An anti-abortion group hoping to persuade women not to end their pregnancies offered free sonograms on the doorstep of a South Bronx abortion clinic yesterday, drawing few takers and a mixture of curiosity and anger from neighbors.
The mobile "crisis pregnancy center" – an RV that travels from clinic to clinic – is a new tactic in the anti-abortion movement, and it angered officials at the Dr. Emily clinic, one of at least seven clinics in the borough where the procedure is performed.
"This is going to hurt women," said a clinic administrator.
[Via Jill Stanek]
As Jill noted the headline "Abort-foe RV gives sonograms, but critics say it ‘hurts women’" is based totally on this one quote with no explanation how an RV offering sonograms hurts women. Though I guess if the RV happened to run over some women this could be credible. Barring that I guess access to truth hurts women; that is if the women work in an abortion clinic and they loose some ‘business.’
13 comments
Well although this is not what the quote was referring to, it does indeed hurt women. When they find out they are about to “get rid of some tissue” that is actually a human being and they see it right there on film, it hurts plenty I would imagine. Abortion is so la-de-da and with the government saying it’s just fine and dandy that you have the “procedure,” many people just do not stop and think long enough about the result of their actions. They are in a confused, troubled, and worried state and I would imagine it would be quite helpful for them to see their tiny very fragile baby. I think the RV is a great idea.
This is terrible, what message is this to the young? what are they trying to promote? Death? this culture of death must stop!
People giving out free toothbrushes outside dental offices must be stopped also. This hurts teeth!
-J.
“Barring that I guess access to truth hurts women; that is if the women work in an abortion clinic and they loose some ‘business.’ “
Absolutely correct, which is why those working at these clinics don’t want the truth out there, it WILL hurt them, finanacially.
I’d rather have their finances hurt than the 3500+ children hurt who are killed by abortion each day, as well as the women who are hurt by having the abortion & the men who are fathers of the child aborted who are also hurt emotionally.
Remember that NARAL and Planned Parenthood (and especially the former) HATE, HATE, HATE ultrasounds in any form. Especially those 3-D or 4-D ones that are relatively new. Remember this:
Pollster Harrison Hickman said the following to NARAL in 1989: “Nothing has been as damaging to our cause as which have the advances in technology [that have] allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because now people talk about that fetus in much different terms than they did fifteen years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer how to cure.”
Quite frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t dragged up some hack doctor to advocate outlawing the ultrasound technology currently available.
As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss. And NARAL and PP want nothing more than to keep women ignorant in the name of “choice”.
What, am I the only person who’s heard about the risks of hearing loss from exposure to US devices?
Obviously, deafness would be moot following an abortion.
And I’m pretty sure the whistleblower on fetal hearing loss was just a shill.
Plus there’s no statistical evidence of neonatal hearing loss on the rise since ultrasonic imaging became popular, as far as I can tell. I suppose that fact would be too inconvenient….
*ahem* Uh, guess I should read more carefully…they didn’t make the “hurts babies” argument. Then again, if PP is going to advise abortions to avoid the inconvenience of a child with Downs syndrome….
I read an article about this group actually- I believe it was in Times. They told a story about a women who had went to one of these ‘Crisis Pregnancy Centers’, in search of some help and what she got was a bunch of movies of aborted fetuses and everything. Another lady posed a pregnant and went in and they told her that ‘the baby has a heart beat the moment it’s conceived’. Which the lady knew wasn’t true. They also say that these groups give old facts about the risks of abortions- like whether the mother will be infertile afterwards, if she’ll have breast cancer and a whole slew of things. They cite their sources from like before the 1950’s. I also read that they give the mother tons of support and help, up to the two month mark of her pregnancy (right when it gets harder to have an abortion) and then they practically ignore the expecting mother. Also, the ‘clinics’ say their giving current facts, but of corse they never give the other side of the Abortion issue, and ultimately it is the women’s choice to abort or not.
So yea.. I guess this article you read didn’t really explain the other side of the issue. Just like the clinics don’t.
The New York Times on Abortion. A real credible source of information.
By the way Amy, there is (regrettably) nothing stopping a woman from having an abortion up until delivery.
As someone who had an abortion I wish with all my heart that someone had pulled up in a big RV and showed me an ultrasound picture of my baby. He would be 18 now and I wouldn’t have lived with the guilt for killing him all these years.
It’s not hurting woman—it’s hurting their pocketbook!!! Praise Jesus for these Pro-life fighters!! (Oh, maybe also in addition to the RV they could use a buldozer and get two jobs done at once. Just an idea.)
No. It wasn’t the New York Times. It was the Times, the magazine. They did show both sides of the argument. They talked to some of the ladies from the crisis pregnacy clinic and the abortion clinics who said the women were being harmed.
I’m not saying that it’s necessarily bad, letting an expecting mother see a ultrasound of her baby. I am saying it’s bad, to give her false facts. They need to see both sides of the argument. I’m against abortion clinics, too, that don’t show women all sides of the debate.
I really, don’t have a strong opinion on abortion. I do however believe it’s the mother’s choice and that they should be presented with all sides of the issue- not just one.
Also, Julie, I’m sorry you had an abortion and regretted it. I wish it wasn’t such a volatile environment for mothers considering an abortion and that they could easily get unbiased facts about abortions, so they could personally make the decision themselves.
Unbiased fact: That’s a developing person inside you, not a “tumor” or a “parasite”.
Women my age (30s) and younger know exactly what they’re doing when they have an abortion. I’ve heard the “my life now vs my life with a child” discussion more than once. The real question is whether they can justify to themselves that they not only decided that their life was worth more than someone else’s, but took steps to ensure that the other person is eliminated as an obstacle. I have no doubt that when my generation ages, we will be having the same conversations about whether an ailing parent or spouse is too much of a burden, though the emphasis will be on convincing said parent or spouse that suicide shows consideration for the overburdened family members.
Comments are closed.