Four Myths that Aren’t: NARAL Continues Crusade Against Crisis Pregnancy Centers
By , Published June 11th, 2010


NARAL has posted a “quiz” on its website, here, that attempts to “inform” the user on the problems of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).   The first question follows:

Question 1: Which of the following misleading and false statements do CPCs tell women?

  1. Condoms are not effective at preventing pregnancy and disease.
  2. Abortion causes breast cancer.
  3. The birth-control pill, emergency contraception, and other forms of hormonal contraception cause abortion.
  4. Abortion causes dangerous and life-threatening psychological side effects.

The quiz states that the answer is, of course, all of the above.  But, in fact, all of the statements are factually true.  Let’s take them one at a time:

  1. Condoms commonly fail.  Even newly purchased condoms can sometimes fail (read the back of the box), and About.com (owned by the NYTimes), states that condom “typical use” failure rate to prevent conception is 15%.  This is not surprising when we consider that over half of unwanted pregnancies occur while some sort of contraception is being used.
  2. This statement is unresolved at best.  While the official position of the National Cancer Institute is that a link between abortion and breast cancer has not been established, multiple studies have listed abortion as a “risk factor” for developing breast cancer.  One study last year by a National Cancer Institute Researcher reported a statistically significant 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions and listed it among “known and suspected risk factors.“
  3. The vast majority of hormonal contraceptives (such as The Pill) work by doing three things: attempting to prevent
    ovulation, thickening the cervical mucus, so that sperm has a harder time reaching the egg, and thickening the walls of the endometrium, so that a fertilized egg can’t implant.  The first two methods, if successful, don’t cause abortion, but the third causes a genetically unique human person to be expelled from the body.  Since even the most reliable birth control methods can fail to prevent pregnancy, it is obvious that the first two methods sometimes fail, as well.  On certain methods, such as the intra-uterine devices, 45% women have been known to still be ovulating a year after implanting the device (more info here).
  4. Anyone who disputes this fact is out of touch with reality.  Here is just one of the many studies that looks at the effect of loss of pregnancy on women.  A relevant quote from the study: “Our results indicate that over 25% of women who have had pregnancy losses feel they need professional help.  Aborted women appear to require more and more sophisticated grief counseling than those who suffer other types of pregnancy loss.”  This is likely caused by the fact that, despite organizations like NARAL’s best efforts, people intrinsically understand the simple fact that if their unborn baby wasn’t alive, they wouldn’t have to kill it.

The most baffling aspect of the entire quiz, however, is why NARAL should have a problem with crisis pregnancy centers.  Is it because, rather than simply offering abortion, they inform women of the entire breadth of their choices in a situation?  If NARAL is looking for misinformation, they should look a little closer to home, in the Planned Parenthood clinics, as the Rosa Acuna project has repeatedly shown.
Live Action on Facebook
  • denise

    40 years that is a lot of murders maybe they are not intelligent enough to keep people healthy is much easier to kill them!!!!!!

  • Alex Perrier

    A new baby can cause a lot of stress, but it's not right to kill it.

  • http://secularprolife.org Kelsey

    SecularProLife.org created this brochure on CPCs as part of Students for Life of America's "Support a CPC Day" last year. You are welcome to download and distribute as many as you like! (It's free.)
    http://secularprolife.org/files/fake_clinics.pdf

  • sarah

    You guys are crazy. Cpc's lie and distort the truth. Breast cancer? Give me a break!! Condoms don't work? Wearing one is a hell of a lot better at preventing pregnancy and diseases than not wearing one. Is the prolife side REALLY about preventing abortion or is it about controlling women and their choices over their bodies? I would think that the so called prolife would support comdoms and birth control, they help prevent pregnancy and therefore help reduce the need for abortion. What's next? Having a period every month is a "half abortion", birth control doesn't cause an abortion any more than having your period every month. MY BODY MY RIGHTS MY CHOICE!!

  • Kristin

    I completely agree with sarah; "pro-life" people who don't endorse condoms, birth control and comprehensive sex education in our schools are nothing more than hypocrites who want to control women and their bodies.

