Hey, I missed a poll!

Never fear, fearless leader. I have done what is right in thine eyes.

right now 54% of the respondents think the Catholic Church is being oppressed by being asked to be truthful about the services their pregnancy centers provide.

Watching the Bishops over the past decade or so, I'm beginning to think that the church does consider being told to tell the truth a form of oppression.

"What? We can't lie about kid fucking or the 'services' we offer to women? You're restricting the free exercise of our religion!!!!"

Time to crash another poll.

Do they word these things on purpose just to confuse people? Maybe that's why pharyngulation works, the other people just aren't smart enough to consistently understand the damn question.

Voted from work already. I'll hit this poll with both browsers when I get home.

Voted. No at 48%.

I have struck a blow for the poll's Pharygulation!

Bad translation.

Do you think that the Baltimore Convention Center signs of pregnancy, they do not provide abortion or after birth control and make the agreement a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religious beliefs?

Baltimore Convention Center on pregnancy, abortion or birth control, no breach of contract, and religion appear?

Borutshimoakonbenshonsenta pregnancy. Religion and the failure of the agreement or not.

The question gets better after every go around.

No is now in the lead.

Poor bishops, poor self-pitying bishops.

Oh, you didn't miss it, you just fired a warning shot first. Fortunately for reason, there's enough ammo in this blog to obliterate it entirely.

No = 50%

(Yes = 48%, Confused by Question = 2%)

Well, we can give them slight credit for putting at the bottom of the poll after you vote "(Results not scientific)".

Do you agree with the archdiocese ...?

The rest of the question is trivial.

The bottom of the poll results page says, "Results not scientific."

Hey, if the church doesn't have the right to confuse people with hand waving and vague poetry, they've got nothin' left.

@Victor--oh, if only. You forgot guilt and fear.

It is a clumsily worded question, but pretty easy to navigate:

Do you agree with the archdiocese ...

The rest of the text is just superfluous. I can't think of many things where the answer would NOT be 'No'.

@Menyambal

I should know better than to step away from the computer while typing a response. Or else someone with a like-minded response beat me to the punch(line). ;)

We have legal words for the CPCs do, those words are 'false advertising' and 'fraud'. They are lucky the state doesn't slap them with a fraud charge.

There's another poll here that needs fixin. Does God exist?

<abotina cage>

Voting...

Yes (1938 responses) 43%

No (2463 responses) 55%

Not sure (72 responses) 2%

4473 total responses

</abotina cage>

OK, I know this is going to be unpopular but I actually agree with the Church.

Freedom of speech means that you can say, or not say, whatever you like. It does not stop when people say, or don't say, things that you disapprove of.

The biggest challenge of freedom of speech is to stand by and let people say things that are both patently false and utterly reprehensible to you while resisting the urge to either physically assault them or pass laws to silence them.

I understand that the only reason that the church wants to not have to say "We do not provide abortions" is because they want to be able to continue to lie to vulnerable women in a time of crisis. Something I find utterly reprehensible but it is not a crime.

But just remember the great thing about freedom of speech is that you get to say whatever you like too. That is the best, and only, weapon that should be used against the kind of lies that the church, or anyone else for that matter, is spreading.

How can they be expected to make signs when there's so many under-13-year-old kids out there being all sexy and provocative and asking to be sexed up? Honestly, I don't know how they find time to wash up afterward.

Freedom of speech means that you can say, or not say, whatever you like. It does not stop when people say, or don't say, things that you disapprove of.

Nonsense, otherwise we wouldn't have laws against fraud. Or deceptive advertising. Or requirements for ingredient and nutrition labels on food. Or safety labelling on many types of consumer products.

"Free speech" in the context of law largely refers to political speech. It does not mean that the government cannot demand that people and organizations provide certain kinds of information to the public.

erichoug:

OK, I know this is going to be unpopular but I actually agree with the Church.

Freedom of speech means that you can say, or not say, whatever you like. It does not stop when people say, or don't say, things that you disapprove of.

No shit, Sherlock. This is not a freedom of speech issue. If things were the way you say, there wouldn't be little things like truth in advertising. The church doesn't get a pass for fucking lying, yet again. They already get a pretty big pass on lying, all that god stuff, ya know.

Keeping the truth of what they actually do (strong arming vulnerable women) is not okay. It's not freedom of speech - it's sliming their way out of stating what services they actually offer. You'll find that any actual clinic does have to state what they do and don't offer; same goes for altmed quacks.

These people think propaganda is a perfectly acceptable tactic. By not allowing them to be deceptive, we're repressing them.

38% YES
60% NO
1% NOT SURE
91% ALLOWING THE GRAMMAR NAZI TO BEAT WHICHEVER MORON WROTE THE QUESTION

Freedom of speech means that you can say, or not say, whatever you like. It does not stop when people say, or don't say, things that you disapprove of.

Yes this is true unless you factor out regulation.

good grief

Yes this is true if you factor out regulation.

To be fair, I think the question is mostly convoluted at least in part because the church's position on this is so convoluted.

... I mean, I took a few stabs at trying to write the question so it was actually comprehensible, and I wound up with an entirely different question.

(/For what it's worth, that question was: 'Should the church just shut up already?')

@erichoug

The problem is that they're committing fraud by falsely claiming to be something they are not. Or, in the most positive of lights, not claiming to be what they actually are. It's false advertising, and that is illegal in this country for any number of good reasons.

I also don't see how it is at all reasonable to make the case that freedom of speech means it's OK to lie through omission. There's only one reason these people don't want to say what they really do, and that's because they think they'll be able to con fewer women if women know what they're actually getting before they walk in the door.

This is kinda settled law, otherwise, meat packing companies could still grind up their employees and sell them to us as "hamburger". As it says in the article:

"Mark Graber, professor of law and government at the University of Maryland School of Law, said the law appears to favor the city. He said the Supreme Court has made it clear that advertising does not have the same protections as political speech."

Freedom of speech definitely DOES NOT mean that you have the right to omit important information when salient to public health. It is not, for example, an infringement of free speech to require doctors to give patients full information about a medical procedure; nor is it an infringement to require cigarette companies to display warnings on their packaging.

Free speech is a positive right, meaning that you may take advantage of it if you so choose. It does not, however, exempt you from being compelled to produce important information. If that were the case, the 5th Amendment would be entirely superfluous since the right to refuse to incriminate yourself would be covered under free speech (the 1st).

Freedom of speech means that you can say, or not say, whatever you like. It does not stop when people say, or don't say, things that you disapprove of.

Pardon? So are you saying requiring labels that tell you the contents of the yummy food you buy at the grocery store is a violation of the principle of free speech, and grounds for legal action?

