We received this email yesterday morning. It coincides beautifully with the post we just published about Kourtney Kardiashian's decision not to have an abortion, but more importantly highlights the vital need for women to have access to honest, unbiased information on *all* reproductive options. Christina's story paints a dismal picture of the state of options counseling in the United States. We've reposted it here with her permission.
name: Christina
email: [removed for confidentiality]
phone:
comment: I wanted to write a quick email to thank you for what you are doing. I visited a crisis pregnancy center a few years ago when I was 17. I wanted an abortion and knew my parents would not support me if I had an abortion or had a baby. No one could know I was pregnant, that is just the way my family is. I was attracted to the CPC because it said "confidential" and that all services were free. They told me all sorts of terrible things about abortion, about how they insert sharp objects into the uterus and that many women die from bleeding to death. They said I could get breast cancer. At that point though I did not care. My family would support me if I had breast cancer. They would not support me if I had an abortion or a baby. So anyway I left the CPC and had an abortion any way. During the abortion I was so afraid of hemorrhaging. The staff at the clinic was so sweet but it was no consolation because I was so afraid and did not tell them what my fears were or about visiting the CPC. For what seems like forever I was afraid of getting breast cancer and felt like the abortion experience was awful. It's taken me years to get to this point where I realize it wasn't the abortion that was so traumatic, it was what the CPC told me would happen during the abortion. None of the bad things happened, and I realized they didn't really use sharp objects at all. I found out on my own that complications are really rare and that abortion doesn't cause breast cancer. Learning that I was lied to has helped me recover from the abortion. That was really all I needed to know, that I was afraid of things that weren't likely to happen. I know lots of women have traumatic experiences with abortion and I think crisis pregnancy centers help make them. Thanks again for helping women like me heal.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Reproductive decisions skewed by anti-choice rhetoric
*This is a cross-post with ChoiceUSA*
I'm usually not one to follow entertainment news. I am, however, known to log onto CNN.com now and then, just to see if there's anything huge going on. I rarely view the articles from People Magazine linked from CNN's website, but one article in the "popular news" category caught my eye:
Kourtney Kardishian agonized over whether to keep baby
I don't know who Kourtney Kardiashian is or why her unplanned pregnancy warrants a story in People Magazine. I gathered from the article that she is a reality TV star, and I know from previous knowledge that she is only one of the millions of women who will face an unplanned pregnancy this year. The difference between Kardishian and most other women, I gather, is that she is a celebrity. Additionally, she has apparently reunited with her boyfriend and is most likely not terribly strapped for cash. These can be powerful factors in a woman's decision; in fact, 73% of women who have abortions say they could not afford to care for a baby, and 48% cite single status or relationship problems as a reason they chose abortion.
Let me first say this: I'm happy that Kardashian, whoever she is, seems to have made peace with her decision, and that she feels well-supported enough to rise to the challenge of motherhood. What truly bothers me is the constant misrepresentation of unintended pregnancies by the mainstream media. We read articles about Jaimie Lynn Spears, Bristol Palin, and other young yet well-supported, financially-secure women who, in the face of less-than-ideal circumstances, choose motherhood. And we all say, "Awe, isn't that great!" We read updates about their bumps, their baby showers, whether it's a boy or a girl, the name, etc with dough eyes and pleasant smiles. From what we see in the media, you'd think the U.S. was full of a bunch of happy, sexually-autonomous moms-to-be. But as is usually the case, what isn't being said is far more telling than what we find on the newsstands.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and about 40% of these (around 22% of all pregnancies) will end in abortion. Additionally, an estimated one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45. I can't say the unplanned pregnancy tales of woe we read in People reflect that statistic; in fact, the stories generally break after the woman has decided to carry to term. She recounts her confusion, her inner-battles, her weighing of pros and cons for each option, and comes out looking like a saint.
