Oregon Senate Bill 776

On February 28, 2007, at the request of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon and NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) Pro-Choice Oregon, the following Oregon State legislators introduced SB 776, a direct attack on organizations in Oregon that provide women with alternatives to abortion.

Senators:
Brad Avakian-D Kate Brown-D Richard Devlin-D Floyd Prozanski-D Vicki L Walker-D

Representatives:
Jeff Barker-D Suzanne Bonamici-D Tina Kotek-D Mary Nolan-D Diane Rosenbaum-D Carolyn Tomei-D

The stated purpose of SB 776 is to require the Department of Human Services to study “all aspects of alternative-to-abortion organizations and crisis pregnancy centers,” and to allocate the necessary funding. The results are to be reported by December 31, 2008. Apparently emboldened by the defeat of Measure 43 last November, the text of SB 776 clearly states that it was written at the request of Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

While on the one hand the body of SB 776 indicates that the study is designed to investigate whether or not alternative to abortion organizations (ATAOs) engage in unlawful or deceptive practices, a close look at the preamble indicates that ATAOs are already deemed to engage in those actions. The language is clear:

“[1] Whereas 'alternative-to-abortion organizations,' also called 'crisis pregnancy centers,' misinform and mislead women to deter or to delay them from having abortions; and

[2] Whereas there are 51 alternative-to-abortion organizations or crisis pregnancy centers operating in Oregon; and

[3] Whereas some crisis pregnancy centers intentionally choose their names to mislead women into believing that the centers offer a wide range of family planning and abortion care when theydo not; and

[4] Whereas in order to confuse their clients and capitalize on their patients' confusion, crisis pregnancy centers design their facilities to look like health care facilities and locate the facilities near clinics that offer family planning and abortion care; and

[5] Whereas many crisis pregnancy centers not only mislead women about abortion care but also will not provide information about birth control…” [Numbering added]

So, it would seem that the sponsors of SB 776 have already reached their conclusions.

Some obvious questions arise in response to the above “whereases”:

[1]. Planned Parenthood (PP) and NARAL have long claimed to uphold a woman’s right to make an informed choice regarding her medical decisions. Why, then, would either organization have a problem with a woman deciding to delay or cancel an abortion - a medical procedure - once she has been informed of other alternatives, as well as the short-term and long-term medical risks?

Abortion is a lucrative industry. It brings in a lot of revenue and, potentially, provides fetal tissue, including embryonic stem cells to downstream clients. Click here to see the 2005-2006 Annual Report of Planned Parenthood of the Columbia / Willamette, Inc.

[2]. Why is the number of ATAOs in the State of Oregon significant?

Planned Parenthood (PP) operates 16 centers in Oregon. If there are 51 ATAOs, PP is outnumbered more than 3 to 1 by organizations committed to saving the lives of the unborn.

[3]. Scanning the names of the ATAOs in Oregon produces names in whole or in part, such as: Birthright; Pregnancy Center; Caring Pregnancy Center; Crisis Pregnancy Center; Hope Center; Hope Pregnancy Center; Michael the Archangel; Pregnancy Center; Pregnancy Alternatives Center; Pregnancy Care Center; Pregnancy Care Services; Pregnancy Counseling & Information Center; Pregnancy Crisis Support Center; Pregnancy Resource Center; and Pregnancy Support Center.

Which of these names is intended to mislead people into thinking that the facility provides abortions?


[4]. Women with unintended pregnancies are often already in a state of panic and confusion. Is it not possible that PP has performed abortions on women in such a state?

How do PP and NARAL know that the motivation for locating an ATAO near an abortion clinic is to confuse rather than calm a pregnant woman?

[5]. What is meant by “misleading women about abortion care”?

SB 776, Section 1, Subsection 2j states: “Whether intentionally misleading or medically and factually inaccurate information is given to clients at alternative-to-abortion organizations, including misinformation about the alleged links between abortions and breast cancer, the effects of abortion on future fertility and the effects of abortion on mental health.” Abortion is a medical procedure that carries with it certain risks and the potential for complications. Even when there are no complications from the procedure itself, there are long-term consequences.

Notice the phrase, “alleged links” in SB 776 when correlating abortions with breast cancer, infertility and adverse mental health effects. Although Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the National Cancer Institute refuse to acknowledge any negative impact from abortion, several studies have shown otherwise. Here is an abstract of an article that appeared in Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, a peer-reviewed medical journal, regarding long-term health effects on post-abortive women:

“Induced abortion is a prevalent response to an unintended pregnancy. The long-term health consequences are poorly investigated and conclusions must be drawn from observational studies. Using strict inclusion criteria (study population >100 subjects, follow up >60 days) we reviewed an array of conditions in women's health. Induced abortion was not associated with changes in the prevalence of subsequent subfertility, spontaneous abortion, or ectopic pregnancy. Previous abortion was a risk factor for placenta previa. Moreover, induced abortion increased the risks for both a subsequent preterm delivery and mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts of self-harm. Preterm delivery and depression are important conditions in women's health and avoidance of induced abortion has potential as a strategy to reduce their prevalence. Only review articles including the single published meta-analysis exploring linkages between abortion and breast cancer were relied upon to draw conclusions. Reviewers were mixed on whether subsequent breast neoplasia can be linked to induced abortion, although the sole meta-analysis found a summary odds ratio of 1.2. Whatever the effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk, a young woman with an unintended pregnancy clearly sacrifices the protective effect of a term delivery should she decide to abort and delay childbearing. That increase in risk can be quantified using the Gail Model. Thus, we conclude that informed consent before induced abortion should include information about the subsequent risk of preterm delivery and depression. Although it remains uncertain whether elective abortion increases subsequent breast cancer, it is clear that a decision to abort and delay pregnancy culminates in a loss of protection with the net effect being an increased risk.” [Emphasis added] John M. Thorp Jr.,, MD; Katherine E. Hartmann, MD, PhD; Elizabeth Shadigian, MD. “Long-Term Physical and Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence.” Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 58(1):67-79, January 2003.

For more information on the protective effect against breast cancer of an early, first, full-term abortion, click here.

The real issue here is, why does Planned Parenthood not tell women the whole story about potential long-term health consequences prior to providing them with abortions? Why is the Oregon State Legislature gathering intelligence for Planned Parenthood and NARAL at taxpayer expense?

Fewer women are choosing abortion when they have all the information at their disposal. Much of this success is directly attributable to the work of people in alternative-to-abortion organizations. Many of them volunteer their labor and most, if not all, of the funding is from private donors. Targeting these organizations under the guise of studying their “misinforming and misleading women” is a thinly veiled attack on the integrity of the work they perform.

Why is it not good news that more women are choosing to carry their babies to term? It is!

What you can do to help defeat SB 776:

1. Spread the word about SB 776.
2. Write and/or call your legislator.
3. Write and/or call each one of SB 776’s sponsors. You can do so by clicking on their names at the beginning of this article.
4. Support your local Pregnancy Resource Center.
5. Post a comment to this Blog.