MoCo Bill Will Address Pregnancy Counseling Centers
The Washington Post commented yesterday on a controversial issue that is coming up for debate in our suburban county, in fact I believe that tonight the County Council will be getting input from the public on this. I'll let The Post introduce the subject:
These are places that offer "counseling," but some of them are run by anti-abortion groups and the counseling they give is incomplete and biased. A young woman who finds herself pregnant may in fact need counseling, especially if she is unmarried. The choices are pretty clear, you can have the baby and raise it, you can have the baby and put it up for adoption, or you can have an abortion. Each of those choices will have lifelong consequences for the mother, and the decision should not be made carelessly. But some of these places that advertise counseling will only discuss the first two options, and they will do anything to talk the woman out of choosing the third option. They have an array of persuasion techniques to try to tweak her conscience in some way so she will feel guilty if she chooses to abort. These places do not present all the options and discuss the pros and cons of each one, which is what you and I would think of as "counseling."
Duchy Trachtenberg's proposal is a modest one. The businesses can continue to operate as they have been, they will simply be required to tell their customers that they do not have trained medical staff on hand and that they should talk to a doctor.
There is absolutely nothing shocking about expecting a counseling center for pregnant women to inform women that they should consult with a doctor, and tells them that the counseling center does not have a doctor. Beyond that, they can continue to do whatever it is they do, trying to talk young women into giving birth. There really isn't anything to oppose here, it sounds like good advice: see a doctor.
The Post seems to dislike this bill for two reasons. First, it doesn't go far enough:
Second, they seem to see some unfair asymmetry between counseling services and abortion clinics, as if there is something wrong with requiring a counseling service to give a disclaimer if an abortion clinic doesn't have to.
A woman "intent on obtaining an abortion" who goes into an anti-abortion counseling center will, I agree, eventually realize that this is not the right place. A woman "intent on obtaining an abortion" should go to a clinic that performs that operation. A woman intent on counseling should go to a counseling center to help her decide what to do. These are two kinds of services. A counseling center helps you decide what to do. Once you have decided, you go to an OB-GYN, an adoption agency, or a clinic that performs abortions, to follow through on your choice. No matter what she has chosen a woman should receive counseling before committing herself, so she will understand the consequences of her choice.
Yes, young pregnant women who go into a place for counseling should be told about these services. Trachtenberg's bill doesn't even go that far, but it's a good idea.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY Council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large) has introduced legislation that is meant to target inaccuracies allegedly peddled by pregnancy centers that try to steer women away from abortion. The legislation, which is scheduled to be debated next month, is flawed and should be rejected.
Pregnancy centers are most often nonprofit organizations that offer free services to women facing unwanted or unexpected pregnancies. They do not offer abortion or contraception services and instead provide adoption or parenting counseling for those who choose to carry to term. Abortion advocates say that, in the effort to persuade women not to terminate their pregnancies, the centers give out misleading or inaccurate information about the risks of abortion. Two local pregnancy centers, for example, assert on their Web sites that women face an increased risk of breast cancer after an abortion -- an assertion that has been debunked by the National Cancer Institute. Pregnant, and in need of help: Montgomery's legislation on disclosure to women is flawed.
These are places that offer "counseling," but some of them are run by anti-abortion groups and the counseling they give is incomplete and biased. A young woman who finds herself pregnant may in fact need counseling, especially if she is unmarried. The choices are pretty clear, you can have the baby and raise it, you can have the baby and put it up for adoption, or you can have an abortion. Each of those choices will have lifelong consequences for the mother, and the decision should not be made carelessly. But some of these places that advertise counseling will only discuss the first two options, and they will do anything to talk the woman out of choosing the third option. They have an array of persuasion techniques to try to tweak her conscience in some way so she will feel guilty if she chooses to abort. These places do not present all the options and discuss the pros and cons of each one, which is what you and I would think of as "counseling."
Duchy Trachtenberg's proposal is a modest one. The businesses can continue to operate as they have been, they will simply be required to tell their customers that they do not have trained medical staff on hand and that they should talk to a doctor.
Ms. Trachtenberg's legislation does not directly address this problem. Instead, it would require pregnancy centers to tell women, either in writing or orally during a first visit, that the centers are not medical clinics and that women should seek professional medical advice before making a decision. The bill would require disclaimers in English and Spanish. As long as a pregnancy center makes this disclosure, it is free to provide whatever advice or information it wishes.
There is absolutely nothing shocking about expecting a counseling center for pregnant women to inform women that they should consult with a doctor, and tells them that the counseling center does not have a doctor. Beyond that, they can continue to do whatever it is they do, trying to talk young women into giving birth. There really isn't anything to oppose here, it sounds like good advice: see a doctor.
