Yes, Sarah, There is a Difference Between Abortion Clinics and Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Just Not the Ones You Imagine

By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life

Under the category of, “no kidding?” I offer you the following from the Mississippi Clarion Ledger: “Abortion Clinics and Crisis Pregnancy Centers Differ.”

Ok, to be fair that is the headline the Associated Press gave to the story when it gave Sarah Fowler’s account much wider circulation. The original headline read “Abortion clinic vs. crisis pregnancy center: What’s the difference?”.

Either way, you can’t come away from Fowler’s account without thinking CPCs are horrible, intending only to make pregnant women feel horrible about themselves. Not only that they are duplicitous and deceptive.

As contrasted with “Abortion providers and clinics such as Planned Parenthood” which are, in Fowler’s glowing account, “staffed by doctors, nurses and other professionally trained staff. Jackson [Mississippi] Women’s Health Center and Planned Parenthood in Hattiesburg offer a range of health care options including pap smears, annual exams, cancer and STI screenings and access to contraception.”

Get it? All those CPCs are good for is attempting to save the lives of babies by helping women find a better solution as composed to those full-service Planned Parenthood clinics which provide “medically accurate information that is evidence-based.”

I mean if you are going to write a hatchet job, couldn’t you at least do a little research that might challenge your preconceived ideas?

Could you, for example, talk with women and girls who are eternally grateful they were give a real alternative to killing their babies?

And what does this mean? “Entering 2018 just a few thousand contacts shy of 3 million since answering its first call in 2003, Heartbeat International’s 24-7, 365 pregnancy helpline Option Line responded to well over 350,000 women facing an unexpected or difficult pregnancy in 2017,” according to Jennifer Minor.

No doubt Fowler’s response would be that it’s bad enough that there is just one abortion clinic in Mississippi while “There are more than 30 organizations that identify along the lines of a crisis pregnancy center.” Worse yet, nationwide there are probably four times as many CPCs (Pregnancy Help Centers) as there are abortion clinics. Of course to “journalists” such as Fowler, that would be just further evidence of CPCs cancer-like growth.

Or maybe just one story of how a woman’s future life was not ruined because she chose not to take the life of her baby. How about that? They are very, very easy to find.

Just the latest example (of countless examples) of how the Abortion Industry and its media allies fear and loathe any organization whose first objective is to find win-win solutions for moms and babies.

Website: National Right to Life

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, and Pinterest.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?  

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.
In Southeast Penna:  Call the Community Women's Center at  215-826-8090

If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  

Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org.  

New York State to Attack Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Ad Campaign

"I can say unequivocally that the most manipulation I have ever witnessed was inside the abortion center walls." Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood staffer

By Michael Gryboski
Christian Post

New York State has launched a pro-choice ad campaign meant to direct pregnant women to abortion clinics, which will include promotion online and on subway ads.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's press office announced the "public awareness" campaign on Tuesday, which describes its mission to be to provide important information on reproductive health services for women.

"These actions are in direct response to widespread reports of organizations known as Crisis Pregnancy Centers or CPCs misrepresenting themselves as health centers to dissuade those seeking abortion from going through with that choice," claimed the office.

"These centers' actions may interfere with New Yorkers' constitutionally protected rights to seek reproductive health care and may endanger them by preventing them from receiving medically accurate information."

In a statement, Gov. Cuomo also referenced actions by the Trump administration to enact pro-life initiatives, which he labeled a "war on women's reproductive rights."

"In New York, we refuse to let President Trump and Washington take us backwards and jeopardize the rights of New Yorkers," stated Cuomo.

"We are launching this public awareness campaign to combat the insidious spread of misleading, medically inaccurate information about reproductive health and to ensure all New York women know the options they are legally entitled to."

The campaign will direct New Yorkers to what the state government describes as medically accurate information on abortion, contraception, and pregnancy.

The Christian Post attempted to reach several to New York-based crisis pregnancy centers, however only one of those contacted returned comment by press time, and only to say they are declining comment for the time being.

In April 2015, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted 9-2 to ban political advertising from their subways and buses as a way of avoiding litigation over rejected ads. Taking effect immediately, the MTA's policy exempted from their political ban paid government messages and certain public service announcements.

Christian Post article continues here

Supreme Court Strikes Down California Law Forcing Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortion

"...a government that tells you what you must say—under threat of severe punishment—is alarming.”

By Steven Ertelt
Life News

The Supreme Court has struck down a California law forcing pregnancy centers to promote abortions. The high court decision is a massive victory for pro-life advocates and pregnancy centers that want to provide pro-life options for pregnant women considering abortion without being forced to promote abortions.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this year in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a lawsuit brought by pregnancy centers that don’t want to be compelled to advertise abortions.They say the California Reproductive FACT Act violates the free speech clause in the First Amendment.

