Last week, U.S. Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced legislation to crackdown on deceit. I realize it sounds a bit odd for a politician to be interested in doing such a thing, but I think she just may have the germ of a good idea that is worth considering. Her bill is the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act, and it seeks to compel the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “enforce truth-in-advertising standards for reproductive centers.”

In the words of Maloney: “[W]hen women are making a health decision, they should never be subject to deceit and trickery.” With that I could not agree more. Her problem, however, is only with the Crisis Pregnancy Centers which she thinks “should be called ‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have the right to exist, but they shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their particular beliefs.” Of course, she is talking about those pregnancy centers that do not provide abortions, but rather are set up with the intent of counseling women about alternatives to that procedure they may not have considered before. Apparently, she believes that, because of the similarity in names some of these groups have with organizations that actually do abort babies, the public is being deceived. But I think Maloney should consider whether there may not be an easier way to solve the problem than having to call in the FTC?

For starters, why don’t the “pregnancy centers” that really do abortions simply change their names to remove any doubt about the matter? After all, isn’t a name like Planned Parenthood every bit as misleading as Maloney seems to think the use of the name Crisis Pregnancy Center is? Perhaps more so, if one considers that their use of the term “parenthood” may suggest in the minds of some potential customers that it’s an organization dedicated to helping people actually achieve that status. Yet, that could be easily remedied if Planned Parenthood changed its name to something like the Unplanned Parenthood Fix-It Center or, even better, Abortions-R-Us. Maloney’s problem would be solved and truth-in-advertising will be achieved without any need for FTC involvement.

But, if she’s serious about getting the FTC involved, why stop there? Let’s go for the gusto. After all, in the words of Joan Malin, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of New York City, “Deception and lies don’t help women make informed choices. Too often, women are given incomplete or even inaccurate information that leaves them misinformed … I applaud these lawmakers … that would guarantee critical health care information is given to women so they can make informed decisions…” I couldn’t agree more. So, with this admonition in mind, I would like to propose that we do just what Malin and Maloney have suggested.

For instance, while we’re at it, don’t you think women who visit non-counterfeit pregnancy centers should also be told whether or not the clinic intends to sell their child’s body parts out the back door? Don’t you think such information would be necessary in order for a woman to properly evaluate the sincerity of the clinician who, while motivated by a personal financial interest, is encouraging her to have an abortion?

Kelly Patricia O’Meara investigated the marketing of baby body parts and reported her findings in a fascinating article available on the internet entitled Harvesting Fetal Body Parts. She informs us that, although the federal law technically prohibits the practice of “selling” body parts, apparently a fictional arrangement among abortion clinics, harvesters and the ultimate purchasers of those parts has been worked out that has enabled the practice to flourish legally. To avoid a “sale” of the parts, the clinics instead “donate” the babies’ parts to the harvesters and in return the latter pays the clinic a “site fee” for the use of the clinic’s lab space where the harvesters do their necessary dissections. In turn, the harvesters then turn around and “donate” these parts to whoever is in the market to acquire them, and in return, are compensated by being paid a “retrieval fee” for “delivering the product.” According to O’Meara, this fiction has enabled the selling of baby body parts to become a multi-billion dollar industry.

In the interests of full disclosure, informed consent and truth-in-advertising, don’t you think it would be courteous to inform a woman who may be contemplating an abortion not only whether harvesters are lurking in the clinic’s back rooms, but, if they are, also what the market value is of the baby she is about to give them? And, shouldn’t she also be told that, while these “harvesters” are waiting for her to make an “informed decision”, they are busy advertising their “product” – her baby’s body parts – to their “customers” by saying things like, “[our] goal [is] to offer you and your staff the highest quality, most affordable and freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need when you need it,” while others inform their customers, “Our specimens vary widely in range including but not limited to those listed below: liver, spleen, pancreas, intestines, kidney, brain, lungs and heart block, spinal column and many more with appropriate discounts that apply if specimen is significantly fragmented.” (emphasis added)

Were the FTC to require the disclosure of such information, we would certainly have achieved truth-in-advertising unlike anything that exists today. Moreover, I can foresee how such disclosure could lead to a restructuring of the entire abortion/baby parts industry. Rather than having to pay a fee to the clinic to get an abortion, in the near future women could well become empowered by this knowledge to demand that the clinic pay them a “delivery fee” in order for them to agree to “donate” their babies. Then at least the fictional arrangement that exists in part already would be made complete. And, so long as the FTC doesn’t make us advertise this feminist achievement to God, is there any other reason you can think of why this cultural development wouldn’t be just dandy? Well, maybe, but Maloney can work on regulating the fetus farm cottage industry it will spawn later.

© 2006 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.

Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense/entertainment law 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