The Post seems to dislike this bill for two reasons. First, it doesn't go far enough:
No woman -- especially the young, poor and uninsured woman who tends to seek free pregnancy services -- should ever be given false information about her choices. Providers should be transparent about what services they do and do not offer. No woman should be coerced -- by a pregnancy center or an abortion clinic -- into a decision. But if a woman is intent on obtaining an abortion, she will soon find out that a pregnancy center is not for her. The proposed disclosure is too cryptic to be an effective alarm bell for many women and yet is suspect because it singles out pregnancy centers while absolving abortion clinics of any disclosure requirements regarding adoption or parenting options.
Second, they seem to see some unfair asymmetry between counseling services and abortion clinics, as if there is something wrong with requiring a counseling service to give a disclaimer if an abortion clinic doesn't have to.
A woman "intent on obtaining an abortion" who goes into an anti-abortion counseling center will, I agree, eventually realize that this is not the right place. A woman "intent on obtaining an abortion" should go to a clinic that performs that operation. A woman intent on counseling should go to a counseling center to help her decide what to do. These are two kinds of services. A counseling center helps you decide what to do. Once you have decided, you go to an OB-GYN, an adoption agency, or a clinic that performs abortions, to follow through on your choice. No matter what she has chosen a woman should receive counseling before committing herself, so she will understand the consequences of her choice.
Montgomery County maintains three full-time medical clinics that provide free abortion, contraception and counseling services. These clinics employ licensed medical personnel and are regulated by the state and county. If county leaders and abortion rights advocates want women to have greater access to the full range of medical services, they could concentrate on ensuring that the clinics' existence is known to those who might need them.
Yes, young pregnant women who go into a place for counseling should be told about these services. Trachtenberg's bill doesn't even go that far, but it's a good idea.
posted by JimK at 2:48 PM
49 Comments:
the point of Duchyism to make sure women aren't dissuaded from murdering unborn children
there are already laws that you can't hold yourself out to be a medical professional when you are not
the Post is right, counseling centers trying to encourage women to support life should not be singled out for biased treatment
if the wicked Trachtenberg was serious about giving women accurate information, she would require abortion death clinics to provide detailed descriptions of the lives they assist in extinguishing
next fall, DT the Terrible will be ousted from office
"it would require pregnancy centers to tell women, either in writing or orally during a first visit, that the centers are not medical clinics"
if the center is not telling a woman it is a medical clinic, why does it have to disclose it is not
this is an attempt to create a bias against life
"and that women should seek professional medical advice before making a decision"
what if the clinic doesn't believe this?
what if they think children should be born regardless of whether there are any adverse medical consequences of abortion?
this is an attempt to require clinics to join an amoral endeavour and act as if this is some decision where you just list the pros and cons and decide based on your optimal advantage
this is not a choice between Disneyworld and Universal Studios, it is a choice between murder and life
the wicked Trachtenberg, having long ago surrendered to amorality, wants to force pregnancy clinics, who assist young women in having babies under difficult circumstances, to join her in acting as if abortion is a decision to made on the basis of self-interest
the wicked Trachtenberg should stop harassing freedom of conscience
Another conversation with yourself, AnonBigot?
Can you read? There is nothing shocking in this bill. It´s just ensuring that laws are followed.
You´re so anti-women.
it's making a new law, drick
it says that a counseling center is required to send a woman to a doctor for advice on abortion even if they are morally opposed to the murder of unborn children
that is not required now nor should it be
even the Washington Post opposes the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg
who knows what she's capable of if the community tries to stop this by referendum
probably send Dana out to accuse businesses of violating discrimination laws if they allow petitioning on their property
all to enable more abortion
it says that a counseling center is required to send a woman to a doctor for advice on abortion even if they are morally opposed to the murder of unborn children
Anon, do you really think it says that?
The bill says a pregnancy counseling center has to tell the customer they are not doctors (unless they do have certified medical staff), and counselors need to tell pregnant women who come to see them that they should see a doctor. The first part is simply honesty, the second part is good advice.
I hope you are making a joke, and that you really do see the difference.
"Anon, do you really think it says that?"
No, I know it does.
"The bill says a pregnancy counseling center has to tell the customer they are not doctors"
they never tell anyone they are
this is just an insult
no one says that when you wait on a customer at Baskin Robbins that you have to tell them you're not a doctor, do they?
that would be honest, mirl
"and counselors need to tell pregnant women who come to see them that they should see a doctor"
no, it says they have to tell them to see a doctor about abortion advice
obviously, they'll go to the doctor about her pregnancy
the point is to imply that the only factor in the abortion decision is the safety of the abortion
if they convince a woman not to kill their child, why do they need to send them to a doctor to second-guess that or convince them that the consequences are minor
stop defending the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg
Merle.
I would for one would like to know what the HECK you meant when you said "one of the working class" and thus NOT ENTITLED to argue with you.
Response ?
I believe that a number of the folks on this blog, REGARDLESS of which side of the argument they are on, are part of the working class....
Define please ?
Working class means under 100k in income, stupid enough to be on W2...
very curious ?
please respond.
MORON Theresa.
no, it says they have to tell them to see a doctor about abortion advice
No. It does not.
