Archdiocese sues city over pregnancy counseling notice

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Entropic

That must be something different than where I am, because the holistic healer's offices here look virtually identical to the doctor's offices.

But do they advertise for things like say "free pregnancy tests"?

People being ostracized by the church is a private matter between the church and the person. This kind of ostracization is a matter between the government and the church. When the church ostracizes someone, they do so by their own collective choice, not by using the monopoly of force that we've granted the government.

The government is by the people for the people, ideally at least, isn't it? If the Church as an organization choses to target women and attempts to pass off as clinics to prevent women from getting abortions, why can't women ask the government to intervene? And its been women who have been pushing for these laws, including Planned Parenthood and feminist organizations.

It ostracizes the church by practically (again, I'm being careful to not say literally) targeting church run groups and forcing them to bear signs saying something they don't do.

I don't think thats ostracizing, thats just putting up a sign saying you don't provide a service that they would otherwise want people to think they do. If they had to put up a sign saying "We're Catholic and therefore we're evil," then you'd have a point. But since they are just posting facts, whats the problem?

That's fair enough, I can understand why you would have a lack of information.

However, even NARAL isn't providing that much information. If you look back at the sources, they usually either link back to Planned Parenthood or the Center for Reproductive Rights. There are a few links which go back to government funded or newspaper articles, but those are few and far between.

Planned Parenthood is a very respectful organization that is capable of doing its own studies, its not like its linking back to a angelfire site. Sadly with some issues its hard to get a third party, much less the government, interested in it.

Your diet is also a health decision. Again, many people will die from malnutrition or poor dieting. I still don't see the justification for going after such a broad range of people.

To protect the consumer or at least let them know what they are getting themselves into.

Also, I don't think the majority of late term abortions are for medical reasons. The only study I know of is old, so if you have a new one, feel free to correct me. However, this study has these results:

TABLE 4. Percentage of women who reported that various reasons
contributed to their having a late abortion and who cited specific
reasons as accounting for the longest delay

Longest
All delay
(399) (311) Reason

71% 31% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48 27 Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33 14 Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24 9 Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8 4 Woman waited for her realtionship to change
8 2 Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6 1 Something changed after woman became pregnant
6 <0.05 Woman didn't know timing is important
5 2 Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2 1 A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11 9 Other

I was thinking of actual late term, after 27 weeks, those statistics are for abortions after 20 weeks I believe. We're just talking about two different things, sorry.

I agree we shouldn't let nutritionalists poison people. If you're cool with going after all of those categories, then that's consistent and I say fine. However, I want to make sure that it's clear that this is what we're going for.

If nutritionists actually are posing as dietitians to prevent people from getting treatment from actual dietitians, I'm all for them at least posting signs saying that they are not in fact, dietitians.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by Saya

But do they advertise for things like say "free pregnancy tests"?

20% off nasal unclogging, so close.

Originally Posted by Saya

The government is by the people for the people, ideally at least, isn't it? If the Church as an organization choses to target women and attempts to pass off as clinics to prevent women from getting abortions, why can't women ask the government to intervene? And its been women who have been pushing for these laws, including Planned Parenthood and feminist organizations.

A government by the people, for the people, not by persons, for persons. There's a difference between an atomic individual and a collective group of people. The government shouldn't intervene in this matter because they aren't trying to pass off the clinics as clinics that support abortion.

Originally Posted by Saya

I don't think thats ostracizing, thats just putting up a sign saying you don't provide a service that they would otherwise want people to think they do. If they had to put up a sign saying "We're Catholic and therefore we're evil," then you'd have a point. But since they are just posting facts, whats the problem?

Are you going to force McDonalds to put up a sign saying they don't sell whoppers? As far as I can tell, these clinics are not claiming to be an abortion clinic and then saying they're not an abortion clinic. They're claiming to be pregnancy centers, which is just ambigious enough that I can't see why we should go after them.