They're offering a product. Requiring them to be open about what it entails is well within the purview of the government.

Anyone who supports this sign is interfering with these people's religious right to bear false witness. I know, I know, 'Jesus said not to bear false witness blah blah'. See, your problem is that you're not reading that passage in the correct context. Don't worry though, I'm sure some guy in a nice expensive suit will come along shortly to tell you exactly what God meant to say.

Erichoug,

I take free speech very, very seriously. I'm totally opposed to laws prohibiting "hate speech", blasphemy, obscenity, or any other form of expression on the grounds that people find it offensive. I agree with you that respecting freedom of speech is the highest priority: even people with thoroughly repugnant views should be entitled to express those views, and we do not have the right to suppress them merely because we dislike what they are saying. I would absolutely defend Fred Phelps' right to protest at funerals, for instance; or, for that matter, the Catholic Church's right to speak out against abortion and contraception. They may be both wrong and morally repugnant, but they also have a right to free speech.

But freedom of speech is not absolute. It is right that there should be (in very restricted circumstances) civil remedies for libel and slander, for instance, where someone's reputation has been attacked with a damaging falsehood. There is also no right to endanger the public by, say, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre. And I would argue that laws which prohibit fraud and false advertising are also a legitimate limitation on speech.

In this case, no one is suggesting that the Catholic Church should be prevented from speaking out against abortion. No one is arguing that it should be banned from counselling women against abortion. In a free society, Catholics have a right to do both these things. Rather, all that the city of Baltimore is requiring is that, for the avoidance of confusion, religious counselling centres make clear from the start that they do not offer or counsel abortion, so that women who are seeking help are not misled. In short, this is a law prohibiting false advertising - which is, IMO, a legitimate form of regulation of speech.

By way of analogy: in a free society, homeopaths, naturopaths, acupuncturists and other quacks have a right to practice their "alternative medicine". But it would be wrong if they were allowed to falsely advertise themselves as real medical doctors, when they are not. Laws regulating false advertising are, IMO, a legitimate use of governmental power. And so I don't think that, in this case, the Catholic Church's right to free speech has been genuinely infringed.

At least they admit 'Results are not scientific.' Ugh. What is the purpose of these polls if even the people soliciting our opinions agree there is nothing that can be determined on their basis?!

Freedom of speech means that you can say, or not say, whatever you like

Popular misconception.

To find out for yourself why this is a misconception: go yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded movie theater, or 'BOMB!' aboard a plane!

Then cite your right to 'free speech' when you're being dragged away.
See what happens! But don't expect those handcuffs to come off any time soon!

And to suggest that you can deceive people and hide behind 'freedom of speech' is too naive for words.

I understand why they're upset. They've gotten away with deceptive marketing for millenia, so of course suddenly being asked to inform truthfully must be a terrible, terrible culture shock.
Have they asked for a few little boys to sit on their laps for comfort in these hard times yet?

I'd LOVE to see a bill that mandates signs in front of churches, something like "For Entertainment Only".

Oh wait, no, that would be cruel towards all those kids who got abused and assaulted there. Hmm... anyone a better idea for such a sign's text?

Walton:

religious counselling centres make clear from the start that they do not offer or counsel abortion,

Walton, the law would also require the church to make it clear that they will not provide referrals to a clinic which provides abortion or birth control. The church is highly against birth control, and will attempt to prevent any woman from getting her hands on any type of BC.

@Numenaster:
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...
Our FOUR-

Results as of 5:03pm EST

Yes (1953 responses)
35%
No (3606 responses)
64%
Not sure (73 responses)
1%
5632 total responses
(Results not scientific)

@39

"Beware of Barking (Mad) Delusions"

Walton, the law would also require the church to make it clear that they will not provide referrals to a clinic which provides abortion or birth control. The church is highly against birth control, and will attempt to prevent any woman from getting her hands on any type of BC.

Yes, sorry I omitted to mention that. As I said at #35 (hopefully clearly enough) I support this law.

Now shouldn't Scientology be compelled to state upfront that (a) it's Scientology who's offering you this "free personality test", and (b) it is their purpose to win you for their wacky church?

Bloody rats.

dutchdoc:

Enter at your own risk.
No unaccompanied minors.

The question is not lucidly written, but it's clear how to answer it.

There is a law that requires pregnancy centers to disclose the services they provide, which lets pregnant women know what they are getting when they choose a specific pregnancy center.

Catholic centers fail to provide certain services, which may make them undesirable for certain women. They want to lie to women so more of them will buy their service, despite its deficiencies.

Neither freedom of speech nor religion apply. This isn't asking Catholic churches to post signs saying, "Blessed crackers are still crackers". It isn't preventing them from spreading propaganda lies about the medical dangers of abortion, which they do. It's simply informing the consumers of medical services provided by the church.

Hmm... anyone a better idea for such a sign's text?

Funny thing is, cruising around down here in the South, you often pass by yellow square diagonal warning signs with the word "CHURCH" on them in black letters.

"Look out! It's a church! Drive faster! Avoid the crazies!"

Draken, all 'churches' (or cults, whatever) are allowed to lie their ass off when it comes to indoctrination. If the scientologists start opening supposed Women's Health Clinics whose sole purpose is to deceive and strong arm vulnerable women, I'll speak out very loudly. Until that time, the topic is the catholic church being all pissy about being made to tell the truth.

Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien said the law, which took effect in January, "is hurting the good people volunteering and giving so much of their resources to come to the help of pregnant women"

Oh, I'm SURE the law will hurt the volunteers in their deceptive efforts!
But it's not really ABOUT these 'good people volunteering and giving so much of their resources' .. it's about the pregnant women!

Besides, it is NOT AT ALL hurting the volunteers HELPING pregnant women, since they're dead set AGAINST the kind of help most pregnant people coming to their offices would be looking for! They're there to actively NOT HELP!

It puts the paedophile apologists, whining about how there are so many church haters out to get them, right into the correct perspective. These are the same people.

So we get all that ' it's just a small minority raping the children, don't tar us with the same brush'. And then this. I see a direct connection: it's all very Machiavellian. Doesn't matter what else happens as long as the church is protected together with it's obnoxious views. Lying and tricking vulnerable young women. Protecting paedophiles. Well that's all fine then, so long as the cracker-Jebus people get their way.

"Honesty in advertising" comes to mind. You can't claim a product gives immortality, just as you can't really refrain from the claim of side effects for a drug. It would be lying by omission.

If a pregnancy counselling centre is expected to have such services and does not provide them, then it's only fair they need to disclose what exactly their product is.

Caine: What about Narconon?

Imagine an Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien, who just found out that the doctor he just visited, does NOT, out of principle, prescribe medication, examine patients, nor does he refer patients to specialists.

