Archive for Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health

Abortion training counselor claims parenting and abortion are morally equivalent

Posted in Abortion Training, Abortionist, University o California San Francisco (UCSF) with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 5, 2019 by saynsumthn

Image: Alissa Perrucci all pregnancy options are moral

video presented by abortion counselor Alissa Perrucci, Phd, MPH, who describes herself as “shepherding the counseling revolution,” presents as normal the idea that there is no moral distinction between parenting a child and ending a child’s life in an abortion. The video, “Decision Counseling for Positive Pregnancy Test Results,” was uploaded as part of training modules from Innovating Education, a project of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Bixby trains abortion providers though its Ryan Residency Training Program.

Alissa Perrucci claims all pregnancy options are moral

Perrucci is a Counseling and Administrative Manager at the Women’s Options Center, an abortion facility within San Francisco General Hospital. She admitted to All-Options, “Our clinic is the safety net clinic for Northern and Central California, accepting Medi-Cal as full payment to 24 weeks….”  In her book, Perrucci claims that being an abortion counselor brings her joy, “when women are walking toward the exit after their abortions….”

In the video, Perrucci states that in the decision between abortion and parenting, one “pregnancy decision is not more moral than another.” Of the woman contemplating her choices, which include abortion, Perrucci says, “She is a good person making a moral decision about herself,” adding, “The patient has the answer for her dilemma.”

 

Perrucci goes on to suggest that abortion counselors should give “accurate information.”

But, she adds, “In this context – in helping people make pregnancy decisions – I want you to suspend that assumption that you have the answer and let the patient find that for herself.”

Alissa Perrucci on abortion counseling

She tells her audience that in pregnancy counseling, abortion counselors should “take a step back from professional mode.”

“In this context, when guiding people through pregnancy decision making, you actually don’t have the answer. Nor are you obligated to find it out for the patient. Remember that she has the answer.”

Perrucci offers two examples (seen below) when delivering the news of “a positive pregnancy test result” to a pregnant client. Calling it a “closed ended question,” Perrucci draws the attention of her audience to the statement on the left, pointing out that using the term “baby” isn’t a good idea….

Alissa Perrucci on positive pregnancy test result

“The thing you want to look at and analyze is the use of the word keep and the use of the word baby. In this scenario, the counselor or the person delivering the pregnancy test result has decided to use the word baby, maybe without knowing if that’s how the patient refers to the pregnancy.”

“…I want you to think a little more deeply about what it means to use the word keepand what that might imply in terms of the opposite.”

READ: Former Planned Parenthood worker: ‘We were told not to say baby’

When addressing the “Three pregnancy options: Abortion, Adoption, and Parenting,” the abortion counselor states, “We want to examine our language. So, we want to pay attention to – are we using the word – abortion? Or, are we finding different ways to say abortion?”

“Its not that you can’t use different words, a lot of people say termination, a lot of people say procedure, and I think it’s very interesting to pay attention to whether you’re avoiding saying certain words and what that communicates to our patients, and what that might be contributing to in terms of stigma on any particular option.”

Alissa Perrucci on three pregnancy options

What’s interesting is that Perrucci appears to avoid mentioning the baby when discussing the abortion option. She is okay bringing up the baby when discussing adoption, however: “Make an adoption plan or place the baby for adoption. Place the child for adoption.”

While Perrucci is concerned about “misinformation” surrounding abortion, her suggested description of abortion leaves much to be desired. She characterizes early abortion as “gentle suction” which “empties the uterus.”

Yet, at the same time, she says, “In your descriptions, it’s going to be really important that you define medical terms or any kind of terminology that the patient might not understand. So that you’re really ensuring comprehension.”

To recap: When discussing a “pregnancy” avoid terms like baby but be sure to “define medical terms” when discussing abortion… hmm….

Alissa Perrucci on describing abortion

In the video below, former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino describes a first trimester aspiration abortion:

 

Those in the abortion industry actually patronize women by refusing to give them factual and straightforward information. Withholding accurate information about fetal development and what abortion really does, does nothing to help women make “moral decisions.” What it does is help the profitable abortion industry remain profitable.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

NIH funded University of California’s lab attempts aborted fetal tissue purchase from pro-life group

Posted in Aborted Baby Body Parts, Center for Medical Progress, Fetal Organs, fetal Remains, fetal research, Fetal Tissue, NIH, Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby parts, University of California, University of California San Diego with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 29, 2019 by saynsumthn

University lab mistakenly tries to buy fetal body parts from pro-life group

ectopic pregnancy, eight weeks, miscarriage, baby, fetus, embryo, fetal

New information from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) alleges that a “government-funded” university laboratory is seeking fresh aborted baby body parts — and is willing to purchase them from just about anyone.

CMP wrote in a tweet, “Apparently the government-funded laboratories at  are so greedy for “fresh” aborted baby body parts, they will try to buy them from ANYBODY — even without bothering to check who they are emailing.  please STOP this now!  CMP linked the tweet to a document of e-mail exchanges with what appears to be researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

Tweet from CMP about go funded laboratory and fetal body parts request from UCSD

The e-mail thread, running from April 1, 2019, to May 6, 2019, appears to show a request by Dr.Agnieszka DAntonio-Chronowska, from a “genomics and genetics” lab at the UCSD contacting CMP for “human fetal pancreas” with “optimal age of donor” or baby “between 4-8 weeks embryonal development” or “any other available embryonal stage.”

