Report from Charlotte: OSA Protest Shut Down!

Click here to read CPC Watch coordinator and ChoiceUSA blogger Lauren Guy-McAlpin's report from last week's clinic defense action in Charlotte, NC.

Note from a former CareNet employee

The following was mailed to Cedar River Clinics in Washington State in October of 2009. It is reprinted here with permission from the Feminist Women's Health Center.

"prolife" centers don't do much to help women after their child is born

John Kerry said "You can be certain and be wrong." This is how I feel about myself after having worked in the prolife ministry for over 9 years for CareNet and their affiliate "prolife" centers as a software vendor.

I believe that personal information between a client and her counselor should never leave the room. My client intake software is designed to store data on-site at the center so that I never see it. No one has any business seeing personal information except a client and her counselor.

CareNet doesn't feel this way. They heavily endorse an internet based company ekyros.com. Hundreds of their affiliate pregnancy centers use the internet based ekyros.com client intake software. These centers make clients think that their pregnancy history and other confidential information will never leave the room, then they turn around and enter it online and this personal information leaves the center and gets into the hands of ekyros employees.

I am losing my business because I will not change my software to send client data outside the walls of the center. A client already has enough on their mind. They do not need their right to privacy violated.

I don't care about losing my company. The client's right to confidentiality is more important than my business.

I only bring up the point to say that I worked for CareNet and their centers for years for 15 thousand a year and without health benefits and now my wife and I are going under. My wife is ADHD and her medicine is expensive. My situation has convinced me that CareNet and their affiliates don't respect the women who visit them. I know this because they had no respect for my wife and I even though we worked for them for years without medical benefits barely above the poverty line. They won't help the girls after they have their child and have proved this time and again. My situation just helped bring this fact home to me through personal experience.

The very name 'prolife' is deceptive, because it implies that pro choice is pro death. It is fringe prolifers that have murdered innocent people at abortion clinics.

CareNet and their prolife affiliates treated my wife and I like a non-person.

They don't do anything to help the young girls who visit them stay off welfare. These prolifers wash their hands when the child has to grow up in low income housing projects and does nothing to keep the child from turning to crime to support the household. In fact many voted for Bush who believes in tough prison sentences instead of providing educational and other programs to help ensure that these youth do not turn to crime in the first place.

Check out CareNet's financials. They take in millions a year. Their president and board members each make over 100,000 a year, yet they give 0$ back to their affiliates or to the girls they say they serve.

Ask a center who uses ekyros.com if it bothers them that they promise absolute confidentiality to the client and then place the client's information in the hands of the employees of an outside internet company. Ask them if they inform the client where their information is going? You will see that the client is a non-person to them and (in their eyes) doesn't even deserve the basic respect of asking the client whether they are comfortable with their personal information leaving the center.

All this is just to say that when the prochoice people say the prolife centers are deceptive and don't look out for the welfare of the client in the long run,
I know this to be true, BECAUSE MY WIFE AND I HAVE WITNESSED WHAT KIND OF HEART THESE "prolife" PEOPLE HAVE FIRST HAND.

The prochoice side is the side that really looks out for the mother and offers family planning and even works with the mother to have her child and looks out for her and her child in the long run if she decides to have the child.

The prochoice side is the side that is not deceptive and really treats the mother and others with respect.

ACTION ALERT: Demand honest advertising in online business listings

In our recent project to create a Google Map of all CPCs in the country (that will hopefully replace our typed-out list once we get it integrated), we've noticed a number of CPCs advertising themselves as something they're not. In more than a few situations, CPCs have created Google business listings and categorized themselves as abortion clinics. In other situations, they list "abortion services and referrals" and "contraception referrals" under their services. As we all know, crisis pregnancy centers by definition do not offer any of the above.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has noticed this tactic as well. Focusing primarily on SuperPages.com and YellowPages.com, NARAL has published a letter to these high-traffic internet business directories asking them to hold CPCs accountable for false advertising:

Our Letter to Superpages.com and Yellowpages.com

NARAL Pro-Choice America and more than one million of its members and activists across the country call on SuperPages.com and YellowPages.com to remove deceptive anti-choice ads that violate your terms-of-use policy.

We understand that you are probably unaware that the advertisers post misleading listings.

To date, we have identified approximately 112 anti-choice organizations advertising under "Abortion Services" on SuperPages.com and YellowPages.com, even though the directories have a category called "Abortion Alternatives." We have verified that none of the 112 anti-choice organizations provides or refers for abortion services.

We are confident that you will agree that ads posted by anti-choice organizations under the category of "abortion services" violate your terms-of-use policy. These listings are clearly "purposefully deceptive," "false, misleading," and "fraudulent."

We ask that you remove the material immediately, and protect the millions of people who rely on SuperPages.com and YellowPages.com every month to provide accurate information.

You can add your name to the letter here.

