Download the Pregnancy Help News App Today! Click Here!

Arrow up
Arrow down
Sunday, 19 January 2020
Advertisement

There they go again. Another day, another fictional attack on our work

Reading the latest attack on pregnancy help organizations, this time a joint venture between The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine and the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, I couldn’t help but channel my inner Ronald Reagan and say, “There you go again.”

For the historically minded, Reagan first used the line in a 1980 presidential debate against Jimmy Carter, when the incumbent president told voters Reagan opposed health care for senior citizens. After Carter’s attack, Reagan smiled, shook his head and said, “There you go again,” before calmly refuting Carter’s charge.

Reagan would use the line often. It worked to diffuse falsehoods, change the narrative and ultimately, win two elections.

For us, “there you go again” is an article in The Journal of Adolescent Health, no doubt read by nearly dozens of breathless academics and politically motivated physicians. The unbiased title?: Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the U.S.: Lack of Adherence to Medical and Ethical Practice Standards.

[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]

And while the previous line is meant to be facetious, it would be nice if these groups would be honest enough to admit, articles like these are simply a nod to the abortion community and a way to garner media attention. 

Why do I make this claim? Because there are no facts in the article. None. Zero. No studies are cited, only other articles, creating a circular reasoning which goes like this: 

We know pregnancy help organizations are bad, and we’ll prove it. For proof, here is another article where someone says pregnancy help organizations are bad! There, we’ve proved our point.

Honestly, this refrain never gets old for the abortion lobby. There’s only one problem: It’s full of dishonesty.

Just for fun, let’s break down one portion of this “study.” In the section, “Quality of Health Information and Services Provided by CPCs,” PHOs are attacked on a variety of fronts. But the attacks are only half-true, if at all.

For instance, “CPCs are typically staffed by volunteers without clinical training or licensure;” leads readers to think we’re a bunch of rubes falsely disseminating medical information. While we do rely on many volunteers, this is a false narrative. Our medical procedures (for instance, ultrasound and STI testing) are performed according to state law and licensure guidelines. And yes, we have volunteers who provide non-medical assistance. To imply we’re somehow skating around the law is simply disingenuous.

The next falsehood? “Because CPCs prioritize their own religious beliefs over client needs and preferences and prevailing medical guidelines, the centers do not promote informed consent and do not provide client-centered care or recommended evidence-based services.”

While the Journal tosses out a lot of “sources,” each is only an opinion-based article with no objective facts for consideration.

If we’re tossing out opinions then, here’s one: “Pregnancy Help Organizations understand the power of balancing excellence in health care with a client-centered approach which incorporates faith into outcomes.” There. My opinion.

Let’s go one further: “Just as Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists and other religious groups poured their faith into health care by creating hospitals under their names, PHOs do this today, showing how the love of Christ permeates and strengthens health care for all.” Ha! Another opinion, just as worthy.

Both opinions are backed up by facts, because we can provide thousands of examples of babies born, healthy families and spiritually strengthened individuals. So, there.

Of course, this “position paper” goes on to attack abstinence-based sexual integrity initiatives, refusing to consider research showing the positive impact of these programs. Other targets? Abortion Pill Reversal (“unproven service”), Abortion Recovery initiatives (there is apparently “clear evidence” that abortion does no harm, though no study is cited) and—as we expected—our advertising (“misleading”).

It’s all so predictable. 

The bottom line? These “position papers,” “studies,” and the ensuing press releases are always designed to sway public opinion toward two conclusions:

  1. Pregnancy Help Organizations are bad, run by lying religious zealots who care nothing for women.
  2. Let’s thank Mother Earth (we can’t include God here) for the Abortion Lobby, run by honest, caring philanthropists (it’s never about money, even though billions of dollars are at stake!) whose only mission is kindness and charity.

What should we learn from these articles? “Keep Up the Good Work.”

Facts? Dedicated medical professionals work in pregnancy help organizations either as volunteers or almost always for less pay than they can find on the open market. While most normal people see this as exemplary and courageous, those who oppose us downplay their abilities and motivations.

Another fact? Abortion Pill Reversal works. Through APR, women have a second chance at choice. Yet those who champion the word “choice” vilify us.

Tweet This: Another fact? Abortion Pill Reversal works. Through APR, women have a second chance at choice. Yet those who champion “choice” vilify us.

And as obvious as this, waiting for marriage for sexual activity lowers STI rates, builds stronger marriages and study after study shows those who wait have happier sex lives. But those who lecture us about “comprehensive” sex education don’t want these truths known.

None of this will change. None. Of. It. 

Even if every one of our pregnancy help organizations is accredited, provides full prenatal care, delivery services, post-natal care, 18 years of pediatric care and tosses in a $25,000 yearly allowance for each baby born, those who write these papers will still find false reasons to oppose us.

The key reason? Money. Because our work cuts into their profits, the “position papers” and “highly sourced” articles will continue. 

Tweet This: "Because our work cuts into their profits, the “position papers” and “highly sourced” articles will continue"

Our answer? Stay on message. Stay on mission. 

If we—even for a second—shift our focus toward trying to appease these groups, we’re wasting our time. 

Yes, we must seek the best for our patients and clients. We do this every day.

But no, we should never dance to the abortion lobby’s latest tune. Because if we do, they’ll change the song anyway. 

Instead we smile, go back to work and say, “There they go again.”

Editor's note: Heartbeat International, which manages Pregnancy Help News, also manages the Abortion Pill Rescue Network.

Kirk Walden

Kirk Walden is a senior writer with Pregnancy Help News, an Advancement Specialist with Heartbeat International and author of The Wall. For banquet speaking engagements, contact Gloria Leyda at Ambassador Speakers Bureau. He can also be found at www.kirkwalden.com

Leave a comment

Advertisements

GET OUR NEWSLETTER

Get Pregnancy Help News delivered to your inbox each Monday morning.