour of earlier ones – instead, they want to ban abortion outright, no exceptions (well, the morally consistent ones say “no exceptions” anyway). But the non-fundamentalist crowd generally sees abortion as something that should be accessible to women under at least some circumstances – these people make up the vast majority of Americans. And yet, studies show that only a tiny fraction of them would support a policy such as we have in Canada. Hopefully, knowing that the Canadian approach towards reproductive health and legislation has produced the very results which they want policy to achieve (far less unwanted pregnancies, especially teen pregnancies, AND hardly any third-trimester abortions) will move more Americans to the extreme position here. There are very few times I can say that I agree with libertarians – they are generally idealists who feel that less government is always a good thing*** – but I am quite convinced that governments should let any pregnant person have an abortion without condition or caveat (i.e. in this particular instance, the libertarian impulse is correct). And I think they should be free (and there goes my libertarian cred).

    Basically, proper sex ed, ease of access to doctors, cheap or free birth control, and the ability to make an appointment for an abortion at a clinic or hospital, arrive there at the appointed time, and an hour or two later leave not pregnant without paying a dime all work in concert to keep abortion rates down, and late-term abortion rates almost zero.

    *Gestational ages based on last menstrual period (LMP)

    **Source: arcc-cdac dot ca /backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

    ***There are exceptions to this of course.

    1. T'Keren Valmaz says:

      Well spoken Seeker. You would be a worthy barer of the sword imo.

    2. John Owens says:

      Wow! Sounds like the Guess Who’s Artificial Paradise!

Leave a Comment