Today, the nation’s highest court struck down the law, saying it “likely violates the First Amendment.” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Alito and Gorsuch joined. The four abortion advocates, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan ruled that pregnancy centers can be forced to promote abortions.

“The licensed notice is a content-based regulation. By compelling petitioners to speak a particular message, it “alters the content of [their] speech,'” the Supreme Court added.

Thomas wrote that “the people lose when the government is the one deciding which ideas should prevail…. This Court’s precedents are deeply skeptical of laws that ‘distinguis[h] among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.’”

Tuesday’s ruling from the Supreme Court could impact similar pro-abortion anti-free-speech laws enacted in other states, including Hawaii and Illinois.

Alliance Defending Freedom President, CEO, and General Counsel MichaelFarris told LifeNews he was delighted by the decision.

“No one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion,” said Farris. “In this case, the government used its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for abortion. The Supreme Court said that the government can’t do that, and that it must respect pro-life beliefs.”

“Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a diverse society like ours,” Farris added. “They enable us to coexist peacefully with one another. If we want to have freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to others.”

NIFPA president Thomas Glessner also was happy about today’s ruling.

“The right of free speech protected in the First Amendment not only includes the right to speak, but also the right to not be compelled by government to speak a message with which one disagrees and which violates one’s conscience,” said Glessner in comments to LifeNews.

“The court correctly found that the California law clearly offends this principle. We are very pleased with the court’s decision and for what it means for the many pro-life centers that serve and empower women in California and throughout the country.”

Farris argued in court on behalf of the pregnancy centers.

“Today, before the United States Supreme Court justices, I argued on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates that the California law forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for abortions is unlawful government-compelled expression,” he told LifeNews after the oral arguments.

 “A government that tells you what you can’t say is dangerous, but a government that tells you what you must say—under threat of severe punishment—is alarming.”

Life News article continues here 

7 Key Moments During Supreme Court Hearing Over Forcing Pregnancy Centers to Promote Free Abortions

By Elizabeth Slattery
Life News

How far can a state go to promote its views on abortion?

Can it force crisis pregnancy centers that support women who face a difficult or unplanned pregnancy to advertise the state’s free abortion program? Can it mandate resource centers that provide counseling, education, and baby supplies to include in their ads a lengthy disclaimer in up to 13 languages?

These are the issues the Supreme Court heard Tuesday in the case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.

Three lawyers appeared before the justices. One is Michael Farris, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that object to these requirements.

Some of the centers represented by Farris are licensed medical providers that perform pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and other prenatal care, and the state of California is trying to force them to post signs with information about free abortions.

Other centers are unlicensed and do not provide medical care but offer free resources for pregnant women in need. California would require them to include a 29-word disclaimer in their ads, effectively drowning out their message.

Jeffrey Wall, deputy solicitor general of the United States, represented the federal government, which filed a brief supporting neither side. Joshua Klein, deputy solicitor general of California, defended the state’s law.

The justices peppered all three advocates with questions. Here are seven key exchanges from the oral argument.

1. Comparisons to Informed Consent

During Farris’s introduction, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg jumped in, asking why posting the notice isn’t just like requiring a doctor to provide informed consent before performing an abortion.

Farris explained that providing informed consent turns on whether there is a medical intervention. States may require doctors to discuss the risks of an abortion before performing the procedure, as the Supreme Court held in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), and this can include discussion about alternatives to abortion.

But here, the pregnancy centers aren’t performing medical procedures yet they would be forced to advertise California’s free or low-cost abortion program to every person who enters the building.

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether the state could require all doctors treating pregnant women to post a notice with the full range of options available to them, including services not performed at that center. Farris explained that there could be a problem with that if doctors objected to performing abortions, but what the state did here is target pro-life centers and force them to advertise for abortions.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he saw this case as the pro-choice version of the Casey case. Breyer mused that a ruling for California would be even-handed because “the sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” Farris explained that this would politicize the practice of medicine.

2. A Statute Riddled With Exemptions

Breyer pointed out that 60 to 70 centers exist throughout California, and asked if the trial court should develop the record on whether the law is targeting these clinics before the Supreme Court rules.

Farris responded that the gerrymandering is evident on the statute’s face. It contains so many exemptions (for doctors in private practice, general medical clinics, and pregnancy clinics that perform abortions) that the pro-life centers are practically the only ones that would be forced to post the state’s abortion notices.

