Sonogram law widens the door to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers
- Tweet
- 11 Comments
Clustered in the language of Texas’ controversial pre-abortion sonogram law, a small yet significant clause gives further evidence to critics that the legislation isn’t merely about medical assistance to women, but rather an ideological attempt by some state lawmakers to deter women from having abortions. Alongside the requirement women in Texas must receive ultrasounds before seeking abortions, the newly enacted sonogram law also carries with it a stipulation that ushers pregnant women to non-medical, faith-based anti-abortion clinics.
Under the law, abortion doctors are required to direct women to a “comprehensive” list of agencies in the state that offer free sonograms to pregnant women but that “do not affiliate with, refer to or provide abortion related services.” The rule builds upon the standing 2003 “Woman’s Right to Know” Act, which requires abortion providers give patients a pamphlet graphically depicting the stages of gestation.
By virtue of the new law’s specifications, the listing– provided by the Department of State Health Services– rules out centers like Planned Parenthood and exclusively includes unregulated, unlicensed crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). The 10-page directory of agencies, titled “A Woman’s Right to Know Sonogram List,” catalogs pregnancy resource centers like Care Net Pregnancy Center of Northwest in Houston, Pregnancy Care Center in San Antonio and Austin LifeCare, the subject of a Texas Independent investigation for mixing religious and educational materials and making overt references to Christianity during an informational training session.
The Texas sonogram law explicitly states that the physician performing the abortion (or an agent of the physician who is also a nationally certified sonographer) are the only qualified people to conduct the ultrasound prior to the abortion. Nonetheless the law requires women to be directed to non-medical, unlicensed clinics before terminating their pregnancies.
After undergoing a handful of modifications during the legislative session, including referring women to their own physicians for an ultrasound, at the end conservative legislators pushed the list of CPCs into the final version of the bill. At the time, House author Rep. Sid Miller (R-Stephenville) praised pregnancy resource centers, saying they are “a real asset to our community.” CPCs are not only unlicensed centers that usually fail to provide any medical services, but have a stated mission to deter women from having abortions.
“This is one more undisguised attempt by the Texas Legislature to direct women to CPCs, where they will be dissuaded from seeking an abortion,” said Sarah Cleveland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas. “And it’s very clear that the intent of this version, a compromise decided by anti-choice legislators, was made to strengthen their conservative base.”
The subtle but telling requirement is indicative of Gov. Rick Perry’s and the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature’s ideological crusade against Planned Parenthood and basic women’s healthcare, argues Cleveland. While slashing $74 million from regulated, affordable family planning centers like Planned Parenthood– a move that has led to lack of access for thousands of minority and low-income women all across Texas– the Legislature simultaneously pumped $300,000 into the $8 million per biennium it already sets aside for CPC funding, the American Independent reported.
Lawmakers increased funding to CPCs despite several criticisms by organizations like NARAL that found more than half of CPCs provided prayer or religious counseling, both of which violate federal Charitable Choice Act regulations and rules in the state program administered by state contractor of the CPC program, Texas Pregnancy Care Network (TPCN).
Furthermore, the information given to pregnant women isn’t always accurate– the majority of Texas CPCs dispense erroneous data, according to NARAL. During its 2009 visits, the reproductive rights group found several instances of medical inaccuracy, such as touting a suggested link between abortion and breast cancer (a correlation not validated by the National Cancer Institute), overstating fictional “post-abortion stress syndrome,” (not recognized by the American Psychological Association (APA) or the American Psychiatric Association) and claiming that condoms fail to effectively prevent the spread of STDs.
Despite the influx of state dollars, CPCs remain removed from the purview of state regulators. While the Texas Department of State Health Services conducts stringent and random annual reviews of abortion facility clinics, they do not inspect CPCs. Between 2006 and 2010, DSHS has never conducted an on-site evaluation of the program that oversees the centers, the Texas Independent previously reported. Moreover, almost 25 percent of CPCs investigated employed at least one counselor (volunteers who aren’t obligated to be licensed or supervised) who was not vetted by the Department of Public Safety and Family Protective Services.
Instead, CPCs are inspected by the state contractor that allocates funding for the centers, a questionable relationship some lawmakers and groups suggest is a direct conflict-of-interest. And even with pre-announced site visits, evaluators found at least one violation during more than half of their inspections.