I see that you guys are going to lie about this, just like you used to say that the gender identity bill would let men hang around ladies locker rooms.
I would for one would like to know what the HECK you meant when you said "one of the working class" and thus NOT ENTITLED to argue with you.
I didn't say that. And your $100k cutoff is arbitrary.
here it is, Mirl:
"it would require pregnancy centers to tell women, either in writing or orally during a first visit, that the centers are not medical clinics and that women should seek professional medical advice before making a decision"
this is the language in the Post editorial
it doesn't say tell women to "see a doctor"
it says tell women to "see a doctor before making a decision about an abortion"
there is no pregnancy clinic not telling pregnant women to see a doctor
the implication that there are is propaganda
the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg who, in truth, opposes these pregnancy centers that help so many, would like stop their mission of dissuading women from killing their children
she has no other reason for doing this
Here is what the bill actually says. A pregnancy clinic of a certain type is required to have a disclaimer. Here is the literal wording of the bill, describing the disclaimer:
Contents of disclaimer The disclaimer must state that:
(1) the information that the limited service pregnancy resource center provides is not intended to be medical advice or establish a doctor-patient relationship, and
(2. the client should consult with a health care provider before proceeding on a course of action regarding the client's pregnancy.
That's it. The word "abortion" does not appear anywhere.
Merle.
what you said was that "working class morons" shouldn't argue with "scientists"...
what I was pointing out was this moron that you were arguing with had a 138 IQ by at least one test... .... who knows maybe the test was wrong and I am a moron (I definitely feel that way most days) ! my husband (who has almost finished his masters.. has a 142 IQ)..
his brother (whom never finished his college degree) has 145 IQ. They both took online IQ tests.
However, my doctorate friend and I were both tested at the same highschool back when the tests were administered in highschool and distributed. Same test, a couple of years apart. We both tested the same. We discovered this during a holiday dinner one evening and were quite amused since we had been great friends for years, similar interests, great debates, etc. The subject of "I am smarter than you" never came up, though clearly I was very interested in her research. She is one of the original scientists involved in the DNA mapping, and has several patents.
I am the "moron" you were arguing with earlier. It's NASTY to call anyone a moron by the way.... I vehemently disagree with Bea, but I have never insulted her (I don't think anyway, Bea correct me if I am wrong). I love Bea. she is the left wing aunt I am trying to convert. She goes out and does all sorts of research. She is in it for the truth (very hard to find). She is a committed left wing liberal, but she doesn't lie and very rarely throws insults. Her research is quite insightful, I always read it, I don't always have time to respond as I would like,....that is very unusual for you guys (especially citizen and merle) who tend to start with insults and add facts later if at all. very not nice.
so ......
I am not qualified to judge earth science but I believe that I am qualified to judge procedure. One thing that was DRUMMED into our heads during my SCIENCE labs in college was that you always keep a detailed lab notebook. The idea that the major science labs might not do that is crazy.
As to Merle, PLEASE DEFINE WORKING CLASS.
I define myself as working class. I don't define myself as a moron because I am working class. I am working class and NOT A MORON.
Merle, I assume you are NOT working class and NOT A MORON.
Jim, are you a MORON, or are you working class ? Merle seems to think they are exclusive ?
Hint, better stick with us 138 IQ morons, or you will isolate most of your blog ....
theresa
"the client should consult with a health care provider before proceeding on a course of action regarding the client's pregnancy"
other than have a baby, what other course would there be for a pregnant women?
don't act like a moron, mirl
this is requiring the clinic to tell women to go to a doctor for advice on whether to have an abortion or not
it's not a medical decision, it's a moral one
the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg wants all pregnant women to go to a doctor who will tell them that having a abortion is safe
again, we have liberals trying to regulate speech
it's a pattern seen again and again
btw, that degree from Vanderbilt is impressive, mirl
you better cut your losses and stop insulting Theresa
other than have a baby, what other course would there be for a pregnant women?
Oh, it's just a guess, but maybe they'd want to check her blood pressure, her blood sugar, advise her on drinking and smoking, uh, listen to the baby's heartbeat, maybe do an ultrasound ... I can think of several reasons it's a good idea for a woman to go to a doctor when she's pregnant. That's all this "evil" bill is about.
you're a fool, mirl (at least, that's being charitable, more likely you're a liar)
that's not what this is about
every pregnancy clinic is already directing all women to doctors for their guiding their care during pregnancy
what the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg wants is to make sure women are counseled that abortion is safe ad that the counseling take place in an amoral environment
"course of action regarding the client's pregnancy" is a euphemism for whether or not to kill the child
Anon, do you see what a flaming idiot you are? You saw the wording of the bill. A pregnancy counseling center will have to tell a girl she should see a doctor, and if they do not provide medical services they should say so.
... "course of action regarding the client's pregnancy" is a euphemism for whether or not to kill the child...
