Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

John Leo is a syndicated conservative columnist, not a news reporter. This is an opinion piece, not a news article.

Regardless, let's examine it anyway.

John Leo wrote:

The bill, introduced in Congress by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D.-N.Y., would instruct the Federal Trade Commission to ban ads, under headings like "abortion" and "clinics," by centers that oppose abortion and try to convince women to keep their child.

Okay, so conservative voice John Leo just confirms what I've said all along-these places try to pass themselves off as clinics where abortion is available, when in fact they are nothing but traps where professional convincers set upon the troubled woman and try to impose their will upon her. The entire process is utterly deceptive.

As far as I can see, this isn't a free speech issue at all, any more than a merchant who makes deceptive claims about what he sells is engaging in "free speech".

0 Replies

How is anti-abortion counseling at an abortion clinic any different than pro-abortion counseling at a planned parenthood clinic?

The ACLU is all for free speech and other wonderful things as long as it is speech and other things that they like.

How about a law against the ACLU using their name? After all, aren't we interested in doing away with false advertising?

0 Replies

The law is a sound one.

I don't see how anyone who advertises under "Abortion Services" but who has no abortion services to offer is anything but a scam. It is a trap to lure an unsuspecting preganant woman into a position where she can be worked over by professsional anti-abortion salespeople, nothing more.

The Federal Trade Commision is the right agency to handle this. It is a consumer fraud issue, plain and simple.

0 Replies

How is counseling in regard to abortion not a service?

Counseling has always been regarded as a large part of the act of abortion or the consideration of abortion. There are much bigger and more flagrant truth in advertising violations than this. I think they are barking up the wrong tree. Besides, what stops a person from leaving the place if they decide they don't like their service?

If I was running the place, I would use a different advertising phrase, but perhaps in the yellow pages in some books, in some areas, if you have anything to do with abortion, for or against, maybe you don't have a choice, maybe you get listed under abortion services, hey I don't know, but it strikes me as overkill with a law not needed that is motivated by the pro-abortion agenda.

0 Replies

If a fellow advertises his business under Plumbing Services, then when you call him he comes over, looks at your plumbing, tells you it is going to probably cost you a lot of money to sink into your house, then begins a presentation about how easy it is to finance one of the brand new tract houses he has for sale, you'd call him a crook. Because he advertised himself as providing plumbing services, and instead he was a real estate salesman who used the plumbing angle as a hook to get into your home. That's dishonest.

But when one of these places advertises under Abortion Services, then when the woman walks in she gets surrounded by trained, professional anti-abortion convincers, suddenly this becomes a Free Speech issue?

It's about as much of a Free Speech issue as the real estate salesman who advertises under Plumbing Services. You either are what you represent yourself to be when you advertise, or you are not. These places are not. This is a good bill.

0 Replies

I can think of all kinds of scams in terms of services advertised besides your plumbing example. How about "employment opportunities," many of which turn out to be nothing more than a hook to get you into some sales or pyramid scheme, not to truly employ you? I agree the abortion services line is not exactly 100% descriptive, but I think we are entering a slippery slope here where abortion services is selected because of the pro-abortion agenda rather than a more consistent accross the board policy, that of truth in advertising across the board in all kinds of businesses.

And my question has not been answered: How is anti-abortion counseling at an abortion clinic any different (or any more deceptive) than pro-abortion counseling at a planned parenthood clinic?

Also, your plumbing analogy is not exactly appropriate. It would be accurate if the plumbing service came out, looked at your plumbing, and then gave you information on another way to mitigate your problem instead of replacing the pipes, perhaps by using some new treatment of pouring a chemical down the pipe to seal a leak or something, thus saving the current pipes you have. I don't know of something like that, but nevertheless, it would be a plumbing service, not by actually doing any traditional plumbing, but your problem would be solved. If services like that popped up, people would learn to ask what kind of plumbing services they offer before entertaining the service, which of course happens millions of times all over the country with everything people do.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

With his credentials and background, if John Leo is not a credible source, who would be?

Yeah, a conservative columnist, writing an opinion piece, for RealClearPolitics, how can you say that's not "a reliable source which cannot be said to be anti-abortion, or anti-ACLU"??

Then again,if I remember several past threads where the topic came up correctly, Foxfyre doesn't actually see any difference in credibility between an opinion column and a news story - as long as the person writing the opinion column has a good education and stuff.

I've tried to ask whether, well, I've had an excellent education, so does that mean any of my longer opinion posts here should be taken as seriously as any major newspaper's news story? But I dont remember whether there was an answer to that.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

many of which turn out to be nothing more than a hook to get you into some sales or pyramid scheme

And you dont think the law should protect consumers against pyramid schemes?

Keltic has got it right, of course (he already answered the thread, thats why I felt free to digress in an aside) - this is indeed a consumer fraud issue, nothing more.

okie wrote:

And my question has not been answered: How is anti-abortion counseling at an abortion clinic any different (or any more deceptive) than pro-abortion counseling at a planned parenthood clinic?

