HomeoldPro-aborts traffic in misinformation, yet insist it’s pro-lifers who aren’t telling the...

Pro-aborts traffic in misinformation, yet insist it’s pro-lifers who aren’t telling the truth

Published on

In eight days, when Ohioans go to the polls to decide the fate of “Issue 1,” it is important to note that they will actually be answering two related questions. First, they will be asked to determine whether they wish to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitution. Secondly, should Issue 1 be passed, the electorate will, for the most part, be endorsing an initiative that is far more radical, more extreme, and more chilling than the majority of people realise.

For an extended period, we have provided comprehensive coverage of Issue 1, examining its various aspects in depth. One might conclude that the pro-life stance espoused by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine is representative of the prevailing sentiment in the state: “It’s not who we are.” It is not the current state of affairs. He and his wife, Fran,

“have never done an ad before for a statewide issue or even a local issue but we both feel very strongly about this and I think whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life the constitutional amendment that we will be voting on in a couple of weeks just goes way, way too far.”

For instance, DeWine posited that the legislation would permit abortion at any stage of pregnancy. “It would render null and void Ohio’s long-standing prohibition on partial-birth abortion.”

However, it is evident that the media does not present the truth accurately, particularly when the pro-life side is making an accurate assessment. This is precisely the case with the relentless attacks on pregnancy resource centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers.

A divine intervention for women in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, their reward for their arduous efforts is to be defamed, discredited, and branded purveyors of “misinformation and harm.” In a recent article published in The Federalist, Theresa Bonopartis asserts that abortion facilities, rather than crisis pregnancy centers, are the primary source of misinformation.

Please elaborate. Let us examine the matter in greater detail.

In her article, Bonopartis utilizes an October 23rd open letter written by the Attorney General of California, Rob Bonta, in conjunction with 15 other attorneys general as a focal point. This is due to the fact that it is a representative example of the typical and revealing nature of such communications.

The impetus for the letter was to signal support for Yelp in its ongoing legal dispute with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over the review site’s descriptions of CPCs.

Since the Dobbs decision [overturning Roe], Yelp added disclaimers to CPC center review pages alerting users that the centers do not provide abortion services, even adding language like, “May not have licensed medical professionals onsite.”

The attorneys, hiding under the statement that Yelp’s efforts “ensure that consumers receive clear information” sadly lack pursuing the same “clear information” for abortion facilities advertising where very real damage has been done to countless numbers of women for more than 50 years. In fact, the AGs even go so far as to deny the personal experiences of these women.

As a post-abortive woman and a person who has worked in ministry with other women who have experienced abortion for the past 30 years, I represent thousands who have sought our help with the damage of abortion, which Bonta’s letter denies.

In a meticulous and methodical manner, Bonopartis refutes the fallacious arguments presented in the eight-page letter. For instance, crisis pregnancy centers that are not health care facilities do not claim to be, “so one is prompted to inquire as to why these 16 attorneys general feel the necessity to challenge them on that basis.”

Furthermore, the assertion by the attorneys general that crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) offer maternity and baby supplies “usually only if pregnant individuals attend religious-based programming” is also misleading. In a letter ostensibly written to dispel misinformation, this assertion is perhaps the most egregious untruth: “I am familiar with many CPCs and not one that I know of requires religious-based programming.”

In conclusion, Bonopartis asserts that

These AGs can claim they are protecting women, but more and more of us are learning the truth not from words like theirs but sadly through our own experiences. Try as they might, they cannot hide what we know to be true.

Lawmakers should be more concerned with the misinformation in the abortion facilities that actually kill the unborn and very often harm women, mentally and physically, than the CPCs that aid pregnant moms in need.


Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.

Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.

Order Now!


Latest articles

The EU’s plans for the abolition of the secrecy of digital letters

Surveillance of private chats without suspicion could soon become mandatory in the EU. This...

Lloyd’s: Government behind Nord Stream sabotage

About a month ago, Zug-based Nord Stream AG filed a lawsuit against its insurers....

More like this

Biden urges hostage deal

US President Biden has called on Qatar and Egypt to do everything possible to...

Trump trial: ex-president rushes from court to campaign trail

Update, 11:00 a.m.: In the U.S., experts are surprised that Judge Juan Merchan has...

Donald Trump Ignores Court Gag Order

Trump can't talk about those involved in the New York trial. The ex-president can,...