Don't you think that he would favor a bill that requires such doctors to clearly STATE this unusual and unexpected behavior?

While he may have liked that the doctor was listening to him, holding his hand, and even prayed with him, I'm sure that was NOT what he had in mind for his broken leg.

The church's position is, lies of omission
Are sacred, and can't be unruled!
It's godly--It's holy--to not disclose fully,
To keep all the followers fooled!
The law is too ruthless; their right to be truthless
Is bedrock, on which they must stand--
Their motto, as tempter, is caveat emptor...
Is that really too much to demand?

If a pregnancy counselling centre is expected to have such services and does not provide them, then it's only fair they need to disclose what exactly their product is.

In fact, it goes well beyond that since many of these centers will, when asked point blank "do you perform abortions here", will tell you that they do when they don't. Hence the need for the sign out front and why the church is so opposed to it.

A bit OT--my apologies. A little help, please? The religious-right governor of VA has declared April Confederate History Month over many protests--this follows his AG's announcement that there are no protections for gays working at state colleges.

A local TV station has an online poll --do you agree with the governor or not--would some of you be willing to vote in this poll? Thanks!

http://www.nbc12.com/Global/category.asp?C=128874&=#WNPoll94645

tsg:

In fact, it goes well beyond that since many of these centers will, when asked point blank "do you perform abortions here", will tell you that they do when they don't.

Yep, that's a favourite tactic. They'll say anything, wait until they get you in an examination room, then start with the anti-abortion propaganda. It takes a strong and determined (and a very impolite) woman to stand up to that crap, and let them have it while you get yourself out. They engage in a lot of reprehensible activity.

As I said, I knew it was going to be unpopular but I will point out a few things.

I agree that there are often consequences to free speech, as there should be. Shouting fire in a crowded movie house is certainly something that one should be held accountable for. Fraud and false advertising too are things you can take issue with. But, keep in mind, in the former instance there is damage to life and limb, as well as to property. In the case of fraud there is an actual crime I.E. robery, embezzelment, etc. If I tell my little sister that there are candy easter eggs in the basement and she runs down there to look. Is that actually a crime? As for false advertisement. I do not belive that they have a sign up that says "Get your Abortions" here.

We have several RCC "Family Planning" clinics here in Houston and the Virgin Mary on their signs is a dead giveaway as to what you are getting there.

Again, free speech is something that everyone loves until someone says or does, or writes or paints, or carves or ETC. Something that they don't like. Then it's time to pass legislation outlawing the offensive speech.

From me personally, I see this sort of thing as the rise of the Nanny state in full upswing. Here's an idea: If they don't have a sign saying "Abortions" leave and go somewhere else.

Also, of all the rabid attacks on the right to an abortion, a right I STRONGLY support by the way, this one seems to rate slightly below not having enough gas to get to the clinic.

It's perfectly fine to force doctors to read scripts that draw unsupported links between abortion and breast cancer or abortion and suicide, or to force a doctor to read a script that warns that abortion can sometimes kill a woman while intentionally leaving out that, statistically, giving birth is much more likely to kill her. It's okay to legally require a doctor to say something that may be completely against his/her professional opinion. But having to disclose the limited services of your clinic? Laws against the bait-and-switch form of fraud? Oh noes! It's the death knell of free speech.

the Virgin Mary on their signs is a dead giveaway as to what you are getting there.

No, it isn't, you dipshit. A lot of women are completely unaware of what "services" they do or don't offer. That's why they end up there in the first place. Also, there are a lot of places where legit clinics have been hounded out of business, and these fake clinics proliferate. I've worked with scores of women who were victims of these fake clinics.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, in regard to these fake clinics or the free speech issue. It's been made clear, over and over, that this is not a free speech issue, and the law is correct, yet you hang on to your idiot dumbfuck view.

Fraud and false advertising too are things you can take issue with.

Fraud in supplying advertised services is the problem here. If you think the women aren't hurt, it costs over a quarter million to raise a child to 18 these days. These groups pretend to be pro-abortion, but they aren't. If they were honest, they wouldn't be lying to people like they do. Why should lying, in the name of religion for non-religious services be considered appropriate? It isn't. Period, end of story. There is severe problems with your logic.

From me personally, I see this sort of thing as the rise of the Nanny state in full upswing.

Oh come on, this is gross exaggeration. Is it a nanny state to require products and services to explain clearly what they do? It shouldn't be any more controversial to be required to put up a sign stating what services are offered than it is for food items to display nutritional information / ingredients.

If that's a nanny state, then you have really high standards for what doesn't constitute one...

I'm guessing libertarian?

Kel, apparently a non-nanny state is one in which fraud not only proliferates, it's actively encouraged. To hell with the victims, it's their fault after all, right?

Kel, apparently a non-nanny state is one in which fraud not only proliferates, it's actively encouraged. To hell with the victims, it's their fault after all, right?

I must be living under the delusion that products need point advertising in order to have an informed population. That true freedom can only come through informed consent.

Me and my delusion...

To hell with the victims, it's their fault after all, right?

Hey, no-one's holding a gun to their heads, right? After all, we're not humans, we're perfectly rational autonobots who have all knowledge and information at our disposal so deceptive tactics never work on us.

So to the nanny state, I say: 01000100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01110100 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01101111 01101110 00100000 01101101 01100101 00100001!

Alright kids, I gotta go lube my positronic matrix, or whatever.

I'm guessing libertaurdian?

Minor correction. Or a religious right wingnut.

Caine @#61- I appreciate your well reasoned, thoughtful and above all civil response. I suppose we will simply have to agree to, politely, disagree.

Nerd @#62: If the woman is held against her will at the cinic or strung along until it is too late to have an abortion then they certainly have cause for a civil action. Please keep in mind that Lying is not illegal in the majority of situations but only certain situations.

Kel @#63: It certainly is the rise of the nanny state. You're using the government to make everyone feel safe and secure. The business I work in I am not required to list EVERY service and product that I sell. If someone wants something special they can ask and we can work out whether I am willing to supply it and at what cost. If I sell a product I certainly DO tell people what it will do, within the limits of my intellectual property rights. If I sell a consumable product, I don't by the way, I have no problem with saying what's in it and the health ratings and such. But, Isn't a bit ridiculous to require me to put up a sign saying "I don't sell Cheesburgers" when I operate an industrial facility?

Kel:

Me and my delusion...

I'm sharin' your delusion, man.

Brownian, OM:

Alright kids, I gotta go lube my positronic matrix, or whatever.

We're supposed to lube that? Damn...

Caine @#61- I appreciate your well reasoned, thoughtful and above all civil response. I suppose we will simply have to agree to, politely, disagree.

