The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
About Us
Contact Us
Staff
Donate
home
News
Opinion
Style
Sports
Archives
Print Edition
Last updated: Thursday, May 24, 11:59 a.m.
Opinion

Op-Ed: Arguments against First Step are based on meaningless semantics

By Emily Pike
Posted on April 15, 2010, at 1:21 a.m.

Ashlee Simpson, in an opinion piece in the April 8 issue of The Maine Campus, expresses deep concern that First Step Pregnancy Resource Center in Bangor has been lying to women (“Emergency deception: Center lies to women with Web site”). She writes that the center’s “deliberate lies and misleading statements work to take away the right a woman has to an informed choice.”

I’m sure Simpson had good intentions. She seems deeply concerned and passionate about this issue. However, Simpson’s take lacks logic and is more concerned with semantic arguments and emotional triggers to make readers angry.

Simpson’s first argument against First Step is her offering of a new definition of crisis pregnancy centers. She writes, “Pregnancy centers are non-profits established by pro-life advocates that offer resources to persuade pregnant women to give birth rather than have an abortion,” as if being pro-life automatically decreases the credibility of the center. Her language makes it sound like a crime to choose birth over abortion, but there is nothing wrong with giving birth or letting women know there are other options in times of crisis.

The first time Simpson appears to provide evidence against First Step, her argument is again based in semantics rather than facts. Her concern is that First Step’s Web site lies to women about emergency contraception, which she calls EC, by calling the morning-after pill an “abortion procedure.” She writes the center has posted an accurate description of how EC works, but argues it shouldn’t consider EC an abortion.

But this is merely a difference in opinion. She writes that pregnancy happens when a fertilized egg is implanted into the lining of the uterus. She argues if this is the case, EC would not be an abortion pill. First Step disagrees with this opinion and so do millions of other Americans. They believe pregnancy occurs when the egg is fertilized, so EC would be an abortion pill. This is a difference in opinion, not a lie.

Simpson also argues taking a pill should not be considered a “procedure.” This statement does nothing to discredit First Step, it is just another semantic note in attempt to add notches to Simpson’s list of First Step’s “mistakes.”

According to Simpson, First Step claims testing has not been done to determine the safety of EC. Simpson rebuts this by arguing the Food and Drug Administration has approved EC. However, an FDA approval does not mean the product is free of side effects. The fact is EC does have side effects, some of which are dangerous and scary, and it is not lying to note a safety concern exists.

Simpson’s final argument is that First Step lies about condoms, which she responds to with a statement by the Centers for Disease Control. But there is no meaningful difference between First Step’s and the CDC’s statements. The CDC said condoms are effective, meaning they help prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancy, but do not always work.

First Step said there is no proof condoms always work, a true statement. First Step’s concern is that it’s still possible to get STDs using condoms. The center is not spreading lies by expressing concern for people getting STDs.

The rest of Simpson’s piece is a series of emotional attacks against First Step. She attempts to make readers angry by claiming the center is trying to “take away the right a woman has to an informed choice” and “hide the truth about all options for women.” These are irrational statements unsupported by the evidence.

As a woman, I certainly don’t like being lied to, but I have seen no evidence from Simpson that this is occurring. First Step believes abortion is murder. Because of this, it lets people know about other options. The truth is abortion isn’t the only option.

Emily Pike is a sophomore English and math student.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 15th, 2010, 1:21 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.

«
»
  • Ryan Page

    I am always frustrated when I read a piece attacking another article for using a rhetorical tactic, and then using the same rhetorical tactic to attack the article in question.

    “Her language makes it sound like a crime to choose birth over abortion, but there is nothing wrong with giving birth or letting women know there are other options in times of crisis.”

    This statement assumes that other “pro-choice” clinics don’t let their patients know they can have a kid. Or that somehow women think that abortion is the only option with a pregnancy. That would leave a large portion of the population pretty ignorant as to where babies come from.

    “They believe pregnancy occurs when the egg is fertilized, so EC would be an abortion pill. This is a difference in opinion, not a lie.”