Now to be fair, Kardashian did openly say she actively considered abortion. She even went so far as to throw us choice folks a bone: "I do think every woman should have the right to do what they want [with an unplanned pregnancy]." But the article is explicit in outlining what very well could have swayed her opinion:
Oh internet research, how unnerving your effects can be! I know from experience what happens when you type "abortion" into a Google search field. Okay, the first thing you see is an informational page from Planned Parenthood, but what's next? AbortionFacts.com, one of the most dangerous, ill-informed resources on abortion you can find. Not only does AbortionFacts.com cite bunk science in "proving" that there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer or infertility (there's not), it also claims that abortion causes a condition known as "post abortion syndrome" or "post abortion stress syndrome," a claim that has been refuted over, and over, and over, and over again by legitimate medical research and psychological evaluation. The pages of AbortionFacts.com (as well as many of the other "abortion stories" you find out there) are tales of horror from women who were perhaps uninformed about their options, felt pressured into having an abortion, were perhaps treated badly by a clinician, or lacked decent support networks following an abortion. A friend of mine submitted her (very positive) abortion story to a "share your abortion story" website, but it never appeared on their pages.
Now, I do believe positive support networks for women having some grief following an abortion are important (and they exist). But I also believe the amount of grief or guilt a woman may feel following abortion is at least partially the result of the anti-choice movement's repeated message that abortion is something you should be ashamed of, and the "post-abortion counseling" anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers offer only serves to legitimize that.
This being said, it's no surprise to me that Kourtney Kardashian was, it seems, literally scared away from abortion when she made her final decision. This is not to say she would definitely have had an abortion had she been given access to unbiased information about the procedure, but like many women, her mindset was skewed from the start by anti-choice rhetoric. (Important to mention here is that many desperate women still pursue abortion even after being convinced of its "evils," which of course can create huge moral crises and an even greater need for post-abortion healing.) There is simply no way to claim a woman is fully autonomous in her reproductive decisions when there is so much false information out there.
I know abortion is a private decision for most, and I understand, especially given the stigma that's become attached to the procedure, why an actress wouldn't necessarily issue a press release following an abortion. But what if she did? I'm sure her career would take a hit. Who knows, she may even lose jobs the way Olympic athletes lose sponsorships following a positive drug test. I don't necessarily think we need more TV stars going public about their plight with unintended pregnancy; after all, their economic bracket is statistically far less likely to choose abortion anyway. Still, statistically speaking, we shouldn't only be hearing about positive outcomes with parenting and negative ones with abortion. Perhaps if more women were open, honest, and candid about the experiences we don't always hear about, this discrepancy would disappear, and we could reframe the abortion debate using information from the most unbiased sources out there: the women who have had them.
I'm usually not one to follow entertainment news. I am, however, known to log onto CNN.com now and then, just to see if there's anything huge going on. I rarely view the articles from People Magazine linked from CNN's website, but one article in the "popular news" category caught my eye:
Kourtney Kardishian agonized over whether to keep baby
I don't know who Kourtney Kardiashian is or why her unplanned pregnancy warrants a story in People Magazine. I gathered from the article that she is a reality TV star, and I know from previous knowledge that she is only one of the millions of women who will face an unplanned pregnancy this year. The difference between Kardishian and most other women, I gather, is that she is a celebrity. Additionally, she has apparently reunited with her boyfriend and is most likely not terribly strapped for cash. These can be powerful factors in a woman's decision; in fact, 73% of women who have abortions say they could not afford to care for a baby, and 48% cite single status or relationship problems as a reason they chose abortion.
Let me first say this: I'm happy that Kardashian, whoever she is, seems to have made peace with her decision, and that she feels well-supported enough to rise to the challenge of motherhood. What truly bothers me is the constant misrepresentation of unintended pregnancies by the mainstream media. We read articles about Jaimie Lynn Spears, Bristol Palin, and other young yet well-supported, financially-secure women who, in the face of less-than-ideal circumstances, choose motherhood. And we all say, "Awe, isn't that great!" We read updates about their bumps, their baby showers, whether it's a boy or a girl, the name, etc with dough eyes and pleasant smiles. From what we see in the media, you'd think the U.S. was full of a bunch of happy, sexually-autonomous moms-to-be. But as is usually the case, what isn't being said is far more telling than what we find on the newsstands.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and about 40% of these (around 22% of all pregnancies) will end in abortion. Additionally, an estimated one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45. I can't say the unplanned pregnancy tales of woe we read in People reflect that statistic; in fact, the stories generally break after the woman has decided to carry to term. She recounts her confusion, her inner-battles, her weighing of pros and cons for each option, and comes out looking like a saint.