That's nuts. You're certifiable, Anon. There's nothing here about killing children. A pregnant woman should see a doctor, someone counseling pregnant women should tell them to see a doctor. The "course of action" refers to lifestyle changes that accompany pregnancy.
you're the idiot, mirl
explain to us why you think the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg has written this law
why does she think this law is necessary?
as Jim himself wrote above it's because some centers give out information that is biased against abortion
the Duchyists couldn't care less if the kid gets proper vitamins during the pregnancy
they want to make sure the mother isn't dissuaded from killing the child
Dearest Theresa
Injured innocent is not an attractive stance for you.
By your definitions, I am both working class, and not a moron;
and you most definitely have insulted me.
IQ tests are, in my opinion, suspect measures of differentials between the relative worth of individuals.
rrjr
"the client should consult with a health care provider before proceeding on a course of action regarding the client's pregnancy"
...this is requiring the clinic to tell women to go to a doctor for advice on whether to have an abortion or not
It's telling her to go to the doctor "before proceeding on a course of action," which could any course of action she chooses but she should have the advice of a doctor before making that decision, not the advice of an advocate who will tell her only one thing: have the baby. It may not be medically advisable for a woman to go full term and before anyone encourages her one way or the other, she should be examined by a licensed medical doctor or nurse, not some church volunteer with no medical training.
IMHO Merle got it exactly right when he pointed out that pregnant women should have doctors or nurses "check her blood pressure, her blood sugar, advise her on drinking and smoking, uh, listen to the baby's heartbeat, maybe do an ultrasound".
again, we have liberals trying to regulate speech
And what do you call it in all those states where legislators have obligated by law that licensed medical doctors and nurses read specific words to every and only every abortion patient they treat?
you better cut your losses and stop insulting Theresa
What are you, Theresa's towel boy?
"course of action regarding the client's pregnancy" is a euphemism for whether or not to kill the child
And telling every woman that she should go full term with a pregnancy before sending her to be checked by a doctor to see if she is healthy enough to bear a full term pregnancy is a great way to increase maternal deaths.
why does she think this law is necessary?
It is necessary to protect women's health.
Jim himself wrote above it's because some centers give out information that is biased against abortion
No, it's because clinics that offer free medical tests (ie, pregnancy tests) have been assumed by some clients to be a medical facility. All the bill is designed to do is to help ensure that women are not lulled into believing they are getting medical advice when there is no licensed medical person on staff to provide any.
Truth in advertising is what this bill is about.
"IQ tests are, in my opinion, suspect measures of differentials between the relative worth of individuals"
Theresa never said they were, Robert.
Address your comments to Mirl the Moron
"No, it's because clinics that offer free medical tests (ie, pregnancy tests) have been assumed by some clients to be a medical facility. All the bill is designed to do is to help ensure that women are not lulled into believing they are getting medical advice when there is no licensed medical person on staff to provide any.
Truth in advertising is what this bill is about."
They never advertised they were a medical facility and no one thinks they are just because they give pregnancy tests.
CVS sells pregnancy tests but they don't have to tell people they aren't a doctor.
This is all rhetoric anyway because all pregnancy centers, without exception, already tell women to see a doctor when they're pregnant.
The change the bill makes is they have to tie it to a decision about "the course of the pregancy", meaning the decision about whether to kill the child before it's born. In other words, when the topic of whether to abort comes up, they have to tell them to see a doctor about that decision. It's not when they're discussing prenatal care.
It's quite a stretch to maintain that the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg cares about the health of the child when she encourages a woman to kill it before it's born.
It's the abortion, stupid.
"and you most definitely have insulted me"
could you give us some details, Robert?
I want to know what you consider an insult for future discussions
Do you not recognize these as trollish comments, anonymous? If you have something to say, you should say it, otherwise leave well enough alone.
In my opinion, it is rarely useful for people to compare IQ scores, especially mass-administered scores such as those we took in school, much less online-test scores.
That said, I myself, when feeling a little low, sometimes like to disclose my GRE scores. Cheers me up.
rrjr
So, what'd you get on the GRE math and verbal sections, Robert?
JimK
I think it was when she called me a murderer of children for supporting curricula that are non-pejorative of LGBT people. The logical sequence corresponds to yours, that if don't put queer people down in school, kids will get AIDS and die.
Or maybe it was when her organizational did an'expose' on my mental health history on their website, yorder to discredit my testimony on ex-gay matters.
I forget which.
What would Jesus do?
"That said, I myself, when feeling a little low, sometimes like to disclose my GRE scores. Cheers me up."
so, you were telling an untruth when you said Theresa was insulting you
you must be unsmart to not realize you would unget away with it
unbrilliant, Robert
"she called me a murderer of children for supporting curricula that are non-pejorative of LGBT people"
well, curriculm that makes homosexuality appeal normal and appealing could lead to invariably fatal disease
you can't say that kind of fairy tale would have no effect on behavior
scaring kids away from homosexuality definitely saves lives so the opposite must be true too
we just discuss the facts here at TTF
"The logical sequence corresponds to yours, that if don't put queer people down in school, kids will get AIDS and die"
don't know what you're talking about here
do you find yourself daydreaming and fantasizing alot?