  • http://liveaction.org/blog Lucas Brown

    Your post deserves a much more detailed response than I have time or space for, but here are a couple of points. What if, instead of wearing a condom, you only had sexual relations with people who you trusted enough to not have sexually transmitted diseases? Doesn't that sound like a better plan than hoping it won't break? As for pregnancy prevention, ask a woman who uses natural family planning how trapped and "controlled" she feels. I would imagine she would tell you that it's liberating to allow your body to work naturally without chemical interference. Your logic would probably support the argument that I am controlling men as well, since I'm advocating responsible sexual action, as opposed to casual sex. As I state above, half of unwanted pregnancies occur while some sort of contraception is being used. That statistic comes from Planned Parenthood's own research arm. And, no, a period is different because a women's body (when not interfered with by a chemical) knows when there is a fertilized egg present, and does not expell it. Periods only occur when the egg has not been fertilized. So, yes, it's different. Do your own research on how effective condoms, birth control, and sex education are at preventing pregnancy. Just make sure you don't ask Planned Parenthood.

  • Kristin

    Thank you for replying to my post in a civil manner; though we do in fact disagree on the central tenets of our argument, it's nice that we can do so without resorting to slander or childish name calling.

    I did do a bit of research on the effectiveness of the most popular birth control methods, and have provided links accordingly.

    Condom (Male)

    * Typical use: 85% effective

    * Perfect use: 98% effective

    * Of every 100 women whose partners use condoms, 15 will become pregnant (with typical use) and 2 will become pregnant with perfect use

    source: http://contraception.about.com/od/overthecounterc…

    The Pill

    * Typical use: 92% effective

    * Perfect use: 99.7% effective

    * Of every 100 women who use The Pill, 8 will become pregnant (with typical use) within the first year and less than one will become pregnant with perfect use

    source: http://contraception.about.com/od/prescriptionopt…

    Granted, both "typical" and "perfect" use of these methods will leave a certain amount of women pregnant; however, if I were told by my teacher that, with study and preparation, I had a 98% chance of passing a test, I'd feel pretty darn good about my chances of passing that test, wouldn't you?

    Your idea about "natural family planning" sounds just peachy keen, and frankly, were I ever to have a daughter, I'd ideally want her to follow that plan. Unfortunately, this plan is unrealistic to the point of insanity, particularly when one considers that it's 2010, the mores of the sexual revolution have been firmly entrenched in our culture for almost 40 years, and tens of millions of men (and women) would take grave offense at the notion that they're supposed to reserve sex because "self-righteous, judgmental Christians" (in their eyes) feel they should. People are going to have sex, regardless of the praying and hand-wringing of the religious right; if they're going to do so, it just makes sense that they should do so in a manner that will minimize unwanted pregnancies and thus eliminate the need for abortion.

  • ninek

    Kristin and Sarah, you both need a biology lesson: menstruation is not half an abortion! That is so factually untrue, I don't know where to begin educating both of you. And you both have female names, so assuming you are women, it is of utmost immediate importance that you both get yourselves educated, now! You need to know how humans procreate since you appear to be living in human bodies. Now, let's see, junk food has been around for more than 40 years, but by your logic we should stop bothering to educate people on good nutrition. They should just eat all the junk they want and rely on medications and liposuctions to solve all the problems their mindless consumption brings about. Because, after all, humans are too far gone! It must be some religious thing to eat nutritious food and get a healthy amount of excercise. How oppressive! See how silly that sounds? That's how silly your faulty logic sounds to me.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w15OS2PdCKo&feature=player_embedded disgusted

    ninek, it's quite convenient of you to take one small portion of sarah's entire argument, stretch and distort it beyond rational comprehension, and use the resulting falsehood as a straw man to prop up your incomprehensible argument.

    It's also convenient that you chose to ignore Kristin's evidence regarding the factual truths of birth control; not only are you confirming the stereotype that pro-life types are lying hypocrites more interested in telling others what to do with their sex lives, you're making it clear that the pro-life movement won't get anywhere in contemporary society. You guys honestly think Americans will be just fine and dandy with giving up not only their right to abortion, but to birth control and sex outside of marriage? Keep dreaming…

  • Kristin

    Ninek, with all due respect, there's a distinct difference between educating people on the dangers of junk food and fighting like hell to get junk food banned from the supermarket shelves because a group of people feel it's their god-given right to tell others what to eat. If I wanted to live in a totalitarian state, I'd get in a time machine and go back to Nazi Germany.

