Feministing

March 31, 2006

Woman of the Week

And she's a New Yorker. I'm in love!

New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney has introduced legislation that would regulate the advertisement of "crisis pregnancy centers" that aim to convince pregnant women against having abortions.

The centers are all owned by anti-choicers, and use names and signs intended to look like Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. When the women arrive, the coercion begins. "Women I've talked to are just unbelievably shaken by it," says Maloney. "One said they closed the door and wouldn't let her get out."

The bill would essentially require the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit any group from advertising "with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such person is a provider of abortion services if such person does not provide abortion services." Maloney says the legislation was carefully drafted so it wouldn't infringe on free speech, but some (libertarians and such) claim that proposing the bill is a bad move and is, in fact, unconstitutional.

Yet the American Civil Liberties Union has endorsed the bill, saying that the FTC should have addressed this issue before and that "It's already clear that deceptive advertising and false advertising is illegal."

Sweet. Let's hope this one passes.

Posted by Vanessa at 03:16 PM | in Law , News , Politics , Reproductive Rights

Comments

It makes sense, I can't make an ad that lokes like an ad for Coca-Cola that clames Coca-Cola is poison.

Posted by: rayceeya | March 31, 2006 04:39 PM

Given that false advertising in general is illegal, why not just go after these frauds that way? Or are we talking ads that are not quite legally fraudulent, but are definitely misleading?

Posted by: Gordon K | March 31, 2006 09:14 PM

A close friend of mine got suckered by one of these places. Fortunately she was able to tap her inner cast iron bitch and ruined the "counselor's" day.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 31, 2006 10:09 PM

Coca-Cola is a registered trademark. We have all received mail claiming to be $10,000+ vacation prize winners, though of course there are prohibitions on other forms of false advertising. My cynical suspicion is that there will always be semantical ways for these groups to word their advertisements as to be both misleading and technically legal. The more actual abortion providers distinguish their own ads by explicitly offering abortion services, the trickier it will be for disingenuous groups to imitate them without overstepping the law.

The ACLU endorsement is a positive sign. In any case the legislation would almost certainly pass muster at the state level.

Posted by: Bobby | April 1, 2006 02:34 AM

I was sent a Guardian article by a friend in which it says yzou are looking for African women bloggers. We are not hard to find really. I am one and there are about another 20 or so listed on my blog - cheers

Posted by: sokari | April 1, 2006 03:28 AM

Really, you cannot have it both ways. You call abortion 'reproductive rights' (sic), dressed in Orwellian code words - and then you complain when the other side use similiar tactics?

To me it is insulting that 'reproductive rights' mean abortion in common discourse. To me they conjure up the right to reproduce at home if you will, the right to a midwife - the right to reproduce without the interference of States like China with coercive population policies.

Yet in common terms it means none of these things - all it means is the negative right not to reproduce - namely via the method of abortion.

Then again I don't approve of false labelling or advertising - by either side.

Posted by: HeyKatie | April 1, 2006 10:50 PM

March 31, 2006

Comments

Post a comment