"Or maybe it was when her organizational did an'expose' on my mental health history on their website"
I thought we were talking about insults that Theresa has personally made here
I'm starting to wonder if you're just making this stuff up
is there something unmentionable in your mental health history that we need to consider when you comment here?
"What would Jesus do?"
why don't you stop asking this all the time and try to answer it?
more on climategate:
the head of the East Anlgia research center that falsified global warming data has quit under pressure
the Australian Senate has rejected cap and trade and won't sign the Copenhagen agreement
and:
"Professor Ian Plimer, is an Australian geologist who argues that climate change has been going on quite naturally, oblivious of human activity, for the last 4,567 million years. At Ian Plimer’s lunch talk yesterday, Viscount Monckton talked of at least two lawsuits in process – both by scientists, one British, one Canadian, who intend to pursue the CRU for criminal fraud. Their case, quite simply, is that the scientists implicated in Climategate have gained funding and career advancement by twisting data, hiding evidence, and shutting out dissenters by corrupting the peer-review process."
more on climategate:
the head of the East Anlgia research center that falsified global warming data has quit under pressure
the Australian Senate has rejected cap and trade and won't sign the Copenhagen agreement
and:
"Professor Ian Plimer, is an Australian geologist who argues that climate change has been going on quite naturally, oblivious of human activity, for the last 4,567 million years. At Ian Plimer’s lunch talk yesterday, Viscount Monckton talked of at least two lawsuits in process – both by scientists, one British, one Canadian, who intend to pursue the CRU for criminal fraud. Their case, quite simply, is that the scientists implicated in Climategate have gained funding and career advancement by twisting data, hiding evidence, and shutting out dissenters by corrupting the peer-review process."
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon, try to keep your threads straight.
JimK
crikey!
CVS sells pregnancy tests but they don't have to tell people they aren't a doctor.
CVS sells home pregnancy test kits but does not perform pregnancy testing in their stores. Also, there's a licensed medical professional at every CVS Pharmacy that fills prescriptions. I realize you may not be able to process these facts. Oh well.
The change the bill makes is they have to tie it to a decision about "the course of the pregancy", meaning the decision about whether to kill the child before it's born. In other words, when the topic of whether to abort comes up, they have to tell them to see a doctor about that decision. It's not when they're discussing prenatal care.
Bulloney. The change the bill makes is that if you run a limited service pregnancy resource center you have to disclose to clients that the information you provide is not medical advice.
Every pregnancy runs a course, some end in live birth some do not. What the bill says is:
(b) Disclaimer required.
(1) A limited service pregnancy resource center must provide a client with the disclaimer required in section (c):
(a) by the staff assisting the client;
(b) during the first communication or first contact with a client; and
(c) in a written statement or oral communication that the client reasonable understands.
(2) Any written disclaimer must be provided in English and Spanish.
(c) Contents of disclaimer. The disclaimer must state that:
(1) the information that the limited service pregnancy resource center provides is not intended to be medical advice or to establish a doctor-patient relationship; and
(2) the client should consult with a health care provider before proceeding on a course of action regarding the client's pregnancy.
No matter what "meaning" Anon imagines or what "other words" Anon uses, the *fact* is that the disclaimer is to be provided up front, specifically "during the first communication or first contact with a client," which is well before any decision of what course the pregnancy might take has been made.
"MONTGOMERY COUNTY Council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large) has introduced legislation that is meant to target inaccuracies allegedly peddled by pregnancy centers that try to steer women away from abortion. The legislation, which is scheduled to be debated next month, is flawed and should be rejected.
Pregnancy centers are most often nonprofit organizations that offer free services to women facing unwanted or unexpected pregnancies. They do not offer abortion or contraception services and instead provide adoption or parenting counseling for those who choose to carry to term. Abortion advocates say that, in the effort to persuade women not to terminate their pregnancies, the centers give out misleading or inaccurate information about the risks of abortion."
this is what the Post said the reason for the bill is
do you say they're lying?
here's what Jim, the Global Warming Deleter, says is the reason for the bill:
"These are places that offer "counseling," but some of them are run by anti-abortion groups and the counseling they give is incomplete and biased. A young woman who finds herself pregnant may in fact need counseling, especially if she is unmarried. The choices are pretty clear, you can have the baby and raise it, you can have the baby and put it up for adoption, or you can have an abortion. Each of those choices will have lifelong consequences for the mother, and the decision should not be made carelessly. But some of these places that advertise counseling will only discuss the first two options, and they will do anything to talk the woman out of choosing the third option. They have an array of persuasion techniques to try to tweak her conscience in some way so she will feel guilty if she chooses to abort. These places do not present all the options and discuss the pros and cons of each one, which is what you and I would think of as "counseling.""
