Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Spooky News

Spooky News Spooky news from around the web goes in this forum. Please always credit and link your source and only use sources which are okay with being posted. No profanity in subject headings please.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2010, 12:07 PM   #1
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Archdiocese sues city over pregnancy counseling notice

Quote:
The Archdiocese of Baltimore filed a federal lawsuit against the city Monday, saying a first-in-the-nation ordinance regulating pregnancy counseling centers violates the rights of church members to freedom of speech and religion.

Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien said the law, which took effect in January, "is hurting the good people volunteering and giving so much of their resources to come to the help of pregnant women." It requires the centers, some of which are supported by the Catholic Church, to post signs stating that they do not refer women for abortion or birth control.

But proponents - including Mayor Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake, who sponsored the bill last year as president of the City Council - have described the requirement as a matter of public health. A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Maryland, which has accused the centers of giving women misleading information about the risks of abortion and birth control, called the law "just responsible policy."

"It's to ensure women's access to health information they need to make right decisions for themselves," Christine Lyn Diller said.

Officials at the counseling centers say staff members provide accurate information. Lawyers for the archdiocese, who filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, say the ordinance unfairly targets four centers that provide needed support and assistance to women and children.

Mark Graber, professor of law and government at the University of Maryland School of Law, said the law appears to favor the city. He said the Supreme Court has made it clear that advertising does not have the same protections as political speech.

"All government is doing here is asking people to tell the truth," Graber said. "And we do this all the time on the cigarette labels. This is simply telling a pregnancy center that you must tell the truth about what you do."

The ordinance requires that a "limited-service pregnancy center" post an easily readable sign, written in English and Spanish, stating that the center does not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth-control services. A center failing to comply within 10 days of being cited could be fined up to $150 a day.

Four Baltimore-area centers provide clothing and food for pregnant mothers, as well as parenting classes, maternity and infant supplies and referrals for prenatal care and adoption.

Thomas J. Schetelich, chairman of the board for the Center for Pregnancy Concerns, said that the ordinance singles out the Catholic Church for its anti-abortion stance. The nonprofit, anti-abortion organization receives donations from religious groups supporting women who plan to take their pregnancies to term and operates three of the four local centers.

"Frankly, we would expect our city government to be supporting our sacrificial efforts rather than trying to hinder," Schetelich said. "We're disappointed that our stand for life draws opposition."

Sean Caine, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said its attorneys are handling the case pro bono.

Debate over the bill last year drew attention from national groups on both sides of the abortion divide. The Montgomery County Council has considered a similar measure.

After the bill passed in November, Rawlings-Blake called it a victory for women's well-being. She referred questions Monday to City Solicitor George Nilson.

Nilson said he anticipated the lawsuit and that the law would stand in court because it simply requires a statement of fact.

"And while you can't make people engage in speech that expresses a point of view," he said, "that's not what the bill does. It's just like a bill that requires hours of operations."

Carol A. Clews, executive director of Center for Pregnancy Concerns, was joined Monday by Schetelich and O'Brien at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. Clews said the three centers see about 1,000 women a year and counsel about 7,000 more over the phone.

They posted the explicit signs at the centers Jan. 4.

"We have many of our clients fill out evaluations after they've been helped," she said. "We do not now or have we ever had complaints from clients about being misled in any way or problems with the services they've received."

The issue was brought to the City Council by Planned Parenthood of Maryland, which expressed disappointment in the lawsuit. Pregnant women, they say, should be told when they are not being given access to all of the options legally available to them.

A report by NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland alleged that crisis pregnancy centers in the state and nationwide tried to deceive clients with false or misleading information.

"This law empowers women by giving them full information up front about what to expect from a limited-service pregnancy center," said Jennifer Blasdell, the organization's executive director. "This provision does not ask a facility to provide or counsel for any services they find objectionable, but only asks them to tell the truth about the nature of their services."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...,4172720.story

If you're not in the know, "pregnancy crisis centers" are usually church run centers that have no medical professionals who entice women in by advertising that they give free pregnancy tests, and often lie and mislead women about their choices, saying things like "abortion will give you breast cancer" or telling them that they are too far along the pregnancy to abort when they actually are not.