Later, when California’s Klein stepped up to the podium to defend the law, Alito wanted to know why the state exempted so many other doctors and medical facilities from the notice requirement. While the law appeared neutral on its face, Alito said, the number of exemptions uncovered a “strange pattern” that could amount to intentional discrimination against pro-life centers.

Life News report continues here

350,000 Reached Out to Option Line in 2017 for Life-Saving Pregnancy Help

By Jennifer Minor
National Right to Life

Entering 2018 just a few thousand contacts shy of 3 million since answering its first call in 2003, Heartbeat International’s 24-7, 365 pregnancy helpline Option Line responded to well over 350,000 women facing an unexpected or difficult pregnancy in 2017. Here’s the story of just one call.

“Sandra” wanted to know everything she could discover about the so-called “abortion pill,” a two-step chemical abortion that first takes the life of a child and then—days later—induces preterm labor.

Among many questions, Sandra wanted to know how the process works, as well as if she would need to take time off work to get the abortion. Even while she was asking the questions, however, Sandra broke down into sobbing.

Suddenly, she was no longer able to hold in or ignore her feelings, and the tears came pouring out. The consultant allowed Sandra to cry and regain her composure before gently asking a question that offered unexpected relief. 

“Do you want to talk to someone at a pregnancy center about your concerns before you make a decision you may regret?”

Through her tears, Sandra said yes, and the consultant connected her with a pregnancy center in her town where she could have a face-to-face conversation with the best alternative to abortion—another person.

One Woman at a Time

Women in Sandra’s situation reach out to Option Line 1,000 times every day via call, text, email and live chat. In 2017 alone, Option Line answered 353,367 cries for help—a 49 percent increase from 2016.

The growth in contacts corresponds to a similar increase in visits to Option Line’s website (www.OptionLine.org) in 2017.

Option Line’s goal is to connect each woman with one of the 2,752 pro-life pregnancy help centers and ultrasound-equipped medical clinics across the U.S.—plus hundreds more in Canada. As the only fully-staffed 24-7 pregnancy helpline in the nation, Option Line answers the call—in English and Spanish—for dozens of helplines and national outreaches, including the National Safe Haven Alliance, Bethany Christian Services, Heroic Media and more.

“I am so thankful for what God has done through Heartbeat’s Option Line this year,” Option Line director Nafisa Shamsher said. “I’m also incredibly proud of our consultants for all they have accomplished in 2017, and for their dedication and perseverance to continue to change lives—and families—one woman at a time.”

Editor’s note. This appeared at Pregnancy Help News and is reposted with permission.

Website: National Right to Life

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, and Pinterest.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?  

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.
In Southeast Penna:  Call the Community Women's Center at  215-826-8090

If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org.  

For Women Facing Unplanned Pregnancies, Maternity Homes Offer Hope

By Felecia Langdon
Live Action News

My name is Charmaine Davis and I grew up in a chronically dysfunctional home. Instead of being loved and guided, I raised myself. My upbringing left me yearning for direction, love, and fulfillment. I was 18 when I began a serious relationship and moved in with a 32-year-old man. I wanted a home, and that’s what he gave me -well that and a child. 

After facing an unplanned pregnancy, I soon learned that he didn’t care about me at all. He was a jealous, sexually and physically violent drug addict, who would accuse me of cheating that never happened and kept me isolated from any support systems I did have. Due to my upbringing, I was blind to his indiscretions, living a life all too familiar.

When I finally woke to the abuse, I realized I didn’t want the cycle to continue with my daughter. I was determined to make a better life for her than the cards I had been dealt growing up. I opted to leave, and he gave me money to have an abortion. Not wanting to alert him to my plans to keep my preborn child, I took the money.

Feeling scared, alone, and unequipped, I found my way to a crisis pregnancy center and was introduced to what a maternity home is. I was referred to Breath of Life Ministries – a pregnancy shelter, maternity home, and adoption agency in Austin, Texas.

When I met with staff members at Sarah’s House, the maternity home of Breath of Life Ministries, they talked with me about what I wanted for myself and my child. They accepted me, and I moved in soon after. I was welcomed into a beautiful home that had a Christian mother and father. I was astounded at the stark difference between how I was raised and how they treated me. They were firm, but loving, and modeled what God intended the family unit to look like.

I went back to school and attended counseling while I was at Sarah’s House. The couple taught us all the things an adult should know such as cooking, cleaning, and other life skills. I also learned a lot about God and gave my life to Jesus while I was there, later getting baptized. 