Let me take a stab at that. The name "planned parenthood clinic" already makes clear that what they are dealing with is ways to "plan" your "parenthood" - rather than just letting nature take its course. Contraception is the prime such way, and ultimately, abortion is one too.

Now with an "abortion clinic", however, the name seems clear-cut enough. Cant make "abortion clinic" reasonably seem like a place to dole out anti-abortion counselling, while refusing to actually provide abortion.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I can think of all kinds of scams in terms of services advertised besides your plumbing example. How about "employment opportunities," many of which turn out to be nothing more than a hook to get you into some sales or pyramid scheme, not to truly employ you?

Your argument seems to be that since there are even worse scams than these anti-abortion places, we should leave them alone. Which means that you are admitting these anti-abortion places are scams.

Great argument you've got there.

okie wrote:

I agree the abortion services line is not exactly 100% descriptive....

"Not exactly 100% descriptive" meaning "complete opposite of what we advertise". Rolling Eyes

okie wrote:

....but I think we are entering a slippery slope here where abortion services is selected because of the pro-abortion agenda rather than a more consistent accross the board policy, that of truth in advertising across the board in all kinds of businesses.

Just because a Congressman introduces a bill to outlaw one kind of fraud, you oppose it because it doesn't outlaw all kinds of fraud. That's silly.

Suppose there was a new form of securities fraud making the rounds. Would you oppose a bill designed to specifically target that kind of securities fraud, just because it doesn't deal with ALL kinds of fraud? I don't think so. So why oppose Maloney's bill just because it deals with one kind of fraud?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

So why oppose Maloney's bill just because it deals with one kind of fraud?

Because I suspect a great deal of hypocrisy here. I suspect the interest is not in fraud, but the interest is protecting abortion providers from those that offer an alternative. I do not support deceptive advertising, however, if you are going to enter legislation to address such practices, then you need to be consistent rather than picking on one tiny social service, such as abortion. I do not think the deception here rises to the level that would justify the making of new laws. We already live in an overly litigous society and we don't need more of the same. People in Congress have much larger problems than this to worry about.

I think both pro-abortion and anti-abortion clinics have names that can be somewhat misleading both ways. I have long taken note of the name, Planned Parenthood, and what an oxymoron that is, but everyone knows it, so I am not in favor of legislating against their use of the name. But if the problem is to be addressed, it should go both ways. Besides, I do not see it as that serious. It is up to the people that use such clinics to choose what they want. Nobody is forcing them to do anything, one way or the other. True fraud involves much more than a name or a simple phrase or some such thing. This is much ado about nothing.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Also, your plumbing analogy is not exactly appropriate. It would be accurate if the plumbing service came out, looked at your plumbing, and then gave you information on another way to mitigate your problem instead of replacing the pipes....

Plumbers routinely repair or rebraze pipes instead of replacing them. Sometimes they just unclog a pipe. All these things are part of the profession of plumbing as commonly understood, and what everyone has the right to expect when they call someone listed under Plumbing Services.

However, your "mitigating the problem" analogy can be used to extend to the real estate salesman who advertises under Plumbing Services when he argues that he is indeed fixing people's plumbing problem-by financing them into a brand new home where the plumbing works. As he sees it, it's just another way to "mitigate the problem" for the person who calls him to deal with their plumbing situation.

Fact is, the Free Speech argument can essentially be used to justify almost any kind of fraud or deception. Which is exactly what the anti-choice forces are using it for here.

0 Replies

It seems to me that fraud needs to involve more than slightly misleading names of businesses or phrases included in advertising. There needs to be money changing hands and cheating people out of what they thought they were paying for. If an abortion service charges for an initial counseling session that is totally different than what they advertise their service to be, I might be willing to concede the point, but I am doubtful that this happens on an initial inquiry before any money changes hands.

How about places that advertise "pregnancy counseling" or some such thing when the counseling is not about maintaining pregnancy but just the opposite, which would be abortion? I maintain that "Planned Parenthood" is a prime example of fraudulant advertising by using a misleading name. I don't hear about anyone proposing a law against that. I maintain that people already know, or should know that abortion clinics and other services that advocate pregnancy instead of abortion use all kinds of names and phrases that are not entirely descriptive of what they advocate. Legislators have many more things that they should be paying attention to instead of this.

0 Replies

Okie- Here is the description of the ACLU( a wonderful and cogent description) as given by Judge Robert H. Bork( a judge the left wing would silence if they could),

quote from Slouching Towards Gomorrah

P. 97-98

quote

"The ACLU fixes its eyes exclusively on individual rights and is deterred from its atomistic vision only when the competing issue of group equality emerges. Thus,the ACLU argues on one hand for rights to abortion, to practice prostitution, to homosexual marriage, to produce and consume pornography, and much more. Its individualism is so radical that it contends nude dancing is constitutionally protected free speech and it opposes metal detectors in airports as an intrusion upon individual autonomy. But when equality comes into play, the ACLU is for affirmative action and generally for more government limitations on the freedoms of business owners and managers, such as the power to discharge an employee for unsatisfactory performance."

end of quote

Perhaps, okie, someone should contact the ACLU dissenters, those who are being gagged to tell them that they should try communicating with the public on the abortion issue through nude dancing. The ACLU, for the sake of consistency, would have no choice other than to spport their nude dancing messages.