Now to be fair, Kardashian did openly say she actively considered abortion. She even went so far as to throw us choice folks a bone: "I do think every woman should have the right to do what they want [with an unplanned pregnancy]." But the article is explicit in outlining what very well could have swayed her opinion:
Confused and concerned Kardashian says, "I called my best friend crying, and I was like, 'I don't know what to do.' She said, 'Call your doctor, and at least find out the risks and stuff.' " So Kardashian discussed abortion with her physician, and then headed to the Internet to do further research.
"I looked online, and I was sitting on bed hysterically crying, reading these stories of people who felt so guilty from having an abortion," she recalls. "I was reading these things of how many people are traumatized by it afterwards."
Oh internet research, how unnerving your effects can be! I know from experience what happens when you type "abortion" into a Google search field. Okay, the first thing you see is an informational page from Planned Parenthood, but what's next? AbortionFacts.com, one of the most dangerous, ill-informed resources on abortion you can find. Not only does AbortionFacts.com cite bunk science in "proving" that there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer or infertility (there's not), it also claims that abortion causes a condition known as "post abortion syndrome" or "post abortion stress syndrome," a claim that has been refuted over, and over, and over, and over again by legitimate medical research and psychological evaluation. The pages of AbortionFacts.com (as well as many of the other "abortion stories" you find out there) are tales of horror from women who were perhaps uninformed about their options, felt pressured into having an abortion, were perhaps treated badly by a clinician, or lacked decent support networks following an abortion. A friend of mine submitted her (very positive) abortion story to a "share your abortion story" website, but it never appeared on their pages.
Now, I do believe positive support networks for women having some grief following an abortion are important (and they exist). But I also believe the amount of grief or guilt a woman may feel following abortion is at least partially the result of the anti-choice movement's repeated message that abortion is something you should be ashamed of, and the "post-abortion counseling" anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers offer only serves to legitimize that.
This being said, it's no surprise to me that Kourtney Kardashian was, it seems, literally scared away from abortion when she made her final decision. This is not to say she would definitely have had an abortion had she been given access to unbiased information about the procedure, but like many women, her mindset was skewed from the start by anti-choice rhetoric. (Important to mention here is that many desperate women still pursue abortion even after being convinced of its "evils," which of course can create huge moral crises and an even greater need for post-abortion healing.) There is simply no way to claim a woman is fully autonomous in her reproductive decisions when there is so much false information out there.
I know abortion is a private decision for most, and I understand, especially given the stigma that's become attached to the procedure, why an actress wouldn't necessarily issue a press release following an abortion. But what if she did? I'm sure her career would take a hit. Who knows, she may even lose jobs the way Olympic athletes lose sponsorships following a positive drug test. I don't necessarily think we need more TV stars going public about their plight with unintended pregnancy; after all, their economic bracket is statistically far less likely to choose abortion anyway. Still, statistically speaking, we shouldn't only be hearing about positive outcomes with parenting and negative ones with abortion. Perhaps if more women were open, honest, and candid about the experiences we don't always hear about, this discrepancy would disappear, and we could reframe the abortion debate using information from the most unbiased sources out there: the women who have had them.
Monday, July 27, 2009
The bill is back! Ohio bill would require "paternal" consent for abortion
Holy Hell Ohio: New Bill Requires Men's Permission for Abortion
His Right to Choose...
Ohio residents can send Rep. Adams a love note here.
His Right to Choose...
Ohio residents can send Rep. Adams a love note here.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Searching for pro-woman adoption resources
Our quest for offering women comprehensive information on all reproductive options has hit a sandbar. We simply cannot find any woman-centered adoption resource... the kind that treats birthmothers like humans.
It seems, in all the compassionate language adoption agencies use in their Q&As for prospective birthmothers, agencies have an air about them that seems manipulative, paternalistic, or just plain untrustworthy. There's far too much focus on the baby-to-be and not nearly enough on the emotional or physical toll adoption can have on a birthmother. Baby-centrism is the main reason I've decided not to post even the most promising adoption resources on the website. I figure, women can find this sort of information everywhere; it's well-funded, well-supported, and easy to access the "run of the mill" adoption resource. The problem is, we've found that the average adoption resource ignores what we see as the single most important faction of the process: the woman doing the birthing.
But in my search, I did come across a fantastic article on adoption from a feminist perspective. It truly helps to explain why we've had so much trouble finding what we're looking for.
