Federal funding for rural religious pregnancy centers.
By on Nov 14th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Federal funding for rural religious pregnancy centers.
New data compiled by CREW finds that rural “pregnancy resource centers” that often offer religious content and false information have received nearly $6 million in federal grants since early 2006. Some of these centers tell patients that abortion leads to breast cancer, suicidal thoughts, alcohol and drug abuse, and even a “fear of punishment from God.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
CREW does some great work. We should support them as they have done more than the democratic party to right the wrongs of a warmongering dictator.
Jack Jett
November 14th, 2007 at 9:23 pmhttp://www.YabbaDabbaHubbaDo.com
Wow, well i’m sure the boys and girls in Congress will get right on this and enter a few more negative reviews in the files of the parties at fault. Nothing like hard consequences to make sure everyone obeys the law.
Get-R-Done Dems start typing up those bad reviews or whatever you normally do each and ever day when you discover criminal activity on the part of our government employees — elected and otherwise.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:26 pmBill Sali is my Rep, and he pushes the abortion/breast cancer crap.
**hanging head in shame**
November 14th, 2007 at 9:26 pm“FACISM will come to America draped in the American flag and wearing a Bible”…
November 14th, 2007 at 9:31 pmPray to jeebus to deliver you from your knockedupness – or pray to my cat for the same. The results will be the same.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:34 pmPray to jeebus to deliver you from your knockedupness – or pray to my cat for the same. The results will be the same.
Comment by Dreary Urbanite — November 14, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
That’s why I pray to MY cat. All other cats are false cats. I alone know the one, true, cat. Yippee!
November 14th, 2007 at 9:42 pmI better get started on my “Flat Earth Society” request for Federal Funding before these Fundie morons leave office and I don’t get my slice of that pork pie they’ve been serving up heaping helpings of!
November 14th, 2007 at 9:44 pmI just want them to keep their hands out of my body. It’s mine. Not yours. Leave it alone fer cryin’ out loud.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:46 pmThis is down right indecent.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:46 pmI can’t believe there are people that actually believe the world is flat. Don’t they watch the teevee?
November 14th, 2007 at 9:47 pmDon’t they watch the teevee?
Comment by Jeannie See — November 14, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
That’s probably part of the problem — they think all that shit is real.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:48 pmDon’t they watch the teevee?
Comment by Jeannie See — November 14, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
flat-screen teevees, silly.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:49 pmWhen you absolutely need honest and truthful information to make one of the most important decisions you can ever make in your life leave it to a ” good Christian” to lie to you.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:49 pmWhat amazes me is that there are so many, “Good Christians” all, who staunchly maintain that Religion isn’t pervasive in government. What’s worse is they don’t see the danger. What’s worser is their insistence that, “the Constitution protects us from that”.
Of course, they don’t understand me when I say: “The Constitution doesn’t protect us. We protect (or fail) the Constitution”. Sigh…
November 14th, 2007 at 9:52 pmflat-screen teevees, silly.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 14, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
**snort**
November 14th, 2007 at 9:54 pmI feel sorry for the young ones who have been brainwashed like this.It’s abuse plain and simple…..oh and if you have sex….YOU’LL BURN IN HELL……yeah right….you’d think they would educate them on safe sex since sex is a natural thing that young people do….or are at least curious about…..I see very little difference between this topic and what women are subjected to in the middle east(burka)
November 14th, 2007 at 10:03 pmThose are MY tax dollars and I’m sick and tired of seeing the Republicans waste them on this bible-thumping crap.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:27 pmHaven’t any laws been broken? Any charges, suits pending? Using federal funds to promote religious beliefs, lying to clients with such a serious health matter….These particular Christians broke the law.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:42 pmthat is some news I would love to see.
Well seriously. The people who work in these rural clinics believe this stuff, its the nature of most rural areas. Who’s gonna replace them? Or do they all get instruction or training? Or do we just not fund the clinics?
November 14th, 2007 at 11:01 pmHello, is this thing on, Dems wake up!