CPC Watch does not have nearly the capacity of large-scale organizations like NARAL, but we are still doing our part to help keep high-traffic business directories free of deceptive advertising. Through our Google Maps Project, we are informing Google of misleading categorizations and false statements about provided services. But we still could use more help.

What can you do? For starters, help us alert Google that their listings are inaccurate. Here's how:

• Go to Google and type "abortion clinic" followed by the name of your city or town (or any city/town you want).
  
• Compare the agencies listed in the Google Maps area with our CPC list. Know, however, that we are in the middle of updating our records and may not have all CPCs listed. If possible, click onto the center's website. CPCs are almost uniform in the way they present themselves on the web; read about them here.
• If you see a CPC that is listed as an abortion clinic, an abortion provider, or is categorized under abortion services, abortion referrals, etc, you can report it to Google. Click "reviews directions, and more" to get to the main listing page.
• Click "more" and then "Report a problem."
• Fill out the form. Select “Listing contains incorrect information or spam” and select "category." In comments, type: "This center is listed under ‘abortion services’ but it does not provide or refer for abortions." Keep it simple; there's no need to get inflammatory.

You can also help us continue to build our Google Map. With the map, people who view the Google business listings for an included CPC will see that the center is in a map called "Deceptive Health Centers." If they choose, they can click over to our website and read about CPCs, then decide for themselves if they wish to utilize their services or look elsewhere for reproductive health care and counseling. View our progress here!

Medical News Today Exhibits Poor Research Reporting

The following is a ChoiceUSA cross-post.
---------

Those of us who seek out plain-English reporting on medical research often turn to Medical News Today (MNT) as a source of comprehensive health-related information. MNT is owned by MediLexicon International, a UK-based internet publishing group that boasts "timely, accurate and unbiased" reporting on medical and health-related research trends.

I have used reports from MNT to dispel the myths of purported "health consequences" of abortion and contraception from a fully scientific standpoint, which is why I was shocked to see this article published last week:

Researcher Finally Admits Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk In Study That Fingers Oral Contraceptives As A Probably Cause of Breast Cancer

My first reaction was to panic; I've been arguing the exact opposite for years now, citing studies from highly respected medical organizations, fact-checking every last bit of new information on the topic, often using MNT for just that. As a women's health advocate, this was big news for me, news that I needed to spread.

Then I read the article.

The study in question was published in April of last year and has already been refuted or point-blank ignored by a number of medical research groups, the main reason being methodological inconsistencies and poor data interpretation. Technical writer Joyce Arthur explains:

The anti-choice movement has been touting a 2009 study (Dolle at al, Journal of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention) that concluded that abortion raises the risk of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) by 40%. However, they never mention that this is a rare type of cancer that typically strikes women under 40 years of age. Because TNBC makes up such a small subset of all breast cancers, the overall conclusion that abortion does not lead to breast cancer has not changed. As Kathi Malone, one of the study authors, stated: “The weight of scientific evidence to date strongly indicates that abortion doesn’t increase the risk of breast cancer.”

Even the reported 40% increased risk for TNBC needs to be treated with caution. The statistical adjustments the researchers used to arrive at that figure may simply be an error caused by not accounting for all possible factors that might be contributing to the increased risk. The abortion data was apparently not adjusted for important factors like income or education. Further, to put things in perspective, a 40% increase in risk is not considered substantial in the field of epidemiology — a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer increases by 200-300 per cent if her mother had breast cancer.

Statistical misinterpretation, poor sampling, failure to recognize other risk factors... not at all unusual for studies on the topic that "prove" a link between abortion and breast cancer, but that hasn't stopped anti-choice organizations such as the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer from using it to push their agenda. The MNT article quotes the Coalition's president, Karen Malec: "Although the study was published nine months ago ... the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women."

Maybe that's because these organizations have done their homework:
Is Abortion Linked To Breast Cancer? -- America Cancer Society
Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk -- National Cancer Institute
ACOG Finds No Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk -- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Additionally, the Susan G. Komen Foundation published a highly comprehensive table on a number of studies regarding the purported link, examining the methodology and findings, still concluding abortion is not a significant risk factor.

So why is Medical News Today exhibiting such poor standards on research reporting? It truly escapes me, but I might have lost my faith in a news source I once respected greatly.

DYK? Quick Post

Did You Know? Many CPCs have what they call "earn while you learn" programs to ration the baby supplies they often advertise as "free." These "learning" opportunities occasionally take the form of parenting and infant CPR classes, but the vast majority of them are Bible studies and other religiously-oriented activities, even though most CPCs claim to offer assistance "regardless of faith."

Memorial Day

I remember the morning of May 31, 2009. I'd slept in, like most Sundays, made myself my usual coffee and a bagel, and slouched into my office chair to check the weekend's emails.

Google.com. News feed. Top headline: "Abortion doctor shot at church." I knew right away who it was.

