The older I get, the more I appreciate the phrase used frequently by President Reagan when he was confronted with the repeated inanities of liberal democrats: “Well, there they go again.”

A few months ago I wrote about Representative Carolyn Maloney’s legislation that attacked pregnancy resource centers (“PRC’s”) for false advertising. Of course, these are the pregnancy centers that do not provide abortions, but rather are set up with the intent of counseling women about alternatives to that procedure and attendant risks they feel might not otherwise be carefully considered by some women. Apparently, Maloney had a problem with the notion of informed consent. She said that women who thought they wanted abortions were being tricked into these places by the names these clinics were given, whereupon they would – you’re not going to believe this -- learn facts about the abortions they thought they wanted and then, in some cases, decide they really didn’t want what they thought they did. Only, Maloney said this like it was a bad thing. Meanwhile, she totally overlooked the failure of real abortion clinics to disclose to women, among other things, their profiteering from the sale of body parts rendered from the fetuses they obtained. To review my comments on the further hypocrisies presented by Maloney’s legislation, permit me to refer you to page 4 of the April 5th issue of the Santa Monica Daily Press located in their archives at www.smdp.com. For now, however, suffice it to say that in the aggregate the hypocrisies revealed by Maloney’s legislation were monumental. Yet, when has that ever mattered to the liberal mindset? It only seems to compel them to shift oh-so-deftly to another strategy.

Representative Henry “the human” Waxman (D-Calif) has now issued a report concerning PRC’s that Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood, calls “shocking.” It accuses PRC’s of wrongfully receiving federal funding while providing inaccurate, if not false, health information to the women they serve. Mind you, however, that she also openly admits, and apparently finds nothing wrong with, the fact that Waxman’s own operatives had to lie to the PRC’s (falsely representing themselves over the phone as pregnant teenagers and who knows what else) to obtain the “shocking” information they claim to have obtained. But, should this surprise us? As we’ve already observed, hypocrisy does not present a major ethical barrier to the liberal mindset. It does, however, leave the rest of us with a problem. We are left having to decipher what parts of a report prepared by persons who lie to start with are, or are not, also lies. But, what the hey. Let’s try.

First, let’s look at the information being provided by PRC’s that Waxman and Planned Parenthood claim is false. Basically, it breaks down as follows:
1. There is post-abortion psychological stress that may occur in some women.
2. There is information indicating that abortion can lead to an increased risk of breast cancer.
3. There is increased risk with respect to future fertility.
Waxman and Planned Parenthood claim these statements are “false,” yet, to validate this assertion, Waxman and Planned Parenthood interestingly only point us to what they refer to in the singular as the “research,” whatever that is. It’s as if there exists only a single body of acceptable research on the subject that liberals insist we must all accept without questioning. Says who? Well, obviously, the Waxman/Planned Parenthood crowd, that’s who. So, for a moment, let’s try this. Assume they are correct. Then let’s restate the foregoing PRC “falsehoods” in terms Planned Parenthood apparently would find acceptable based on the “research” to which they have referred us as follows:
1. There is NO post-abortion psychological stress that will occur in any woman.
2. Abortion WILL NOT increase any woman’s risk of breast cancer.
3. Abortion WILL NOT increase any woman’s risk of problems with future fertility.
The question then becomes whether Waxman and Planned Parenthood would be willing to offer their patients in the future an asset-backed guaranty that these statements are indisputably true hard facts that their patients can bank on. And, if so, don’t you think this is a guaranty Planned Parenthood should boldly advertise? Were I a woman contemplating an abortion, I certainly would sleep better knowing that Planned Parenthood was willing to publicly accept any liability that may arise in the future should their reliance upon the “research” in making these guaranties later be proved wrong. Yet, to my knowledge, Planned Parenthood so far hasn’t indicated a willingness to do this. Why?

Could it be because Planned Parenthood knows that their clinics occasionally refer patients to PRC’s already for post-abortion counseling because Planned Parenthood isn’t set up to deal with those patients who really do become severely depressed or suicidal following an abortion and call them for help? Could it be because the Waxman’s cohorts already know that the real truth, which they deny, is more accurately reflected by the statement of Senator Hillary Clinton when she said, “I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.” Or, could it be because by maligning PRC’s efforts to allow women to make informed decisions before these women exercise their right to “choose,” they hope to redirect some, if not all, of the PRC’s federal grant dollars they seem to covet to their own organization?

I’m willing to bet federal dollars to heartbeats that all of these reasons play some role in the Waxman’s current efforts on behalf of Planned Parenthood to disparage PRC’s. However, by their refusal to guarantee to their patients the real “facts” that they claim are so obviously and indisputably true, that suggests to me the possibility that it could in fact be they who have exposed themselves yet once again to be the ones practicing a form of deceit. And, if that’s true, it would sadly leave me with only one last thing to say … “Well, there they go again.”

© 2006 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.

Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com or www.cliffnicholslaw.com and you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com