You control Congress and the Senate, so why are we still pouring tax dollars into the Bush wingnut base? Why in the last spending bill that Baby-in-Chief vetoed are the two largest earmarks created by GOPers? I know in a sense I’m saying our pork should be bigger than their pork, but why in the world would you give GOPers not one, but the two biggest outlays of tax dollars so that they can go home and impress the folks in their district? Why? Please show me that it makes a difference when i vote Dem… Please!
November 14th, 2007 at 11:22 pmThe people who work in these rural clinics believe this stuff
November 14th, 2007 at 11:28 pmWell then it is time they, all of them, learn how to give correct medical advice. Their untrue biased information has a serious effect on one’s direction of life. And our taxpayer money going to this bogus bull crap? Think of any other scenario where federal funds were misused and by un Christian folks and I would bet the law would get involved.
Oh, I forgot, these are sweet Christian do gooders so it is OK.
Let’s throw the book at these do gooder Christians, set an example and end this scam once and for all.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:32 pmFear that generates cannon fodder. Kinda like a draft.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:43 pmI better get started on my “Flat Earth Society†request for Federal Funding before these Fundie morons leave office and I don’t get my slice of that pork pie they’ve been serving up heaping helpings of!
Comment by Mugsy — November 14, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Ugh. Please don’t. Thomas Friedman doesn’t need any more publicity, ok?
November 14th, 2007 at 11:48 pmI live in Appalachia and can tell you these are NOT clinics. They are places with names like “crisis pregnancy center”. Women go there hoping to GET an abortion ( or even a pregnancy test ) and find that it’s not a medical facility. It’s staffed by so-called christians who would tell any lie they could to keep the woman from having an abortion.
The worst of them do illegal ultrasounds as a last resort if the hours of lies don’t convince. Most of the women will cave if shown the “life” inside them. And when they leave, these predators will follow them home so they can “follow up” if the woman doesn’t return.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:10 amMost of the women will cave if shown the “life†inside them.
Comment by liberalnproudofit — November 15, 2007 @ 12:10
I suppose not a single lib has a problem with that statement. In other words, “We would have killed that one too, if they hadn’t “shown her” the life inside her.”
November 15th, 2007 at 12:51 am#25 – “I live in Appalachia and can tell you these are NOT clinics. They are places with names like “crisis pregnancy centerâ€. ” Comment by liberalnproudofit — November 15, 2007 @ 12:10 am
It’s the blind-sided nature of the right-whiners. They only care about the child as long as it’s in the womb. The very second the child has been born, they turn their heads and ignore them from that point onwards. Right-whiners refuse to consider the life the child will experience after birth. That’s why they oppose health-care for children (SCHIP) and why there is no “follow up” after birth.
It’s a great canard by the right-whiners, to claim they care about “life” but in actuality, they only care about birth. They should change thei name from “pro-life” to “pro-birth”, it would be much more accurate and honest.
Ooops! I forgot! Today’s “conservatives” don’t value honesty from their side of the aisle. Just like they refuse to hold themseves accountable for their own actions. It’s the right-whiner way.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:00 am>I suppose not a single lib has a problem with that statement.
Some do, some dont im sure. I’m still waiting for your answer about whether you consider fertility clinics who discard unused embryos to be commiting mass murder.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:32 amIf they force me to pay for planned murders (I mean parenthood), they can force you to pay for centers delivering babies.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:46 am#29 – “If they force me to pay for (planned parenthood), they can force you to pay for centers delivering babies.” Comment by Roger_Roger — November 15, 2007 @ 8:46 am
Great idea!
Outlaw abortion, pass legislation that protects a womans job while she recuperates from birth, pass a tax that pays for all women to have their birth completely paid for by the state!
Of course, we would also have to pass legislation that would require females to be fitted with a sub-dermal birth-control device so pregnancy could only occur after marriage or age 18, which ever comes first. Any pregnancy that occurs after marriage/age 18 would be completely paid for.
I didn’t realize that you supported new taxes to pay for your suggestion, RR!
November 15th, 2007 at 8:52 amI suppose not a single lib has a problem with that statement.
Some do, some dont im sure. I’m still waiting for your answer about whether you consider fertility clinics who discard unused embryos to be commiting mass murder.