Dr. Tiller had become the central figurehead in the so-called "abortion wars." The fact that he was one of the nation's few later-term abortion providers made him an easy target. He had been harassed, stalked, threatened, brought to court (but never convicted), and even shot once before. Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion extremist, was the culprit. Found guilty of murder and aggravated assault last January, Roeder is currently serving a life sentence with no parole for 50 years.

What can I say that hasn't already been said? Dr. Tiller gave his life for his work, and his absence in the American medical field is a grave loss for women and their families. It's easy to demonize the women who visited Dr. Tiller when their own privacy concerns keep them from speaking up, but make no mistakes: Dr. Tiller's patients are not faceless enigmas. They are women who faced the most difficult decision they will likely ever face, sometimes never quite knowing whether or not it was the right one. These were rarely your average 12-week abortion patients; these were women who chose to end a pregnancy late in the game, most often due to a wanted pregnancy gone horribly awry. These are women who had no real choice, at least none with a happy ending.

And now, women facing similar predicaments are significantly less able to make what they may perceive as the best choice. Doctors Carhart and Hern have done their part to step it up, but at what cost? They are both being targeted as well, and while I shutter to think that their careers might also end at the hands of some anti-choice lunatic, I think they both know that's a very real possibility. Is it any wonder so few doctors will (or can) provide the services that Dr. Tiller gave his life to provide?

I remember the morning so clearly. Ani Difranco's "Hello Birmingham" echoed clearly in my ears. I remember crying as I wrote the very first blog post on the tragedy. I remember sobbing again, several months later, at an anti-Nazi rally in Greensboro, where I tried (in vain) to deliver a memorial to the American Hero and discuss the consequences of radical right-wing factions organizing.

And so here we are: one year later, Roeder behind bars, but the anti-choicers as organized as ever. Join me in promising Dr. Tiller's death won't be in vain; we owe it to every family who will face that no-win situation to remember and honor his life's work, to destigmatize what he did for the families he helped, and protect that same right for generations to come.

"Women and Families are intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and ethically competent to struggle with complex health issues -- including abortion -- and come to decisions that are appropriate for themselves."

-Dr. George Tiller, American Hero

Protesting CPCs vs. Protesting Clinics

During a recent Google search, I found several anti-choice organizations have "discovered" us and chosen to make sweeping claims about who we are without contacting me directly. One discussion in particular took place at anti-choice extremist Jill Stanek's blog. I hope my readers here will understand if I do not wish to promote her blog or increase her web traffic, so I'll just advise you to Google search the discussion if you want to see for yourself (or take part in the debate).

This particular article focused on the organizing of protests outside CPCs. One recurring comment accused us of doing what we complain about antis doing outside of abortion clinics.

Which is completely false. Here is a list of what our protesters do, and more importantly, what we definitely do not do:

• Our demonstrations take place on public sidewalks in front of or near CPCs. We do not attempt to block entrances, driveways, or parking spots.
• We do not engage with potential CPC clients unless approached first. We do not shout at them as they are entering the center; we feel that most women entering a CPC (and an abortion clinic, as the case may be) are already in a vulnerable place and should have their privacy respected and protected.
  
• In the event a potential CPC client approaches us, make every effort to discuss her situation with her, on her terms. If she has a question, we answer it honestly. Our protests in Greensboro (in front of the Pregnancy Care Center) are usually attended by one or two women who have visited the center themselves and can vouch for the false or misleading information they received during their visit.
• We do not try to convince any client or potential client to choose any pregnancy option. Our protests are made up of pro-choice, pro-feminist women and men who want to make sure women are aware of the services (or lack of services) offered at the CPC.
  
• We do not use sound-amplifying equipment to shout down CPC staffers or clients. When approached by a CPC staffer, we remain civil.
  
• We do not attempt to frighten any woman away from the center with false information.
• We do not display graphic images.
• We do not use inflammatory language or try to incite extreme action.
  
• We do not promote or actively engage in any kind of vandalism or arson.
• We do not promote or actively engage in harassment of CPC staff members, volunteers, or supporters. We do not make death threats, we do not stalk, and we do not publicize the private information of any CPC staff member or volunteer.
• We do not engage in civil disobedience in an attempt to shut the CPC down or disrupt its operation. Moreover, there has never been an arrest at a CPC protest that CPC Watch endorsed or organized. We obey local laws and remain in places that are not disruptive to passing traffic or pedestrians.
  

Take a look back at this list and realize that for every "we do not" statement, there has been a documented case of anti-choice protesters engaging in such activity at abortion clinics. That is why we "whine" about the protests in front of abortion clinics: the harassment and fear-tactics, the threats and blockages. No pro-choice demonstration in front of a CPC has ever used such tactics.

We believe women's privacy and choices should be protected, but that they should be educated. Our protests are mostly aimed at educating passersby, and not in any way to make a threat against the CPC.

I hope this clears some things up. And if not, here it is in pictures:







And here it is in video...

Anti-CPC Protest:


Anti-Abortion Protest:



Any questions?