Abortion Gang

On November 16, 2011, First Resort, a San Francisco organization that describes itself as existing “solely to provide free medical care and counseling services to assist women in making fully informed decisions about unplanned pregnancies,” filed a lawsuit against the City of San Francisco, alleging that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ ban on crisis pregnancy centers’ engagement in “false or misleading advertising practices,” interfered with their First Amendment rights.

First Resort is one of many so-called crisis pregnancy centers (also called CPCs) across the country which claim to provide accurate medical information to women considering abortions, but instead engage in practices that range from spouting total falsehoods to bullying.  Reports surfaced in North Carolina recently that a Jewish woman visiting a number of CPCs was told not only to not have an abortion, but that she would go to hell.  At one, she was even told to become a born again virgin.

The Huffington Post has reported that at First Resort in San Francisco, these baby hungry anti-choice mavens are not satisfied with walk in traffic to the clinic style offices, whose awning reads “A Woman’s Choice Resource Center.”  Instead, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, First Resort actively recruits women unsure of their options by purchasing Google ads for the term “abortion San Francisco,” so that they could ensure that their website would be at the top of results for anyone searching for abortion services in the area.

Unfortunately, laws protecting women from organizations whose singular focus on babies and controlling women’s bodies leads them to lie do not have a great track record for survival in our legal system.  Earlier this year, a Federal judge struck down a similar law in New York, on the grounds that the First Amendment should somehow be extrapolated and perverted to mean that it is okay to lie to women when they are at their most vulnerable.

SF Appeal reported that Bayview Supervisor Malia Cohen put a great deal of effort into writing the law in such a way that it “both protects free speech as well as any women at risk of being misled.”  She clarified to reporters this week that, “this legislation does not limit or prescribe what views groups or individuals may express.  Rather it prevents groups from knowingly engaging in false or misleading advertising about the pregnancy related services they offer.”

Which, I suppose means that any San Francisco abortion clinics cannot, unfortunately, tell potential clients that having an abortion will make them thinner or blonder without incurring the city’s new $500-per-infraction fine.  If there is a San Francisco Planned Parenthood location, then they better not promise a free cruise or day at Disneyland following each procedure without following through.

Except that, as far as I know, there are no abortion clinics offering designer shoes as gifts-with-purchase-of-abortion or failing to provide full medical information to their patients.  So, if First Resort, or other CPCs feel like they are being singled out for providing misinformation, then maybe they should start asking themselves why they need to lie, instead of sucking up the courts’ time and money by suing.

Over at Slate, Rachael Larimore has written a somewhat convoluted piece, partially in response to Amanda Marcotte’s earlier article in which she explores the trend of touring “I was almost aborted” speakers. Larimore argues that pro-choicers are actually afraid of the “What if I hadn’t been born?” question because it challenges our supposed perception that “…some ‘unwanted’ children actually grow up in loving homes and become responsible, even successful, adults.”

Perhaps it is too much to ask that this belief can be dispelled by pro-choicers simply saying, no, we know that some “unwanted” children do okay. We also know that many women who decide to proceed with an unplanned pregnancy end up being fantastic parents. We also know that some adopted kids have great lives and contribute a lot to society. We even wish for these things, and try to facilitate the frequency of these events by supporting many things that help make them possible: accessible, funded daycare and childcare; the de-stigmatization of single motherhood; financial and emotional support for new parents; and on and on. Pro-choicers have a wide range of concerns outside of abortion (that’s why we call ourselves “pro-choice” and not “pro-legal-abortion”) – we would like to see pregnant people have access to all the information and resources they need regardless of their chosen pregnancy outcome.

Larimore thinks that we are scared to answer the question: “What if I hadn’t been born?”, but personally I don’t think it’s that difficult. Putting aside the fact that, had that one thing changed, an infinite number of alternate worlds is created, the answer is quite simply: “then you wouldn’t be here.” There’s a lot more to it of course: maybe things would have been a little easier for your mother; maybe she would have had another child later on, that she could have loved and cared for more; maybe things would have been worse for her, and having you saved her from going down a difficult road. Maybe someone more competent would have your job; maybe your partner would have fallen in love with an unstable person who killed them in a jealous rage, changing a lot of other lives; maybe everything would be exactly the same; maybe maybe maybe.