Feminist lens on adoption
Katie Leo
I've asked several of the anti-choicers that write us to condemn our work for help on this. I truly want it. I ask for woman-positive, preferably secular (or predominately secular-operating) agencies that would treat the pregnant woman like a human with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and concerns. I've not heard back from any of them.
If anyone does have decent resources for birthmothers (agencies or just plain resources), do send us an email so we can get that up in our links and resources. We do, in fact, strive to be supportive of any informed choice a woman makes when facing an unplanned pregnancy, and want to help facilitate those choices in an unbiased manner.
Lauren
It seems, in all the compassionate language adoption agencies use in their Q&As for prospective birthmothers, agencies have an air about them that seems manipulative, paternalistic, or just plain untrustworthy. There's far too much focus on the baby-to-be and not nearly enough on the emotional or physical toll adoption can have on a birthmother. Baby-centrism is the main reason I've decided not to post even the most promising adoption resources on the website. I figure, women can find this sort of information everywhere; it's well-funded, well-supported, and easy to access the "run of the mill" adoption resource. The problem is, we've found that the average adoption resource ignores what we see as the single most important faction of the process: the woman doing the birthing.
But in my search, I did come across a fantastic article on adoption from a feminist perspective. It truly helps to explain why we've had so much trouble finding what we're looking for.
Feminist lens on adoption
Katie Leo
I've asked several of the anti-choicers that write us to condemn our work for help on this. I truly want it. I ask for woman-positive, preferably secular (or predominately secular-operating) agencies that would treat the pregnant woman like a human with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and concerns. I've not heard back from any of them.
If anyone does have decent resources for birthmothers (agencies or just plain resources), do send us an email so we can get that up in our links and resources. We do, in fact, strive to be supportive of any informed choice a woman makes when facing an unplanned pregnancy, and want to help facilitate those choices in an unbiased manner.
Lauren
Monday, July 6, 2009
To Jaime
We received an email recently that we truly wanted to respond to. In fact, I spend upwards of 30 minutes replying. Unfortunately, upon pressing the "send" button, I was left with a message delivery failure. Another person who would rather send anonymous comments with flippant accusations instead of giving us the chance to respond, to discuss, I suppose.
But I'm not giving up... perhaps it's because I spent so long sending a well-thought response, or because I know that this is a common misconception about what CPC Watch as an organization does. So, on the off chance that Jaime returns instead of just moving along to some other pro-choice resource, I'm posting response here.
Jaime wrote:
And my response:
But I'm not giving up... perhaps it's because I spent so long sending a well-thought response, or because I know that this is a common misconception about what CPC Watch as an organization does. So, on the off chance that Jaime returns instead of just moving along to some other pro-choice resource, I'm posting response here.
Jaime wrote:
Why does abortion sound like the responsible choice on your website? Wouldn't the responsible choice have been to not have unprotected sex? Yes, I beleive [sic] women do have a choice and this is to be careful OR be responsible for the CHOICES she made. My mom used to say "you made your bed, now lay in it." Why can't the decision point be emphasized prior to the conception rather than later on? Am I wrong in thinking that abortion is just a way to "terminate" a mistake? Why can't we just make better choices to begin with? Just some thoughts...
And my response:
Hello Jaime,
Thank you for your inquiry about our organization.
CPC Watch operates under a platform of reproductive justice: the idea that all women and girls ought to have complete control over their sexual, emotional, medical, psychological, and financial needs. We believe in sexual autonomy, a concept that, if attained in our society, would allow for women to have the tools to make informed decisions about sexuality, sexual activity/expression, contraception, pregnancy, childbirth, etc. It is in these beliefs that CPC Watch was founded: our belief that, while some crisis pregnancy centers do in fact offer valuable assistance to women in need, they exist mainly to limit reproductive decisions, often through deception, misleading information, or outright false "facts" regarding abortion and contraception.
To answer your question, we have often meditated on the fact that our website can be a little abortion-centric. However, we have always concluded that this arises *not* from our belief that abortion is "the" responsible choice, that is, the *only* choice for women facing unplanned pregnancy; it arises more from where we see our energy being needed. With all the hyper-focus on the "evils" of abortion by the anti-choice camp (namely, those who run CPCs), much of our focus has to follow suit simply just to refute the misinformation doled out by CPCs and their propaganda.