The Post and Jim get it.
Why don't you and Mirl?
Playing games with words to support a wicked agenda is pretty venal, inane-B
"CVS sells home pregnancy test kits but does not perform pregnancy testing in their stores. Also, there's a licensed medical professional at every CVS Pharmacy that fills prescriptions. I realize you may not be able to process these facts."
We can process them. They're lies not facts.
Pharmacists are not "health care providers" and can only provide drugs at the direction of a health care provider, that is, a doctor. The bill doesn't direct pregnancy centers to send women to a pharmacist.
Pregnancy kits are not prescription and the pharmacists wouldn't be required in a place where prescription drugs are not sold.
Any other person on the face of the Earth can "perform" pregnancy testing to a woman without any restriction other than the woman's permission. There has been no need to make the tests only available by prescription alone.
Why would only these non-profit pregnancy centers have this requirement?
Because they are working to reduce abortions and the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg wants to prevent that.
Stop defending the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg.
hey, look
NOW also understands the intent of the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg:
"What comes to mind when you hear the phrase "crisis pregnancy center"? For those unfamiliar with the concept, it might sound like a place to get assistance for an unwanted pregnancy. This assumption would be partially correct. CPCs do offer pregnancy tests and counseling on abortion alternatives. What they don't offer is abortion care, referrals or even accurate information pertaining to abortion or birth control.
In fact, CPCs are run by reproductive rights opponents, and their main purpose is to stop women from considering abortion. These centers have been justly criticized by organizations like NOW and NARAL for spreading myths that have little factual basis.
It is absolutely necessary that every pregnant woman be given accurate information regarding her options, including abortion. A woman has the right to make an informed decision on whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term, and she should not be misled by biased information given out by non-medical sources.
Recently, Montgomery County (Md.) Council member (and longtime NOW member) Duchy Trachtenberg introduced legislation that would require CPCs to provide a verbal disclaimer or put up signs in English and Spanish clearly stating that the center will not be providing medical advice or establishing a doctor-patient relationship, and that clients should contact a qualified health care professional."
See, NOW understands that the purpose of the Duchyists is to send the message that abortion is safe.
If your boyfriend, your mother, or your freakin' landlady can give you a pregnancy test free of charge without telling you to go to the doctor to talk about abortion, why should an organization that believes that abortion is evil not be able to do the same?
Here's the real problem, from NOW website:
"Then, there is also the fact that in Montgomery County and around the country, CPCs outnumber family planning clinics."
Truth is, despite the despicable propaganda you hear from fringe groups, conservative religious organizations are doing more to help unwed mothers than the deadhead lesbians at NOW.
Rather than focus on increasing their efforts, they focus on attacking groups that are an actual force for good.
the explosive implications of the climategate scandal are just beginning to be fully appreciated
major reforms in quality control of scientific data supported by government and other public funding will, no doubt, result
Jim deleted pieces from the Boston Globe and Denver Post earlier
an insightful piece on the matter from Forbes magazine has been placed in the comments of the Science and Informal Communications thread from Sunday November 29th
read all about it
Playing games with words to support a wicked agenda is pretty venal, inane-B
Then stop doing it. No matter how much you spin, whine, and lie, there's nothing *wicked* or *venal* about requiring truth in advertising.
For heaven's sake, how ridiculous can you get?
"We can process them. They're lies not facts."
Yeah?, they're lies? Then let's see you identify for Vigilance readers which CVS pharmacies are offering to conduct pregnancy testing in their stores and which CVS pharmacies fill prescriptions without a licensed pharmacist on staff.
There aren't any such CVSs and we see who the liar is.
Work yourself up into a tizzy about CVS and prescriptions all you want. You're the one who brought CVS, which has nothing to do with this bill, into the discussion as if it has some relevance.
Contrary to your paranoid beliefs, no one is "attacking groups that are an actual force for good."
The bill simply requires clinics that don't have a licensed medical staff member to be up front with clients about that fact. Requiring honesty is not usually considered to be an attack, except by those who prefer dishonesty.
I suggest you improve your reading comprehension and cease the putting words into my mouth. I never said anything about "health care providers".
I said there's a licensed medical professional at every CVS Pharmacy that fills prescriptions and I was correct. A pharmacy cannot fill prescriptions without a licensed pharmacist to fill them, and a licensed pharmacist is a "licensed medical professional."
conservative religious organizations are doing more to help unwed mothers than the deadhead lesbians at NOW.
Conservative religious organizations only help those pregnant teens who want to become "unwed mothers" and refuse to help those who don't. They often won't even provide referrals for birth control.
The bill doesn't require a disclaimer based on the aim of the counseling -- abortion or life -- but requires all "limited service pregnancy resource center" that counsel pregnant women to either have a licensed medical professional on staff or disclose that fact that they don't have one on staff and therefore cannot offer "information ...intended to be medical advice or to establish a doctor-patient relationship" up front.
every pregnancy clinic is already directing all women to doctors for their guiding their care during pregnancy
Good, then the portion of the proposed disclaimer that states "the client should consult with a health car provider before proceeding on a course of action regarding the client's pregnancy" is most certainly not an attack or too cumbersome for them to provide.