Oh joy, a tone troll on top of being a moron. Ugh. Style does not matter, substance does. Your excuses have no substance. It's quite simple: you are wrong. You are reading something into the law which is not there.

If the woman is held against her will at the cinic or strung along until it is too late to have an abortion then they certainly have cause for a civil action.

And what part of fraud isnt' covered here? Why don't you cite the legal literature showing where these groups have been successfully litigated to provide the quarter million dollars. Or shut the fuck up.

t certainly is the rise of the nanny state.

Only with inane and fraudulent definitions. Gee. Using fraudulent definitions to help idjits commit fraud. Who would have thunk... Loser.

@erichoug:

You are espousing a very uninformed sort of libertarianism here. A human society, and particularly its economy, cannot function when transactions are based on asymmetrical information, i.e. when one party is lying!!

The Catholic centers are obviously trying to misrepresent their true nature. The law is a bare necessities form of fraud protection.

If we adopt your proposition generally, then fraud should be legal, and the onus will be on the consumer to recognize whether they are getting Tamiflu or orange juice concentrate.

Voicing an unpopular opinion is commendable, but do think about this. You aren't being really pro-free speech or classical liberal, you are falling for a vapid argument by the Catholics.

But, Isn't a bit ridiculous to require me to put up a sign saying "I don't sell Cheesburgers" when I operate an industrial facility?

Please, don't be *so* idiotic. Catholic's are running Women's Health Clinics. Those words imply a medical service. They are not, however, providing medical care of any kind. Do you not get that? All medical practitioners are held to specific laws, to regulations and standards. If the catholics want to run a health clinic, fake or not, they are subject to the same specific laws, regulations and standards.

You're using the government to make everyone feel safe and secure.

Only in the same sense that sugar can't be labelled as poison or that a worker has minimum working rights.

This is about honesty in advertising, that what services are offered is advertised. Facilitation of information is vital, and dishonesty through lies or omission violates that trust.

Freedom of speech does not extend to advertising poison as sugar...

@erichoug

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAoQFjAB&url…

Read the congressional report or just this salient detail:

Pregnancy resource centers often mask their pro-life mission in order to attract “abortion- vulnerable clients.”5 This can take the form of advertising under “abortion services” in the yellow pages or obscuring the fact that the center does not provide referrals to abortions in the text of an advertisement.6 Some centers purchase advertising on internet search engines under keywords that include “abortion” or “abortion clinics.”7 Other
advertisements represent that the center will provide pregnant teenagers and women with an understanding of all of their options. For example, “Option Line,” a joint venture of Heartbeat International and Care Net, is a 24-hour telephone hotline that connects pregnant teenagers and women with pregnancy resource centers in their communities. The main page of Option Line’s website states at the top, “Pregnant? Need Help? You Have Options,” but does not reveal that both Heartbeat International and Care Net represent only pro-life centers or that only non-abortion options will be counseled.8

On what planet is that sort of fraud a matter of free speech?

The vast majority of the federally funded pregnancy resource centers contacted during the investigation provided information about the risks of abortion that was false or misleading. In many cases, this information was grossly inaccurate or distorted. A pregnant teenager who relied on the information from these federally funded centers would make her decision about whether to give birth or terminate her pregnancy based on erroneous facts and misinformation.

In total, 87% of the centers reached (20 of 23 centers) provided false or misleading information to the callers. The three major areas of misinformation involved (1) the purported relationship between abortion and breast cancer; (2) the purported relationship between abortion and infertility; and (3) the purported relationship between abortion and mental illness.

Asking them to be honest about the business they're running is not a burden unless they're attempting to defraud people. It's that simple. There is zero reason for them not to be totally upfront unless their goal is to take advantage of people.

As for the costs, I'm not sure how more insensitive you could be to the reality of how difficult pregnancy, abortion, and getting good medical advice is for most women, particularly the women who are at most risk to the kind of lies these clinics spread. What they do certainly amounts to illegal harassment, causing incredible emotional damage to vulnerable women.

I'd have just as much of a problem with a clinic that reported itself to be religious and pro-life, and then trapped women to tell them how horrible babies were and how they needed to get an abortion and that God was a lie. It's abuse.

http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/babies_bibles/7127/

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/03/28/targeting-the-vulnerable-…

No, I am not a libertarian. I own a gun, Am pro choice, Anti-Government when it is the nanny state, pro-government when it is collectivism. I cheered for passage of Mr. Obama's health care reform and am pissed off that the government wants to outlaw menthol cigarettes. Even though I don't smoke. Oh, and I don't believe in God, thank you very much. But I do certainly appreciate all the mindless stereotyping from you all.

Notice, all of you keep refering to telling people what is in a product that you are buying. Something I completely agree with. But, they are NOT being asked to list the ingredients in their latte or even tell you what is involved in the medical procedure they are going to perform, Nor are they being asked to tell people what they are getting for their money.

This is a question of the government REQUIRING someone to say something they don't want to say. This is something I don't agree with. Whether it's disclaimers at the beginning of your biology text or saying "Yes, we do abortions".

You are all pissed off when some jackoff fundy requires a teacher to read their idiot disclaimer but when the government forces someone you don't like to say something you do like, HEY, YEAH we're all for that.

Kel, arrogance squared, with his inane and unsupported opinion being correct compared to evidence. Liberturd it is. Good catch.

Most looneytarians are pro-choice. It's one of the few things where they stumble, almost by accident, towards the pro-people/pro-liberty solution. It appears erichoug is one of the looneytarians who take their hatred for other people to an extreme.

But, Isn't a bit ridiculous to require me to put up a sign saying "I don't sell Cheesburgers" when I operate an industrial facility?

Of course it is, but that's an absurd comparison. You're not addressing the direct relationship between the type of service and the deception thereof to refrain from providing what would normally be considered standards. If abortion is an expected service, then to not mention that it's a pro-life facility that won't discuss that option is like calling a product fat free then not including any nutritional information that would show that there's fat in there.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | April 7, 2010 5:41 PM

Yep, that's a favourite tactic. They'll say anything, wait until they get you in an examination room, then start with the anti-abortion propaganda.

I'm sure that's especially traumatizing to the pregnant women who want some assistance but had no intention of having an abortion.

Yawn, in any case the troll isn't playing with a full deck.

This is a question of the government REQUIRING someone to say something they don't want to say.

No, this is about somebody not committing fraud that costs someone else money. You haven't addressed the quarter million dollars the raise that kid. Until you do, you have nothing cogent to say.

This is something I don't agree with

You act like we care about your inane and insane opinion. We don't. Get it? We see the fatal flaws in your presuppositions. What a loser.

