Abortion-Rights Activists Ignore Its Consequences

Crisis pregnancy clinics are again under attack in New York City. This time it's City Council Speaker Christine Quinn - named Irish American of the Year by the Irish Echo in 2008 - leading the charge against the facilities offering free abortion-alternatives to women in need.

This report from the Wall Street Journal: "The City Council plans to unveil legislation ... that would establish strict disclosure requirements for crisis-pregnancy centers, some of which, abortion-rights advocates charge, deceive women into believing they're full-serve reproductive health facilities by masking their antiabortion agenda.

"The legislation, backed by Speaker Christine Quinn, would require the centers to disclose to clients that they do not provide abortion services or contraceptive devices, or make referrals to organizations that do. Centers that don't have licensed medical providers onsite would also have to disclose that information."

One would think that Ms. Quinn would have more pressing issues on the table than to go after these worthy non-profits but I suspect that she may be receiving the same pressure that Eliot Spitzer once endured. One of the first things Attorney General Spitzer did during his re-election year of 2002 was to launch a witch-hunt against crisis pregnancy clinics, accusing them of false advertising and deceptive business practices. Why did he go after charitable organizations whose only purpose is to help women during an extremely difficult time in their lives? The answer is quite simple: These clinics take away business from his biggest supporters: Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

Ms. Quinn told the Journal, "If you are a center that doesn't believe in abortion, that doesn't believe in birth control, that's your right. But don't try to trick women by presenting yourself as something else."

What a joke. If bans on deceptive advertising were ever enforced in this town, half the "Last chance - Store closing" shops on Fifth Avenue would be gone. In fact, Chris Slattery, the founder and president of one of the targeted crisis clinics, Expectant Mother Care (EMC), filed suit in 2006 against the "Dr. Emily" abortion clinics charging them with multiple violations of New York State's General Business Law Article 22-A, Section 349.

Mr. Slattery wrote that the Dr. Emily's Women's Health Center "is an aggressive abortion clinic that exists solely for the purpose of killing unborn children by a wide variety of means - including first and second trimester abortions through a full 24 weeks in pregnancy. In fact - this abortion mill kills viable children - children that could live outside of the womb."

So why was this clinic sued by EMC? Mr. Slattery claimed it had been illegally and deceptively advertising in a section of the Yellow Pages that is solely reserved for organizations that do not provide abortions or references for abortions. EMC won that judgment because the abortion mill clearly was deceptive in placing its ad.

The ads placed by the crisis pregnancy clinics point out that they are abortion-alternative clinics. How is that deceptive? Are Ms. Quinn and the City Council suggesting that pregnant women do not understand the meaning of the word "alternative"?

Clearly the proposed legislation is a form of harassment instigated by abortion advocates and Ms. Quinn should be ashamed of her action, which lends support to an industry that ignores the terrible consequences of abortion.

Here is the introduction to a Sept. 20, 2010, article by Evelyn Birge Vitz and Paul C. Vitz titled "Women, Abortion, and the Brain": "Women are hard-wired for relationships - and a woman's relationship to her baby is one of the most powerful of all, whether she realizes it or not. The hard-wiring of the brain may explain many women's disturbing post-abortion feelings."

The article that followed is a devastating account of the post-abortion trauma that affects many women. One of the authors had taught a course at New York University that had students reading stories by women relating their experiences with abortion. They focused on a Web site, afterabortion.com, which contains accounts by thousands of women who are in acute pain and some who are totally incapacitated.

From the article: "Many of these women cannot go outside for fear of 'triggers' - the sight or sound of things that will bring back the abortion experience and cause panic attacks. Triggers include the sound of a vacuum cleaner (many abortions are done by the vacuuming out of the fetus from the uterus) or the music that was playing at the abortion clinic while the abortion was being performed. The sight of pregnant women, or maternity clothes, or babies, or toddlers, or school-children, or of the place (even the neighborhood or town) where the abortion took place can all serve as triggers. Other triggers are anniversaries of all kinds, especially of the abortion and of the EBD (expected birth date), and, in particular, Mother's Day. What is particularly striking is that most of the women who have these powerful emotional reactions to their abortion are stunned by them. They were not opposed to abortion; many were actively pro-choice."

I will never forget that summer day walking down Barclay Street, near City Hall, with my newborn son in a Snugli on my chest when a woman came up to me and admired him, making cooing sounds. She then blurted out, "I just had an abortion" and abruptly walked away with her pain before I could comfort her.

But Planned Parenthood and NARAL aren't interested in the consequences of abortion. They're interested in protecting a billion-dollar industry that demands money up front for an abortion.

If you want to talk about deception, how about these so-called women's clinics that are really nothing but abortion mills? Will they have to disclose up front that they don't offer counseling or abortion-alternatives? Probably not.

One of the complaints that led to this City Council legislation involved an undercover reporter charging that a crisis clinic worker warned that abortion might lead to breast cancer. While the National Cancer Institute declared that there's no evidence to support this, several medical associations consider the link to be subject to scrutiny.

The Executive Director of the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Jane Orient, released this statement in 2003:

"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that patients have the right to give or withhold fully informed consent before undergoing medical treatment. This includes notification of potential adverse effects. While there is a difference of medical opinion concerning the abortion breast cancer link, there is a considerable volume of evidence supporting this link, which is, moreover, highly plausible. We believe that a reasonable person would want to be informed of the existence of this evidence before making her decision."

The crisis pregnancy clinics are correct in notifying women of potential adverse effects. Why does the 2008 Irish American of the Year want to put them out of business?

Alicia Colon resides in New York City and can be reached at aliciav.colon@gmail.com and at www.aliciacolon.com