    Now you’re entering into a semantic debate. This is neither an opinion or a lie, it is a deceiving statement. If a store claimed to sell kitchen knives but listed them as “abortion sticks” it wouldn’t exactly be considered fair advertising. The problem here is not semantics, but rather purposefully misleading use of common knowledge. Plan b, for example, takes place a day, to a couple days after the sexual act, while some will without a doubt discourage the use of it, few would call it an abortion.

    If you’re going to stretch the definition that far, are you going call condoms abortions? Or what about male masturbation? How about sex that causes 1 pregnancy while thousands of wayward sperm perish?

    Clearly the line must be drawn somewhere. And in fact, our culture as a whole has drawn that line, that’s why having an operation to terminate a fetus is called an abortion, and contraceptive pills are not. Words have connotative meanings, and to stretch them as a means of control is deceptive.

    “According to Simpson, First Step claims testing has not been done to determine the safety of EC. Simpson rebuts this by arguing the Food and Drug Administration has approved EC. However, an FDA approval does not mean the product is free of side effects.”

    Here is a clear example of broken logic. You are arguing a point she didn’t make. Her point still stands, this is neither a case of semantics or opinion. First step lied. On it’s website.

    “The fact is EC does have side effects, some of which are dangerous and scary, and it is not lying to note a safety concern exists.”

    It is lying to put something on your website it isn’t true. You can’t try and obfuscate the argument like this. You are trying to discredit the individual who wrote the piece by making it appear that she made a claim that she didn’t, and proving it wrong.

    “First Step said there is no proof condoms always work, a true statement.”

    It went further than that. it said:

    “A recent review by the Centers for Disease Control determined there is no clinical proof condoms are effective at all in preventing HPV and chlamydia, they don’t provide complete protection from genital herpes and syphilis, and only provide an 85 percent reduction of risk for HIV/AIDS.”

    It seems that you have some particular reason for supporting this clinic’s practices. Let me venture a guess, you’re a fundamentalist christian? I am ambivalent to some degree when it comes to thinking about abortions, and honestly, in a perfect world there would be no need.

    However, pretending to be something you’re not in order to advance your worldview is something that must always viewed skeptically.

  • Emily

    The problem with First Step Pregnancy Center is that they claim to help and support women by advertising that they “Are here to provide you with support services and accurate, up-to-date information on all of your options.” This is seriously misleading. Even Emily Pike notes that “First Step believes abortion is murder. Because of this, it lets people know about other options.” Well then, why doesn’t First Step advertise as a “Pro-Life” resource center? They don’t tell the truth about their motives so that they can target women who are vulnerable. Women who find themselves pregnant and confused see First Step’s commercials or advertisements and hear the word “free,” and “confidential.” They realize after actually going to the center that the “free pregnancy test” isn’t offered until after a “peer counselor” gives a lecture about how abortion is the most terrible decision a woman can make. If First Step didn’t try to hide their anti-choice views and if they didn’t use scare tactics to pressure women to make the choice they want them to make, I might have less of a problem. However, the facts stand solidly that First Step targets confused women and girls in an attempt to push their anti-choice agenda by claiming that they will give us all the facts and resources we need. Misinformation is not helpful to a woman in an unplanned situation, which is the reason Ashlee Simpson wrote her Op-ed and why she referred women who are actually looking for all their options to go to Mabel Wadsworth Women’s Health Center. There, a woman can find out about abortion and carrying a child to term and instead of being guilt tripped into making an uninformed decision by First Step, the staff at Mabel will provide options and support no matter what a woman decides is right for her.

  • Jessica

    Little tid bit for you Emily- after Ashlee’s first article was posted First Step actually took the lies she had pointed out about Emergency Contraception off of their website. Apparently even THEY realized they were wrong to call EC an abortion option. You might want to check into what other misinformation First Step has out there before you stick up for them in the future. The fact that they are not an actual medical facility kind of discredits all of their “medical” advice.