@#77:

We're making progress! Focusing on the issue:

A coffee shop provides a product, and a Women's Health Clinic provides a service, but it's essentially the same in that regard. When you see a coffee shop, you assume it provides coffee, not beer. When you see a clinic, you assume it deals with reproductive health. But also, receiving medical advice and services is a bit trickier than buying a cup of coffee.

The emotions here are about pregnant women of all sorts having to deal with religious propaganda that wants to take over their uterus.

truthspeaker:

I'm sure that's especially traumatizing to the pregnant women who want some assistance but had no intention of having an abortion.

It's utterly devastating to women who are facing extremely difficult decisions, such as dealing with a child who is going to have serious medical problems, and whether or not to follow through or terminate. These women are already in an agonizing place, they do not need that sort of shit.

But, Isn't a bit ridiculous to require me to put up a sign saying "I don't sell Cheesburgers" when I operate an industrial facility?

Yes, but not if you're operating a restaurant called Burger Town.

Sigh, Ok, Like I said, I knew it wasn't going to be popular but I said my piece anyway. I will leave with a few points.

I believe that a crime requires an actual victim and actual harm. If the woman is lied to, walks out and goes to get an Abortion there is not a crime. If she is held against her will, Misled to the point where it causes financial or physical harm then by all means prosecute. If she is told that she is going to get an abortion and then not given one then, by all means, prosecute. But lying to people, in and of itself is not a crime.

I do not believe that the governments job is to protect me and ameliorate any and all harm that may come my way in any and all situations. I understand that people are going to lie to me(SHOCK) and that the world is ultimately a dangerous and unsafe place. I understand that the person ultimatly responsible for my safety and well being is myself. I would prefer it if all of you left me to make my own choices and I, in return, will allow you to do the same.

Sorry to anyone I offended and I hope you all have a lovely evening.

erichoug: The centers offer "pregnancy services". This is one of those cases, much like food labeling, where the implication of the language is sufficient to deceive on a frequent basis. (Homeopathic medicines pull the same sort of bullshit claims with things like "supports the immune system".)

At worst, the law might be better re-tooled to require anyplace offering 'pregnancy services' to list exactly which services they do and do not provide.

I believe that a crime requires an actual victim and actual harm.

A quarter of million dollars to raise a kid isn't harm? What galaxy are your from? What a loser if you can't acknowledge that fact?

Sorry to anyone I offended and I hope you all have a lovely evening.

No, I'm sure your offense was deliberate. Fuck off fuckwit.

Nerd, apparently being forced to have a child doesn't cause any harm. Nope, not to the mother, not to the kid.

@#86:

I am pretty sure most here will agree with the right of people to lie to each other, but not in the context of a business transaction.

It's really not too much to ask for honesty in advertising.

And I guess the difference is that most here would not like to live in a cold society where you cannot trust anybody. People will lie, but I don't want to pay them for it.

It is also worth remembering that some elements of society are more fragile and less personally informed and should not be ground up by the powerful, but should be offered basic protections. For example, children going to the shop cannot be expected to see past marketing campaigns. Similarly, religious and New Age believers are often vulnerable to swindlers and fraudsters. And teenage girls pregnant with babies should not be subjected to Catholic coaxing and emotional bullying.

aah, the liberturdian paradox: the free market will provide us with the services we want, because we can vote for our preferences with our wallet; but we're not allowed to get the information required to figure out who caters to our preferences in the first place.

fucking moron.

Come on, at this point he's just arguing it because he'd feel even more like an idiot if he changed his mind. There's just literally nothing on his side but being cranky and hostile in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I'm guessing libertarian?

Well, there goes an otherwise interesting thread...

ashleyfmiller, no, no, it's a popularity thing. He won cause he went with an unpopular point of view (being completely wrong doesn't matter), and he was all civil and stuff, which allows him his superiority points. Now he probably wants a camera. Perfect Intersection material, that one.

Just checked my local Qwest/DEX phone directory and the first item in the yellow colored pages are "Abortion Alternatives" then "Abortion Providers". There are qualifiers for each section; for the first it reads "For businesses that provide alternatives to abortion and primarily engage in counseling against abortion.", and for the second "For businesses that perform abortions." The providers outnumber the alternatives by 2 to 1. (of course there are a total of three services)

he was all civil and stuff, which allows him his superiority points.

What? Civil wins arguments? At Pharyngula? *SWOON (missing the heavy duty faintinging couch, and getting the wind knocked out. Gasps for grog)*

Nerd, you're supposed to clutch your pearls! That aims you for the fainting couch, silly.

Nerd, you're supposed to clutch your pearls! That aims you for the fainting couch, silly.

*hangs head in shame*

Welcome to Joffan's World of Beer! Sign up immediately for a year of cheap drinking!

:

Disclaimer: Sign-up disallows use of other bars for a year.

:

Stat notice: No alcoholic beverages served here. Root beer and ginger beer only.

@Caine

So... I win if I say something unpopular and crazy but civil?

Hmm.

Scientology makes total sense, thank you for reading this post.

Nerd:

*hangs head in shame*

You must now drink 5 large grogs. And don't tell Patricia!

Yes (1976 responses)
27%
No (5192 responses)
72%
Not sure (74 responses)
1%
7242 total responses
(Results not scientific)

erichoug (#86)

I understand that the person ultimatly responsible for my safety and well being is myself. I would prefer it if all of you left me to make my own choices and I, in return, will allow you to do the same.

And this is why you're an idiot. These are centers that are there to give advice and inform women on their options. Women go to them in order to make responsible decisions for their safety and wellbeing. So when they're lied to about their options or the consequences of those options, then they are prevented from doing what you're suggesting.

What you're actually supporting is the ability of the RCC to keep women from making informed choices and look out for themselves. If you really want to "allow" women to make their own choices, you would support forcing the RCC's centers to comply with this incredibly reasonable law.

So... I win if I say something unpopular and crazy but civil?

Hmm.

Scientology makes total sense, thank you for reading this post.

Thank you, sir or madam as the case may be, for your unpopular and crazy yet civil statement. In return I cordially invite you to indulge in sexual intercourse with yourself.

ashleyfmiller:

Scientology makes total sense, thank you for reading this post.

I think that makes more sense than anything our not-a-this, not-a-that troll said, and it was perfectly civil*. ;D

*In case you don't know, the whole "civil" business stems from the idiots over at the intersection, who think tone and civility are much more important than substance. If you have a strong stomach and aren't overly afraid of brain damage, here's a bit of reading.

