Last week Maryland's Senate Finance Committee heard testimony on a bill that would require the state's pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), or crisis pregnancy centers, to post a disclaimer about their services. SB 690 would force pregnancy resource centers to tell women who contact them that the centers are "not required to provide factually accurate information to clients."
Representatives from NARAL, who lobbied for the bill, cited a recent report conducted by young women who visited pregnancy centers posing as girls with unplanned pregnancies. In reality, the report was a weak attempt to disgrace the good work of PRCs. Senators were quick to question its validity based on its small numbers, and due to the fact that no real clients had been interviewed for feedback.
FRC's Director of Women's and Reproductive Health, Moira Gaul, testified on the negative impact the bill would have on women's health. In particular, she elaborated on how it would undermine the effectiveness in linking women to vital community, healthcare, and support services. Attorneys from the Thomas More Society, Care Net, and others spoke against the bill, citing its unconstitutionality and stating that it would never hold up in court of law. Scores of pregnancy center personnel also testified, including registered nurses, licensed social workers, medical doctors, and licensed psychologists to show that it would violate their professional ethics to provide factually inaccurate information to clients.
In total, over 45 people came to testify against the bill. NARAL's weak attempt to devalue the amazing services PRCs provide was clearly evident as the professionalism, compassion and care of PRC workers shined throughout the lengthy hearing.
See Also:
- Testimony against Maryland Senate Bill 690, concerning 'Limited Service Pregnancy Centers - Disclaimers'
- How Abortion Harms Women's Health
Comments (2)
IMO mandatory posting of disclaimers about services or forcing centers to tell women who contact them that the centers are "not required to provide factually accurate information to clients." is the wrong way to go.
The correct thing to do is to require providing factually accurate information to clients. This applies to PRCs, crisis pregnancy centers or planned parenthood.
There is nothing wrong with a center saying they object to abortion on moral grounds so will not give information about it, but if they do give information it must be medically accurate and not based on ideological opinion.
March 10, 2008 8:21 PM | Comment Permalink
Perhaps this wouldn't have happened if there were not so many cases of PRCs misleading people. The study cited isn't the first time its happened - PRCs have for years been telling women seeking help that abortion causes breast cancer, that their baby (Its always a baby to them, the words embryo an fetus are banned) will be tortured by abortion, and of course hitting them with the classic gross-out image book and emotional blackmail.
I have to laugh at one thing though. The FRC claims that when the NARAL sends a girl posing as pregnent to PRCs to collect evidence of unethical practice, this is "a weak attempt to disgrace the good work of PRCs." Yet when someone makes equally dubious calls to Planned Parenthood and offers to donate money for obviously racist reasons, and the donation is accepted, this is held by the FRC to be proof of the racism and genocidal tendencies hidden within PP.
March 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Comment Permalink