The reason pro-choicers often deflect this question as meaningless is because it is. There is no way for us to know what would happen if a different choice was made. The question itself is a shameless emotional baiting tactic that anti-choicers use in two ways: 1. asking it about themselves to make you feel like a jerk if you don’t care about them not being born, or 2. asking it about you to make you feel like you’re so lucky to be alive – as if you would even know or care if you had been aborted. “What if your mother aborted you?” the anti-choice protesters would hurl the question over the fence at us, back in my clinic escort days. “Then I wouldn’t be born,” we would answer back. What if the moon were made of blue cheese?

Everyone makes decisions in their lives without knowing how things might have been if they had taken a different path. That is part of being human. You can tell a pregnant woman what could happen until you’re blue in the face, but at the end of the day she can only choose one of two options – continue the pregnancy, or terminate it – and then she lives with the outcome of that choice. The pro-choice movement is not interested in the game of telling women what *could* happen. All we want is for her to be free to weigh those possibilities and make that decision herself.

Jennie McCormack recently tried to seek a temporary restraining order against Idaho’s state law that bans abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. As she is not currently pregnant, the judge ruled that McCormack lacks legal standing on this issue. However, to put this into perspective, Jennie’s lawsuit is the very first court case challenging any of the later abortion bans that have been enacted in the past few years.

Idaho, as well as Alabama, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and Nebraska, all enacted post-20 week abortion bans.  This arbitrary 20 week deadline is based upon frequently disputed research that claims that a fetus starts to feel pain at or after 20 weeks of gestation.  There is no legitimate scientific information that supports this; In fact, far more evidence suggests that a fetus actually can’t distinguish between touch and pain until around 35-37 weeks.

Here’s the thing about these “fetal pain” laws: as with most anti-choice legislation, the hidden agenda is paramount.  One restriction always leads to another.  It is a never-ending cycle of misinformation and bogus science aimed at restricting women’s access to abortion. Slowly but surely anti-choice activists are chipping away at our rights, and we are letting them get away with it. Will our birth control be next? Will a miscarriage be considered a “wrongful” termination of pregnancy? Anti-choicers are not concerned with pain or safety or women; they only care about getting their political agenda across.

More women must find their voices and stand up against anti-choice restrictions.  Especially because fetuses are about to have their voices “heard” in Washington. Yes, really.  Today, October 13, we can all head down to the U.S. Capitol Congressional Auditorium and listen to the “voice of the unborn.”  Can this get any creepier? People will literally be watching and listening to ultrasounds, performed purely to make a political statement.

Voices From the Womb (yes, this is a real event) states, “all 535 members will be personally invited to witness live ultrasounds on women who are in their first, second and third trimester of pregnancy. Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate will have the opportunity, for the first time, in the United States Capitol to “hear” from the pre-born children of America.” Notice, the women carrying the “pre-born of America” do not get to say anything at all.  This is the kick-off of what will be a national tour coming to a state near you.   After all, it is about to be an election year.

The laundry list of provisions and restrictions is endless. Fetal pain laws, mandatory waiting periods, parental consent, medically inaccurate anti-abortion counseling sessions, forced ultrasounds…over and over again we put the “rights” of fetuses above the rights of the women who are carrying them.  And now, we are literally giving fetuses a “voice” in Washington. Where will it end? When will a woman’s voice finally matter more than the unborn fetus she carries?

Recently I put 33 minutes of my life aside to watch the much ballyhooed “180,” a film (sorry, “award winning documentary”) purporting to change “the heart of a nation” on the question of abortion (and no I will not link it). I got my hopes up a little when I saw that one of the recommendations on the website, from a John Piper, went: “I give my unflinching, joyful, trembling Yes to ‘180’.” Well! Sounds sexy, no?

No.