  • http://liveaction.org/blog Lucas Brown

    Kristen,

    Civil conversations are always enlightening, I'm glad we can argue rationally. First of all, I never said that birth control wasn't effective. I only said that it sometimes ends a human life. Whether you think that life is valuable or not, it is scientifically true. As for condoms, remember that perfect use involves the condom not breaking. The man often can't feel when the condom breaks, so perfect use in this case is basically impossible to achieve. Typical use is the only number that is realistic.

    Passing a test is different than having a child. If I was sixteen, and heard that a girl had a 1 in 50 chance of getting pregnant at somepoint during our sexual activity, that would have scared the heck out of me. But, again, I'm not saying it isn't effective, just that it sometimes expells a living fetus from the human body.

    I don't find natural family planning unrealistic to the point of insanity. My wife and I follow it, and don't find it overly onerous. In fact, couples who practice it are statistically more likely to stay married and make love more often. It is fairly simple, we took classes for a few weeks and had it down. Taking your temp every morning is no more difficult than taking a pill. And, when we decide we are ready to conceive, we don't need to wait months for the birth control to leave her system.

    I'm not advocating a law against sex outside of marriage (though, interestingly, some states still have one, not enforced). However, one of the consequences of sex is babies. There is no perfect way to avoid this. The simplest solution would be to only have sex with someone who you would feel comfortable raising a child with, at a time when you would be comfortable raising a child. We are rational animals who can control our actions. We can be held responsible for them. If a man were to rape a girl, he couldn't cite "the sexual revolution" as a reason and get off scott free. He would have to face the consequences of his actions. Sex is similar. Have sex, but know it could lead to parenthood, and be ready for that responsibilty if it comes. It's called being an adult.

  • Ashley
  • Ashley

    I just wanted to clear some things up about the statement, "My Body, My Right, My Choice." At the instant of contraception, a baby has unique DNA, a unique genetic code different from the mother. This makes a baby its own human being; there are TWO human lives involved. Therefore, its not your "body" so therefore how can you decide for it? Is your "choice" what the baby would choose too? Also, the baby is human (it has been proven scientifically) so doesn't the baby deserve to have rights too? The statement above is just a slogan for a platform that makes woman think its ok to abort a living human being, their own son or daughter. The truth is that a baby is a baby and is living at any stage of development in the mother. Thats what fails to be taught to mothers at clinics.

  • Kristin

    I'm curious to hear the specifics on how using birth control expels a fetus from the human body, as I was under the impression that oral birth control is completely ineffective once the newly fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall.

    While natural family planning does indeed sound like it has a number of positive benefits, I'm looking at the big picture–namely, millions and millions of people who point-blank refuse to wait until marriage to engage in sexual activity. Regardless of certain groups' disapproval of such activity, the cold, hard truth is that it's impossible to convince everyone in America–certainly teenagers whose newly emerging hormones are running wild (look at Bristol Palin)–to abstain from sex, no matter how many scary statistics we throw at them. Since we've accepted this as fact, it just seems to me that the logical approach is to equally promote the safest, most effective methods of birth control in conjunction with a reminder that abstinence is 100% effective; to do otherwise smacks of wishful thinking.

  • Kristin

    Additionally, while I applaud you and your wife for finding a method of birth control that is in keeping with your beliefs regarding pregnancy and personhood, I also hope you realize that most people aren't (or refuse to be) capable of practicing a method that places severe constraints on their lifestyle (again, I'm referring to the millions of unmarried people in this country that engage in sexual activity, as well as married couples that do not want children). Whether or not you constitute this as a "sin" is, of course, your own viewpoint; however, which is the greater offense: using birth control that will drastically reduce the chance of becoming pregnant (and I do consider an 85% drop to be drastic), or using nothing, having sex anyway (for as I stated before, people will have sex regardless of others who tell them it's wrong) and becoming pregnant?

  • http://liveaction.org/blog Lucas Brown

    First, there is no rule that NFP has to be practiced as part of a marriage. If women are truly empowered, as you say they are, saying "no" to sex for a few days a month shouldn't be that difficult. But, maybe we are talking about different methods?

