Fake Pregnancy Clinic stalks girl - Shows "Pro-life" Christians for what they are

[BenBurch]

Absolutely Hideous;

http://www.alternet.org/rights/35545/


<snip>
According to a recent Planned Parenthood email, a 17-year-old girl mistakenly walked into a crisis pregnancy center thinking it was Planned Parenthood, which was next door. "The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their 'other office' (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby)."

When she showed up for her nonexistent appointment, she was met by the police, who had been erroneously tipped that a minor was being forced to abort. The crisis pregnancy center staff followed up this harassment by staking out the girl's house, phoning her father at work, and even talking to her classmates about her pregnancy, urging them to harass her.
<snip>


There just are not words.

[TheAnachronism]

That whole article kind of sickened me. It even took place in my own state, not that that's shocking.

[BenBurch]

That whole article kind of sickened me. It even took place in my own state, not that that's shocking.

If it makes you feel better, there is a clinic exactly like that; Same Name even, and the same adverts, here is South Elgin, IL. I think we need to set up a picket.

[fuelair]

I think I like Alter Net. They even had an ad up top for Otronicon which is cool and which my wife works with!!

Would like to see the fake clinic staff there. Clearly identified. Suspect they would leave some unhappy. (Otronicon is upper floors/)

[Complexity]

What despicable people they are.

[Morrigan]

I am starting to really love my country now.

Waht disgusting, sickening dishonest douchebags. :mad:

[m_huber]

This is the first I have heard of any incident like this. I have many friends who have worked in "crisis pregnancy centers," and they always gave me the impression that they were simply trying to convince women to give the child up for adoption. I didn't know that they used deceitful tactics like that.

[BenBurch]

This is the first I have heard of any incident like this. I have many friends who have worked in "crisis pregnancy centers," and they always gave me the impression that they were simply trying to convince women to give the child up for adoption. I didn't know that they used deceitful tactics like that.

I have heard quite a few similar tales, but they have always been FOAFs. Now I am prepared to believe them all.

[Beerina]

Why are they not in jail for giving a fraudulent claim to police?

[Father Dagon]

Hope that PP sues those bastards blind.

[BenBurch]

Why are they not in jail for giving a fraudulent claim to police?

You know why;

Republicans, Conservatives, and the Über-religious can do literally anything and skate.

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Atheists get crucified even for non-events like oral sex (in private) with another consenting adult.

That's the rules here in the good old USA, and I don't expect they will change unless they are changed by force.

[ponderingturtle]

Why are they not in jail for giving a fraudulent claim to police?

Seems two reasons. One it is a realtively minor crime, and two that it could well be difficult to prove who made the call.

[ceo_esq]

I have heard quite a few similar tales, but they have always been FOAFs. Now I am prepared to believe them all.

If so, one could be forgiven for suspecting that you're the sort of person who is prepared to believe anything. Same goes for everyone else on this thread who reacted so uncritically to this story. Have any of the details (such as they are) of Planned Parenthood's tale been independently confirmed in any media source? I can't find anything on LEXIS. The original source seems to be a Planned Parenthood propaganda outlet, and even if PP's reputation for honesty were completely unsullied, that's just not enough to take this yarn at face value.

This forum should be setting an example of skepticism and critical thinking. We need to try harder.

[WildCat]

If so, one could be forgiven for suspecting that you're the sort of person who is prepared to believe anything. Same goes for everyone else on this thread who reacted so uncritically to this story. Have any of the details (such as they are) of Planned Parenthood's tale been independently confirmed in any media source? I can't find anything on LEXIS. The original source seems to be a Planned Parenthood propaganda outlet, and even if PP's reputation for honesty were completely unsullied, that's just not enough to take this yarn at face value.

This forum should be setting an example of skepticism and critical thinking. We need to try harder.
I agree, my BS detector was wailing loudly at that story.

I also noticed that the story is nearly 2 years old, more should be known about this by now if it was true.

[korenyx]

Why are they not in jail for giving a fraudulent claim to police?


Here in Wichita our lovely protesters try to get clinic workers and escorts arrested and charged with battery. The protesters touch the clinic workers then say they were assaulted. :mad:

The message? Trying to keep someone from getting right in your face violates their free speech and if you feel threatened you better not do anything! :crowded:

[quixotecoyote]

Without resorting to the broad brush, this seems fairly typical of anti-abortion tactics. These nutters are (hopefully) fringe but they're still prevalent and scary.

It's not out of the ordinary enough to raise alarms for me.

[ceo_esq]

Here in Wichita our lovely protesters try to get clinic workers and escorts arrested and charged with battery. The protesters touch the clinic workers then say they were assaulted. :mad:

The message? Trying to keep someone from getting right in your face violates their free speech and if you feel threatened you better not do anything! :crowded:

I think you may have confused the message. Battery has nothing to do with free speech. Do you have evidence, though, that pro-life protesters there in Wichita are perjuring themselves in an effort to have clinic workers and escorts wrongfully convicted of battery?