We are truly and honestly "pro-choice"... pro-choicES, that is. Take a second look, if you would, at our resources:Reproductive and Sexual Health ResourcesNational Women's Health Network
Above, you will see a wealth of resources pertaining to reproductive health: sexual health clinics (including those that do free or low-cost STD testing), contraception information, legitimate information regarding contraception and pregnancy options, resources for women choosing to become single or unsupported mothers (those who CPCs see as "at risk" for abortion), resources for women who have ended a pregnancy early due to fetal anomaly, how to get a referral for a birth or postpartum doula, etc. I believe we have it pretty well covered... that is, covered well enough to give women a starting point in their quest for an informed decision. We have been searching for woman-friendly adoption resources, but have found few that aren't manipulative and profit-driven, or completely disregard the birthmother. Maybe you could help us here... if you know of any adoption resources that treat birthmothers like humans, and are also secular as we are a secular organization, I'd be glad to add them to our resource list.
As for your other comment, about responsibility being not having unprotected sex, well wouldn't that be nice? But in all our idealism, we recognize the need to remain realistic. Besides, surely you see the wealth of contraception information above? Myself, I know all too well how much backup options are needed. In addition to the ever-growing number of youths uninformed about contraception (generally the same ones exposed to the CPC brainchild that is "abstinence-only" education), people do, in fact, become pregnant while being about as "responsible" as they can be. A dear friend of mine found herself pregnant within a year of being married. She was on the Pill, which she took religiously. Married, protecting herself... surely you cannot find anything "irresponsible" about that? But being a well-educated, middle class woman with health insurance, she was able to make a decision with her partner that has had no negative consequences on her marriage or on her reproductive health. No shame, no guilt... because she *knew* what she was deciding on. I wish the same for all women. That is why we do what we do.
Thanks again for your inquiry. I hope you understand I cannot continue to discuss these issues in as much of an in-depth way as I just have... in addition to my "day job," I'm a freelance writer, activist, wife, and of course, project coordinator of CPC Watch. Here is a website specifically created for continuous, constructive debate on abortion and contraception:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/commonground
I blog occasionally for RH Reality Check, but I've not gotten terribly involved with the Common Ground section yet... perhaps I'll run into you there.
Paz hermana,
Lauren
Monday, June 29, 2009
My Real Beef with CPCs
If there was a large network of organizations that sought to support women and couples during unplanned pregnancies and offer unbiased, fact-based information about options, I'd be all for it.
While most provide no sources to back up their information whatsoever, several of the complications listed link to another page where the stats are backed up with specific studies. The problem is, most of these studies were performed before or in the years immediately following Roe, many of which specifically sought to reflect the dangers of unregulated, illegal abortions or self-induced procedures. Others reflected procedures that, while legally performed, followed a similar method as the "backalley" abortions from the past decades. Huge advancements in abortion care were made in the late-1980s through early-1990s, and more recent data reflects these increased safety measures; such data, from studies that utilized a more reliable methodology, unequivocally debunks the claims made by this CPC's website. In addition, many "studies" come from religiously-affiliated publications known to manipulate studies or fabricate the data all together.
It saddens me that caring for young women choosing to carry to term carries such a range of lies and deception, especially considering CPCs operate under a religious umbrella. "Caring for women facing unplanned pregnancy" means one thing or another: either giving her an abortion or lying to her so that she will more likely choose to carry to term (and probably go with adoption as many CPCs are against single motherhood). I wouldn't at all be against centers that fully disclosed their religious biases and assisted those who were fully informed of what they would (and more importantly, would not) receive at the center. However, I think CPCs know full well that simply preaching moral opposition to abortion does little to sway the opinions of the general public, which is why fabricating medical data is such a cornerstone of CPC operation. Pretending to be actual reproductive health clinics or "cybersquatting" on a family planning clinic's website are other common tactics that tell us "providing options" is hardly the mission of a CPC. If they were truly confident in their ability to provide true and "unbiased" information about pregnancy options, they wouldn't need to do any of these things, not to mention that they're against contraception education and other methods that have been proven over and over again to decrease the instances of unplanned pregnancies in the first place.
I guess when it comes to preventing what these places unequivocally define as "murder," any measure, no matter how harmful, can be used. In such actions, the true mission of "crisis pregnancy centers" shines through. And that's my real beef.