Originally Posted by Saya

Planned Parenthood is a very respectful organization that is capable of doing its own studies, its not like its linking back to a angelfire site. Sadly with some issues its hard to get a third party, much less the government, interested in it.

They still have a vested interest, which means their numbers should be treated with an extra grain of salt. I agree it's hard, but until I have those numbers, I can't support you.

Originally Posted by Saya

To protect the consumer or at least let them know what they are getting themselves into.

At what point does individual responsibility to do research come in? I'm all for things like food labels and drug testing, but signs saying "we don't do x, y, and z"? Really?

Originally Posted by Saya

I was thinking of actual late term, after 27 weeks, those statistics are for abortions after 20 weeks I believe. We're just talking about two different things, sorry.

You don't have a monopoly over the definition of late-term. Read the wikipedia article I cited: Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[5] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[6]

Sorry, we're not talking about different things. So, again, show me the sources that prove the article I cited wrong.

Originally Posted by Saya

If nutritionists actually are posing as dietitians to prevent people from getting treatment from actual dietitians, I'm all for them at least posting signs saying that they are not in fact, dietitians.

Define "prevent". As far as I can tell, we still haven't taken their choice away, and I still don't see the evidence for them lying.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Entropic

20% off nasal unclogging, so close.

Yes, because people in need of 20% nasal uncloggings are usually people in vulnerable situations. Its very comparable to targetting women in need of free pregnancy tests.

A government by the people, for the people, not by persons, for persons. There's a difference between an atomic individual and a collective group of people. The government shouldn't intervene in this matter because they aren't trying to pass off the clinics as clinics that support abortion.

I'm sorry, I thought women were people, how silly of me. And they are trying to pass off the clinics as viable pregnancy clinics that usually include abortion services or referrals, this is the idea behind them.

So I finally decided to visit one of their websites, and they do claim to provide abortion services on the main page, but when you click on "Considering Abortion?" It provides a lot of misinformation about abortion and discourages it, and only at the very bottom of that page does it mention that it doesn't offer referrals for abortion, it should be on the main page frankly. I can't find anywhere on the site where it says its even a church based program.

http://www.pregnancycenters.org/

Are you going to force McDonalds to put up a sign saying they don't sell whoppers? As far as I can tell, these clinics are not claiming to be an abortion clinic and then saying they're not an abortion clinic. They're claiming to be pregnancy centers, which is just ambigious enough that I can't see why we should go after them.

I'm pretty sure McDonalds has an equivalent to a whopper, and they did get a lot of flack actually for having a veggie burger that isn't vegetarian. These clinics ARE posing as basically another Planned Parenthood. They even advertising under "abortion services".

They still have a vested interest, which means their numbers should be treated with an extra grain of salt. I agree it's hard, but until I have those numbers, I can't support you.

And governments don't have vested interests? And the Church has no influence whatsoever on them?

At what point does individual responsibility to do research come in? I'm all for things like food labels and drug testing, but signs saying "we don't do x, y, and z"? Really?

So you're for foods being labeled but not services that would otherwise act like they are Planned Parenthood? Ooookay. And this is all for individual responsiblity, if a woman knows she is going into a pregnancy counselling service that opposes abortion and birth control, its her right. But its also her right to know what she's going into.

You don't have a monopoly over the definition of late-term. Read the wikipedia article I cited: Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[5] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[6]

Sorry, we're not talking about different things. So, again, show me the sources that prove the article I cited wrong.

Dude, the very same wikipedia article notes that there are different definitions. I was thinking of abortions after the third trimester, I am talking about something different.

Define "prevent". As far as I can tell, we still haven't taken their choice away, and I still don't see the evidence for them lying.

Go to that link that i provided that is their own website, if you didn't see the disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying they do not provide abortion services, would you have known that it was a church website?

[Entropic]

I have to head to work, so I'll reply to the rest sometime tomorrow.

However, I want to point one thing out:

I'm sorry, I thought women were people, how silly of me.

Saya, I'm disappointed. You started by asking loaded questions, and now you're pulling the "zomg you're saying women aren't people" card. This is seriously poor form for a debate.