The film opens with the question: “Have you heard of Adolf Hitler?” Don’t ask me what this has to do with abortion, because I was still trying to figure it out after the interview subject answered, “no” (no?? really??) and old news reels of Hitler’s Germany began to run. You’re really winning me over already, guys. Godwinned in the first fifteen seconds. We then meet Ray Comfort, who is “deeply concerned” that a generation is forgetting about the Holocaust. It goes downhill from there.

Comfort seems to have rounded up a disturbing number of young people who either don’t know, or are pretending not to know, who Hitler was and what he did. This should be a documentary about the failure of our public schools. But it’s not. It’s about how if you don’t know anything about the Holocaust, you’re probably going to lack a moral centre and have lots of abortions. I think that’s what it was about, anyway. I spent a lot of the time marvelling at the lack of ability his interview subjects possessed for putting together a coherent argument. I feel that for those he has convinced to turn “pro-life”, there will be little trouble turning them back. You don’t even need a logical point.

What the film consists of is a series of “man-on-the-street” style interviews interwoven throughout, all conducted by Comfort and intercut with footage of the Holocaust, as well as ultrasound images (thankfully used sparingly). I did expect some gruesome fetus porn, because of the disclaimer about disturbing images, but it must have been referring to grainy footage of piles of dead people from the concentration camps (in which I was amused to note, the genitals had been blurred. Yeah, because that’s the image we need to protect people from).

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to find that Comfort did not have some revolutionary new argument against abortion, but instead used the same old talking points and ridiculous hypotheticals that those of us in the pro-choice movement have heard (and refuted) many times. It can be overwhelming to be approached on the street though, and if you are not equipped to answer those questions I can see how some people might find them somewhat thought-provoking, even mind-changing. There was a lot of “I never thought of it that way before” comments from the subjects.

The film itself is fairly well put together for what it is, although I am not sure who it is supposed to be targeted to – I can’t imagine it changing the minds of anyone who has given even the slightest bit of thought to their pro-choice position. Sample hypothetical (paraphrased): “I’m a construction worker. I’m going to blow up that building, but I’m not sure if there are people inside. I think there aren’t, but I’m not sure. What would you say to me?” Um…..do your job and check? I’m reporting you? Get out of my womb with your goddamn dynamite??

I really wish people would stop coming up with hypothetical situations they can equate to abortion. Can’t we all agree there is no equivalent?

Abortion itself does not come up until 13 minutes in, after Comfort has already badgered his surprisingly good-natured subjects about whether it is better to bulldoze a bunch of Jewish people in a pit, shoot them to put them out of their misery, or take a bullet yourself from a German soldier (I’m not even kidding). There were also some questions about whether you would kill Hitler, and whether you would kill Hitler’s mother, that served to show morality as shades of grey, only to have Comfort totally contradict all that at the end with a very black-and-white approach to Christianity – a dangerous position to take for someone whose Bible never explicitly condemns abortion, and actually implicitly condones it.

Here are some reasons why this film did not make me change my mind about abortion:

1. I do not believe abortion is the moral equivalent to bulldozing Jewish people in a pit.

2. I feel conflicted about being on the same side as someone who would say to a young, pleasant woman of colour: “Hitler declared Jews as non-humans, and that’s what you’re doing when you say it’s ok to kill a child in the womb.”

3. I believe one can be moral without being a Christian.

4. I have the capacity for rational thought and am not instantly converted to an idea by being berated by talking points until I break down and say yes so the interviewer will just go away.

5. If I label myself, I do it based on what I believe, and not vice versa. I will not change my beliefs in order to fit into a category (ie “Christian”).

6. There was a really cute, self-identified gay woman in this film and it didn’t look like Comfort was able to convince her, and I still want a shot with her.

7. “It’s common practice to have a low moral standard when we free ourselves from the Ten Commandments, or when we’re unaware of their true meaning.” No.

8. It does not, in fact, concern me that if I were to die today I might end up in hell. Mostly because I follow my own moral compass and would rather suffer judgement than follow the (in my opinion, immoral) laws of a god I don’t believe in.