"strung along until it is too late to have an abortion then they certainly have cause for a civil action." This stuck out to me because anyone who has dealt with these hellholes knows that this is pretty common practice for them, as is lying about a positive pregnancy test until abortion is illegal or more expensive, which may make it unattainable (a second trimester abortion can cost hundreds or thousands more than a first trimester one). Also, a good number of these 'health clinics' have no medical personel working at them. They advertise as 'health clinics' but perform no more than you can get by peeing on a stick in your bathroom, except for the lectures about how you're a whore and how abortion is murder. It is not a violation of free speech to require that a business or nonprofit not lie to people about the services it provides. We require truth in advertising in regards to all sorts of businesses. The wording required on the sign does not make the CPCs have to take any political stance, it merely says "We do not provide or make referals for abortion or birth control services."

Also this "I understand that people are going to lie to me(SHOCK) and that the world is ultimately a dangerous and unsafe place." makes me think that you should get professional help for your paranoia problems. "I would prefer it if all of you left me to make my own choices" And putting a sign up in the window takes that away more than deceptive advertising? Continuing a pregnancy against your will or putting up a two line sign against your will, thinking that the latter is the one that involves the serious threat to personal choices is a pretty bizare worldview.

@ 106:

"strung along until it is too late to have an abortion then they certainly have cause for a civil action." This stuck out to me because anyone who has dealt with these hellholes knows that this is pretty common practice for them, as is lying about a positive pregnancy test until abortion is illegal or more expensive, which may make it unattainable

That's standard procedure for these fake clinics. They will lie and lie and lie until it's too late for termination; or the woman in question will have no means to obtain an abortion within a very short period of time.

This is even more insidious now, when clinics all over the U.S. have been shut down. A lot of women are unable to travel to wherever the nearest clinic is, and many of the legit clinics are now forced by law to impose counseling and a 3 day wait. Women who can sometimes afford to travel, can't afford a 3 day stay, with added travel time, and if they are working, often can't take the time off work. There are a lot of considerations, which makes the need for these self-righteous assholes to state the truth even more important.

At least they admit 'Results are not scientific.' Ugh. What is the purpose of these polls if even the people soliciting our opinions agree there is nothing that can be determined on their basis?!

Other ways of knowing! aka, even though it doesn't mean shit, they'll pretend it means something and people seeing it will gloss over that and assume it means something.

They also won't think too deeply about it and will probably assume it means what an equivalent scientific poll would say.

Plus, drives up site traffic.

*In case you don't know, the whole "civil" business stems from the idiots over at the intersection, who think tone and civility are much more important than substance. If you have a strong stomach and aren't overly afraid of brain damage, here's a bit of reading.

1. Ouch my brain.

2. So it's kind of really hilarious, I mean, even more so than it would be anyway, that he's making a free speech argument and going on about civility. Thank you for this context that makes me die a little on the inside.

3. I believe this is a case of bovine scatology run rampant.

Ashley, right on all three points! You may now collect your pearls, needed for Pearl Clutching&trade and the fainting couch is always available. ;D

You must now drink 5 large grogs. And don't tell Patricia!

Hic, I meak eht gorg. Tums asmepl.

Someone bring the smelling salts!

The Catholics may actually have a case, they're just citing the wrong Amendment.

It ain't "freedom of speech" they want, it's "freedom from self-incrimination."

Thanks for the Intersection link. I'd been seeing references to it here, and was slightly curious. Now I am slightly queasy.

Menyambal:

Now I am slightly queasy.

It has that effect. Kwak, Bilbo and the rest of pearl clutchers are hard to take. I recommend large quantities of alcohol, the fainting couch is available, and Ashley has the smelling salts.

Now I am slightly queasy.

*chuckles* It really is that bad.

libertarian kook:

I understand that the person ultimatly responsible for my safety and well being is myself. I would prefer it if all of you left me to make my own choices and I, in return, will allow you to do the same.

Wow, is this guy stupid or what.

Suppose you bought some Chinese made processed food and it contained melamine, which destroyed your kidneys. Which will kill you soon, unless you go on dialysis, which has its problems. In other words, they lied on the government mandated food label. That is OK with you?

This BTW happened a few years ago. It was in a pet food additive which is also used in human food. Many people lost their pets.

Oddly enough, it was the evil government that figured all this out. The Chinese government wasn't too happy either. The head of one of their food inspection agencies was executed.

How does this differ from the RCC running fake pregnancy counseling clinics? No one disputes their right to run any sort of centers they want. But they can't lie about what they are doing and why.

"strung along until it is too late to have an abortion then they certainly have cause for a civil action."

I keep on going back to that statement... and really, there's only two ways in which acting after the fact than reasonably be considered getting justice:

1)permission for retroactive abortion; or

2)transfering of child custody onto the clinic

both of which seem a wee bit more barbaric than forcing the clinics to simply hang a sign from the door, to prevent the situation from happening.

Ed Brayton, has's an op-ed from the moonie times by a child-rape aplogo--er, writer from Catholic World Report that states:

Since when have secularists and dissenting Catholics been experts on the protection of children? These self-appointed reformers of the Catholic Church preside over a debased culture that abuses, aborts and corrupts children. That a reckless and depraved liberal elite would set itself up as moral tutor to Pope Benedict XVI is beyond satire.

shit. Wrong thread--and freaky-looking to boot. Will fix and repost where it belongs.

Sigh.

These self-appointed reformers of the Catholic Church preside over a debased culture that abuses, aborts and corrupts children.

So...that makes the generations of abuse and rape by catholic priests and nuns okay? Does this moron have his head buried in a pile of bullshit?

libertarian kook again:

I understand that people are going to lie to me(SHOCK) and that the world is ultimately a dangerous and unsafe place.

Well, sure the world is a dangerous and unsafe place.

That is why we invented something called....civilization. Laws, democracy and so on.

But really, no one forces you to put up with it. You can leave any time. Some people just head into the wilderness. Some live for decades, many die in a few weeks or months.

Or you could always find a libertarian utopia and join it. The current leader is Somalia. Life expectancy is not well known because people are afraid to collect statistics but it is in the low 4 decades. But you can get rich quickly without government interference or taxes. The two leading occupations are "pirate" and "warlord".

Aquaria, I wasn't paying attention and replied in the wrong thread. Oh well, it's not that off topic.

Nanny state
In case nobody got to it before me, this here is a blatant code phrase that means "I'm a big flaming liberturd, please spank me with facts and reality until I cry with butthurt shame and humiliation".

Which you guys did, par excellence. You guys excel at spanking morons.

@Raven, he couldn't possibly be a Somalian pirate, because they interfere with corporate trade (a key reason the locals put up with them) and prevent international corporations from dumping higly toxic and often radioactive waste. That's right, those Somalian pirates take away those multinational corporations right to choose to dump nuclear waste in civilian drinking water and, didn't you know, those impoverished civilians should have just accepted that as one of the dangers of the world. Just think, if libertarians had their way, we could have no regulations about corporate dumping too. Rare, deadly childhood cancers for everybody!

