Today's NYTimes

[dmac]

I have never posted an article before, and therefore I do not know how to post the limit yet refer people on to the rest of the article but here is an attempt because I feel this is an important read for this forum.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 2, 2005
Church Groups Turn to Sonogram to Turn Women From Abortions
By NEELA BANERJEE

OWIE, Md., Jan. 26 - Sixteen months ago, Andrea Brown, 24 years old and unmarried, was desperate for an abortion, fearing the disappointment of her parents and the humiliation she might face.

While frantically searching the telephone book one day, she came across the Bowie Crofton Pregnancy Center and Medical Clinic, a church-financed organization that provides counseling and education about sexual abstinence. The receptionist told Ms. Brown that the clinic did not perform abortions or make referrals but that she could come in for an ultrasound to make sure her six-and-a-half-week pregnancy was viable. When she did, everything changed.

"When I had the sonogram and heard the heartbeat - and for me a heartbeat symbolizes life - after that there was no way I could do it," Ms. Brown said recently as she revisited the clinic and watched her daughter, Elora, now 9 months old, play at her feet.

In the battle over abortion, opponents say they have discovered a powerful new tool: sonograms. And over the last 18 months, they have started major fund-raising campaigns to outfit Christian crisis pregnancy centers with ultrasound equipment.

The groups, including the Southern Baptist Convention and the evangelical organization Focus on the Family, have spent $20,000 to $30,000 apiece on ultrasound machines, and some of the clinics are vying for more expensive state-of-the art machines that show the fetus in three dimensions. Focus on the Family has budgeted $4.2 million in the current fiscal year for the machines and on training on how to use them.


The rest of the article can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/national/02pregnant.html?oref=login


I scanned rather quickly to see if it had already been posted and didn't see it so excuse me if this is a repost.

[Pawel K]

1. Why would there be a problem with this?

I'm not sure if you have a problem with this but if you do, why? I feel strongly that a women should have a right to chose; this is her right and her right alone. So if she wants to see the fetus first and changes her mind later who cares?

[Raster]

2. nothing wrong with it at all. Choice is choice. Now if the woman was

forced to come in for MANDATORY counseling and sonogram before the procedure, well, that's another story.

[RedSpartan]

3. I agree

My wife is now 34 weeks pregnant with our first. Seeing the baby (it's a girl) grow from a little peanut-sized blob with a heartbeat to now, when she moves around and reacts to the sound of my voice, has been amazing. I consider myself quite liberal, but I personally find abortion horrifying. I also believe, however, that I cannot force a woman to carry a child. This girl had a choice, and made, it would seem, and informed decision, whereas she was ready to react irrationaly based on fear at first. The key in such situation is that she has a choice, the choice is hers, and nothing is forced on her.

[dmac]

4. Since I am conflicted on this issue myself

perhaps I am should have stayed out of it. I just thought the article may generate some interesting discussion in this group for two reasons.

One, because of the "Focus on the Family" piece of the article - where are they getting the funding for this? Private donations or is any of it coming from the Federal gov't, through some faith-based initiatives?

And two, does this put us one step closer to that definition of what constitutes life, thus enabling overturning Roe V Wade?

I don't know that it does and honestly, this is not one of my issues. I just found the article interesting and so I was trying to share it with those I thought would also find it interesting.

[iverglas]

5. just like those gun things

... the 3D sonogram is just a tool, and it the purpose for which it is used that is the issue.

http://www.expectantmothercare.org/

That's one of the most well-known "crisis pregnancy centre" outfits, one that acquired the tool in question early on.

It's also been a subject of investigation by the Attorney General of New York state because of questions raised by some of its practices. (I'm not in the US, but Elliot Spitzer is apparently very popular with many Democrats: http://democrat.meetup.com/608)

(Here's the bit I've never been able to figure out. The Expectant Mother Care site, which lists a location at "226A West 238th Street", says that it is "a project of the Evergreen Association, Inc., a New York State 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation". Here: http://www.apapets.org/HumaneFinder/HumaneNY.htm we have "Evergreen Association, Inc." at "226 W 238TH ST # A" ... on the American Pet Association's "Humane Locator" page. WTF??)

http://www.nysntw.vesana.com/html/modules/news/print.php?storyid=64
(emphasis mine)

'Crisis Pregnancy Centers' Expand and Draw Criticism
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 21, 2002; Page A01

... Following complaints from abortion rights advocates, the attorney general of New York is investigating whether Expectant Mother Care and other "crisis pregnancy centers" use deceptive advertising or practice medicine without a license. The centers have responded aggressively, contesting the attorney general's subpoenas and rallying nationwide opposition to the probe.

More broadly, hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers throughout the United States are expanding their services -- and trying to protect themselves against accusations of practicing medicine illegally -- by converting their facilities into medical clinics with ultrasound machines and part-time physicians and nurses.

To help pay for such investments, the centers increasingly are turning to the federal and state governments. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) introduced legislation this month to authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to dole out $3 million in federal grants for ultrasound equipment to "community-based pregnancy help medical clinics."

... "A lot of times when a girl comes in and says she wants an abortion, she's just being selfish," Nazario explained. "She's really not thinking about the baby. She's thinking about herself."

please click the link to read the whole array of vicious tactics the anti-choice activists who run these centres use against women considering abortion

... While declining to specify the complaints, Dopp said they include misrepresentation of the range of services provided, improper medical advice and, in one case, an allegation by a woman that she was kept in a closed room while her father, pastor and employer were informed that she was pregnant.

It is totally contrary to MEDICAL ETHICS to put any pressure, let alone these kinds of pressures, on patients. The outfits that are using the equipment in question are using it not for diagnostic purposes or for their patients' information, but, in conjunction with a range of other tactics, to pressure patients to choose a particular course of action for no valid medical reason.

So my own complaint is not about the use of the sonogram equipment, it is about the use of the sonogram equipment in a manner that violates medical ethics, and of course any code of basic decency. So now that they've set themselves up as "practising medicine", they need to be brought to heel in that regard.

See also Kelli's story, here:
http://www.eileen.250X.com/Main/infrmdC/CPC_Sting.htm

[WildClarySage]

6. This asshat:

... "A lot of times when a girl comes in and says she wants an abortion, she's just being selfish," Nazario explained. "She's really not thinking about the baby. She's thinking about herself."

Yes, and a lot of times she is thinking about the baby. About what it would be like to grow up in poverty, possibly exposed to drugs/alcohol use by Mom, possibly in utero, or just as the child of someone who didn't want to be a mother.

Yeah, that's just selfish all right... :eyes:

[renaissanceguy]

7. It's the same logic they use against gays

"You're being selfish if you are gay. You should do what God wants, not what you want. You must change yourself and your beliefs because that's what God wants. Blah blah blah blah blah."

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14741193

[WildClarySage]

8. Who gave God the right to decide what is right for me?

and more to the point, who gave them the right to decide what God thinks?

[Scout]

9. thank you!

If God is worried about me and my behavior, he can deal with me himself. I don't need his followers trying to do it for him.