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 15, 2007 @ 8:32 am
I did answer ya, bud, in the thread in which you asked. Surely you don’t expect me to hunt you down to make sure you see it, do ya. ;)
November 15th, 2007 at 10:02 amComment by Democrat Soldier — November 15, 2007 @ 8:52 am
Don’t forget the free childcare and healthcare!
November 15th, 2007 at 10:13 am#30 I never said either should be outlawed. Just saying you can’t have the murder centers without the life centers. It seems fair for both sides of the issue when you force us poor taxpayers to pay for this nonesense. In the perfect world, taxpayers shouldn’t pay for either.
November 15th, 2007 at 10:15 amRR,
I guess you think a guy who punches his wife in the stomach causing a miscarriage ought to be charged with murder?
November 15th, 2007 at 10:43 amRepublicans only cherish the PRE-born.
The post-born can all go to hell for all they care.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:57 amOf course, we would also have to pass legislation that would require females to be fitted with a sub-dermal birth-control device so pregnancy could only occur after marriage or age 18, which ever comes first. Any pregnancy that occurs after marriage/age 18 would be completely paid for.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — November 15, 2007 @ 8:52
Interesting. At what age would this “fitting” take place?
November 15th, 2007 at 1:15 pmThere is $136,664,000 (yes, millions) in the FY08 Appropriations bill for “abstinence-only” education. Even though Bush vetoed the bill, for FY07 they did the same thing – bill couldn’t get past Bush’s desk, so they just re-confirmed the FY06 budget. That was for $110,000,000.
Best part is that if State law mandates more than “abstinence-only”, the groups getting Federal funds can’t offer that info AND it must be offered “in a different setting than the setting in which abstinence education was provided.” That means public schools either can’t get funding for any abstinence-only programs OR that’s the only funding they get.
Not to be spammy, but if anyone’s interested, I wrote a post about this today: It’s all in the details…
I’m thoroughly disgusted by the Bush Administration and there are few worthy incumbent Congressmen.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:33 pm#36 – “Interesting. At what age would this “fitting†take place?” Comment by upright left — November 15, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Logicaly, when they have their first menstrual cycle.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:58 pmThe most interesting fact is that when abortion is legal, safe, and available is when it declines the most.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html
November 15th, 2007 at 3:07 pm#36 – “Interesting. At what age would this “fitting†take place?†Comment by upright left — November 15, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Logicaly, when they have their first menstrual cycle.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — November 15, 2007 @ 2:58
I’m know you are joking about that forced implanted birth control idea. I assumed you would acknowledge it in your response. You really don’t want people thinking you actually believe that. ;)
November 15th, 2007 at 3:25 pmI guess you think a guy who punches his wife in the stomach causing a miscarriage ought to be charged with murder?
Comment by Zooey — November 15, 2007 @ 10:43 am
You don’t? ;)
November 15th, 2007 at 3:28 pm#40 – “I’m know you are joking about that forced implanted birth control idea. I assumed you would acknowledge it in your response. You really don’t want people thinking you actually believe that. ;)” Comment by upright left — November 15, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
No joke about it at all. It is the only logical alternative to the right-whiners that refuse to consider education about sex and contraception for their children. It would be best if there were an implant for both females and males. It would eliminate abortions under the age of 18! I’m sure the so-called “pro-birth” crowd would be esctatic about that news!
The right-whiners want to force their morality on me, so I’m returning the favor! Jesus wants us to treat others as we would have them treat us. These right-whiners claim to follow in His path, so I’m treating them as they have been treating me.
Then again, I believe that people should be judged by their actions and their standards they claim to follow. It’s why I’m disgusted by the attitude of the right-whiners when they’re taken to task for their own actions, but “claim” to stand for “taking responsibility”.
Go figure.