The new law brings increased regulation to the state’s roughly 40 abortion clinics, says DSHS spokesperson Carrie Williams. During the yearly reviews, state inspectors will additionally be checking with staff via interviews and paperwork to see if the clinics are in compliance.
“I can’t speak for all women but if a medical doctor hands me a list of clinics, I would assume they are licensed medical facilities, not unregulated ‘counseling centers,’” said Cleveland. “This is one of the most nefarious parts of the bill, it makes it very easy for women to misinterpret.”
“There is something inherently problematic about our state mandating women receive referrals to non-medical facilities for medical services,” she said. “It’s obvious that sending women to CPCs is raw, emotional manipulation.”
Joe Pojman of Texas Alliance for Life thinks otherwise. The anti-abortion group lobbied heavily on behalf of the sonogram law and contends they were instrumental in its formation and passage. Pojman says his organization worked with the Senate and House authors to craft the bill’s language, provided testimony and consulted with the governor’s office.
Pojman isn’t shy to conceal one of TAL’s central goals during the most recent legislative session– the defunding of Planned Parenthood. He says the sonogram law’s requirement directing women to CPCs ensures they are given the facts at a site removed from facilities that generate “very high profits” from abortions, a procedure they see as, “a method of birth control.”
“The provision gives women the opportunity to receive a free sonogram at an agency that does not have a financial interest in performing an abortion,” said Pojman, referring to Planned Parenthood. “The purpose of the list is to make sure women can get unbiased information from a neutral source that doesn’t take part in the ‘selling of abortion.’”
Although conservative and anti-choice groups rallied behind massive cuts to family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood this legislative session with the aim to curb abortions, state dollars are forbidden from being directed to fund abortions. According to a recent annual report, abortion services accounted for just 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total services nationwide, with the majority of services being STD testing, cancer screenings/prevention and contraception.
Calls placed by the Texas Independent to listed pregnancy resource centers in Houston, Austin and Dallas showed representatives were largely unaware they were on such a list, but expressed their excitement at the prospect of “informing” women before they have abortions.
“That’s really great to hear,” said Mary Jane Fogerty, executive director of two faith-based Dallas Pregnancy Resource Centers. “We will address her needs and take time to explain all her options. That way she can make a truly informed decision and not a rushed one.”
“Other” options include parenting and adoption, said Fogerty, who stressed a woman’s religious and spiritual background will most certainly play a part in the counseling session.
Follow Mary Tuma on Twitter
THIS IS SCIENCE:
FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because the classification of the biological relationship that is based on the behavior one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman’s body.
as a zygote, it invaded the woman’s uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B and HCG— so her body doesn’t kill it, steals her nutrients to survive, and causes her harm or potential death.
wikipedia org/wiki/Trophoblast
“The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms:
It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.[2]”
wikipedia org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy
” Due to its highly-negative charge, hCG may repel the immune cells of the mother, protecting the fetus during the first trimester. It has also been hypothesized that hCG may be a placental link for the development of local maternal immunotolerance.”
wikipedia org/wiki/Human_chorionic_gonadotropin
“It is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species.”
answers com/topic/symbiosis — Gale’s Science of Everyday Things.
just like a parasitic twin — wikipedia org/wiki/Parasitic_twin
“an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it”
thefreedictionary com/parasite
pregnancy CAUSES HARM: thelizlibrary org/liz/004 htm
if a man can abort his tapeworm at anytime– so should a woman abort her unwanted parasitic fetus, too.
galerouth blogspot com/
As a pro-lifer I actually like to see pro-legalized abortionists use the “fetus as parasite” argument. It is so transparently bad that only closed-minded extremists will buy into it. The independents will see right through it.
I encourage people to base opinions on facts and logic. Here’s mine: It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq). And most people agree that you shouldn’t kill an innocent human being just for reasons of economics, romantic life, education, career, etc. Therefore, abortion is immoral in 99% of the cases (the exception being to save the life of the mother, which is consistent with the pro-life ethic).
The desperation required to de-humanize the unborn by claiming they are parasites is telling.
Just ask them when the parasite status ends. By their definition, these human beings are still parasites when fully delivered yet connected by the umbilical cord. Is it acceptable to kill the parasite then? And just how does cutting an umbilical cord transform a being from a parasite to a human being? Why would sticking a sharp object in her head and sucking out her brains be completely moral one moment and a heinous felony the next?
How many tapeworms do you know of that turn into human beings later?