So basically, the church wants the freedom to lie to women and not let them know that they are an abstinence only, anti-choice organization intending to prevent women from aborting.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 09:10 PM   #2
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
I really don't get how any rational person could object to this law. As the article says it only requires them to post something saying what they don't/can't do so that people can actually be informed.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 04:38 AM   #3
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
If a person goes to a church based centre, then how are they being 'enticed'? As a private organisation, they are entitled to do what they want. Forcing them to put up demeaning signs in efforts to keep people from going there seems counterproductive.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 11:02 AM   #4
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
They don't even advertise really that they are church based, they advertise like Planned Parenthood does (their ads usually say "free pregnancy tests", which are always the ones you find in a drug store since none of them are doctors), and gives false and inaccurate information about pregnancy, contraception and abortion. Thats horribly misleading and false advertisement, as a private establishment I would think that they are bound by advertising laws, yes?
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 12:32 PM   #5
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Your sure making a lot of accusations there. Thats twice you have accused them of giving false information, misleading people, and lying. I have yet to see any evidence of that, other than your accusations.

Abortions are legal. If someone wants one, all they have to do is go to a clinic. I don't see what the issue is. Do you think the ladies who visit those offices have no idea about where to find an abortion? It seems like your giving them too little credit.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 12:46 PM   #6
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
They're absolutely infamous for targeting women for the sole purpose of making them carry out their pregnancies, people even go in under cover just to see what they will say and its always the same.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-..._b_524467.html
http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/fake.htm
http://www.scarleteen.com/article/ad..._harm_not_help
http://www.alternet.org/rights/35545/
http://feministlookingglass.com/2010...out-as-advice/

That should give you enough reading for a while, let me know if you need more evidence.

Quote:
According to a recent Planned Parenthood email, a 17-year-old girl mistakenly walked into a crisis pregnancy center thinking it was Planned Parenthood, which was next door. "The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their 'other office' (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby)."

When she showed up for her nonexistent appointment, she was met by the police, who had been erroneously tipped that a minor was being forced to abort. The crisis pregnancy center staff followed up this harassment by staking out the girl's house, phoning her father at work, and even talking to her classmates about her pregnancy, urging them to harass her.

I contacted Jennifer Jorczak of Planned Parenthood of Indiana to verify this story, and while she was unable to provide details out of respect for the patient's privacy, she confirmed that everything in the initial action alert email was true.
Thats from the alternet article, only one of hundreds of stories of how they prey on women. And since they pose as clinics, how are women supposed to know? Thats why they must advertise correctly like this law forces them to, especially given that abortion providers are actually more rare than you think and its not always easy for women to find them.


Christ, why would you be against informing women what their choices are?
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 06:57 AM   #7
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Your response again is laughable. The church 'preys' on women to encourage them not to get abortions. Like women are so dumb they had no idea they could get an abortion, went to a church run clinic and were told abortions are illegal. I'm not buying it.

Again I quote 'why would you be against informing women what their choices are?' Really? Abortion is always an option, since they are legal. You act like pregnant women looking for support have never heard of the concept, and these clinics lie and tell them that they are illegal.

If your pregnant in America I'm sure you know what an abortion is. It's not some secret they are hiding away and keeping from the people. To even suggest that is demeaning to women.

They were adult enough to get pregnant, I'm pretty sure they can find an abortion if they so choose. No one is 'preying' on them, forcing them at gun point to have a child.

You really give women a lack of credit in your allegations they are easily 'preyed upon' and 'forced' to have children.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 11:12 AM   #8
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
They aren't generally telling them that abortions are illegal they just give false information about the health risks of abortions. Yes, many women do know better and after a quick visit to these clinics they go elsewhere, but the sexual health education in most US school systems is pathetic so many women really don't know better. Plus many of the women who go to these places are young and scared so they are much more prone to manipulation than they would be under normal circumstances.


Not to mention that these centers do promote themselves as clinics, not church based organizations to help those about to become mothers, but actual clinics. I've been there, done that with my cousin, quite possibly at one of the ones the article is talking about. The organization claimed to be a "pregnancy crisis clinic" and it seemed completely legit until they started to give her all sorts of crazy information. She didn't know better because she was scared out of her mind and if I hadn't been there holding her hand then yeah she would have fallen for their lies. For the record if she had known that it was a Catholic run center she never would have gone being as she is a devout Methodist and they have their own young mothers center, but they are actually upfront about the fact that they aren't a clinic, which is why she didn't go to them.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 12:39 PM   #9
Entropic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 147
Okay, here's a question:

Are they giving blatantly inaccurate facts, or are they citing different sources? That determines whether or not I'm for or against this. If they're giving out blatantly inaccurate facts, screw them. If they're citing different sources, even if those sources have some kind of flaw, I think the government should stay away.