November 15th, 2007 at 3:59 pmNo joke about it at all. It is the only logical alternative to the right-whiners that refuse to consider education about sex and contraception for their children.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — November 15, 2007 @ 3:59
C’mon, bud, a lib just suggesting forcing all minor females to have a birth control device implanted in their bodies to prevent them from getting pregnant before they get married or turn 18? You don’t want society to be able to say a woman can’t kill the child she is carrying because that would be interferring with her right to control her body, but you have no problem forcing little girls to have birth control implanted in their bodies because they might someday get pregnant? You don’t want government listening in on phone conversations because that’s a violation of someone’s rights, but you’re ok forcing little girls to have birth control devices implanted in their bodies? Did you witness the exchange where a lib stated that nine year olds who have begun menstruating are women? Should nine year olds be forced to have birth control implanted in their bodies? And that is in exchange for getting the births paid for by taxpayers? Surely you can see why I thought you must be joking? ;)
November 15th, 2007 at 4:49 pm#43 – “Surely you can see why I thought you must be joking? ;)” Comment by upright left — November 15, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Oh, I fully understand why you thought I was joking, and stop calling me ‘Surely’! ;-)
It’s OK for regressives to refuse to educate their children about contraception because THEIR children (somehow, magically) won’t have pre-marital sex, but it’s wrong to require that the parents care enough about their children to give them a sexual “seat belt” that would ensure that they could not get pregnant before they’re mature enough to make that decision for themselves?
I’m joking just as much as do the regressives that feel that explaining contraception encourages sexual activity among out youth. Based on that wrong-headed reasoning, we shouldn’t ever talk about corruption in government, and then it will never happen in future! Or that if we never talk about murder, nobody will ever kill anyone again.
When regressives make egregious demands, the only way to bring them back to the rational center is to make an equally egregious demand going the exact opposite direction. It’s Newton’s laws of physics logically applied to politics and policy. Surely you can agree with that!
I know, I know: stop calling you ‘Surely’. ;-)
November 16th, 2007 at 7:05 amIt’s OK for regressives to refuse to educate their children about contraception because THEIR children (somehow, magically) won’t have pre-marital sex, but it’s wrong to require that the parents care enough about their children to give them a sexual “seat belt†that would ensure that they could not get pregnant before they’re mature enough to make that decision for themselves?
I’m joking just as much as do the regressives that feel that explaining contraception encourages sexual activity among out youth. Based on that wrong-headed reasoning, we shouldn’t ever talk about corruption in government, and then it will never happen in future! Or that if we never talk about murder, nobody will ever kill anyone again.
When regressives make egregious demands, the only way to bring them back to the rational center is to make an equally egregious demand going the exact opposite direction. It’s Newton’s laws of physics logically applied to politics and policy. Surely you can agree with that!
I know, I know: stop calling you ‘Surely’. ;-)
Comment by Democrat Soldier — November 16, 2007 @ 7:05
I don’t expect any of your fellow libs on this blog to react to this the way they would if it was actually proposed by someone in govt because they don’t want to make you appear foolish. But, honestly, even you must be able to imagine the outcry. You didn’t address the inconsistency in a person’s right to control her own body. What if a female doesn’t want it? You want to allow a female to get rid of a child she doesn’t want, but you don’t respect her right to refuse a birth control implant? Seems a little hypocritical. You want her will respected as long as she makes the choice with which you agree, if she doesn’t, too bad, you know what’s best for her. As for “ensuring that they could not get pregnant before they’re mature enough to make that decision for themselves,” what if they aren’t mature enough at 18? What if they are drug addicts? Do you remove the birth control? That would be pretty irresponsible, wouldn’t it? What if they are promiscuous, dropped put of school, have no means of support and have no intention of changing their ways? Do you remove it? The majority of females don’t get pregnant as teens, yet you want to force them all to have birth control impanted to prevent the irresponsibile actions of the minority?
November 16th, 2007 at 10:15 amHave you discussed this little gem with any fellow libs? I mean the ones who live to complain about the rights they think they’ve lost even though they’ve been unaffected by any policy in place since 9/11, not the ones who live to advance the cause of abortion. As for this: “I know, I know: stop calling you ‘Surely’. ;-),” I’m all grown up now, bud. ;)
#45 – “Seems a little hypocritical. You want her will respected as long as she makes the choice with which you agree, if she doesn’t, too bad, you know what’s best for her.”
I agree. I’m looking at it from the most extreme left point of veiw to balance out the most extreme right point of view.
Extreme Right: We don’t trust you to make the right decision about abortion, so we’ll curtail your right.
Extreme Left: We don’t trust you to make the right decision about gettiing pregnant, so we’ll curtail your right.