    I think we are getting a bit far afield here. Your arguments now seem to hinge on the idea that people are going to have consequence free sex no matter what. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you that people are incapable of not having sex unless they are with someone with whom they would be comfortable raising a child. As you say, it is a cultural problem. If culture can change one way, it can change another. If fathers could not pressure women to have an abortion, but legally had to take responsibility for their children, they would be more responsible. If women knew there was not a quick fix to a pregnancy, they would be more responsible. Since we both agree it would be better, why don't you let us try to let us enact our vision, and get out of the way?

  • ninek

    My comparison was silly, of course, but incomprehensible? Hardly. I think you got it. Our entire way of thinking about human procreation needs to be healed. Sex ed unfortunately consists of social indoctrination and not basic biology. If you can educate a child that brushing his teeth helps prevent cavities, then you can educate a teen that casual sex has consequences and the idea of 'safe sex' is a sales pitch not sound biology. We can teach people to avoid spreading the flu, but when it comes to sex, some liberals just want to throw up their hands and say, oh they all do it, we can't stop them! That's ridiculous. Young people are smarter than that.

  • Kristin

    "Since we both agree it would be better, why don’t you let us try to let us enact our vision, and get out of the way?"

    I wasn't aware that stating a factual truth meant that I was "in the way", nor was I aware that lauding a couple for finding a method of birth control that's in keeping with their personal beliefs translated to me endorsing that method of birth control for each and every person on this planet.

    "If fathers could not pressure women to have an abortion, but legally had to take responsibility for their children, they would be more responsible."

    Because all fathers of children in this country today are certainly responsible, loving and supportive, and there's certainly no need to chase any of them down for delinquent child support. Oh, wait…

    "If women knew there was not a quick fix to a pregnancy, they would be more responsible."

    And there'd be no more abortions anywhere, right? Sorry, I'd have to disagree–25% of all maternal deaths in Latin America, where abortion is illegal, stem from improperly performed abortions; while I'm sure "pro-life" people are more than willing to dismiss those deaths as those women getting what they deserved, I personally think it's a terrible, completely avoidable tragedy.

    I'm guessing your parting comment of "get out of the way" means you're tired of me attempting to point out that real life doesn't work like a Disney movie, and real people aren't going to take too kindly to a bunch of strangers dictating what they can and cannot do with their sex lives. It's been interesting to debate with you, but after doing so, I'm more convinced than ever of a statement I found on Lance Armstrong's livestrong.com; excerpts are as follows:

    "The anti-abortion leaders really have a larger purpose. They oppose most ideas and programs which can help women achieve equality and freedom. They also oppose programs which protect the health and well-being of women and their children.

    Anti-abortion leaders claim to act "in defense of life." If so, why have they worked to destroy programs which serve life, including prenatal care and nutrition programs for dependent pregnant women? Is this respect for life?

    Anti-abortion leaders also say they are trying to save children, but they have fought against health and nutrition programs for children once they are born. The anti-abortion groups seem to believe life begins at conception, but it ends at birth. Is this respect for life?

    Then there are programs which diminish the number of unwanted pregnancies before they occur: family planning counseling, sex education and contraception for those who wish it. Anti-abortion leaders oppose those, too. And clinics providing such services have been bombed and people have been killed. Is this respect for life?

    Such stances reveal the ultimate cynicism of the compulsory pregnancy movement. "Life" is not what they're fighting for. What they want is a return to the days when a woman had few choices in controlling her future. They think that the abortion option gives too much freedom. That even contraception is too liberating. That women cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. "
    http://www.livestrong.com/article/13934-nine-reas…

  • ninek

    I've yet to find a pro-life blog that consistently hawks an 'oppress women' agenda. Sure, you can find a comment on a thread now and then, but this notion Kristin has that we don't want women to have choice is absurd. I campaigned at my place of employment for us to have a daycare center in the unused portion of the building on another floor. But no, the idea was shot down before it even began. Now I work at a place that is much more kid friendly. I'm proud that women have so many more career options than my grandmother's generation. However, I'm ashamed that so many women think they can't get along without killing their unborn children. That doesn't make them empowered, it makes them murderers. Emulating irresponsible men doesn't make us stronger women. So men could physically walk away from their responsibilities, eh? Instead of making them take responsibility, Roe v Wade evened the irresponsibility playing field. And how does that make women stronger? It doesn't. And finally Kristin, what specific programs have large numbers of pro-life people opposed? Be specific Kristin, which programs have 'we' worked to destroy??? 'Cause if all you're going to do is spout rhetoric, I've got a parrot that can best you for a cracker.