9. I don’t want to associate with a cause that has to put this disclaimer on their video and website: “We strongly condemn the use of any violence in connection with protesting abortion.”

and…

10. I trust women to make the right choice for them, regardless of their religious or spiritual beliefs, I want to be on the side that trusts and supports women, and I truly believe that abortion can be, and often is, an act of love.

Sorry Ray. Better luck next time.

The Canadian Criminal Code reads as follows,

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

Sounds great for pro-choice Canadians, right? Wrong. As a general rule, I refuse to refer to the law when making my arguments for abortion rights. There are some rights that are inherent that cannot be changed by legislation. The right not to be discriminated against due to race was always wrong, even when it was legal. The right not to be discriminated against due to gender or sexual orientation does not change, even if it is illegal. Currently in Canada, there is no legal right to die.Sue Rodriguez challenged the law and lost in the Supreme Court. I believe that every human being has the right to decide the time and manner in which they die and that they should legally be allowed to seek the assistance of a physician. I agree that the right needs to be regulated to some degree to ensure it is not abused but ultimately every person has a right to die. This is a right regardless of what the law says. The law is slow to change and often does not accurately reflect society. Sadly, sometimes the law reflects society, but it is still wrong.

The reason I never like to use the argument that a fetus does not become a human being until the criteria in s 223 of the Criminal Code is met, is because it would not take much to change that definition. In Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC for short by no small coincidence) has a majority government. Not because the majority of Canadians voted for them, not even because the majority of voters voted for them. In fact, 50% of Canadians voted for other parties but because of the way our system works (for better or for worse) all it took for their majority was for the party to get 40% ofvoters’ support. Now that the CPC has the majority of seats in the House of Commons, the party makes the law. Except for very few “free votes,” the members of the CPC will toe (or tow, depending on your view) the party line and vote in unison to abolish the long-gun registry and to pass a massive 9-in-1 crime bill that was already voted down when they have a minority government, among other things. As a party they could very easily change the definition of when a fetus becomes a human being to the moment of conception. And the law would be changed.

Guess what? CPC anti Brad Trost is making a very big deal out of the government’s decision to fund International Planned Parenthood Federation. Do not let the title mislead you, a huge percentage of CPC MPs are anti-choice; Trost is no rogue. Their base is made up of the far-right former Reform Alliance. That base did not disappear when the Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the CPC. They are still out there and they see the CPC majority (the first in almost 2 decades) as the ticket to controlling a woman’s right to abortion once and for all. Brad Trost has vowed to take a more aggressive stance against abortion rights and his base in the Reform Alliance. They are the tea-partiers of Canada and they are just as well-funded, just as angry, and just as dangerous.

Even if the CPC changed the law and effectively made abortion illegal by giving a fetus the right to personhood, it would not change the fact that abortion is a woman’s right. Perhaps the only saving grace is that a court appeal would be quickly launched and any CPC law infringing on abortion rights would be put on “hold” while the courts sorted out the legality, which would take long enough that Canadians could come to their senses and remove the CPC from government.

But because the law can be changed so easily, I prefer to rely on the moral arguments in favour of abortion. The fact is, nobody has the right to use another person’s body without their consent or permission. That fact does not change when it involves a woman and a fetus. Regardless of whether the law supports that fact does not change it and the fact that it does support it just means that fewer women will die. Pro-choicers are better off using these arguments rather than relying on “because it’s legal” type arguments. Legal abortion is tenuous, especially in the US. There are very well funded groups that would like nothing more than for women to die from back-alley abortions and they are working hard to make that a reality, both in Canada and the US.

If you want to let Brad Trost know that Canadians do not support him, please email him at Trost.B@parl.gc.ca or you can let him know on Twitter @BradTrostCPC. If you happen to be a constituent of Saskatoon-Humboldt, even better! Let him know by putting ‘Constituent Correspondence’ in the Re Line.

Mr. Trost, Canadians are pro-choice even if you are not!

A woman named Jennifer Fulwiler recently wrote a piece called “What I Learned from Praying in Front of an Abortion Clinic.” This piece provides an interesting and  disturbing look into the anti-choice movement and their “40 days for life” protest. From being made to sign a contract to be “peaceful” (as peaceful as a group of anti-choicers could be, anyway), to how she claims that the anti-choice movement views women, it provides an eery look into the other side.

