We Should Live - Ben Bateman

The pro-life blogosphere is in an uproar over a Planned Parenthood (PP) tactic in pushing for another little piece of federal pro-abortion legislation. The proposed bill, text here, would direct the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce regulations punishing businesses that “deceptively create the impression that [the business] is a provider of abortion services if such person does not provide abortion services.” The obvious goal is to put government pressure on the crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) that compete with PP for the attention of pregnant young women. PP pushes the young women into having abortions. CPCs urge them not to. It’s a bitter struggle going on all around us.

The blogosphere uproar wasn’t upset about the legislation itself, but instead about a story told by PP to as part of an email generation campaign. The story is that a 17-year-old Indiana girl tried to go to a PP clinic, but instead went into a nearby CPC that shared the same parking lot because the CPC “was designed expressly to lure Planned Parenthood patients and deceive them.”

Horrors ensue. The CPC pretended to be a PP clinic and tells her to come back for a later appointment at the real PP clinic. The CPC then began “a campaign of intimidation and harassment.” They call the police, harass the girl’s father at work, and urge her classmates to pressure her not to have an abortion.

It’s a tale right out of every militant pro-choicer’s nightmares. And it would be horrible, if it were true. But, like any good urban myth, it’s difficult if not impossible to verify. Medical privacy laws prevent both sides from discussing it, and the story omits most of the details that would help verify it.

But this is the Internet Age. As Dan Rather discovered, lies can’t survive for long. This blogger found the three PP facilities in Indiana that actually offer abortions, and found that only one shared a parking lot with a CPC. He then checked with the local police to see if any police reports had been filed, and found none.

Other bloggers and readers are circling the story. One commenter here wonders about the story’s claim that the CPC sent the girl to a PP clinic, as persuading girls to avoid abortion is their primary function.

This blogger found some photos of the parking lot in question, which are here. The first photo shows the sign in question, which reads: “Considering Abortion?” Is that deceptive? Intentionally deceptive? I doubt it, though I can see how some PP fanatics would see it as deceptive. But I doubt that it’s a serious nationwide problem demanding congressional action.

I see a different angle: If PP is worried about pregnant young women being misled, then maybe the pro-lifers should join them. Consider photo 11, which shows the sign for the PP clinic. It reads: “A Woman’s Choice Planned Parenthood.”

If PP is worried about its potential clients being confused by these two signs, then there’s an easy solution: Just put up a big sign right under the current PP sign, saying: “Abortions Performed Here.” Let’s skip the dainty euphemisms and make everything clear. If PP is worried about the cost of the new sign, then I bet that the CPCs and their contributors would be more than happy to pitch in. I’m sure that they would be eager to help the public understand exactly what goes on in a PP abortion clinic.

And as for this federal law, I think that informing the public is a great idea. So let’s keep the proposed law as it is, but add a few amendments. Maybe every clinic that performs abortions should be required to include the word ‘abortion’ in its name. If we’re going to discuss deceptive advertising, wouldn’t ‘Abortion Inc.’ be a better name than ‘Planned Parenthood’? Or maybe instead of changing their names, abortion providers could get some of those big “Abortions Provided Here” signs, prominently displayed.

And PP shouldn’t complain about this, because we’re going to protect them from the scourge of misleadingly named CPCs. It’ll be against the law to provide abortions without showing your “Abortions Provided Here” sign, and it’ll also be against the law to display an “Abortions Provided Here” sign if you don’t actually provide abortions there.

That’s fair, isn’t it?

(HT: Raving Atheist at The Dawn Patrol.)