I imagine that the commenter could rationalize how breast-feeding infants are parasites as well. Can they be destroyed with impunity?
THE BIBLE:
the bible supported abortion, that was done by a priest, in god’s name, in his holly temple!
the 1984 NIV footnote of numbers 5:11-31 explained what “to thy thigh to rot, they belly to swell” meant: numbers 5:21 “or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness” to CAUSE a miscarrying womb IS an abortion.
‘Ephraim, as I saw Tyre, is planted in a pleasant place; but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer.” Give them, O LORD — what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts…Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit; yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.’
HOSEA 9-16
the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it.
3.3.3 ATHEISM: A HISTORY OF GOD (Part 1) Evid3nc3
2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism-AronRa
The BEST emotional P*RN- Thunderf00t
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 36)
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 29)
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 28)
evilbible com/god
skepticsannotatedbible com/says_about/abortion html
galerouth blogspot com/
I always enjoy the entertainment value of Bible lessons from atheists.
Isn’t it odd how they desperately twisted a couple passages to imply that God was in favor of abortion and ignored all the passages about children being a gift of God, how God knew us in our mother’s womb, how murder (the killing of innocent human beings — and it is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings) is wrong, how Jesus is the author of life, how we should protect the weak, etc.?
Policies on sex education vary from state to state. The prelobm with allowing parents to opt their kids out of the sex ed class is that those are often the students who need it most, and when they get pregnant, society often bears the cost of raising the children, through various kinds of aid, food stamps, etc. Teens who have babies aren’t able to get the education and training they need to support their children. It’s a societal prelobm.A study years ago showed that when parents are the most adamant about their kids having sex (threatening to throw them out of the house, etc.), the kids are MORE likely to get pregnant. When kids have knowledge about sex AND information about the futures they can expect with and without children, they are more likely to take steps to avoid pregnancy.I agree that reducing unwanted pregnancies is the best way to reduce abortions.
do you know how sad and sick it is to do that to a baby that hasnt even been born yet? its murdering a child. it shonudlt be your choice to take its life. your a really fucked up person if you wanna or did get an abortion. and yeah there are ways to prevent pregnancy. use them. or dont have sex. your choice. abortion is murder. if you dont want them, put the, up for adoption. or spend a few weeks with them before you put them up for adoption. make sure you really want to.
First, a though on labels. I have no objection to the “anti-choice” pejorative, but I would appreciate it if pro-choice-to-kill-innocent-but-unwanted-human-beings people would complete the thought and refer to us as anti-choice-to-kill-innocent-but-unwanted-human-beings. After all, we favor all sorts of choices for women (and men): Whom to marry, where to go to school (i.e., school choice, which the pro-choice crowd typically opposes), whether they should have to fund abortions via taxes, etc.
“CPCs are not only unlicensed centers that usually fail to provide any medical services, but have a stated mission to deter women from having abortions.”
The first part is incorrect. CPCs typically offer pregnancy tests and often offer ultrasounds, which are very likely to convince the mother not to have the unborn child destroyed. This is why the Planned Parenthood-types hate CPCs so much. They hurt PP’s business.
The second part is correct. CPCs do aim to deter women from paying abortionists to kill an innocent human being.
“Furthermore, the information given to pregnant women isn’t always accurate– the majority of Texas CPCs dispense erroneous data, according to NARAL.”
NARAL seems to be a dubious source for information on pregnancy centers. Do you quote McDonald’s for authoritative, serious journalism about Chik-Fil-A? How about quoting some pro-life groups about Planned Parenthood et al? Here’s an overview, including links to audio and video of them systematically hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking — http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p . What source could be better than audio and video of abortion organizations in action?
“During its 2009 visits, the reproductive rights group found several instances of medical inaccuracy, such as touting a suggested link between abortion and breast cancer (a correlation not validated by the National Cancer Institute),”
Did you do any additional research to see if any studies disagreed, or did you just opinion shop?
“overstating fictional “post-abortion stress syndrome,” (not recognized by the American Psychological Association (APA) or the American Psychiatric Association)”
That’s more opinion shopping, although I appreciate that you mentioned “overstating,” a vague term that at least concedes the syndrome is real.
“and claiming that condoms fail to effectively prevent the spread of STDs.”
I encourage you to do more research. There are many STDs not prevented by condoms, and the pregnancy rate for teens using condoms is high.