I made a clear distinction between persons and "the people" that the government is designed to protect, and you know it. Stop resorting to cheap "see my thinly veiled accusation of you being a misogynist" tricks.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Entropic

I have to head to work, so I'll reply to the rest sometime tomorrow.

However, I want to point one thing out:



Saya, I'm disappointed. You started by asking loaded questions, and now you're pulling the "zomg you're saying women aren't people" card. This is seriously poor form for a debate.

I made a clear distinction between persons and "the people" that the government is designed to protect, and you know it. Stop resorting to cheap "see my thinly veiled accusation of you being a misogynist" tricks.

You're asserting that women's groups shouldn't create laws that protect women and give them informed choices. How is this any different from laws that protect minorities or people with special interests, like people with disabilities? Why is government "for the people" but women aren't a people but just individuals?

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by Saya

You're asserting that women's groups shouldn't create laws that protect women and give them informed choices. How is this any different from laws that protect minorities or people with special interests, like people with disabilities? Why is government "for the people" but women aren't a people but just individuals?

Last post before I go.

"The people" makes up the entire people of a country, not just special interest groups.

The laws that protect minorities are generally laws that prevent exclusion from something. Blacks can't be excluded from public schools, handicapped people can't be excluded from government buildings, the blind can't be excluded from crosswalks, women can't be excluded from voting, etc. Their protections give them access to the same things that everyone else in society enjoys.

The kind of law we're arguing over doesn't protect women in the same way. It's a punitive action towards a religious group. It doesn't prevent women from being it excluded, it excludes religions from operating as they see fit. In some cases, this is justified. This is a case where I can see myself agreeing, but I need clarification and explanation on a lot of points before I'm willing to justify it.

That's why it's different, and that's why invoking "women are people, and the government protects the people" isn't a proper justification.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Entropic

Last post before I go.

"The people" makes up the entire people of a country, not just special interest groups.

The laws that protect minorities are generally laws that prevent exclusion from something. Blacks can't be excluded from public schools, handicapped people can't be excluded from government buildings, the blind can't be excluded from crosswalks, women can't be excluded from voting, etc. Their protections give them access to the same things that everyone else in society enjoys.

The kind of law we're arguing over doesn't protect women in the same way. It's a punitive action towards a religious group. It doesn't prevent women from being it excluded, it excludes religions from operating as they see fit. In some cases, this is justified. This is a case where I can see myself agreeing, but I need clarification and explanation on a lot of points before I'm willing to justify it.

That's why it's different, and that's why invoking "women are people, and the government protects the people" isn't a proper justification.

So the entire country has to agree on a single law before its "for the people"?

What you were saying was that it just protects individuals, and while it does, women still make up half the country and are being targeted by anti-choice religious groups that seek to limit their choice and mislead them about their choices. While they can say what they want, they should not be able to trick women into thinking they are walking into a secular medical clinic. They do this intentionally, we even have a long time member who is by the way a pretty smart lady walk into one thinking it was perfectly legit. I provided a lot of information and if you just want to discredit Planned Parenthood, NARAL and every other link provided because they're somehow feeling competitive, thats your perogative. Why not go to a clinic yourself?

[ape descendant]

Alot of those reasons look pretty valid to me.

It seems that some of those very reasons could be due to getting misinformation at a crappy pseudo-clinic.

Patient = Mother, one thing that remains the same no matter what, is the geography of pregnancy.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by Saya

Yes, because people in need of 20% nasal uncloggings are usually people in vulnerable situations. Its very comparable to targetting women in need of free pregnancy tests.

You only asked if they did targeted advertising, not whether or not they were targeting vulnerable people.

Originally Posted by Saya

And they are trying to pass off the clinics as viable pregnancy clinics that usually include abortion services or referrals, this is the idea behind them.

Look at how much of a monopoly you think you hold on language. The difference between a "viable" pregnancy clinic and one of their clinics is the arbitrary criteria YOU put on it.