These clinics, or "limited service pregnancy resource centers" are largely unregulated and I'm glad to see the County Council work to enact legislation to bring a modicum of regulation to them so that pregnant women are not duped into believing that well-meaning volunteers are able to dispense medical advice.
it's that much-anticipated time of the day when we examine how deceitful and liarly inane-B is:
"No matter how much you spin, whine, and lie, there's nothing *wicked* or *venal* about requiring truth in advertising."
It is wicked and venal to attack a group providing free services helping disadvantaged women take care of their babies. Saying they are pretending to be a medical clinic is a lie.
What if the wicked Duchy were to make a law that you have to inform readers that you are not taking LSD today every time you post on a blog.
Would that be truth in advertising?
"Yeah?, they're lies? Then let's see you identify for Vigilance readers which CVS pharmacies are offering to conduct pregnancy testing in their stores and which CVS pharmacies fill prescriptions without a licensed pharmacist on staff.
There aren't any such CVSs and we see who the liar is."
You were implying that CVS has licensed medical professionals because they sell pregancy tests.
when I said:
"CVS sells pregnancy tests but they don't have to tell people they aren't a doctor."
and you said:
"CVS has licensed medical professionals"
you were lying
"Work yourself up into a tizzy about CVS and prescriptions all you want. You're the one who brought CVS, which has nothing to do with this bill, into the discussion as if it has some relevance."
it is an apt comparison
the truth is that our society has decided to make pregnancy tests a non-prescription item so anybody can give one
you used the fact that these clinics will give free pregnancy tests as proof they were pretending to be a medical clinic
they aren't doing that and you're lying
"Contrary to your paranoid beliefs, no one is "attacking groups that are an actual force for good.""
yes, they are
the wicked Duchy and you
"The bill simply requires clinics that don't have a licensed medical staff member to be up front with clients about that fact."
actually, they don't call themselves "clinics"
you do, as propaganda
why can anyone in our society give a free pregnancy test without having their speech regulated except pregancy centers that help poor women?
"Requiring honesty is not usually considered to be an attack, except by those who prefer dishonesty."
Selectively requiring is indeed an attack.
"I suggest you improve your reading comprehension and cease the putting words into my mouth. I never said anything about "health care providers"."
except that the bill requires that and that's what the discussion was about
"Conservative religious organizations only help those pregnant teens who want to become "unwed mothers" and refuse to help those who don't."
oh , that's wrong
they won't assist in murder but they will provide other assistance
"They often won't even provide referrals for birth control."
they're helping pregnant women
they don't need birth control
"The bill doesn't require a disclaimer based on the aim of the counseling -- abortion or life -- but requires all "limited service pregnancy resource center" that counsel pregnant women to either have a licensed medical professional on staff or disclose that fact that they don't have one on staff and therefore cannot offer "information ...intended to be medical advice or to establish a doctor-patient relationship" up front."
why should they?
you don't when you spout off medical information here
"Good, then the portion of the proposed disclaimer that states "the client should consult with a health car provider before proceeding on a course of action regarding the client's pregnancy" is most certainly not an attack or too cumbersome for them to provide."
it wouldn't be too cumbersome for anyone
that's not an excuse for governmental inteference
"These clinics, or "limited service pregnancy resource centers" are largely unregulated"
few non-profits are
why should they be?
"and I'm glad to see the County Council work to enact legislation to bring a modicum of regulation"
in a county that forbids tree sales on church lots before Dec 6, you're going to get more than a modicum
"to them so that pregnant women are not duped into believing that well-meaning volunteers are able to dispense medical advice"
but what are we going to do to make sure when you babble on about medical information here that women aren't duped by you?
You were implying that CVS has licensed medical professionals because they sell pregancy tests.
I said no such thing. I stated two facts.
"CVS sells pregnancy tests but they don't have to tell people they aren't a doctor."
and you said:
"CVS has licensed medical professionals"
you were lying
No I wasn't lying. But you just lied by omission.
You omitted the first thing I said in response to your "...they don't have to tell..." comment. Specifically you omitted that I said "CVS sells home pregnancy test kits but does not perform pregnancy testing." Then I added the fact that CVS has a "licensed medical professional" at every store that fills prescriptions anyway. This additional fact, which is due to CVS's prescription filling services and is *not* due to the fact they sell pregnancy test kits, seems to be beyond your comprehension.
I repeat CVS has nothing to do with this bill because CVS is not a "limited service pregnancy resource center."
you used the fact that these clinics will give free pregnancy tests as proof they were pretending to be a medical clinic
NOTE: Look who's using the term "clinic."