They encouraged and supported me through it all. I received my college certificate for Certified Nursing Assistant while I was at the maternity home. Close to my departure, they helped me find employment in my field and housing. I left with my daughter, Eva, 6 weeks after having her, feeling equipped as a woman, mother, and person.
I am now a registered nurse, mother of three precious blessings from God, and daughter of the redeeming King. I don’t know where I would be without Breath of Life. 

To those of you who have a troubling past and present and have found yourself pregnant, I encourage you to find a crisis pregnancy

center in your area who can help you get connected to resources for parenting and adoption. Abortion is not the way out of the life you’ve known, it only further compounds underlying issues, further tightening the chains! Embracing life is what will free you! You can do this! The cycle can break with you!

Pregnancy centers and maternity homes are a vital component of the pro-life movement. Breath of Life Ministries, like all pregnancy resource centers, relies on donations to stay afloat. Breath of Life is currently struggling under the pressure of paying rent and other bills and they need urgent help or will face having to close their doors to women and babies.
Feleica Langdon is the founder of Life Defenders.

Website: Live Action News

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, and Pinterest.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?  

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.
In Southeast Penna:  Call the Community Women's Center at  215-826-8090


If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org.  

Crisis Pregnancy Centers Sue Illinois Over Law Forcing Them To Discuss Abortion With Clients

Illinois Capitol

By Susan Michele-Hanson

Live Action News

Some crisis pregnancy centers in Illinois have filed a lawsuit against state officials, including Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, claiming a new law violates their constitutional right to free speech because it requires them to offer advice they find to be morally wrong, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The paper explains:

Providers must offer a “standard of care” that includes informing patients of their medical options, such as abortion or contraception, even if the physician is opposed to it for religious or moral reasons, under the new law, which went into effect Jan. 1. If the patient is seeking a particular treatment, the physician or nurse must at least provide a list of providers.

But pro-life professionals are crying foul. Chicago Now reports:

After the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, federal legislation was passed to represent the interests of doctors and other healthcare workers who have religious or moral objections to the controversial procedure. These “right-of-conscience” laws provide a measure of protection for medical personnel who do not want to perform abortions or offer abortion referrals.

In Illinois, all that changed on January 1 of this year, when Governor Bruce Rauner’s amendment to the legislation officially took effect, requiring clinicians, regardless of their moral convictions, to inform pregnant women about “all their options,” including abortion. Healthcare entities must at least provide women with abortion referrals.

But as Thomas Olp, from the Thomas More Society said, “A pro-life physician cannot in good conscience do that” because a pro-lifer referring a woman to an abortion center would constitute “material involvement in something that’s inherently evil.”

Thus, some pregnancy centers filed the lawsuit, seeking their First Amendment rights. According to the Tribune:

The two Christian clinics — 1st Way Pregnancy Support Services in McHenry County and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs — and Dr. Ronald Schroeder, who works at various crisis pregnancy centers, filed a lawsuit earlier this year in federal court in Springfield. The case recently was transferred to federal court in Chicago, and then to Rockford, where it will be consolidated with another Thomas More lawsuit over the law.

Live Action News continues

ABORTIONISTS NOW DEMAND CHRISTIANS PROMOTE PROCEDURE

'This unbelievable government mandate is an example of the evolution of political correctness'

By Bob Unruh

World Net Daily

Christian pro-life counseling centers are fighting a mandate from the government in California, based on instructions from NARAL Pro-Choice America to lawmakers there, that they promote abortion even if the procedure violates their faith.

The state has adopted a requirement, in a plan sponsored by the abortionists, that crisis pregnancy centers must promote the state’s offerings for abortion, whether they believe in it, support it, or even whether it offends their deeply held religious beliefs.

The same plan had been adopted in New York, but was dropped after a legal challenge there.

The result is that pregnancy care centers in New York City can continue to “serve women without being forced to speak or post messages that are contrary to their pro-life beliefs or that direct women away from the services the centers offer,” according to officials with the the Alliance Defending Freedom, which fought the state government over the issue there.

Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”

In California, the issue is the same, that government officials are ordering pro-life centers – which offer counseling, pregnancy testing kits, housing, baby supplies and other services – to post notices in prominent places declaring they don’t offer abortions. And they must make available information about the state’s abortion programs.

The also has arisen in Montgomery County, Maryland, where WND reported two years ago that officials decided not to appeal an adverse court ruling that halted their plan.

And it’s come up in Illinois, where it currently is the subject of litigation.

In California, there have been several legal challenges launched, involving a long list of pro-life centers.

In one case, Liberty Counsel is representing His Nesting of Long Beach, Pregnancy and Family Resource Center of San Bernardino and Birth Choice of the Desert of La Quinta, all of which offer women experiencing crisis pregnancies resources, counseling, advice and alternatives to abortion.

Continue reading