Originally Posted by Saya

So I finally decided to visit one of their websites, and they do claim to provide abortion services on the main page, but when you click on "Considering Abortion?" It provides a lot of misinformation about abortion and discourages it, and only at the very bottom of that page does it mention that it doesn't offer referrals for abortion, it should be on the main page frankly. I can't find anywhere on the site where it says its even a church based program.

I took a look at their website. Guess what? Nowhere on it does it claim that they provide abortions. I'm dead serious.

"Your needs are important to us. Our trained consultants are available 24/7 to listen to your concerns and to answer your questions about pregnancy, abortion and related issues. Our consultants will connect you to nearby pregnancy centers that offer the following services: "

I don't see "we provide abortion" there.

"Free pregnancy tests and pregnancy information
Abortion and Morning-After Pill information, including procedures and risks"

Nor there.

"Medical services, including STD tests,
early ultrasounds and pregnancy confirmation"

Hey look, under the services they provide, they don't list abortion.

"Confidential pregnancy options
After Abortion: If you are facing issues
relating to a past abortion, we can help you
find caring people in your community to help address these concerns.
All of our services are confidential."

Nor there either. Where, exactly, on the main page does it say that they provide abortions?

Originally Posted by Saya

I'm pretty sure McDonalds has an equivalent to a whopper, and they did get a lot of flack actually for having a veggie burger that isn't vegetarian.

They overtly lied. Again, I've never had a problem with prosecuting that.

Originally Posted by Saya

These clinics ARE posing as basically another Planned Parenthood. They even advertising under "abortion services".

Oh come on!

"RH Reality Check, the Feminist Majority Foundation and Stuart Productions."

Does this not SCREAM bias to you? Does it not register at all that a feminist organization and a reproductive health organization might just be a teensy, tiny bit biased?

All they have to do is take a photograph, or a screenshot, or something that shows one of these pregnancy centers claiming to provide abortions, and then not providing abortions (thereby lying) and I'll drop this entire point.

Originally Posted by Saya

And governments don't have vested interests? And the Church has no influence whatsoever on them?

Governments do have biases. However, government studies generally go through strict methodology and (usually) peer review. The methodology and peer review will either flag or eliminate any effect the vested interests and effect the church

Originally Posted by Saya

So you're for foods being labeled but not services that would otherwise act like they are Planned Parenthood? Ooookay. And this is all for individual responsiblity, if a woman knows she is going into a pregnancy counselling service that opposes abortion and birth control, its her right. But its also her right to know what she's going into.

It's also her job to find it out.

It isn't "her right" to know. It isn't a "right" for me to demand that there be labels on food, either. It's a privilidge. It's a good privilidge, and one we should all have, but it's not a right.

Originally Posted by Saya

Dude, the very same wikipedia article notes that there are different definitions. I was thinking of abortions after the third trimester, I am talking about something different.

Then show me your source which says that after 27 weeks, most women get an abortion for medical reasons. Otherwise, you aren't giving me a reason to think that the majority of women who have late-term abortions change their minds in those 7 weeks.

Originally Posted by Saya

Go to that link that i provided that is their own website, if you didn't see the disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying they do not provide abortion services, would you have known that it was a church website?

The giant "contact us" sections?

Originally Posted by Saya

So the entire country has to agree on a single law before its "for the people"?

No.

Again, you're extrapolating things that I've never said. "The people" makes up the entire people of a country. "For the people", traditionally, has been done for the majority of the country.

Originally Posted by Saya

What you were saying was that it just protects individuals, and while it does, women still make up half the country and are being targeted by anti-choice religious groups that seek to limit their choice and mislead them about their choices.

Listen to your own rhetoric.

They're just as much anti-choice as you are anti-life. Until you can get past the "Us vs. Them" rhetoric, why should I trust your judgement?

Originally Posted by Saya

While they can say what they want, they should not be able to trick women into thinking they are walking into a secular medical clinic.