The only Wichita case that comes to mind is the high-profile one of the state legislator who actually did attack and injure a pro-life protester in 2006. He pleaded no contest to the criminal charge, and then later apologized for his actions as part of the settlement of the civil suit against him.

By the way, isn't it in your neck of the woods that Planned Parenthood is under criminal grand jury investigation on dozens of felony and misdemeanor counts of performing illegal abortions, falsifying records and such? What's the take on that story among the locals?

[UnrepentantSinner]

There's an inherent duplicitousness in Crisis Prenancy Centers since they don't consider the pregnancy to "be a crisis" they consider the pregnancy to "be facing a crisis". Such tactics as in the OP wouldn't surprise me, but I remain skeptical of a two year old news story like this shows up on an advocacy site the day of the 35th Anniversary of Roe.

I prefer to get information like this from news outlets (even if cited through an advocacy site).

[Wolfman]

I've gotta' say, I'm rather skeptical.

This bit of news is, as noted, rather out of date. It was originally released by Planned Parenthood at a time when they were mounting a campaign to have a law passed that would specifically stop what they called "deceptive advertising" by pro-life groups. From their website (http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fake_clinics1_hp):
A new bill in Congress, the "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act" (H.R.5052), would stop "crisis pregnancy centers" from deceiving women.So, this was a terribly convenient thing to have happen.

There are then questions about why, if this story is true, there was no mention of it in the media at all. The response (http://www.saveroe.com/blogs/2006/04/20/sound-the-alarm-fake-clinics):
I work at Planned Parenthood and want to respond. First, thanks for posting on this critical subject. It’s important that people understand the gravity of this situation. Second, I wanted to let you know why you won’t find any mention of the Indiana story in major media outlets. Quite simply, the young woman and her family did not want to speak with reporters about this experience. They agreed to let Planned Parenthood share their story, as long as we protected their identities. That’s why the story didn’t appear in the media—we heard the story straight from our clinic director in Indiana.There's no reason at all why "the media" could not pick this us as a "Planned Parenthood is claiming that such-and-such happened..." story. In fact, Planned Parenthood seemed to have no difficulty or qualms about releasing this story in their own emails.

"We want to tell everyone on our mailing list what happened, but it would be wrong to talk to the media about it"? Just doesn't make sense to me.

A convenient story, with absolutely nothing to substantiate it, that is released in the middle of a specific political effort to have a new law passed? At the very least, there's good cause for skepticism.

But what interests me here more is the reactions to this. There are two possibilities -- the story is true, or the story is not true. Consider what happens in each case.

If the story is true, then the pro-choice masses (which, I should mention, includes me) sound off indignantly, using this as another reason to demonize and condemn pro-lifers. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, state that this is obviously the actions of a few more radical individuals, and in no way represents the beliefs or actions of the majority of pro-lifers (but, of course, it was motivated by the purest of intents, to save the lives of unborn babies).

If the story is false, then the pro-life masses sound off indignantly, using the lies of this one Planned Parenthood center as a reason to demonize and condemn pro-choicers. Pro-choicers, on the other hand, state that this is obviously the actions of a few more radical individuals, and in no way represents the beliefs or actions of the majority of pro-choicers (but, of course, it was motivated by the purest of intents, to protect the rights of women to control their own bodies).

[Beth]

By the way, isn't it in your neck of the woods that Planned Parenthood is under criminal grand jury investigation on dozens of felony and misdemeanor counts of performing illegal abortions, falsifying records and such? What's the take on that story among the locals?

Not planned parenthood, but a local abortion clinic/doctor. My take on it from reading the local papers is that they were stretching the law regarding when it was legal to perform 3rd trimester abortions. They were also apparently lax about complying with all the paperwork requirements for documenting the reasons for performing those abortions.

The doctor/clinic (I'm not really sure whether he's being charged personally or if it's his clinic) is claiming it's harrassment because of the recent previous investigation. They were forced to open up patients medical records (with names removed) for scrutiny. Many charges were filed. Most of those charges were dismissed after the last election and a new attorney general was elected. He's resigning from office due to juicy sexual scandal, so what will happen next with any remaining charges is not known. However, some of the details regarding why women desperately needed a third trimester abortion were publically revealed and created some buzz as some of the documented reasons were seemingly insufficient to justify a late term abortion under our current law.

Personally, I'm not sure about whether the clinic/doctor did anything technically on the other side of the law although they were clearly skirting the borders of it. The Grand Jury investigation was convened after a petition drive raised enough citizen signatures to demand it, so I don't think a harassment charge is appilcable though I can understand why they feel that way.