I don’t know why you seem so intent on trying to spin my spin. ;-)
“I mean the ones who live to complain about the rights they think they’ve lost even though they’ve been unaffected by any policy in place since 9/11..” Comment by upright left — November 16, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Tell that to the people who have to stand in a “free speech” zone in the US because Pres. Bush doesn’t want to acknowledge the first amendment.
Tell that to the US citizens who’ve been declared “enemy combatants” so their Fourth Amendment rights could be oh-so conveniently ignored.
I served my time in the Army so that EVERY US citizen would have ALL their rights, even the one’s with whom I disagree. I’m not the one who’s been curtailing the rights just because he doesn’t agree with people. You need to talk to Pres. Bush about that gem.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:26 am“Extreme Left: We don’t trust you to make the right decision about gettiing pregnant, so we’ll curtail your right.
I don’t know why you seem so intent on trying to spin my spin. ;-)”
Then you were joking about the forced, implanted birth control like I said in the beginning? Or are you saying some one else advocates a position that you consider to be wrong, so it’s ok for you to advocate the opposite position even though it’s wrong?
——
“Tell that to the people who have to stand in a “free speech†zone in the US because Pres. Bush doesn’t want to acknowledge the first amendment.
Tell that to the US citizens who’ve been declared “enemy combatants†so their Fourth Amendment rights could be oh-so conveniently ignored.
I served my time in the Army so that EVERY US citizen would have ALL their rights, even the one’s with whom I disagree. I’m not the one who’s been curtailing the rights just because he doesn’t agree with people. You need to talk to Pres. Bush about that gem.”
Comment by Democrat Soldier — November 16, 2007 @ 10:26
If there was such a thing as a “free speech zone” in the U.S., I’d be happy to discuss it. If you are referring to the people who have been prevented from disrupting public gatherings, they can talk all they want. They just can’t stop other people from enjoying their lives while they do it. That’s what freedom is all about. Not forcing everyone to stop and listen to your point of view.
I’m not all that concerned about the folks who’ve been declared enemy combatants since they’ve attacked the U.S. They had every right to try to advance their cause through legal and peaceful means. They chose killing instead. They have no right to whine about the consequences of their actions. ;)
November 16th, 2007 at 6:53 pm#47 – “I’m not all that concerned about the folks who’ve been declared enemy combatants since they’ve attacked the U.S. ” Comment by upright left — November 16, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
So, when you get arrested and called an “enemy combatant” you won’t mind being “lost in the shuffle” and never being charged with anything for years.
I see how it goes. When it’s someone else, you don’t care. You might want to re-think your position before you get picked up for no reason at all and declared an “enemy combatant”.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pmSo, when you get arrested and called an “enemy combatant†you won’t mind being “lost in the shuffle†and never being charged with anything for years.
I see how it goes. When it’s someone else, you don’t care. You might want to re-think your position before you get picked up for no reason at all and declared an “enemy combatantâ€.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — November 19, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
I won’t be arreasted as an enemy combatant because I don’t attack our country or fight with those who do. Get real, bud. No one has been arrested for “no reason at all.” You’re reading too many left wing blogs. ;)
November 19th, 2007 at 4:30 pm#49 – “No one has been arrested for “no reason at all.— Comment by upright left — November 19, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Riiiggghhhhtttttt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501227_pf.html
“The 23-year-old Afghan shopkeeper, who spoke a little English, was seized near his hometown of Ghazni when he agreed to translate for a Taliban government official seeking a meeting with a U.S. soldier.
Ruhani is still at Guantanamo, marking the fifth anniversary of the prison and his own captivity. He remains as stunned about his fate, according to transcripts of his conversations with military officers, as he was when U.S. military police led him inside the razor wire on Jan. 11, 2002, and accused him of being America’s enemy.
“I never had a war against the United States, and I am surprised I’m here,” Ruhani told his captors during his first chance to hear the military’s reasons for holding him, three years after he arrived at Guantanamo. “I tried to cooperate with Americans. I am no enemy of yours.”"
I guess when foreigners try to help the US Military, they suddenly become “eneme commbatants”, just because.
I think you need to stop drinking the kool-aide and ask the hard questions about our government and their policies. Unless you want to remain in the dark. ;-)
November 21st, 2007 at 7:08 am