I'll use condoms as an example of what I'm talking about.

When we had sex education run by a pro-choice group in my school, they told us that condoms had a 99% success rate. When we had sex education run by a pro-life group, they told us that condoms had a 75% success rate. When I looked up their respective studies, it turned out that the pro-life group was citing an old study that had a few methodology errors (in particular, a small sample size), and the pro-choice group was citing a study that had been run by a condom manufacturer (ergo subject to bias).

In the end, who was right? Well, that depends on which study you chose to trust. If that's the case with the "misleading" information that the pregnancy crisis clinics (or whatever you wish to call them) is giving out, I think the government should stay out of the situation. I think this, because it's not a matter of deliberate deception, it's a matter of differing opinions, and that differing opinion should be protected under the idea of the seperation of the church and state. Any intentional or unintentional ostracization through the clever use of signs crosses that line.

All of this goes out the window as soon as someone lies. If they lie, they deserve to be shut down.

I'm not speaking to any of the harassment either. If they're harassing people, prosecute them for harassment, instead of putting up signs.

By the way, asking "Christ, why would you be against informing women what their choices are?" is an inherently loaded question. I could ask you, "Christ, why would you be against freedom of religion/different opinions/etc?", and have the same effect. It may be a legitimate point, but it's still a loaded question.
Entropic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 01:35 PM   #10
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
They don't exactly cite their sources but what they were saying was in blatant contrast to any reliable sources that I had ever seen on the subject.


As for the condom thing, it looks like you got two sources that had other motivations. There have been studies done by various heath organizations and, with only very minor variation, they show about a 99.3% effectiveness if used properly and about 97% with average use.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 02:22 PM   #11
Entropic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 147
It's in blatant contrast to what I've seen too, but the point is that it's not an unfounded belief. People can take "85% protection rate over unprotected sex" to mean "condoms have a 15% failure rate", and "2% of people who have abortions get some kind of cancer" to mean "you have a risk of cancer from having an abortion".

The study cited by the pro-life organization wasn't particularly biased. It was just freakishly outdated (I think it was from the early 1970s) and had a very small sample size. The one by the condom manufacturer had good methodology, but again, it's from a condom manufacturer.

The point I want to make, is that unless they have absolutely no reason to believe what they're saying, it should still fall under the domain of a protected opinion. Forcing them to put up signs is ostracization of that opinion, which I don't think should be allowed.
Entropic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 02:25 PM   #12
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn View Post
Your response again is laughable. The church 'preys' on women to encourage them not to get abortions. Like women are so dumb they had no idea they could get an abortion, went to a church run clinic and were told abortions are illegal. I'm not buying it.
They prey on them by posing as legit clinics, which this law bans, and they don't tell them quite that its illegal, some misinformation given is that "abortion will give you breast cancer," or being lied to that they are further along the pregnancy than they really are so that they can't get an abortion.

Also, its not legal in all cases in the states, and there's hundreds of restrictions on it. some states make you wait a period of time, others make you seek parental information, I wouldn't doubt that a lot of young women who had abstinence only education wouldn't even know what their state laws regarding abortions are.

Quote:
Again I quote 'why would you be against informing women what their choices are?' Really? Abortion is always an option, since they are legal. You act like pregnant women looking for support have never heard of the concept, and these clinics lie and tell them that they are illegal.

If your pregnant in America I'm sure you know what an abortion is. It's not some secret they are hiding away and keeping from the people. To even suggest that is demeaning to women.

They were adult enough to get pregnant, I'm pretty sure they can find an abortion if they so choose. No one is 'preying' on them, forcing them at gun point to have a child.

