To the editor: Being averse to abortion is one thing. But for crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs, to lie about its possible drawbacks — such as a supposed link to breast cancer — is quite another. ("Going undercover at crisis pregnancy centers," May 1)
As the saying goes, CPCs are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. That adage applies with full force to those who would provide medical counsel to women at such a critical juncture in their lives.
The pending Reproductive Fact bill in the Legislature, which would rein in CPCs' dissemination of false and misleading information, should become law without delay. Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco), the bill's coauthor, couldn't be more right in asserting that pregnant women should "have timely access to healthcare … whether prenatal care or an abortion."
Gloria Martel, Los Angeles
To the editor: Isn't it still legal to counsel a woman who needs help with a pregnancy she does not want but chooses not to have her growing fetus destroyed? Are any of these pro-life clinics publicly funded?
Is NARAL Pro-Choice California's Dania Flores, who conducted an undercover investigation of CPCs, so naive that she thinks a pregnant woman might never have heard of Planned Parenthood? Is it wrong for a pro-life clinic to espouse biblical values?
Forcing pro-life advocates to give abortion clinic information is like the current law making it illegal to counsel gay minors how they can become straight if they choose to. I doubt Planned Parenthood would ever be required to direct a woman to a crisis pregnancy center.
This is government control over our personal values. Take a good look at the 1st Amendment, which doesn't allow the government to pass laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religious values.
Elizabeth Norling, Long Beach