what's the problem? don't hide what services you do or do not provide. let people make an informed decision, without fear of pressure.

How about a law requiring Planned Parenthood to put on their signs "We kill unborn babies"

The Message it sends? is that women no longer have to be fools, or fooled. If CPCs provide so much assistance to poor women, then they will continue to provide that assistance.

Question though, are they helping poor women break the cycle of poverty? Or do poor women generate income for them?

One has to wonder why the forced-birthers are upset at something forcing them to simply say what they do or do not do... Apparently they're more interested in the right to lie

The forced-birth groups like to use deception as Christianity believes that the end justifies the means. Americans do not think that the ends justify the means, and so there is a victory against ignorance in Baltimore.

A Step Forward - As I understand it they are non-profits. Out of curiosity why wouldn't you ask the same of clinics that do abortions? I had heard that's there main income source. I'm not saying its true just curious why you wouldn't ask the question both ways.

A Step Forward,
How do they fool pregnant women? They do not force or coerce women into not getting abortions. They offer support to poor women who need help. They never tell women "you're going to hell if you have an abortion". I am pro-choice but I feel this is a horrible bill. This is a private organization that helps people and now the government wants to regulate it. Also, I believe these centers generate income from charitable contributions, not from poor women.

These centers are not "forced-birth" groups. Do you have any idea how these centers work? Have you been to one? If you haven't then stop being ignorant and assume that these centers coerce women into continuing their pregnancies.
On a side note, I'm both atheist and pro-choice and kind of ashamed that so many people with similar beliefs as me are so ignorant.

Fat Sean - Forced birth groups? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Christianity does not advocate the end justifying the means. Did you ever hear the saying about empty barrels?

A Step Back,
You indigenousness is typical of those who wish to prevent a woman from controlling what happens to her body by using disinformation and lies by omission.

-1 for your use of the tired "If you haven't experienced X, you can't comment on X" fallacy.

Anonymous,
Christianity is all about the ends justifying the means, why else do you get the carrot of 'heaven' in return for imposing backwards social mores from the bronze age on your fellow citizens?

Really, this is all just hand waving. When a belief system posits an invisible sky wizard that loves everyone but statistically doesn't help anyone...well...that's a house built on sand. As you can see by the falling numbers of self-proclaimed Christians in the world, this little faith will go the way of the Greek and Roman gods soon enough. Don't forget that Christianity is so popular mainly due to the sword and the appropriation of other religious concepts.

Fat SeanFat Sean – The only people I’ve ever heard using logic of end justifying the means were not Christian most thought as you. Love your neighbor as yourself, the Ten Commandments, and the Sermon on the Mount. Yep I can sure see why we wouldn’t want backwards values like love and understanding and peace when we can have ignorance, hate and greed. You sound like an angry child mad because he can’t do whatever he wants to do whenever he wants to do it. Your views on Christianity are woefully ignorant and. You are also lacking in your historical understanding of religion as well. Sorry to break it to you but Christianity is going nowhere you can wish all you want it’s not going to happen. I’m guessing you didn’t check populations before you made that comment. I hope you’re happy now because I’m afraid serious sorrow lies ahead for you. Maybe you’ll wake up to the truth. For your sake I hope so.

Soltan Gris,
"If you haven't experienced X, you can't comment on X" fallacy
-You can comment on it but don't you think it's a bit ignorant to come to a strong conclusion without ever researching or talking to anyone that has been to one of these centers? Would you call me ignorant if I were to say that every pregnant woman that goes to Planned Parenthood is coaxed into having an abortion? I've never been to a Planned Parenthood nor have talked to anyone who has had that experience but I know what their stance on abortion is so I believe that they try to abort every fetus that comes in. Is that a logical argument? If it's not then neither is saying that these centers force women to continue their pregnancies.

Also, like I said...I'm pro-choice. I believe a woman has a choice. However, I am fully against government intervention like this. I believe it sets a poor precedence.

Three comments:
1. Laws like this illustrate the fact that separation of church and state is as much about keeping government from being forced on religion as it is keeping religion from being forced on the citizenry.
2. The world would be a better place if, instead of trading diatribes, those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-abortion would find some common ground to reduce and eventually eliminate abortion.
3. Some of you are in desperate need of remedial education in spelling, grammar and proper word usage.

Dennis,
1. Who's forcing religion on the citizenry? We can't come to a conclusion that these centers prey on women in need by forcing their religious beliefs on them just because it's funded by Catholic organizations. Until someone offers any sort of evidence of these centers "forcing" their religion then I will continue to believe that they do good work and help women in need. This is simply government harassment.
2. I agree. However, it'll never happen. The two sides get too heated over the issue that no common grounds can be met. I believe both sides can agree that a decreasing trend of abortions is a good thing.
3. This is an online blog and an informal discussion so I'm not sure what you expect.

A Step Back:
Although I believe that there are politicians and religious leaders who are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others (Pat Robertson, James Dobson and State Sen. Andy Harris immediately come to mind), the real point of my comment was that this particular law was an example of government trying to impose itself on religion. I have no problem with the work that these centers are doing and we agree that this law is nothing but government harassment. Also, it is a function of my being in my mid-50s that, no matter what the type of communication, I believe that spelling, grammar and word usage do matter. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

If you didn't want it, you shouldn't have done it.

Is this another step on how governement agencies regulate faith based organizations? Why dosen't the government just lay out the guidelines for it's new one world religion and how it's gonna work?

Also, why does the media always portray the baby killers as "supporters" or "pro-choice" and the opposite as "opponents" or anti-abortionists"?? Why can't the baby killers be "anti-lifers" or the opposite to be "pro-life"?? Why always a negative emphasis on the ones who want the babies to live?

And when did the pusuit to keep humans from being innocently killed become a religion being "forced" on someone? We rant and rave about how Hitler and the Nazis killed and experimented on humans. Ready to track down and put any surviving Nazis found on trial, much like the one getting ready to get under way. But when those who have killed many times more humans than the Nazis under the label of abortion do it they are somehow justified by it being their "choice" to do so? There are millions of people out there seeking to adopt children, give the babies up for adoption. Better yet, practice some restraint and be mindfull that if you don't want to produce a human child that's going to be your responsibility.. don't have sex irresponsibly or at all. Eventually they will figure out ways for the government or privately owned companies to use fetal parts for medical use. Then they will be paying people to get pregnant just to kill babies and take the parts. So instead of single moms getting paid welfare for how many kids she has, she can get paid for how many she kills. She can have sex as often as she likes, spreading all kinds of disease as well.

This legislation is so blatently anti-choice. What right has the city council, or any legislative body for that matter, have to tell people what signs they may or may not choose to post? Have they ever heard of the first amendment?

It's clear that the politicians in Baltimore are anything but pro-choice. They're just as right-wing as the people they aim to control.

I'm reminded of a bumper sticker that reads, "Vote Libertarian. We're pro-choice...on everything!"

Libertarians would oppose governmental meddling in the affairs of women AND in the affairs of the CPCs. Perhaps we should give them a chance to fix the problems created by the two other parties.

I propose that all prolifers should also wear crosses and stars of David so that they can be avoided from the onset. This would clearly identify them as the miscreants that they are. To be fair, all "family planning" clinics should also be clearly labeled as "abortion mills" or "child execution chambers" to clarify their chief source of profit and avoid any misconceptions about what family planning really means in our society.

As a woman, you certainly have plenty of issues to handle. But there's another one you might face that can be especially challenging: pregnancy center bill

It was interesting to read the story of Julie Scharper, well if we talk about women health specially the care during pregnancy, I must say about tubal reversal its a surgery by which a woman has a chance top regnant again.