You really give women a lack of credit in your allegations they are easily 'preyed upon' and 'forced' to have children.
Actually, abortion is not always accessible and can be very difficult to find a provider:

Quote:
. The most recent survey found that 88% of all U.S. counties have no identifiable abortion provider. In non-metropolitan areas, the figure rises to 97%. As a result, many women must travel long distances to reach the nearest abortion provider.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abort..._abortion.html

Also, its hilarious that if this was a corporation misleading people in an attempt to trick them out of their money you'd be all gung ho for hanging them high, but because its the Catholic Church misleading and lying to women about their very bodies and choices, you're all for not informing the women about what kind of clinic they are walking into.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropic
By the way, asking "Christ, why would you be against informing women what their choices are?" is an inherently loaded question. I could ask you, "Christ, why would you be against freedom of religion/different opinions/etc?", and have the same effect. It may be a legitimate point, but it's still a loaded question.
Religion does not excuse the crimes you commit. "Yes, I am a misogynistic pro-lifer who never graduated high school, but my religion allows me to mislead women into thinking I'm a viable health care provider!" Doesn't fly.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 02:36 PM   #13
Entropic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Religion does not excuse the crimes you commit. "Yes, I am a misogynistic pro-lifer who never graduated high school, but my religion allows me to mislead women into thinking I'm a viable health care provider!" Doesn't fly.
It doesn't excuse criminal activity, and I never said that.

What I'm pointing out is that being wrong isn't a crime. Are they a "viable health care provider"? In my opinion, no. However, in my opinion, neither are a whole host of other people (from "natural healers" to "holistic doctors"). I don't think any of them should be ostracized, because they aren't intentionally lying.

If they're intentionally lying, again, they should be punished. However, as far as I can tell, they're just misinformed.
Entropic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 02:49 PM   #14
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
It doesn't excuse criminal activity, and I never said that.

What I'm pointing out is that being wrong isn't a crime. Are they a "viable health care provider"? In my opinion, no. However, in my opinion, neither are a whole host of other people (from "natural healers" to "holistic doctors"). I don't think any of them should be ostracized, because they aren't intentionally lying.

If they're intentionally lying, again, they should be punished. However, as far as I can tell, they're just misinformed.
Its still false advertising. If there are two doctor's offices in your area, and by description they seem identical, wouldn't you want the holistic healer who doesn't have a medical degree to advertise that he is not, infact, a doctor?

And is is criminal, since they just changed the law so that they have to advertise truthfully. Although there is probably a case anyway for false advertisement charges.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 02:58 PM   #15
Entropic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Its still false advertising. If there are two doctor's offices in your area, and by description they seem identical, wouldn't you want the holistic healer who doesn't have a medical degree to advertise that he is not, infact, a doctor?

And is is criminal, since they just changed the law so that they have to advertise truthfully. Although there is probably a case anyway for false advertisement charges.
I would want him to advertise it, sure. However, I don't want those advertisements being forced by law.

I think you and I are talking about different things. I'm saying it's not criminal for them to saying incorrect things about abortion. Unless the law has mandated that you can't deviate from scientific consensus about abortion, they can still say incorrect things.

It may very well be illegal for them to pose as a clinic, and that may be what you're saying is the crime. If that's the case, then that's not what I'm arguing about.
Entropic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 03:05 PM   #16
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Thats all the law is, that they can't pose as another Planned Parenthood, which they do.

And why are you against false advertisement laws? I'm pretty sure its illegal for someone who is not a doctor to pose as a doctor too.

Its not illegal for them to say wrong things about abortion, no, but it is unethical to pose as a health care clinic and lie to women about their choices and their bodies. I think its fine to have young mother support groups, I encourage that, but for a lot of these clinics they're more concerned about preventing abortions than anything else.

Also, you gotta understand something about Sternn to understand my reaction to his posts. Sternn is a self proclaimed Marxist and is pretty much the leftist version of Deadman, except when it comes to the Catholic Church, since he's Catholic. There was a news article I posted a while ago about a transman getting fired from a PUBLIC school, but since the administration was made up of religious Catholics Sternn thought it was absolutely okay to fire anyone on account of their sexuality because the Catholic Church can do whatever it wants.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 03:20 PM   #17
Entropic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 147
The entire bulk of my argument is contained within the statement, "Its not illegal.. but it is unethical".

I'm not against false advertisement laws. This is the kinds of question I'm pointing out: it's like asking "why do you hate puppies?" They're loaded questions that don't help the discussion.

If they lie, then they need to be dealt with. However, if they're presenting information they believed to be true, and is wrong, then I think that should be left alone. If they tell a girl she is too far along in pregnancy to get an abortion,and genuinely believe it, then I don't think the law should punish them.