 

D’Antonio-Chronowska’s signature states she is a “Senior scientist in laboratory of Kelly A. Frazier, PhD.” at UCSD’s “Cellular and Molecular Medicine Building.” According to the Frazier Lab at UCSD, Dr. Frazer is an “internationally renowned leader in the field of genome biology and medicine. She is the director of UC San Diego Institute for Genomic Medicine and founding chief of the Division of Genome Information Sciences in the Department of Pediatrics at UC San Diego.”

The requested “specimens” (ages 4-8 weeks) could potentially include preborn babies whose fetal heartbeat can be detected and ones many pro-life Heartbeat Bills were created to protect.

 

The correspondence continued, with the Center for Medical Progress answering Dr. D’Antonion-Chronowska’s questions very carefully and factually, without stating that they actually offered any specimens….

Email from CMP to UCSD for human fetal pancreas

In the email shown above, CMP was referring to two of Planned Parenthood’s California facilities that were part of an undercover investigation into the selling of aborted baby body parts. A past CMP press releasestates in part:

Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest, formerly known as Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties, is a large and wealthy Planned Parenthood affiliate doing business in southern California. PPPS performs nearly 17,000 abortions every year[10]and operates two main surgical abortion offices, one in downtown San Diego and one in Riverside. The San Diego and Riverside clinics both advertise abortions up to 6 months (24 weeks) for any reason.[11]Since at least 1999, PPPS has had a contract with ABR to supply aborted fetal organs and tissues.

The release goes on to describe Planned Parenthood’s contracts with Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc. (ABR). An ABR spokesperson is seen addressing its fetal body parts procurement program below:

 

Live Action News previously documented how Planned Parenthood is increasing facilities that offer later term abortions, committing abortions up to 24 weeks in San Diego, CA and Riverside, CA, among other locations.

In response:

  • D’Antonio-Chronowska told CMP, “We are indeed in contact with few other organizations in California however it is critical for us to find a reputable and reliable source which could provide the samples.”
  • D’Antonio-Chronowska then asked CMP for “heart specimens from 3 donors.”
  • She added, “We understand the difficulty in obtaining such early samples therefore samples from later gestation stages would also be acceptable.”
  • CMP asked UCSD what their funding source was: “(NIH, CIRM.)?”

 

The correspondence appears to end there.

Image: Email from UCSD to CMP for human fetal heart specimens

Email from UCSD to CMP for human fetal heart specimens

In 2018, UCSD received $52,099,084 from taxpayer-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants.

University of California San Diego NIH grans FY 2018

UCSD is part of the University of California Universities (UC). According to UC’s latest financial audit (2018), “In 2018, federal grants and contracts revenue increased $43.0 million, or 1.3%, as compared to 2017. In 2017, federal grants and contracts revenue increased $14.0 million, or 0.4%, as compared to 2016. Federal grants and contracts include federal facilities and administrative cost recovery of $782.0 million, $764.0 million and $745.6 million in 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively….”

University of California 2018 Audit shows taxpayer funding

NIH grants to UC projects for FY 2019 alone total over $77,000,000 with over $19,000,000 for UCSD.

University of California NIH grants FY 2019

search of overall HHS grants to UCSD for several years reveals a staggering amount of tax dollars being funneled to the University.

University of California San Diego HHS grants various years

Live Action News previously documented that Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, a UC San Francisco (UCSF) program — which is also taxpayer-funded — trains abortion providers.

“Even as the Department of Health and Human Services continues an agency-wide audit of fetal experimentation and the U.S. Department of Justice investigates the sale of aborted fetal tissue at Planned Parenthood and their business partners, government-funded researchers do not seem to have curtailed their appetite for aborted baby body parts one bit,” CMP founder David Daleiden told Life Site News.

“It is far past time for HHS to end the barbaric practice of taxpayer-funded fetal experimentation, and for the Department of Justice to do their job and hold Planned Parenthood and other baby body parts traffickers accountable to the law,” he added.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Taxpayers send millions to abortion training program at UCSF

Posted in Abortion Pill Connections, Abortion Pill Study, Abortionist, Abortionist Training, Bill Gates, Fellowship in Family Planning (FFP), Hewlett Foundation, Innovating Education in Reproductive Health, National Abortion Federation, Packard Foundation, Philip Darney, Ryan Residency, Uta Landy with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2019 by saynsumthn

Who’s paying millions for this abortion training program? Taxpayers.

third trimester abortion, abortion training

Abortion training is being orchestrated out of a University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) program which receives millions in government dollars. UCSF trains abortion providers through their Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health , which claims to be “one of the few research institutions to unflinchingly address abortion, investigating multidimensional aspects of abortion care in the United States and globally.” Bixby claims their work has:

According to Bixby’s annual reports, in 2014, nearly $22 million dollars (52 percent) of Bixby’s revenue came from the taxpayer, although the report does not specify whether the funds were state or federal. By 2015, although Government dollars made up only 18 percent of Bixby’s revenue, it totaled over $18 million in taxpayer dollars. Bixby is conveniently located in California, which permits millions in taxpayer dollars to fund abortions and has no requirement that abortion numbers be reported to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for data analysis.