  • http://liveaction.org/blog Lucas Brown

    "were I ever to have a daughter, I’d ideally want her to follow that plan"

    Sorry, I thought this was an endorsement.

    "Because all fathers of children in this country today are certainly responsible, loving and supportive, and there’s certainly no need to chase any of them down for delinquent child support."

    Again, this is a faulty argument. Since people are just going to abuse a system, we might as well throw that system out. People who are delinquent on their child support deserve to face consequences for that.

    I think my wife would have a problem with you labeling me as oppressive. Really, I want to free women from the pain of abortion, and she is as pro-life as I. In fact, if all prolifers want to oppress women, why are there women who are prolife? Maybe they are just confused and misled. Another example of women who have to be told what to think (that's sarcasm).

    Your last quote from livestrong is barely worth a response. It is making hasty generaliztions about all members of a movement with a diverse base. That's a logical fallacy.

  • Emily

    I just wanted to chime in my two cents. I am a woman. I am pro-life. I am against all abortion. I am certainly not oppressed. I don't think anyone who is against abortion can be pro-artificial birth control because they are unreliable and the oral contraceptives (like the Pill) are abortifacients (see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE).

    Our culture is constantly telling women, especially teenage girls, that we are incapable of controlling our actions. We are animals that have no choice but to give in to our wild compulsions. That we are so inept at controlling ourselves, we must take something to control our bodies from performing a biological reaction to our actions. Here, societ says, do what feels good right here, right now because you can't help it and you shouldn't have to deal with any consequences-you can't be bothered. I personally find that offensive. My husband and I practice NFP. Before we got married we practiced it, before I met my husband I practiced it. Not for religious reasons, but because when I was younger I took oral birth control and the Depo shot and once I found out that I could be having involuntary abortions, I felt sorrow deeper then any I had ever experienced to that point in my life. I had a miscarriage early on in my marriage and the loss of that child was another sorrow I wouldn't wish apon anyone.

    Please do some research on the pschological side effects of abortion to the woman. Making something illegal is not oppressing someone. Not being able to escape your own thoughts, your own memories from something that you did-that is oppressive. Actions have reactions. Period. You can't just go about life doing whatever feels good, screw the consequences. I truly believe that if women were given the opportunity to take responsibility for the sexuality, taught the basic biological facts and how to own your own body so you aren't subject codependant upon some chemical to do it for you, I believe we would be a happier, healthier society overall.

    Women need to require more of men. Men respond to one thing-sex. If women demanded a man be father-worthy before she slept with him, I guarantee the men of our world would be father-worthy within about 2 weeks (that is from my husband by the way). If women had men to rely on and support them, maybe they wouldn't feel the need for an abortion. This of course does encompass all situations, but I would be wiling to bet that it covers a great deal of them. And what about the men who are not even given a say on whether or not a woman kills his child? What if he was willing to take on the responsibility of single-fatherhood and not require the woman to be involved at all beyond the birth? That sounds a little oppressive to me. Maybe it is the men who are being oppressed out of possible fatherhood.

    I'm sorry, Kristin, we might have to agree to disagree here, because this circle will never end. Abortion is abortion no matter what form it is in. Someone said it recently on one of the facebook posts best: Abortion does not make you unpregnant, it just makes you the mother of a dead child. Our society needs a major facelift. We need to turn it from a culture of death to a culture of life and blogs and postings like this are one great way to help make that change.

    And I echo what ninek said. Show us a prolife group that is not willing to give help, compassion, and support to every pregnant woman out there. Show us one anti-abortion group that is against supporting a woman and her baby after the birth. We are against Planned Parenthood because they provide false information to women about pregnancy and abortion so they can turn a profit. Their moneymaker is not contraception or family planning-it's abortion.

    "My Body, My Right, My Choice"- Mine, Mine, Mine…you sound like my 2 year old.

