The LA Times Pregnancy Center article does not paint the full and accurate picture


Editor’s note: Since the escape of draft majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization reported the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, there has been an increase in media coverage of pregnancy support organizations. A bias in favor of abortion or a simple misunderstanding of assisted pregnancy often promoted by many media is nothing new, but an accurate portrayal of the work of assisted pregnancy is particularly essential in the current post-Roe climate, where pregnancy counseling centers and other pro-life organizations are subject to misinformation as well as vandalism, harassment and violence. The following is a response to a Los Angeles Times article on pregnancy centers published after the May 2 leak and before the June 24 leak. Dobbs final decision. The LA Times directs responses to its articles to the Letters to the Editor section, where submissions are limited to 200 words. international heartbeat manages Pregnancy Help News and the Abortion Pill Rescue® Network (APRN).

In its June 12, 2022, Los Angeles Times article“The anti-abortion movement fuels a growing industry: pregnancy clinics”, Molly Hennessy-Fiske endeavors to describe the increase in the number of Pregnancy Support Clinics (PHCs) and the number of women assisted in the United States.

Ms. Hennessy-Fiske was less biased than others in the media when explaining the work of PHC and was often fair in her approach.

She even gave an illustration of the need for pregnancy support clinics with real stories of help offered to women, quoting a woman helped by her local primary care center, who said: “Like a family, they m ‘kissed’.

As someone who has worked with these clinics for a number of years, I have spoken to thousands of women who are considering deciding on pregnancy. I am familiar with this work and would like to respectfully point out some transgressions of truth in the article.

The article begins with the misconception that those who assist women but do not directly provide abortion services should be labeled “anti-abortion” and that they attempt to convince women to make choices not for them. themselves but at the choice of the SSP.

He says, “Pregnancy centers vary in what they offer and their religious affiliations, but they have the same goal: to persuade ‘abortion-prone’ women to reconsider and support those who continue with their pregnancies.

The real job of pregnancy help is not to coerce but rather to support women in difficult circumstances. We continue to help all women, regardless of their decisions. We empower women to make the best possible choices for themselves, their children and their families.

The women I accompanied wanted to be heard. They wanted a place to unwind without the pressures. They wanted someone to offer them hope. Very few really wanted an abortion. They were looking to solve the problem, not to abort a pregnancy.

When provided with information about their options, as well as sufficient support and resources, women are able to step out of the pressures and make the decision that is best for them.

[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]

A recently published study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeonsand reported by Demographic Research Institute found that almost three-quarters (73.8%) of women with a history of abortion surveyed admitted to having experienced at least subtle forms of pressure to terminate their pregnancy.

No one should make a life-changing decision based on pressure from others.

Most pregnancy centers continue to help women for years after the baby is born, walking alongside them and providing as much support as needed.

The article quotes a woman being helped who speaks poignantly of a pregnancy clinic saying, “Imagine the feeling of being in a safe place.

Unlike abortion providers, pregnancy clinics have no profit to make, no horse in the race beyond serving and empowering women. We strive to be that safe place, offering an abundance of compassionate, non-judgmental assistance.

Second, the article states: “Abortion rights advocates accuse facilities – which they often call crisis pregnancy centers – of tricking women into setting up next to abortion clinics and by dressing staff in doctor’s coats and surgical gowns despite being exempt from medical standards of care and supervision.

The author admits that this comes from a biased source and I can confirm that this statement is completely inaccurate.

No one “dresses up” like anything else at pregnancy clinics. These clinics provide medical services under the supervision and direction of a medical director. Pregnancy clinics employ nurses, licensed sonographers and midwives to attend to women.

The article later returns to the idea that those who work in pregnancy clinics are not true professionals: “One of her biggest concerns is that many centers have changed their names to include the words ‘medical’ or ‘clinical’, creating the impression that they are medical professionals when they often are not.

It is completely false.

Pregnancy clinics that belong to the national organizations mentioned in the article are committed to serving their communities with honesty, integrity and equality. They adopt a Commitment to care and competence.

The implication that medical standards are compromised is not factual, not only because those who work in pregnancy clinics are licensed professionals who uphold medical standards, but also because we have genuine compassion for those we help.

The author suggests twice in his article without proof that an ultrasound performed in a pregnancy clinic would be less accurate than one obtained in an abortion center. She cites a source sharing a hypothetical concern that “non-medical personnel may not correctly interpret or explain the results.”

Ultrasound at pregnancy clinics is performed and interpreted by trained healthcare professionals (nurses, licensed sonographers, physicians) who offer images and information to women regarding their pregnancy.

The article quotes an abortion provider speaking negatively about pregnancy assistance clinics: “I call them fake state-funded clinics.”

But the truth is that most PHC funding comes from private donations, not public funding.

These clinics are different from the abortion centers that receive large sums of taxpayers’ money yet offer very limited services and continue to charge patients.

In fact, more than a third of Planned Parenthood Income comes from government funding, which equates to more than half a billion dollars ($563.8 million) per year.

PHC services are generally provided at no cost to the patient. The center highlighted in the story receives only 17% of its funding from government sources and the rest from private donations, while providing full services to families in their community at no cost.

Finally, the article incorrectly states that mifepristone, the first drug given to induce a chemical abortion, is irreversible. Like many medications, it can be reversed, and this process is a choice for women who have regrets after starting an abortion.

Many women have regrets after starting an abortion and sometimes this regret sets in right away. Women who choose abortion should not be limited in their choices and forced to go through a process they no longer want or consent to.

Mifepristone competes for specific receptors in the uterus and placenta causing progesterone to drop to dangerous levels during pregnancy. By offering progesterone, which has been used safely for decades during pregnancy, it is possible to continue a pregnancy even after taking the first abortion pill.

If the writer had looked furthershe would have found evidence literally thousands of babies born worldwide who were born after successful reversal of the abortion pill.

For the thousands of women who have been through this, it’s amazing to see the deceptions of the media contradicting the reality of an ongoing pregnancy and a healthy child reaching milestones.

Over 1,100 providers prescribe the abortion pill reversal protocol worldwide. Last yearthe women reached out to the APR network in all 50 US states and 65 countries.

I appreciate the attention given to the heroic work of pregnancy clinics by this article and the encouraging stories of those helped. But there hasn’t been enough effort to be fair or completely factual about the centers that give so much to support their communities.

Insinuating that their work lacks integrity or professionalism is insulting to those who provide an abundance of care and compassion and is not the work I see happening every day in pregnancy clinics around the world. .

Tweet this: Insinuating that pregnancy clinics lack integrity or professionalism is insulting and not what happens every day in clinics around the world.


Comments are closed.