So branding them, and by extension ostracizing them from the community, is the best alternative?

Originally Posted by Saya

They do this intentionally, we even have a long time member who is by the way a pretty smart lady walk into one thinking it was perfectly legit.

I don't doubt that she's a smart lady. However, it's an anecdote. Laws shouldn't be based on anecdotes.

Originally Posted by Saya

I provided a lot of information and if you just want to discredit Planned Parenthood, NARAL and every other link provided because they're somehow feeling competitive, thats your perogative.

They're biased.

They have a distinct stake in this debate, and the data that they come out with nearly (if not) always come in to support their conclusions. That's why I don't accept what they say on the basis that they said them. Any good law is based on unbiased information, not information from special interest groups.

Originally Posted by Saya

Why not go to a clinic yourself?

I have been. I took me two questions to find out they were a religious organization, one of which was, "Are you a religious organization?", which had followed "Can we get an abortion here?".




My entire qualm with this is that you haven't been giving me enough information to justify interfering with church business. Every source you've cited has an overt agenda, be it feminists or pro-choice groups.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Entropic

My entire qualm with this is that you haven't been giving me enough information to justify interfering with church business. Every source you've cited has an overt agenda, be it feminists or pro-choice groups.

How is this "interfering with Church business"? All that this law is saying is that they need to post that they are not a health clinic unless they actually have medical professionals there. They post a sign on a building and if they really want to go over the top they can post a little line on their website. This doesn't interfere with shit unless misleading people is part of their business, in which case you would agree that they are doing something wrong.

Plus I know that the evidence I have given is anecdotal but this law is something that people in Baltimore have been demanding for years, which is my the lawmakers actually did something (cuz lets face it local politics just don't do shit without an active voice from the community) if you think that the law is wrong then you need to prove that it is hurting the Church or that it is somehow infringing on the rights of the Church, instead of bitching that the information that Saya has given you isn't good enough because it is too bias.

[Saya]

Yeah, I give up at this point. I don't understand why a guy who defended Nation Master is getting so picky about sources.

[Solumina]

I just want to add a little edit to my last post:

There are legitimate church based clinics that do have medical professionals on staff, there are also legitimate church based clinics that only give advice and admit to not being sources for medical information, I have no problem with these, and to my knowledge neither does anyone else here. The involvement of religious organizations in reproductive health isn't the problem, it is the attempts to trick and mislead women.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by Solumina

How is this "interfering with Church business"?

This law targets church run organizations. Unless you can name any other organization that this law effects, it's targeted.

Originally Posted by Solumina

All that this law is saying is that they need to post that they are not a health clinic unless they actually have medical professionals there.

Either I'm misreading the law, or this isn't true. It's a law that requires health clinics to post saying whether or not they provide abortions, irregardless of whether or not they have medical professionals.

Originally Posted by Solumina

They post a sign on a building and if they really want to go over the top they can post a little line on their website. This doesn't interfere with shit unless misleading people is part of their business, in which case you would agree that they are doing something wrong.

It targets a religious group. That's interference. Again, unless you can show me other non-religious organizations who are effected by this, it's specifically targeted at religious organization.

Originally Posted by Solumina

Plus I know that the evidence I have given is anecdotal but this law is something that people in Baltimore have been demanding for years, which is my the lawmakers actually did something (cuz lets face it local politics just don't do shit without an active voice from the community) if you think that the law is wrong then you need to prove that it is hurting the Church or that it is somehow infringing on the rights of the Church, instead of bitching that the information that Saya has given you isn't good enough because it is too bias.

I have been pointing that out since the beginning. It's a targeted law at religious groups that doesn't effect anyone but religious groups in practice. In theory this would apply to secular groups, but if we're going based purely on anecdotal evidence, then I think you and I both know that arguing it targets anyone else is insane.

The law is also wrong because it is essentially the legal version of carpet bombing. Instead of targeting individual offenders for misleading women, it is a blanket law which effects all organizations, whether they mislead women or not. As far as I know, and I'm not a lawyer, there are laws against providing

In other words, in it's current form the law either doesn't go far enough, or it goes too far.