These clinics don't simply give these test kits to the clients to take home or into the bathroom to use for self-testing. Instead, they ask clients to fill out forms with personal medical information such as date of last menstrual flow and date of last unprotected intercourse, brief medical history, etc. Then they ask the clients to provide urine samples which they use use with home pregnancy test kits, and they have the clients wait while the pregnancy test is conducted.
It's easy to see how many women might assume from the setting and procedure that they are at a medical facility where they can receive accurate medical advice, when in fact, they will only receive limited pregnancy advice from non-medically licensed volunteers and staff.
they aren't doing that and you're lying
The settings and procedures mimic medical clinics. Vigilance readers can see who's lying.
actually, they don't call themselves "clinics"
you do, as propaganda
See the NOTE above. If it's propaganda for me to use the term, what do you call it when you use the term yourself?
I called them "clinics" probably for the same reason you do -- because it's quicker to type "clinic" than it is to type "limited service pregnancy resource center."
why can anyone in our society give a free pregnancy test without having their speech regulated except pregancy centers that help poor women?
Why don't these "pregnancy centers" let the client go in the bathroom with the self-test kit herself or take it home? In three minutes she'll have her answer and not be in an medical office-type setting with a doctor/nurse-type person offering medical-type pregnancy advice.
"Requiring honesty is not usually considered to be an attack, except by those who prefer dishonesty."
Selectively requiring is indeed an attack.
Oh brother! "Selectively requiring" honesty? Have you really twisted this around like that in your head?
Here are the facts: All but three MoCo "limited service pregnancy resource centers" that offer free pregnancy testing have licensed medical professional staff so their appearance as pregnancy testing clinics *is* honest. It's only the three "limited service pregnancy resource centers" without a licensed medical professional person on staff who would have to give the disclaimer so there is no confusion on the part of clients.
Anon will say anything, even something as bizarre as claiming this Vigilance blog should be subject to the same laws as a "limited service pregnancy resource center."
Sorry Anon, but like CVS, Vigilance blog is not a "limited service pregnancy resource center."
"These clinics don't simply give these test kits to the clients to take home or into the bathroom to use for self-testing. Instead, they ask clients to fill out forms with personal medical information such as date of last menstrual flow and date of last unprotected intercourse, brief medical history, etc. Then they ask the clients to provide urine samples which they use use with home pregnancy test kits, and they have the clients wait while the pregnancy test is conducted."
again, the women's mother, boyfriend or waiter could do any of these things and there is no law requiring them to explain to the women that they don't know what they're talking about
why should someone be subject to a regulation because they are providing this to poor women without charge?
the motivation behind this bill is to protect the reputation of abortion, a euphemism for the murder of the weak and innocent
every proponent of this bill I've read has cited an example of some center telling a women that abortion causes breast cancer
supposedly, some study has proved this false
then they often say it's false that women who have abortion have an increased of risk of emotional problems
they apparently have a study proving this is true, peer reviewed by the right people, no doubt
you're defending evil, AB
I'm defending truth in advertising. You're defending deception.
You've already said "every pregnancy clinic is already directing all women to doctors for their guiding their care during pregnancy", which is one requirement of this bill.
It will be just as easy for them to tell their clients up front that there are no licensed medical professionals on staff.
"I'm defending truth in advertising. You're defending deception."
no, you aren't
you're requiring them to address an issue they haven't brought up
there are already laws against falsely holding yourself out to be a medical professional
if these centers were in violation of them, NOW, NARAL and Duchy would be all over it
this bill is more likely the result of the fact that the centers haven't violated this law that already exists so anti-life need to find a new way to attack them
the wicked Duchy acts like a character from the Screwtape Letters
"You've already said "every pregnancy clinic is already directing all women to doctors for their guiding their care during pregnancy", which is one requirement of this bill.
It will be just as easy for them to tell their clients up front that there are no licensed medical professionals on staff."
Actually, telling them to go to the doctor is not the bad part although it reveals a bias.
The truly objectionable part is to tell them to go to a doctor before deciding on the course of the pregnancy.
So, it requires the centers to present abortion as an acceptable option.
The truly objectionable part is to tell them to go to a doctor before deciding on the course of the pregnancy.
You've got that exactly wrong. What's truly objectionable is telling a woman what course her pregnancy should take before she has received medical advice from a licensed medical professional.
This is precisely why this bill is needed.
thanks for confirming the purpose of the bill
reducing the decision to kill to an amoral risk-based analysis is exactly what the bill does
the wicked Duchy needs to hurry
she'll be out after the next election
I wonder when the "Housewives of Montgomery County" will cease their vendetta against Councilmember Tractenberg? I feel like we are revisiting junior high school again. Time to grow up, girls...and stop being so "wicked" yourselves!
Such bitchiness is definitely unbecomming of supposedly educated women (and the troll males of GRG who support them).
Only a CRG supporter would think assessing poor womens health risks at the start of each pregnancy is "amoral."
Saying it's amoral for poor women to have risk analysis to protect their own health is what's amoral.
Post a Comment
<< Home