And, before anyone starts... I know there's lots of reasons why people avoid/oppose Facebook. I use Facebook and it suits me. Let's not make this a debate about my medium. K?

I recently started a Facebook group called "First Place Pregnancy Centre is anti-choice". Those of you in Ottawa will know that FFPC announced on May 20th that they are suing Planned Parenthood Ottawa. I believe that FPPC is more interested in driving Planned Parenthood out of business that getting their 'clients' back. I am hoping to spread the word about FPPC and "Crisis Pregnancy Centres" in general.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=15043319518

Unless they're getting semantic about it and saying that they offer "choices" so they're not "anti-choice" in the most literal sense. I suppose if they tried to argue that "anti-choice" doesn't mean "anti-abortion" then that might be a little loophole.

But still...it was clear in the context of the statement that Planned Parenthood put out that what they meant by "anti-choice" was that the organization refuses to provide information or referrals to abortion providers. Which is true.

I'm going to guess that Jesus doesn't like lying, dishonest scum like the people who run these centres, and take advantage of women's distress over unplanned pregnancies by misleading them about the services they offer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Wild. But I don't get what they could be suing Planned Parenthood about - all they were doing was telling the truth.

---

And I got shut down for doing the exact same thing.
I'm on some kind of "facebook probation" now. Every time I log on I get a warning:

Please Read This!
Warning! Your account could be disabled.

Your behavior indicates that you may be in violation of Facebook's Terms of Use. Continued misuse of Facebook's features could result in your account being disabled. If you have any questions or concerns, you can visit our FAQ page.

[ 11 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 11 June 2008: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

[ 11 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

I can't ask Planned Parenthood for help, they're already being sued for defamation or some crazy stuff. I need to do this totally on my own as a citizen at large.

On as similar note, does any one know any good books about the laws the anti-choice movement in canda and/or the US have put forth (in terms of restrictions and such) and their effects ?

[ 15 June 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

[ 15 June 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

quote:

---

WORLDNET DAILY, MARCH 12, 2008, JILL STANEK

Pro-life Democrats see success

There was an interesting little story in the
Washington Post Feb. 28, with this lead:

"The Virginia Senate voted Wednesday to cut off
state funding to Planned Parenthood of Virginia
because it offers abortions."

These sorts of measures go through fits and
starts in various states and often fizzle. This
particular bill likely won't make it past
Virginia's pro-abort governor, Timothy Kaine.

But what made this vote stand out was this key point, again quoting the Post:

The decision [was] a major setback for the
Senate's new Democratic majority. ...

Democrats could not break one lone pro-life
member, Charles Colgan, from voting with the
Republican minority, creating a 20-20 tie broken
by the
GOP
pro-life lieutenant governor.

One pro-life Democrat made the difference.

When Democrats wrested control of both houses of
Congress on the national level in 2006, the
pro-life situation there looked dire.

It was anticipated Democrats would try to knock
off all long-standing pro-life riders on
appropriations bills and pass anti-life
legislation
to boot.

But none of that happened.

Then two weeks ago, the Senate even passed a ban
against Indian Health Services funding for
abortion.

Also that week, the House stripped language that
had been inserted in the U.S. relief package for
AIDS in Africa (PEPFAR) that would have streamed
funding to abortion groups.

These days Democrat-controlled legislatures
sometimes appear as or more pro-life than
Republican legislatures.

Here's the inside scoop on what's happening with
Democrats on the national level, from well-placed
pro-life spies.

After Nancy Pelosi became speaker, pro-life
Democrats had a private meeting with her to
discuss personal and political ramifications for
them of introducing pro-abortion legislation or
deleting pro-life riders from appropriations
bills.

The meeting included respected senior pro-life
party members, including James Oberstar, chair of
the House Transportation Committee, and Collin
Peterson, chair of the Agriculture Committee,
along with the Democrat pro-life
caucus
leader, Bart Stupak.

Since then Democrats have not pushed the
anti-life agenda other than to increase funding
for "family planning," i.e., Planned Parenthood,
and to try to decrease funding for abstinence.
They eventually bailed on the latter.

Democrat leadership is keenly aware a wrong move
on the abortion issue would fracture its
coalition.

How did PEPFAR language get contaminated? The
chair of the House
Foreign
Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos, was very sick - he
died Feb. 11 - and it is thought staffers got
away with drafting extreme language that
thankfully caused an uproar and was beat back.

With the infusion of pro-life Democrats in 2006,
the number is now between 15 and 30, depending on
the bill. (Embryonic stem cell bills would reveal
the lowest common denominator.)

Those added to the 200 pro-life Republicans are
enough to defeat anti-life proposals.

Senate pro-deathers had enough votes to snuff the
Mexico City Policy, which keeps abortion groups
from getting international family planning money,
but House deathers did not. So it emerged
unscathed.

The 2006 election additionally weeded out many
moderate Republicans. Those left are more
strongly pro-life.

But pro-lifers are making inroads in the Democrat
Party and helping the movement - they should be
lauded.

---