Well, sure the world is a dangerous and unsafe place.That is why we invented something called....civilization. Laws, democracy and so on.

sssh, you'll burst the libertarian bubble.

Just because people can be dishonest in their intentions, it doesn't mean we should just sit back and accept it. It's not a nanny state to require honesty in the trade of goods and services, just good sense to do so.

I personally really like the idea of when my package says sugar that it doesn't contain poison - it just contains sugar. The world is a dangerous and unsafe place, but that doesn't mean one can go selling poison as sugar. If that makes this place a nanny state, then so be it. Personally I would define a nany state that tries to mandate behaviour and trade by the products within, that makes unsafe products banned. But apparently my definition is off, it's the lack of freedom to be dishonest and mislead that makes a nanny state...

The current results are:

Yes: 22%
No: 77%
Not sure: 1%

An outrage! What next? Requiring narconon counselling centers to divulge that they are fronts for scientology?

Raven, the melamine case was worse than you noted - it wasn't just pets that died. In China, the melamine was in baby formula. (Of course, those stupid babies should have just taken more responsibility for their safety, right erichoug?)

libertarian kook again:

I understand that people are going to lie to me(SHOCK) and that the world is ultimately a dangerous and unsafe place.

the melamine case was worse than you noted - it wasn't just pets that died. In China, the melamine was in baby formula.

Of course. Those babies and pets should have known that "the world is ...a dangerous and unsafe place" and that they would be lied to. They should have relied on themselves and made their own decisions without depending on the government. And those corrupt Chinese food inspectors and food manufacturers were just maximizing their income and pursuing their own interests like good libertarians.

I was aware of the Chinese infant formula problems but that didn't happen in the USA. That we know of. I won't buy food labeled made in China but the ingredients are comodities and who knows where they end up.

Buy now!

Not now, not ever.

PS I really don't like spammers.

Buy now!

No. Go away, you worthless spammer.

@erichoug: The RCC shouldn't even be within spitting distance of a pregnant female. They would rather have underage rape victims die than behave in an understanding a humane manner

(Note, the child rapist didn't get excommunicated. Then again, expecting the RCC to side with a raped child is possible only after severe blunt head trauma)

Not now, not ever.

tbh, I'm looking to get that book sometime. It looks a good compilation, just check the names in it: Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier, and Robert Price for starters!

Not advocating spamming, just saying that regardless of the spamming it may be worth giving the book a read. I really enjoyed Loftus' previous effort: Why I Became An Atheist.

#133, #134: Given that John Loftus is not, to the best of my knowledge, the sort who is given to brainless spamming, I suspect that #132 may be some troll with a grudge running a false flag operation so as to get Pharynguloids annoyed at Loftus.

somewhereingreece @ 135:

The RCC shouldn't even be within spitting distance of a pregnant female.

Well said.

Owlmirror, yeah, I picked up on the referring tag too; however, I don't attribute it to malice, but rather to ignorance (the poster probably cut and pasted the link from the address bar having followed it from the blog).

--

Kel, I've read exactly one modern atheistic/anti-religion book: The God Delusion. It was good, but I hardly need convincing, or evidence of the problems of religion. :)

(And I didn't buy it, I borrowed it from the library.)

Clerk: That'll be ready in two weeks, dearie.
Outraged Customer: But the sign outside says '59 minute cleaners'!
Clerk: It's just the name of the shop, love. Oh, your name does begin with an 'R'. That'll be three weeks, then.
O.C.: Blimey!
--Bonzo Dog Band

Kel, I've read exactly one modern atheistic/anti-religion book: The God Delusion. It was good, but I hardly need convincing, or evidence of the problems of religion. :)

I've read quite a few now. While I didn't need any convincing of the nonsensical nature of proposed priestly propositions, the absurd conjectures leading to answers thereof did explore topics of knowledge that are immensely fascinating.

For instance, it's because of creationists that I've learnt more about evolution.

Something I should follow up - a certain pharmacist in Canberra refused to dispense birth control such as the pill because of his Catholic beliefs... *Cath, want to help me out on this?* Not sure whether he's still not doing his job...

The RCC have a fucking nerve...

When you see a coffee shop, you assume it provides coffee, not beer.

You should come and visit the Netherlands sometime...

Kel, OM @127

it's the lack of freedom to be dishonest and mislead that makes a nanny state...

Almost sounds like something Alan Greenspan said...and the only nanny he ever liked was Ayn Rand, especially when she used to spank him.

Damn, reading comprehension has always been one of my strong points, but i seriously don't think i would have been able to figure that question out without the explanation, lol.
I've pharyngulated, time to get breakfast.

Yes (20%, 2053 responses)No (80%, 8368 responses)Not sure (1%, 84 responses)

The bottom of the poll results page says, "Results not scientific."

Well, duh, it deals with the RCC!

*badum tishhh*

"I guess it is terribly cruel of us to tell a church they shouldn't lie or hide the facts."

Just so we're clear, telling someone they shouldn't do something is not the same as enacting a law prohibiting it.

Yes (2079 responses) 18%

No (9415 responses) 81%

Not sure (91 responses) 2%

It's a close run thing eh?
Good job I added my voice to the no vote.

Just so we're clear, telling someone they shouldn't do something is not the same as enacting a law prohibiting it.

Being forced to be clear on the services you offer as a non profit strikes me as a minimum standard for not paying taxes.

At least they admit 'Results are not scientific.' Ugh. What is the purpose of these polls if even the people soliciting our opinions agree there is nothing that can be determined on their basis?!

See, that's why we pharyngulate polls.

It certainly is the rise of the nanny state. You're using the government to make everyone feel safe and secure.

Well, duh. That's part of the reason for having a government at all.

The purposes of these centres is twofold: to scare or scold women away from having abortions and, perhaps more important, to delay their access to abortions until they are past the relatively short window for abortion without a good medical reason.

A woman who is not keeping close track of her periods can be 10 weeks from her last period when she starts to get nausea and morning sickness; so if a pregnancy counselling centre can distract her from going to a doctor or a real clinic even for a few days, she might miss the 12-week deadline (fetal age 10 weeks) for a simple abortion by vacuum curettage or non-surgical means. The "educational" and 24-hour waiting-period rules are also aimed at adding expense and delay, especially if a woman has to travel out of town for access to abortion.

Any hospital that offers the lucrative ob-gyn services should be required to supply abortions as well.

I'd just like to pat my city on the back. Austin (Texas, no less) just this week became the second city after Baltimore to require this kind of sign outside of "crisis pregnancy centers" that don't offer abortion counseling. Of course the centers are lawyering up & making litigious noises.