If a holistic healer says he's a doctor with an MD, and he doesn't have that MD, he's lying. If he just says he's a doctor, and being a doctor in the area doesn't imply being an MD, then (as far as I know) it isn't illegal for him to say he is a doctor.

Fair enough about Sternn, but please keep in mind that I am not Sternn.
Entropic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 03:29 PM   #18
ape descendant
 
ape descendant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Smexyville, Colorado
Posts: 2,424
Anti-choice groups are really a danger to women's reproductive health care. From the articles I've read, they lie to, harass and intimidate women who were unfortunate enough to enter their doors.

Its not just things like this that anti-choice groups do, there are some of them who enjoy harassing women who go to legitimate clinics, some of them even go so far as to kill doctors who preform abortions.

On top of all of this, the Catholic church does not have a great track record with separating truth from fiction.. I mean come on, they didn't accept Galileo's findings officially until 1992 AND even condone the cover up of the sexual abuse of CHILDREN!!!!! And of course as has been mentioned before in this thread, the lies told to Africans about condom usage.. discouraging it even though it is one of the best tools we have to help prevent the spread of AIDS.

I have to say that we do need to help protect people from this malicious organization, and putting a sign up that informs people of the truth about their little "clinic" should be the least of their worries..

About the whole abortion debate thing... its still a big deal, between the Person hood movement, and murderous, harassing ignoramuses... among other things... it's remaining retarded just what kind of peril the right to choose is still in, even though roe v. wade happened back in '73.. we still have retarded anti-choice legislation and policy being enacted... like the executive order that came with that health care reform bill.

This is about religious, opininated, jerks forcing their will on women through lies and treachery, they're no better than the jerks that make women wear burkas, or people who seem to think that "women deserve it".

nuf said for now
ape descendant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 03:36 PM   #19
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
The entire bulk of my argument is contained within the statement, "Its not illegal.. but it is unethical".

I'm not against false advertisement laws. This is the kinds of question I'm pointing out: it's like asking "why do you hate puppies?" They're loaded questions that don't help the discussion.
But this is basically just a advertisement law, where a organization has been noticed to falsely advertised and is now required to provide the women who enter with the knowledge that they are actually a parenting group and not an actual clinic. The only controversy is that its the church, if this was any other organization no one would bat an eye.

Quote:
If they lie, then they need to be dealt with. However, if they're presenting information they believed to be true, and is wrong, then I think that should be left alone. If they tell a girl she is too far along in pregnancy to get an abortion,and genuinely believe it, then I don't think the law should punish them.
So we should test and see if they genuinely believe their false advertisement? If a school promotes itself as a good school with a great science program but actually bans evolution and teaches only creationism, shouldn't they be taken into account for claiming to have a great science program?

And its not that they think its illegal for a woman to get an abortion at four weeks, its that if they see she's a four weeks they'll tell her she's at 15 weeks or whatever is just over the legal time in that state. They're very conscious about that kind of lie, whether they really believe abortion causes breast cancer I don't know.

Quote:
If a holistic healer says he's a doctor with an MD, and he doesn't have that MD, he's lying. If he just says he's a doctor, and being a doctor in the area doesn't imply being an MD, then (as far as I know) it isn't illegal for him to say he is a doctor.
.
There are still a lot of legal troubles you can get to even if a patient assumes you have an MD.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 08:20 PM   #20
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
If they lie, then they need to be dealt with. However, if they're presenting information they believed to be true, and is wrong, then I think that should be left alone. If they tell a girl she is too far along in pregnancy to get an abortion,and genuinely believe it, then I don't think the law should punish them.
I can only speak from personal experience but I know that in the "clinic" I spoke of earlier they knew it wasn't right, that became pretty obvious as soon as I started asking where they got their fact. Even in the cases where the people that you are talking to don't know better and believe that the information is factual they still have no business portraying themselves as medical clinics.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 10:19 AM   #21
Entropic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solumina View Post
I can only speak from personal experience but I know that in the "clinic" I spoke of earlier they knew it wasn't right, that became pretty obvious as soon as I started asking where they got their fact. Even in the cases where the people that you are talking to don't know better and believe that the information is factual they still have no business portraying themselves as medical clinics.
Trust me when I say I don't disbelieve you.

However, there isn't enough information for me to say that this requires a law to rectify.