If there were centers that dedicated themselves 100% to providing resources and a sense of community to young women who have autonomously chosen to carry a pregnancy to term, I'd want to volunteer all of my free time to such a cause.
Unfortunately, such organizations don't exist. Reproductive health clinics are too underfunded to offer a wide range of free services and assistance most of the time, and they're often forced to spend most of their resources on clinic defense and security due to the more "controversial" options they provide, thanks to the anti-choice camp's threats and harassment. And crisis pregnancy centers are, of course, nothing more than an appendage of the anti-choice camp's meddling in the decisions of others.
It's easy to come across as a legitimate medical or counseling facility when you wear a white lab coat and have a nametag, especially when your clientele are vulnerable youngsters who are seeking confidential (and free) help from any adult that has even the slightest appearance of professionalism. I'd assume a person running an ultrasound machine was a medical professional too.
It's also easy to sound like you know what you're talking about when you say it confidently enough with a tone of concern and compassion. But I'd implore any woman to inquire about the specific data CPCs offer to women entering their centers. I found this gem yesterday while updating our list of deceptive centers:
Serious complications do occur in as many as 1 out of every 100 early abortions and 1 out of 50 later abortions:
Perforated uterus or damage to other organs.
Excessive bleeding requiring blood transfusions.
Chronic and acute infections; intense pain.
Incomplete removal of the baby or placenta.
High fever, Convulsions, Shock, Coma
A greater increase in miscarriages.
Ectopic (Tubal) Pregnancies.
Premature births and still births.
Infertility and breast cancer.
Death
While most provide no sources to back up their information whatsoever, several of the complications listed link to another page where the stats are backed up with specific studies. The problem is, most of these studies were performed before or in the years immediately following Roe, many of which specifically sought to reflect the dangers of unregulated, illegal abortions or self-induced procedures. Others reflected procedures that, while legally performed, followed a similar method as the "backalley" abortions from the past decades. Huge advancements in abortion care were made in the late-1980s through early-1990s, and more recent data reflects these increased safety measures; such data, from studies that utilized a more reliable methodology, unequivocally debunks the claims made by this CPC's website. In addition, many "studies" come from religiously-affiliated publications known to manipulate studies or fabricate the data all together.
It saddens me that caring for young women choosing to carry to term carries such a range of lies and deception, especially considering CPCs operate under a religious umbrella. "Caring for women facing unplanned pregnancy" means one thing or another: either giving her an abortion or lying to her so that she will more likely choose to carry to term (and probably go with adoption as many CPCs are against single motherhood). I wouldn't at all be against centers that fully disclosed their religious biases and assisted those who were fully informed of what they would (and more importantly, would not) receive at the center. However, I think CPCs know full well that simply preaching moral opposition to abortion does little to sway the opinions of the general public, which is why fabricating medical data is such a cornerstone of CPC operation. Pretending to be actual reproductive health clinics or "cybersquatting" on a family planning clinic's website are other common tactics that tell us "providing options" is hardly the mission of a CPC. If they were truly confident in their ability to provide true and "unbiased" information about pregnancy options, they wouldn't need to do any of these things, not to mention that they're against contraception education and other methods that have been proven over and over again to decrease the instances of unplanned pregnancies in the first place.
I guess when it comes to preventing what these places unequivocally define as "murder," any measure, no matter how harmful, can be used. In such actions, the true mission of "crisis pregnancy centers" shines through. And that's my real beef.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Help NARAL-Virginia counteract CPC funding
This past Spring, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine signed into law a bill that would allow the sale of "Choose Life" license plates. The plates, available now in 24 states, will funnel money through the government DOV agency and into about 40 crisis pregnancy centers in the state. $15 of every $25 license plate will go toward helping unlicensed, unregulated CPCs spread false and misleading information about reproductive health. To date, no pro-choice alternative exists anywhere in the country. When proposed, state legislatures reject them because they consider the alternative too "political" to be on government-issued tags.Nearly $9000 is expected to be funneled into Virginia CPCs on the day the plates become available (July 1) alone. NARAL-Virginia is asking supporters to help match this amount and counter the false and misleading information put out by CPCs. Virginia residents can also get involved with NARAL-VA's Crisis Pregnancy Center Education Project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)