  • maria

    Kristin –

    Echoing what others have said here, I am a woman, pro-life, and a proud feminist. My experience with the pro-life movement has not been that the "big agenda" is to reduce women's choices, but rather to empower them against feeling as though they have no other choice – abortion – as most women who do have abortions feel: her boyfriend would leave her, her parents would kick her out, her boss would find an excuse to fire her, her university doesn't have adequate pregnancy/child-care resources, she doesn't have enough money, etc., etc. I'm afraid you're leaving out a lot of the facts in your stereotyping of pro-life leaders (I'm going to infer you're talking mostly about Republicans). While I do not consider myself a Republican or a Democrat and I disagree with a lot of the votes of Republican leaders, it is generally these same "controlling" politicians who support laws enforcing stricter penalties for coercing a woman to have an abortion where many "pro-choice" politicians reject such bills because they're caught up in the politics of the bills being sponsored as "pro-life." I'd also point out that while people claiming to be "pro-life" have committed grave crimes against abortionists and their clinics (which are largely CONDEMNED by true pro-lifers), what the media often fails to report is the crimes that are carried out against pro-life people by pro-"choicers" – (see James Pouillon as a recent example).

    If you have done any research on the group Live Action upon whose blog you are commenting, you'll know that Planned Parenthood clinics across the United States have consistently happily accepted racially charged donations, failed to report statuatory rape and even provided women with methods on how to break these laws and parental notification laws, and deliberately misinformed women on the biological FACTS of their developing fetuses. You'd be hard-pressed to find any reputable CPC commit such heinous atrocities against women and against the law.

    I'd also recommend you check out the group called Feminists for Life. As you will learn, nearly all of the suffragists including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul regarded abortion as the ultimate crime AGAINST women – pinning a woman against her own unborn child. They did not see legal abortion as a means to achieving equality; rather, they saw it as a means to further objectify a woman.

  • Ashley

    This literally made me sick. I remember vividly listening to my daughter's heart beat just a few into my pregnancy. That was a very sincere life-changing experience for me. I fell in love.

  • Alex

    What it seems to be that you're saying… is sad. All of you are arguing about this to what end? For right and wrong? Wrong is murder of children who haven't even seen their mothers face. Wrong is dumping a responsibility that one has burdened themselves with due to the consequences. Right on the other hand? There is no right anymore. Every action will be construed badly by someone for anyone involved. If abortion clinics were all destroyed then the kids would be abandoned in dumpsters. If all cases of birth led to marriage, "shotgun weddings", as they used to be called, then there would be more beatings. If every child was left alive, then there would be too many for the system to take. It would lead to more mistreated, unmoralled kids. I'm not saying that kids from foster homes and group homes etc., are moralless, but that if the people taking care of them had more to take care of, then they couldn't be taught morals as well. If we made it illegal to have relations before marriage, then that would be taken as an infringement on the pursuit of happiness. We can't take care of them, we shouldn't kill them, and won't not have them, so what's left?

    Do we leave it at that, without a solution to the problem? No, because then the problem continues.

    We live surrounded by problems everyday, every single day. We have politicians doing wrong, companies doing wrong, people doing wrong… but the things we can still do are hope, and pray. I'm not saying pray to a certain God, so don't try to get me on that. We can still hope though, we can still vote for someone who will make better choices for our nation, we can still do the right thing when surrounded by wrong.

    And btw, no offense, but they weren't saying don't use condoms, they were saying that they don't work. Using a condom is like Russian Roulette, about 1/6th of the time you'll get shot.

  • Lisa

    Kristin:

    Was the holocaust wrong? do you believe, if you look deep inside you, was it wrong for a group of people (the NAZIs) to decide that it was okay to kill another group of people, who were unable to defend themselves?

    The abortion industry is just that. The NAZIs killed the Jewish, the Gypsies, and the Mentally and Physically Handicapped in horrible ways.

    Planned Parenthood is doing the same to unborn children. The methods that they use are horrific, and it makes me sick to even think about it.

    Approximately 3,500 human beings will be slaughtered today. Another 3,500 will be killed tomorrow, and the next day, and the next.

    I will fight until my dying breath if need be, until this abomination is stopped.