I agree with you that the yhave no business portraying themselves as medical clinics. However, if I accept that they can't portray themselves as medical clinics, then I have to extend that to holistic healers, faith healers, and all sorts of other groups. If we're going to force religious organizations to put up signs saying what they don't do, then I think it is only fair to force other people, like vegans without medical degrees who call themselves dieticians or holistic healers without a medicla degree, to do the same.

In the end, I don't think that is what people want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
But this is basically just a advertisement law, where a organization has been noticed to falsely advertised and is now required to provide the women who enter with the knowledge that they are actually a parenting group and not an actual clinic. The only controversy is that its the church, if this was any other organization no one would bat an eye.
Churches aren't like any other organization, though. That's why I brought up the seperation of church and state in my original post. Churches need to be treated differently than most organizations, because of the special protections under law. These protections exist to protect both the church from society, and society from the church. Crossing that line by forcing church run organizations to post signs, even if it's to fight "false advertising" is a very dangerous venture.

In the end, these signs may be completely warranted. I haven't seen the information to justify it, which is why I'm heistant to support this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
So we should test and see if they genuinely believe their false advertisement? If a school promotes itself as a good school with a great science program but actually bans evolution and teaches only creationism, shouldn't they be taken into account for claiming to have a great science program?
That entirely depends on three things:

1. Who is running the school?
2. Is the school public or private?
3. Who is taking it in to account? (In other words, is this a government funded list of great science programs, or a private list.)

We should test and see if they genuinely believe their false advertisement, because that differientates how they should be handled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
And its not that they think its illegal for a woman to get an abortion at four weeks, its that if they see she's a four weeks they'll tell her she's at 15 weeks or whatever is just over the legal time in that state. They're very conscious about that kind of lie, whether they really believe abortion causes breast cancer I don't know.
And those are the kinds of things they should be punished for. Take the individuals or organizations who do so to court, and rectify the situation there like I said a few posts ago. The clever use of signs, especially when they're practically (not literally, but practically) targeted at church organizations, is not something I believe will be effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
There are still a lot of legal troubles you can get to even if a patient assumes you have an MD.
That depends entirely on where you are.
Entropic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:10 AM   #22
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
Trust me when I say I don't disbelieve you.

However, there isn't enough information for me to say that this requires a law to rectify.

I agree with you that the yhave no business portraying themselves as medical clinics. However, if I accept that they can't portray themselves as medical clinics, then I have to extend that to holistic healers, faith healers, and all sorts of other groups. If we're going to force religious organizations to put up signs saying what they don't do, then I think it is only fair to force other people, like vegans without medical degrees who call themselves dieticians or holistic healers without a medicla degree, to do the same.

In the end, I don't think that is what people want.
Actually it is illegal to pose at a dietitian when you are not one. You can say you're a nutritionalist since its not a registered profession, but a dietitian is. Its not even a matter of posting a sign, you can't practice as a dietician at all. If anything this law is being fairly lenient with them.


Quote:
Churches aren't like any other organization, though. That's why I brought up the seperation of church and state in my original post. Churches need to be treated differently than most organizations, because of the special protections under law. These protections exist to protect both the church from society, and society from the church. Crossing that line by forcing church run organizations to post signs, even if it's to fight "false advertising" is a very dangerous venture.
How is not then protecting society (especially women who need help) from the church, then? This is exactly what the law does, it gives the women the knowledge that the building they are going into is not Planned Parenthood or any sort of clinic.


Quote:
In the end, these signs may be completely warranted. I haven't seen the information to justify it, which is why I'm heistant to support this.
Read the info then, and keep in mind what Solumina said too, how can you protect a church's rights if they are pretending their organizations are secular, anyway?


Quote:
We should test and see if they genuinely believe their false advertisement, because that differientates how they should be handled.
If someone's false advertisement harms other people, or gets in the way of people getting real medical attention, it doesn't matter whether they believe in it or not.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:35 AM   #23
Entropic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Actually it is illegal to pose at a dietitian when you are not one. You can say you're a nutritionalist since its not a registered profession, but a dietitian is. Its not even a matter of posting a sign, you can't practice as a dietician at all. If anything this law is being fairly lenient with them.
I thought it was nutritionalist was the one that was registered.