Originally Posted by Solumina

There are legitimate church based clinics that do have medical professionals on staff, there are also legitimate church based clinics that only give advice and admit to not being sources for medical information, I have no problem with these, and to my knowledge neither does anyone else here. The involvement of religious organizations in reproductive health isn't the problem, it is the attempts to trick and mislead women.

And I've said that I don't take issue with lying anywhere in my posts. If they lie, then they should be punished. However, if what you are saying is true, then the conclusion I've come to is this:

1.) Not all church based clinics are misleading people.
2.) There isn't strong evidence supporting the fact that church based clinics are misleading people.
3.) This law targets all church based clinics who refuse abortion without strong evidence.
4.) Therefore, there shouldn't be a law.

Originally Posted by Saya

Yeah, I give up at this point. I don't understand why a guy who defended Nation Master is getting so picky about sources.

I defended NationMaster because I can read the United Nations report they cited. By extension, I can defend the United Nations report because I can review the methodology they used. Just because it's an aggregation, doesn't mean it's invalid.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Entropic

This law targets church run organizations. Unless you can name any other organization that this law effects, it's targeted.

I can't name another organization because in the affected area there aren't any that it would apply to, all of the organizations that are posing as legitimate clinics are Church run (notice the "C" not "c" it does actually matter). If there were other organizations that did so then the law would apply to them as well. Go read the actual law if you want, it isn't that hard to find with a quick search on google.

Originally Posted by Entropic

Either I'm misreading the law, or this isn't true. It's a law that requires health clinics to post saying whether or not they provide abortions, irregardless of whether or not they have medical professionals.

You are misreading the law, and to be honest my post was a bit inaccurate as well. They have to post that they do not refer women for abortions or birth control. That is not saying that they perform abortions or not, that is saying that if a woman goes to them for advice then they will not refer her to a medical professional for abortions or prescribes birth control (which is the main reason why women go to these centers in the first place).

Originally Posted by Entropic

And I've said that I don't take issue with lying anywhere in my posts. If they lie, then they should be punished.

This is what the lawmakers are seeing as the best way to stop them from lying as there was previously nothing on the books to keep them from doing so.

Originally Posted by Entropic

if what you are saying is true, then the conclusion I've come to is this:

1.) Not all church based clinics are misleading people.
2.) There isn't strong evidence supporting the fact that church based clinics are misleading people.
3.) This law targets all church based clinics who refuse abortion without strong evidence.
4.) Therefore, there shouldn't be a law.

I don't get your reasoning at all. The organizations that aren't misleading people aren't the ones making a fuss, they all seem to be pretty okay with it and understand where the need is coming from. Also there are plenty of church run clinics that do provide referrals for abortions or birth control, some of them even have medical professionals. Not all churches are anti-choice, and even many of the ones that are have no problem clearly stating that they don't condone abortions and birth control, so of course the don't provide referrals for such things.

Originally Posted by Entropic

I defended NationMaster because I can read the United Nations report they cited. By extension, I can defend the United Nations report because I can review the methodology they used. Just because it's an aggregation, doesn't mean it's invalid.

Then do a little research into what Saya linked, check their methodology. You will find them to be completely legit, even if you don't like where the funding came from.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Then do a little research into NARAL, check their methodology. You will find them to be completely legit, even if you don't like where the funding came from.

Sorry it is a bit too late to edit but that bit should be changed for clarity, as there is more arguing about wording than substance in this thread.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by Solumina

I can't name another organization because in the affected area there aren't any that it would apply to, all of the organizations that are posing as legitimate clinics are Church run (notice the "C" not "c" it does actually matter). If there were other organizations that did so then the law would apply to them as well. Go read the actual law if you want, it isn't that hard to find with a quick search on google.