Like virtually every other anti-choice article ever written, this piece fails to honestly address the women involved in abortion. Fulwiler claims that the anti-choice movement, along with the sidewalk harassers, truly care about women. The truth is, the vast majority of the women who are walking into that clinic don’t want you there. Just put yourself in their position. Most of them are not particularly happy to be there (who likes surgery?) and just want to go through the experience with as few complications as possible. Many of them consider you, sidewalk “counselors,” a complication. Sidewalk harassers are strangers who, despite claiming not to judge, are there because they think these women are or are about to become murderers. Who the hell likes to be considered a murderer? Sidewalk harassers are there presenting themselves as hostile, unfriendly people, no matter how friendly or quiet they claim to be, and if they did respect women, they would respect the fact that the vast majority of them do not want creepy people standing outside of their doctor’s office “praying” for them. This is why so many women are grateful for clinic escorts. Furthermore, Fulwiler states later in the article that, by harassing women at their clinics, “mothers (are) saved from undergoing a procedure that would harm them both psychologically and physically”. Why, hello there, paternalism! Fulwiler’s internalized misogyny becomes painfully obvious here. Women do not need you, Jennifer Fulwiler, to decide that having an abortion would hurt them psychologically. You also don’t get to make up facts about the safety of the procedure; especially considering that an early abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

Fulwiler states that “communities don’t want abortion facilities in their neighborhoods” because she got some positive responses from people driving by, and again completely neglects to look at it from the woman’s point of view. Someone who doesn’t want or need an abortion may not necessarily want an abortion provider in their area. It’s a tough fact to face, but people generally only see things from their point of view and fail to understand the need for abortion providers until they themselves need one. She forgets, however, that the women who are here in the first place obviously want, and need, an abortion provider in their area. A lot of these women are grateful to be able to access abortion in their area, rather than having to drive long distances just to obtain a simple medical procedure.

At first glance, Fulwiler may have seemed like the only level-headed anti-choice activist I ever encountered. It didn’t take long, however, to unearth the paternalism and misogyny in her writing. Fulwiler, you are free to continue your sidewalk harassing, but pro-choicers will continue to counter it. Pro-choicers, “40 days for life” is coming up on the 28th. If you can, please turn this into “40 days for women’s lives” and volunteer to become a clinic escort by calling your local clinic and asking if they need any volunteers. A list of the locations which are being targeted can be found here.

This year, the Sisters of Life celebrates its twentieth birthday. The Sisters of Life is a religious order established in 1991. They exist “to protect and enhance the sacredness of every human life.” If you visit the Sisters of Life’s website, you will read stories about pregnant women receiving help from the compassionate nuns, either at one of the housing facilities they provide, or in the form of strollers and baby clothes. The website paints a pretty picture of nuns in their habits, but it is a very incomplete picture at best.

The language that the Sisters of Life use may seem woman-centric on the surface, but if you dig a little deeper, you realize that they are only concerned with the fetus, not the woman. The tactics they use are very similar to those at crisis pregnancy centers. When women approach them for help, they are given biased information against abortion and are only offered assistance if they continue their pregnancy.

Sisters of Life currently serve under the supervision of Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who is the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. The archbishop has been very vocal about his positions on birth control and abortion. During his installation as the president of the USCCB, he stated that he would use the post to “to embrace and protect the dignity of every human person, the sanctity of human life, from the tiny baby in the womb to the last moment of natural passing into eternal life.” Archbishop Dolan and the USCCB have been in the news recently criticizing the Department of Health and Human Services’ announcement that it supports no co-pay birth control, despite the HHS exception for religious hospitals and insurance programs.

I think it’s important to compare Sisters of Life to the group Catholics for Choice, which serves as “a voice for Catholics who believe that the Catholic tradition supports a woman’s moral and legal right to follow her conscience in matters of sexuality and reproductive health.” Catholics for Choice argues that abortion and birth control are a matter of individual conscience, and that each woman has the ability to make her own decisions about what is best for her health and her family.