In that case, I'll modify my argument:

then I think it is only fair to force other people, like vegans without medical degrees who call themselves nutritionalists or holistic healers without a medicla degree, to do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
How is not then protecting society (especially women who need help) from the church, then? This is exactly what the law does, it gives the women the knowledge that the building they are going into is not Planned Parenthood or any sort of clinic.
I'm not saying it doesn't protect women.

However, it comes at the cost of ostracizing the church, which violates the other end of protecting the church from society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Read the info then, and keep in mind what Solumina said too, how can you protect a church's rights if they are pretending their organizations are secular, anyway?
I did read the articles you posted. It's not the kind of information I'm looking for. I'm looking for numbers and statistics I can use to make a case. In this case we have anecdotes, which are great for adding an emotional touch. However, they can't make the bulk of a case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
If someone's false advertisement harms other people, or gets in the way of people getting real medical attention, it doesn't matter whether they believe in it or not.
How many cases does that make up, for abortion? As far as I know, most abortions were done for economic or personal reasons, not because of a medical need. It's not different than a nutritionalist perscribing a diet that kills the patient. If someone's false advertisement harms other people, punish the individual case instead of creating a blanket law.
Entropic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 12:00 PM   #24
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
I thought it was nutritionalist was the one that was registered.

In that case, I'll modify my argument:

then I think it is only fair to force other people, like vegans without medical degrees who call themselves nutritionalists or holistic healers without a medicla degree, to do the same.
If you go to a holistic healer, you know what you're in for and its certainly your right to spend money on that kind of thing. If a holistic healer poses as a doctor to prevent people from receiving the evils of Western medicine, that is unethical and criminal.

Quote:
I'm not saying it doesn't protect women.

However, it comes at the cost of ostracizing the church, which violates the other end of protecting the church from society.
How does it ostracize the church? "Sorry, we don't provide abortions." I'm sure they aren't going to get bombed or shot like abortion providers are. I'm sure they aren't going to experience any of the harassment that they have been putting women through. Christ, the church ostracizes people left right and center and for them its a religious right, but when a society tries to hinder them from doing so, its a horrible violation?

Quote:
I did read the articles you posted. It's not the kind of information I'm looking for. I'm looking for numbers and statistics I can use to make a case. In this case we have anecdotes, which are great for adding an emotional touch. However, they can't make the bulk of a case.
As far as I know NARAL has the most information on them, but the Church doesn't like to issue much information that could damage them.

http://www.naral.org/assets/files/Ab...-CPC-truth.pdf

Quote:
How many cases does that make up, for abortion? As far as I know, most abortions were done for economic or personal reasons, not because of a medical need. It's not different than a nutritionalist perscribing a diet that kills the patient. If someone's false advertisement harms other people, punish the individual case instead of creating a blanket law.
Not many but virtually all late term abortions are for medical reasons, and dont' forget that America has the very worst childbirth death rate in all the developed countries, giving birth can kill you, pregnancy could kill you, it will very much change your body, and it is always a health decision to carry or not to carry.

I think its better to prevent people from dying or getting bogus health advise when they thought they were getting real medical care, yes? Why let a nutritionalist poison people, if its preventable?
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 12:54 PM   #25
Entropic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
If you go to a holistic healer, you know what you're in for and its certainly your right to spend money on that kind of thing. If a holistic healer poses as a doctor to prevent people from receiving the evils of Western medicine, that is unethical and criminal.
That must be something different than where I am, because the holistic healer's offices here look virtually identical to the doctor's offices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
How does it ostracize the church? "Sorry, we don't provide abortions." I'm sure they aren't going to get bombed or shot like abortion providers are. I'm sure they aren't going to experience any of the harassment that they have been putting women through. Christ, the church ostracizes people left right and center and for them its a religious right, but when a society tries to hinder them from doing so, its a horrible violation?
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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
As far as I know NARAL has the most information on them, but the Church doesn't like to issue much information that could damage them.

http://www.naral.org/assets/files/Ab...-CPC-truth.pdf
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Not many but virtually all late term abortions are for medical reasons, and dont' forget that America has the very worst childbirth death rate in all the developed countries, giving birth can kill you, pregnancy could kill you, it will very much change your body, and it is always a health decision to carry or not to carry.
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.

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



Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
I think its better to prevent people from dying or getting bogus health advise when they thought they were getting real medical care, yes? Why let a nutritionalist poison people, if its preventable?
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.
Entropic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:47 AM.