Hopefully, my memory has been good enough not to have mangled too many of the details. This has occurred over a lengthy period of time and it is based on what I've read in the paper, which may not be entirely accurate.

[aggle-rithm]

Just to play devil's advocate here:

People who oppose abortion don't do so because they find something vaguely unwholesome about it. They do because they believe that a fetus is a human child.

Whether or not they SHOULD believe this is not the issue; they DO.

What lengths would you go to if you believed a child's life was in danger? Would you feel your actions were justified?

Just something to think about...not everyone shares the same worldview.

[Beth]

Just to play devil's advocate here:

People who oppose abortion don't do so because they find something vaguely unwholesome about it. They do because they believe that a fetus is a human child.

Whether or not they SHOULD believe this is not the issue; they DO.

What lengths would you go to if you believed a child's life was in danger? Would you feel your actions were justified?

Just something to think about...not everyone shares the same worldview.

Good point. On the other hand, children's lives are in danger all over the world due to things like poverty, lack of clean water, access to medications and vaccinations, etc. I think most abortion opponents have issue with the fact that it is a deliberate action to end the child's life.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just to play devil's advocate here:

Actually you're not because I think a lot of pro-choice (and that's the key to this discussion that gets trumped by the emotion card on the part of the pro-life crowd) aren't necessarily pro-abortion and are familiar with the emotional arguments that pro-lifers make.

I would rather that pregnancies be prevented (again, leaving arguments like whether the morning after pill is an abortion or not aside) than women have abortions. I would rather they make the decision to abort sooner in the pregnancy than later (again, leaving aside the recommendations of doctors), but the simple fact - scientifically - that conflicts with the "pre-born citizen" arguments of the pro-lifers is that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb on it's own without massive, invasive medical intervention. While we can debate the seperate DNA issue, we cannot deny the fact that a 14 week fetus, regardless of how developed it is structurally, will not survive outside the womb.

Taking your devil's advocate position (which I agree with as a devil's advocacy) back to it's logical conclusion, if live begins at conception, then life should be able to survive on it's own at conception - it does not, it cannot, and I don't agree that it's a seperate person until the point of viability outside the womb with medical help or after birth.

[ceo_esq]

Not planned parenthood, but a local abortion clinic/doctor.

I think I had a different case in mind (apparently there are two):

Kansas Planned Parenthood Charged With Providing Illegal Abortions (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302919,00.html)

[Beth]

I think I had a different case in mind (apparently there are two):

Kansas Planned Parenthood Charged With Providing Illegal Abortions (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302919,00.html)


Okay. I'm sorry, I haven't heard about that case.

[Santa666]

Actually you're not because I think a lot of pro-choice (and that's the key to this discussion that gets trumped by the emotion card on the part of the pro-life crowd) aren't necessarily pro-abortion and are familiar with the emotional arguments that pro-lifers make.

I would rather that pregnancies be prevented (again, leaving arguments like whether the morning after pill is an abortion or not aside) than women have abortions. I would rather they make the decision to abort sooner in the pregnancy than later (again, leaving aside the recommendations of doctors), but the simple fact - scientifically - that conflicts with the "pre-born citizen" arguments of the pro-lifers is that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb on it's own without massive, invasive medical intervention. While we can debate the seperate DNA issue, we cannot deny the fact that a 14 week fetus, regardless of how developed it is structurally, will not survive outside the womb.

Taking your devil's advocate position (which I agree with as a devil's advocacy) back to it's logical conclusion, if live begins at conception, then life should be able to survive on it's own at conception - it does not, it cannot, and I don't agree that it's a seperate person until the point of viability outside the womb with medical help or after birth.

I don't think this quite works. There are a couple of issues here, so I will simply explain both of them.

Viability outside the womb is a difficult concept to adopt for the determination of when a fetus should be considered a human life. First, each child is going to be different, thus making each child "become" a human at varying stages of development. Unless you actually remove the child from the womb, it is going to be VERY difficult to make that determination.

Secondly, viability outside the womb with medical assitance blurs the line even more. A premature baby born in 1900 had less chance of surviving outside the womb than a child born in 1950. The same can be said for children born in 1950 vs a child born in 2000. Would you then say that medical technology has changed when we define a fetus as being truly human?

Thirdly, to also play devil's advocate for a moment, why should viability play a role at all? A newborn child having been birthed at nine months may be able to breath on its own, but it is still completely dependent upon someone to feed it. It cannot exactly live "on its own". If you say it must be able to breathe on its own, then a couple of issue could arise. What happens if a child born after a normal 9 months is having trouble breathing for some reason or another and cannot breathe on its own. How much medical intervention is neccessary to say a child born premature is not really a child at all? If the answer is none, then what difference does it make if medical technology is assisting a premature child to live or if the child is still in the womb?

Just my two cents.


Santa