The comments on the story in the Statesmen are appalling. People really think that you can get an abortion on any street corner in this city, but in reality, there is exactly ONE abortion provider in the entire metro area. The public hospital here is run by a Catholic organization and had to create a separate "women's health" that isn't associated with the actual hospital in order to offer things like tubal ligation. You can't get your tubes tied during a C-section because it's within the hospital proper, and that is obviously immortal. Instead, you have to undergo a second surgery, with all the attendant risks, to have what should be a simple procedure.

"immortal"? That should be immoral. I'm out of buttercream frosting, and it's a disaster.

Dutchdoc wins the thread!

The wife of our slimy bible-thumping prime minister used to work at one of those "counselling centres". Of course they say that it doesn't use misleading advertising any more.

I just used my "free Yellow Pages online" to search for abortion in Toronto.

The first links were:

* Aid to Women (We care, we'll be there, pregnancy tests & counselling). I happen to know this is an anti-abortion honey trap next to an abortion clinic.

* Right to Life Association

* Campaign Life Coalition (the name of a Roman Catholic Church charity)

* Birthright Pregnancy Services (Pregnancy Counselling, Abortion Alternatives)

* Pregnancy Care Centre. Free pregnancy tests, post-abortion help (when they try to convince you that YOU KILLED YOUR BABY!)

* MLC (=Mississauga Life Centre). Starts out with "If you are suffering from a past abortion or a crisis pregnancy..."

* Birthright Mississauga (the suburb next door)

* Choice in Health Clinic. Finally, an actual pregnancy counselling, birth control, STD testing, and abortion clinic!

* Scott Clinic. Another actual abortion clinic.

* Cabbagetown Women's Clinic. Another real clinic, next to the honey trap.

* The Morgentaler Clinic. Our first and most famous. Dr. Morgentaler is the only person ever to have forced an amendment to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely that someone acquitted by a jury can not be thrown into prison by an appeal court. After it was firebombed on Harbord Street in the early 1990s, the clinic moved but is still in operation.

"Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), the nonprofit pregnancy-testing facilities set up by antiabortion groups to dissuade women from having abortions, have become fixtures of the antiabortion landscape, buttressed by an estimated $60 million in federal abstinence and marriage-promotion funds. The National Abortion Federation estimates that as many as 4,000 CPCs operate in the United States, often using deceptive tactics like posing as abortion providers and showing women graphic antiabortion films. While there is growing awareness of how CPCs hinder abortion access, the centers have a broader agenda that is less well known: they seek not only to induce women to "choose life" but to choose adoption, either by offering adoption services themselves, as in Bethany's case, or by referring women to Christian adoption agencies. Far more than other adoption agencies, conservative Christian agencies demonstrate a pattern and history of coercing women to relinquish their children. "

See some real horror stories here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090914/joyce

Next they'll be expecting cheese shops to sell cheese!

Fastthumbs, thanks for the link, though it was rather upsetting.

I don't know if I'm angrier at the callous ideologues than I'm sorry for the victims, but that piece literally brought tears to my eyes.

Has anybody seen the results of the poll lately? 97% No to 3% Yes. 68,500 to 2,100. I know there are a lot of Pharynguloids, but we could not have been the only ones involved. There must have been a more widespread effort to rig that poll.

I too have to come down with the church on this one. While somewhat douchebaggy, I don't think that ANY of the advertisements or signage on CPCs say something like "we'll provide a referral to clinic to get an abortion." The implication that anybody counseling pregnant women will be willing to counsel them to get an abortion is completly in the eye of the beholder. So it really doesn't rise to the level of fraud, IMHO. I think that we have to give them the freedom to be assholes so long as they stop short of actual fraud or intimidation. Even if their targets are vulnerable. Even if they behave poorly. It is EASY to support freedom of speech for those who you agree with. But we must support it even for asshats we disagree with.

I too have to come down with the church on this one. While somewhat douchebaggy, I don't think that ANY of the advertisements or signage on CPCs say something like "we'll provide a referral to clinic to get an abortion." The implication that anybody counseling pregnant women will be willing to counsel them to get an abortion is completly in the eye of the beholder. So it really doesn't rise to the level of fraud, IMHO. I think that we have to give them the freedom to be assholes so long as they stop short of actual fraud or intimidation. Even if their targets are vulnerable. Even if they behave poorly. It is EASY to support freedom of speech for those who you agree with. But we must support it even for asshats we disagree with.

It is reasonable to expect a clinic claiming to offer services to pregnant women to offer advice and information about, and access to, abortions.

If clinic is unwilling to provide such services it must ensure anyone using, or considering using, its services is fully aware of that.

Sure, it's a resonable assumption that pregnancy counselors might refer somebody to an abortion providor. But when we're restricting free speech,* I think we need a higher standard than "reasonable." Certainly in commercial advertising, much may be implied without actually reaching the level of fraud. Absent an explicit statement that they will provide referrals, I don't think that they've comitted fraud. Even if they did imply that, so long as they don't charge for their "services" or impede their targets from leaving IN ANY WAY, I'm not sure that their assholery is actionable.

* and make no mistake, that's what we're talking about here. Just like forcing a free-thinkers club on campus to put godless athiests on their office door.

Just like forcing a free-thinkers club on campus to put godless athiests on their office door.

Uh, no. That's a horrible analogy even when it's spelled correctly.

But when we're restricting free speech

Expecting people to be upfront about their services is restricting free speech? I don't see that. In fact, you are implying they can lie their asses off without consequence. Personally, if they dupe a woman by lying to here and causing delays into keeping the baby, they should, by their lies and fraudulent behavior, be required to pony up half the quarter million that is required to raise a child to 18 these days. After all, fraud occurred, and being upfront about your lack of certain services prevents fraud.

Free speech? No, fraud prevention. Talk about that.

I'd have to say that this poll has been 'properly updated':

Do you agree with the archdiocese that Baltimore's law requiring pregnancy centers to post signs stating that they do not provide abortions or birth control referrals is a violation of freedom of speech and religion?

Yes (2109 responses) 2%
No (98284 responses) 98%
Not sure (98 responses) 0%

100491 total responses
(Results not scientific)

112,000 voted NO. Now that's a pharyngulation.

Rev BDC:

Just like forcing a free-thinkers club on campus to put godless athiests on their office door.

Uh, no. That's a horrible analogy even when it's spelled correctly.

You may be athier than me but you're totally not the athiest.

@158, 164, 165
I was out of town for the weekend which is why I haven't commented sooner, but I whipped up a script to vote a couple times a second and left it running in the background on my PC for an absurd period of time. I didn't have metrics in place to measure exactly how many submissions I made, but I'd estimate that between 150k and 200k of the NO votes are mine.