“Although conservative and anti-choice groups rallied behind massive cuts to family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood this legislative session with the aim to curb abortions, state dollars are forbidden from being directed to fund abortions.”
Money is fungible. Giving $$ to one area frees up money for other areas.
Re. the claim that “abortion services accounted for just 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total services nationwide,” that is an abuse of statistics. Please read more closely: 11% of PP clients had abortions, so that means that clients often receive more than one service. It is reasonable to assume that abortion clients consumed far more services than average. Repeating the 3% ad nauseum is disingenuous. That “3%” accounted for 51% of their revenues. As ex-PP employees will tell you, they are under great pressure to increase abortions.See Unplanned by Abby Johnson — http://tinyurl.com/6v7wlj8 .
Looks like that last comment was too long, so I broke it in half:
First, a though on labels. I have no objection to the “anti-choice” pejorative, but I would appreciate it if pro-choice-to-kill-innocent-but-unwanted-human-beings people would complete the thought and refer to us as anti-choice-to-kill-innocent-but-unwanted-human-beings. After all, we favor all sorts of choices for women (and men): Whom to marry, where to go to school (i.e., school choice, which the pro-choice crowd typically opposes), whether they should have to fund abortions via taxes, etc.
“CPCs are not only unlicensed centers that usually fail to provide any medical services, but have a stated mission to deter women from having abortions.”
The first part is incorrect. CPCs typically offer pregnancy tests and often offer ultrasounds, which are very likely to convince the mother not to have the unborn child destroyed. This is why the Planned Parenthood-types hate CPCs so much. They hurt PP’s business.
The second part is correct. CPCs do aim to deter women from paying abortionists to kill an innocent human being.
“Furthermore, the information given to pregnant women isn’t always accurate– the majority of Texas CPCs dispense erroneous data, according to NARAL.”
NARAL seems to be a dubious source for information on pregnancy centers. Do you quote McDonald’s for authoritative, serious journalism about Chik-Fil-A? How about quoting some pro-life groups about Planned Parenthood et al? Here’s an overview, including links to audio and video of them systematically hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking — http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p . What source could be better than audio and video of abortion organizations in action?
“During its 2009 visits, the reproductive rights group found several instances of medical inaccuracy, such as touting a suggested link between abortion and breast cancer (a correlation not validated by the National Cancer Institute),”
Did you do any additional research to see if any studies disagreed, or did you just opinion shop?
“overstating fictional “post-abortion stress syndrome,” (not recognized by the American Psychological Association (APA) or the American Psychiatric Association)”
That’s more opinion shopping, although I appreciate that you mentioned “overstating,” a vague term that at least concedes the syndrome is real.
“and claiming that condoms fail to effectively prevent the spread of STDs.”
I encourage you to do more research. There are many STDs not prevented by condoms, and the pregnancy rate for teens using condoms is high.
“Although conservative and anti-choice groups rallied behind massive cuts to family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood this legislative session with the aim to curb abortions, state dollars are forbidden from being directed to fund abortions.”
Money is fungible. Giving $$ to one area frees up money for other areas.
Re. the claim that “abortion services accounted for just 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total services nationwide,” that is an abuse of statistics. Please read more closely: 11% of PP clients had abortions, so that means that clients often receive more than one service. It is reasonable to assume that abortion clients consumed far more services than average. Repeating the 3% ad nauseum is disingenuous. That “3%” accounted for 51% of their revenues. As ex-PP employees will tell you, they are under great pressure to increase abortions. See Unplanned by Abby Johnson — http://tinyurl.com/6v7wlj8 .
Planned Parenthood gets federal money busceae they offer a wide range of health services like pelvic exams and other OB/GYN services to those who can’t afford it. While it is often touted that Planned Parenthood will offer a referral to an abortion clinic if it is requested by the patient, it often overlooked that they also provide referrals for counseling and abortion alternatives. I’ve spent a lot of time in Planned Parenthood Clinics and can tell you that there are no pamphlets pushing either decision, and I’ve never seen staff push anything on anyone. They simply give you health care. CPC’s have an agenda, which they admit freely to pushing on women. That’s my only prolem with them. I’d be much more comfortable with them if they gave unbiased, professional counseling. That is the biggest reason why they don’t receive any federal funding, and PP does.BTW, I really enjoy the vigorous debate from different viewpoints on John’s blog. Thanx for this forum.