I’m not a Catholic myself, but I really respect the work of Catholics for Choice. They use Catholic theology to justify their position, and they educate pro-choice advocates about the best way to reach out to the Catholic community. CFC trusts and respects women, while the Sisters of Life assume that the Pope ultimately knows what’s best for women’s lives.

Although I think it’s commendable that the nuns who belong to Sisters of Life have dedicated their lives to serving others, I think their message cannot be taken at face value. Abortion and birth control are ultimately a personal decision. The fact that 98% of Catholic women say that they have used some form of birth control should be a sign to the Catholic hierarchy that they are out of touch with their parishioners’ lives.

When someone says the term “battleground state,” Mississippi is not one that comes to mind. But in 2012, that’s exactly what Mississippi will be.  The Republican-dominated state is the focus of Personhood USA’s next attack, and this time it’s about more than abortion.

Personhood USA has become well known over the last several years in the reproductive rights world for their work on attempting to pass “personhood” legislation to get embryos, zygotes, and fetsues recognized as full, social security card-carrying people.  In most cases they put this personhood legislation to a vote in a normal election by adding an amendment or initiative to the ballot (which are called ballot measures).  Just like we vote into office our elected officials, these amendments and initiatives are put to a vote.

A “normal” personhood ballot measure’s goals are to do a couple of key things:  First, it defines life as starting at conception, and second, it ensures that every single “person” or living thing– and remember life now starts at conception—has the same rights.  This means that miscarriages can become the subject of murder investigations and most forms of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and stem cells research become illegal. Of course, this also makes abortion illegal.  If a majority of voters approves this type of personhood ballot measure, it becomes law—it’s important to note that this has not happened yet.

Every state has different laws regarding how initiatives and amendments can get on the ballot.  Each state requires a different number of signatures from voters showing support for the measure.  Some states don’t even allow types of ballot measures, and Mississippi is one of those states.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to have it struck from the ballot, but it was overturned by a local judge, Malcolm Harrison, in a political ruling.  He was up for re-election and the measure had been receiving support in his district, so he overturned the lawsuit.  Ironically, he lost the election, but the damage had already been done.  The ACLU and Planned Parenthood have appealed to the Mississippi State Supreme Court to rule on this issue and are currently waiting for a verdict, but here’s where it really gets tricky. Mississippi’s Republican-run Supreme Court’s verdict could mean a lot.  Not only will their verdict set a precedent, but it will also affect another ballot measure.

Mississippi Eminent Domain Amendment (or Initiative 31) is a ballot measure that would restrict the government’s ability to take private property and transfer it to a separate person or private business.  If passed, it would amend the Mississippi Bill of Rights, the same docment that the Personhood ballot measure would impact.  Initiative 31 is also the subject of a legal battle.  This means that if the Republican-dominated court strikes down the Eminent Domain Amendment (which they are against) they will also be forced to strike down the Personhood Amendment (which they support).

This legal conundrum goes well beyond any issue of reproductive rights.  If the measure is kept on the ballot, it will make a legal precedent that ballot measures may be used to alter the State Bill of Rights.  This could have unheard of long term consequences with future ballot measures.  Hopefully the court is able to look past their anti-abortion views and see that taking both initiatives off of the Mississippi ballot is the right thing to do for their state.

As a new Aborton Gang blogger, I was (and still am) very nervous about my first post.  Thoughts kept running through my head: “What will be my blogging ‘voice’? Will I be able to live up to my fellow bloggers’ expectations?” Hence, it was super difficult for my overactive brain to decide on topic for this first post, and trust me, staring at a blank Word document, cursor blinking, just gets more and more stressful as the minutes pass by.  Then I stumbled across this image.

The Indiana Right to Life county fair booth was actually distributing Pro-Life Silly Bandz. And upon further research, you can actually buy these things in bulk!

Silly Bandz are marketed primary towards pre-teens and adolescents. Personally my three nieces, all between the ages of eight and ten, are completely obsessed, excitedly ripping open each package, trading shapes, arguing over who has the “best” Band, Well girls, how would you like to wear an unborn fetus on your wrist?