First, I beg to differ on the difficulty of finding said law. The city council bill (I'm not sure if this is the final text of the ordinance) is here, if anyone wants to read it: http://legistar.baltimorecitycouncil...ments/5179.pdf

Second, you completely missed one of my points:

I have been pointing that out since the beginning. It's a targeted law at religious groups that doesn't effect anyone but religious groups in practice. In theory this would apply to secular groups, but if we're going based purely on anecdotal evidence, then I think you and I both know that arguing it targets anyone else is insane.

Originally Posted by Solumina

You are misreading the law, and to be honest my post was a bit inaccurate as well. They have to post that they do not refer women for abortions or birth control. That is not saying that they perform abortions or not, that is saying that if a woman goes to them for advice then they will not refer her to a medical professional for abortions or prescribes birth control (which is the main reason why women go to these centers in the first place).

Just because they will not refer her to a medical professional for abortions or perscription birth control, does not mean they will not refer her to a medical professional period. Nor does it mean that they will provide her with poor advice, nor does it necessitate that they will do something that will endanger her life.

In other words, this is not something you need a law for.

Originally Posted by Solumina

This is what the lawmakers are seeing as the best way to stop them from lying as there was previously nothing on the books to keep them from doing so.

Again, target individual offenders instead of carpet-bombing church run services. If you need to make a law, make a law that makes the activity illegal.

Originally Posted by Solumina

I don't get your reasoning at all. The organizations that aren't misleading people aren't the ones making a fuss, they all seem to be pretty okay with it and understand where the need is coming from.

This implies that the organizations who are making a fuss are misleading people. Again, this isn't a claim anyone has put any substance too.

Originally Posted by Solumina

Also there are plenty of church run clinics that do provide referrals for abortions or birth control, some of them even have medical professionals.

It stands to reason that some church run clinics that don't provide referrals for abortions or birth control also have medical professionals. Unless you arbitrarily define a medical professional as someone who refers abortion and birth control, what's your point?

Originally Posted by Solumina

Not all churches are anti-choice, and even many of the ones that are have no problem clearly stating that they don't condone abortions and birth control, so of course the don't provide referrals for such things.

Not all churches are anti-life, either. Seriously, do you not see the way you are using language here? I'm arguing wording because the way you use it paints your opposition as the bad guy, before you've even made a point.

Even if they don't condone it, it should be their choice as to whether or not they post signs saying they refer such services.

Originally Posted by Solumina

Then do a little research into NARAL, check their methodology. You will find them to be completely legit, even if you don't like where the funding came from.

I have done research in to NARAL. Honestly, NARAL doesn't do that much original research, and the research that is done for them is usually just statistics on opinion polls like this one: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/asse...earch-memo.pdf

When you look at things like this: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issu...ncy-centers/#2

You'll find that they have decent citations refuting the points, but very rarely show whose point they are refuting. They're essentially saying, "Our opponents say this, and this is why they're wrong", which is basically a straw man because they aren't showing their opponents are actually saying it.

[Entropic]

Actually, after rereading this, I'm going to stop arguing.

I've lost track of my original point, and I'm nitpicking about rather irrelevant terms for the sake of being right. I apologize.

[Despanan]

I really don't see what the big deal is, unless they intend to lie to these women in order to--

OH. I SAW WHUT THEY DID THER.

[Delkaetre]

I still don't see what the problem with this law is.

Group A offers pregnancy services.
Group B also offers pregnancy services.

Group A offers the full range, including referral to abortion providers or birth control information.
Group B does not offer the full range, but advertises as if it's the same as Group A.

This law means that Group B will now have to admit that it does not offer the full range of services and will refuse to offer the full range of services, so that women seeking complete information can go elsewhere.

If Group A and Group B are advertising as the same thing and you're a panicked teenager who's only been exposed to abstinence sex-ed and doesn't actually have a useful grasp on what services you might need, you may find Group A far more useful. But without this law, you won't know the difference between Group A and Group B.

Consumer choice is very important, but only when the consumer realises there really is a difference between products. Otherwise it's misleading and potentially dangerous.