0 Replies

It all depends on whose ox is being gored. Proving once again they don't really care about the ox (civil liberties), but instead the owner (their chosen agenda).

0 Replies

okie wrote:

It seems to me that fraud needs to involve more than slightly misleading names of businesses or phrases included in advertising.

You keep admitting that these places are not what they advertise, yet you continually defend them misrepresenting themselves as something they are not.. The very notion of "truth in advertising" seems to be a laugh to you, even as you claim to defend it.

[quote="okie"There needs to be money changing hands and cheating people out of what they thought they were paying for. [/quote]
Oh, so a woman making a life altering decision is NOT entitled to the same protections as a consumer buying a candy bar or plastic push toy? Misreprestntation is misreprentation, especially at critical points in people's lives.

This law will make it illegal for places to misrepresent themselves at a critical point in women's lives. Only an utter male chauvinist would consider fraud a trivial matter in this personal decision.

okie wrote:

If an abortion service charges for an initial counseling session that is totally different than what they advertise their service to be,

Oh, so as long as money does not change hands, it is all right to misrepresent yourself all you want? We are talking about a large life decision decisopn here-Good God, can't you even BEGIN to understnd the implications of that?

Guess not.

okie wrote:

I maintain that "Planned Parenthood" is a prime example of fraudulant advertising by using a misleading name.

Now you are making stuff up. As Nimh pointed out with exquisite logic, there are two ways to paln when you are going to be a parent: contraception and abortion. Planned Parenthood vigorously works to make both available to women. And good for them that they do.

[quopte="okie" Legislators have many more things that they should be paying attention to instead of this.[/quote]
Fraud is fraud. If a woman looks under a heading called "abortion", she is looking for someone who is ready to give her an abortion. She is NOT looking for some religious zealot to talk her out of getting what she is legally seeking.

Okie, you maintain that you are for truth in advertising, yet you support people you admit whose advertising is nowhere near truthful. Advertising under "Abortion Services" when in fact you have nothing in your operation except people who are trying to talk you aout of geting an abortion is fraud anyway you look at it. And thanks to Carolyn Maloney, it is likely to become illegal.

0 Replies

This is all well and good,but what does this hace to do with anything?

You all have gotten bogged down talking about the clinics and if they are fraudulent or not,but seem to have ignored the jist of the article.

The ACLU is trying to deny its board members that disagree with the ACLU's stance their free speech rights.
The ACLU is telling its board members that they cannot talk publicly if they disagree with the ACLU's position on an issue.

0 Replies

That's because your partisan LifeNews article is struggling desperately to focus ojn whatever squabbling might be occuring in the ACLU, when it is clear the people the ACLU is fighting are trying hard to get away with misrepresenting themselves in the most flagrant and obnoxious manner.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

That's because your partisan LifeNews article is struggling desperately to focus ojn whatever squabbling might be occuring in the ACLU, when it is clear the people the ACLU is fighting are trying hard to get away with misrepresenting themselves in the most flagrant and obnoxious manner.

Its not mine.
I didnt post it,I didnt comment on it,and I have expressed no opinion about it either way.

I was simply pointing out where the discussion has gone instead of where it started.

0 Replies

I am afraid you do not understand, Mysteryman. It is permissible for the ACLU to deny their members their "free speech" rights. You see, the ACLU represents all that is moral and viable in our country. You can't expect them to lose face. It would set our progressives back ten years.

You see.Mysteryman, those vicious thugs who wish to counsel women to consider the effects that an abortion will have on themselves and the potential life they will expunge, must be stopped from misrepresenting.

On the other hand, nude dancers must not be censored. Their messages are vital to our society--even if they "misrepresent" the availability of easy sex to some of our misguided countrymen who will then, according to Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin who drew up an anti-pornography ordinance based on the First Amendment which claims that "all pornography and nude dancing is made under conditions of inequality based on sex".

It seems to me that such "sexual harrassment" is far more pernicious than having a woman listen to a counselor who is trying to persuade her to make a decision to save the baby she is carrying.

But the ACLU has made up its mind!!!

Pornography( as in nude dancing)--Good

Abortion Counseling------------------Bad

Now I know why Ruth Bader Ginsburg is such an unprincipled jurist. She was, of course, the ACLU'S Chief litigator before she was appointed to the Supreme Court by Bill Clinton.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

This is all well and good,but what does this hace to do with anything?

You all have gotten bogged down talking about the clinics and if they are fraudulent or not,but seem to have ignored the jist of the article.

The ACLU is trying to deny its board members that disagree with the ACLU's stance their free speech rights.
The ACLU is telling its board members that they cannot talk publicly if they disagree with the ACLU's position on an issue.

It's hypocritical, I agree.
What's to debate?

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know