As someone who has worked in the movement for many years, I’m no stranger to anti-choice propaganda for children, but how far is too far? (Shockingly, a search for “Pro Choice Silly Bandz” yielded no results.) This is how one particular website, Heritage House, advertises their Silly Band packages for purchase:

“Kids aren’t collecting Silly Bands, the Silly Bands are collecting kids! Lead-free, PVC-free, safety-tested silicone and FUN! Share these six brand new pro-life designs with youth groups, school groups, church groups and centers. They are light-weight and fun to wear.”

Elsewhere they write, ”What’s the latest rage kids are into? SILLY BANDS!! These crazy little shaped bracelets are making a huge hit all around the country! Now we carry them in Pro-Life words and shapes! Take advantage of this kid-friendly trend and share the messages of LIFE.”

This is outright propaganda and a blatant attempt to exploit a harmless childhood trend for a political (and religious) cause. In general, the ethics of marketing to children is highly debated.  Some countries (hello Sweden!) have gone so far as to completely outlaw advertising directly to children under 12. Usually this debate is focused around unhealthy foods such as Happy Meals and bubble gum; however, it is even more dangerous to bring this issue into the abortion debate.

In one scene in the documentary “Jesus Camp,” children are shown playing with a series of plastic fetus models, their mouths covered with red tape with the word ‘life’ written across…..ultimately these children, some no more than eight years old, begin praying to overturn Roe v. Wade.  With camps like these across the country, and parents and churches indoctrinating children before they are old enough to read, do we really need to add products like Pro-Life Silly Bandz into our lives? It’s just scary. What will they think of next? Needless to say, I will definitely be adding “Pro-Life Silly Bandz” to the list of things I will not be buying my nieces next year for Christmas.

Here in America, you have a shot at winning a lawsuit alleging that the organic lettuce you bought at the local grocery store was, gasp, actually coated in a thick layer of pesticides and artificial colorants.  Consumer protection laws have been used liberally to protect Americans from the greed of corporations who would substitute inferior ingredients to cut costs and raise profit margins, require firearms manufacturers to install safety features on guns to keep children and the unaware from shooting themselves and to require service providers from teachers to accountants to home improvement contractors to maintain certain minimal levels of continuing education – not to mention basic levels of training – in order to hold onto those credentials.

Just a few months ago, in the beginning of March, I lauded the New York City Coucil for approving legislation to require crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to disclose whether or not they actually offer abortion services.  Like a loan shark claiming that he will consolidate your debts, these organizations prey on women considering whether to carry pregnancies to term by advertising abortion services to lure their clients in.

The very image of anti-choice, however, CPCs then wage a campaign against choosing abortion through falsified medical brochures and untrained personnel.  Many of these organizations do not even have a trained doctor on staff, just a volunteer wielding an ultrasound wand in the hopes of eking out a baby-like image on the screen to induce vulnerable women into feeling guilty about taking control of their bodies.

Knowing all this – how virulently Americans at all levels of government and the law have fought to protect consumers from false information and how vicious the falsified information from CPCs can be – it is, then, unfathomable that in a 22 page long ruling U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III ruled that the law was unconstitutional.

Apparently, it is more important that we protect the first amendment rights of anti-abortion proponents who are specifically seeking the right to lie to women than it is to protect the women that are deceived by them.

Yes, I realize that consumer protection laws arose from the government’s right to regulate commerce.  Although there are those who are certain that there is a monetary component to abortion, my understanding is that CPCs are not driven by a desire to scam women out of their hard earned money but instead to scam them into giving birth to a baby that they will hand over.  That that baby has a very real financial value to baby brokers and childless couples desperate to adopt is true, but let’s get to the heart of the problem here:

Somewhere along the way, we became more concerned with protecting money than with protecting people’s safety, health and dignity.  Somehow it became more “offensive,” to use Judge Pauley’s preferred term, to require someone to tell the truth than to ask why they would lie in the first place.