Expectant Mother Care

Who's for Choice?
By Paul C. Reisser, M.D. January/February 2002 issue of Physicianmagazine.

For the past several years I have served as medical director for a crisis pregnancy center (CPC) that has long been respected in our community as a resource for women dealing with every imaginable problem related to pregnancy. (Indeed, like a number of CPCs, it has recently been renamed a women's resource center.) A few months ago I was surprised to read a letter to the editor in our local newspaper that lambasted the center for all manner of transgressions.

Honesty, truth and compassion are the most powerful weapons in the pro-life arsenal.
The letter included allegations of deception and dissemination of misinformation about pregnancy and abortion, and criticized the center because it does not provide contraceptive services. Shortly thereafter the center's director and one of its staff members wrote lengthy replies that ably responded to these accusations. I could not refrain from joining the discussion, and a few days later the newspaper printed my epistle, which included the following comments:

While [the writer of the letter] did not specifically identify herself as "pro-choice" (the choice, of course, being that of terminating one's pregnancy), criticism of crisis pregnancy centers over the years has typically originated from those of this persuasion. But if a woman facing a crisis pregnancy is convinced that her only viable option is to schedule an abortion, and if there are few or no resources available that would allow her to consider seriously the possibility of carrying her pregnancy to term, then the word "choice" is meaningless. I respectfully propose that those who view themselves as pro-choice might demonstrate their commitment to this concept by calling a cease-fire to attacks on organizations that help make all of a pregnant woman's choices viable.

(Originally I had thought about suggesting that self-proclaimed pro-choice organizations actually support CPCs in the name of "choice," but I figured that would be pressing my luck.)

A few weeks later, I was startled to learn that the original letter criticizing our local center apparently was the outgrowth of an initiative promoted by the National Abortion Rights Action league (NARAL) as part of their "Choice for America Campaign." For $3 one can order from NARAL a "Step-by-Step Guide" for "Unmasking Fake Clinics." A description of the guide at NARAL's Web site, www.naral.org, as accessed on October 20, 2001, informs us that:

Crisis pregnancy centers — the "provider" arm of the anit-choice movement — lure women to their facilities under false pretenses, deprive them of accurate information needed to make a fully informed choice, and use fear tactics to dissuade them from choosing legal abortion. This booklet offers a range of strategies for campaigns to expose fake clinics.

Had I know that NARAL was sponsoring a systematic effort to harass CPCs, I might have added an additional admonition to my letter to the editor: "Get a life!"

It is difficult to explore NARAL's Web site — a gloomy expedition if there ever was one — without getting the impression that this organization disapproves of any outcome other than abortion for an unplanned pregnancy. It's proponents would no doubt deny this allegation and point out that they are merely unmasking deception and coercion. NARAL's online piece "Deceptive Anti-Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers" begins with a somewhat half-hearted disclaimer:

Although some centers do provide an open and honest setting to ensure that women facing an unintended pregnancy receive the support and information they need, many of these centers entice women under the pretense of providing the full range of reproductive options, including abortion. Instead, the staff at these deceptive centers use anti-abortion propaganda, misinformation, and intimidation to dissuade women from exercising their right to choose.

The article then offers several examples to paint a grim picture of misrepresentation, lying, propagandizing and hardball tactics, which one would then assume are standard operating procedure among CPCs. Sadly, a few centers have in fact resorted to such measures, which are both unethical and counterproductive. Honesty, truth and compassion are the most powerful weapons in the pro-life arsenal, and they are used freely and regularly by the overwhelming majority of centers. It is the pro-abortion movement that has had to create the verbal smokescreen — including well-worn, misleading phrases such as "products of conception," "uterine contents" and, of course, "a woman's right to choose" — to prevent frightened women, and the general public, from understanding clearly what happens during an abortion.

Furthermore, NARAL's indiscriminate railing against CPCs fails to take into account the obvious fact that a CPC simply cannot prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion. To my knowledge, no center has held anyone against her will for nine months or spirited clients to a remote location from which they could not escape. If a woman has a conversation, even one of suboptimal quality, with the staff at a center and then decides to have her baby, she is still exercising her freedom of choice. But NARAL's posturing gives us the distinct impression that any decision to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term is suspect, while any decision to have an abortion is authentic — no matter what the reason.

Anyone who has helped those who are processing the emotional and physical repercussions of abortion has heard plenty of stories to the contrary: women who were coerced by boyfriends, husbands or parents to abort; women who did not understand the procedure and its aftermath; and (most commonly) women who had no idea what the human being growing inside them looked like — until it was too late. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any corner of NARAL's Web site devoted to protecting women from being railroaded into having an abortion or making an uninformed decision to do so.

While NARAL and other organizations that champion abortion certainly have the constitutional right to state their case to the public, they should also muster the courage to admit that they are indeed pro-abortion. Were they to do so, their assault on groups that think otherwise would at least be consistent. But as long as they continue to wave the "choice" flag at every opportunity — and there's certainly no indication that they intend to do otherwise — they should have the decency to lay off those who seek to give pregnant women the opportunity to make a different decision.

Paul Reisser, M.D., practices family medicine in Thousand Oaks, Calif. A member of Focus' Physicians Resource Council, he also writes commentaries for the "Family News in Focus" radio segments.