UCSF Bixby Gov Funding 18 million in 2015 to 2016 AR

Taxpayer dollars sent to UCSF for fetal research include millions from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A recent report published by CNS News breaks down the dollars of the multi-year contract:

[T]he Department of Health and Human Services has granted contracts to UCSF to make “humanized mice.”… According to contract information published on the Federal Procurement Data System, the new three-month extension will pay UCSF $521,082—bringing the total payments the federal government has made to UCSF for this contract to $10,596,960. If the government continues renewing the contract through Dec. 5, 2020, HHS would end up paying UCSF a total of $13,799,501.

In addition to government (taxpayer) dollars, Bixby receives funding from a number of organizations collaborating to expand abortion, such as:

UCSG Bixby trains abortion to increase access (Image: Twitter)

According to Bixby, which was created to address a shortage of abortionists dating back to the mid 1980’s, the number of US abortion providers decreased by 38% between 1982 and 2005, and some 87% of US counties do not have an abortion provider.

Bixby runs two flagship programs, which “provide the opportunity to develop high-level research and clinical skills in abortion and contraception:”

FFP was established by Dr. Philip Darney, and as previously reported, FFP’s website makes it clear that abortion is their mission, stating that the family planning fellowship is a “two-year fellowship focused on subspecialist training in research, teaching and clinical practice in abortion and contraception… and they play an active role in discussions in the media related to family planning access and advocate for their patients in popular media outlets.”

Fellowship in Family Planning FFP FB Page (Image credit: Facebook)

Live Action News also previously reported how the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning was founded in 1999 by Dr. Uta Landy, a former director of the National Abortion Federation and a recipient of Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s infamous Margaret Sanger Award. According to the Bixby Center, Landy established “one of the first abortion clinics in New York after legalization in 1970, and became the first executive director of the National Abortion Federation in 1979.” Landy was recently caught in undercover footage from the Center for Medical Progress talking about late-term abortions.

Philip Darney and Uta Landy at UCSF abortion training

The Ryan program is now at 70 major medical schools in the US and Canada, according to their website.

The Bixby Center was originally founded as the Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy in 1999 by Philip Darney, MD and Nancy Padian, who were shortly thereafter joined by Claire Brindis, DrPH, MPH, and Felicia Stewart, MD, according to their report. The Center offers online abortion training courses and lectures through its Innovating Education in Reproductive Health which is described as “a digital hub that highlights innovative family planning and abortion curricula, tools, teaching techniques and research from educational leaders around the world.”

Innovating Education at UCSF abortion training

The group’s week by week abortion course, “Abortion Quality Care and Public Health Implications,” has a stated goal to destigmitize abortion, among other things. The “career planning brochure” instructs graduates to “moonlight” at abortion facilities and to “highlight [their] abortion training as a special skill set” when they apply to a practice.

Innovating Education Abortion Career Planning Brochure

The abortion training course is introduced by Jody Steinauer, Associate Professor at UCSF. The course is “directed at health care students and professionals.”

The video lectures lead up to the topic of  “abortion after the first trimester,” in week four, where Steinauer admits that later abortions “can be a difficult topic to discuss for many due to feelings about a more developed fetus.”

Jody Steinauer at UCSF abortion training

Despite the abortion industry’s frequent denial of facts about fetal development, Bixby’s TEACH Program (Training Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare) workbook acknowledges that the fetal heartbeat can be detected very early, around six weeks gestation (dates used are gestational, which is measured at two weeks more than the date of fertilization):

The embryo follows a predictable path of development and therefore can be used to date a pregnancy based on its size. The embryo appears at approximately 6 weeks and grows 1 mm per day thereafter until 12-14 weeks. After 12 weeks, fetal flexion and extension make measuring length more challenging and using the fetal biparietal diameter (BPD) is preferred. Cardiac activity appears around 6 ½ weeks.

Bixby abortion training workbook TEACH

The workbook then gives suggestions on how to speak to an abortion patient about the baby. But because this is about ending the life of a developing human person in the womb, the workbook suggests abortion providers use euphemisms like “pregnancy” instead of scientifically correct terminology such as fetus or baby.

“Your pregnancy is 8 weeks along,” instead of  “Your baby is 8 weeks old.”

Bixby abortion training workbook TEACH communication

In upcoming Live Action News articles, we will highlight various teaching lectures published by the UCSF abortion training program.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Media ignores profit motive of researcher attempting to discredit abortion pill reversal

Posted in Abortion pill, Abortion Pill Connections, Abortion Pill Study, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Clinical Trial APR, Contraception Journal, DANCO, Daniel Grossman, Mitchell D. Creinin, Population Council, Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP), RU-486, University o California San Francisco (UCSF), University of California, University of California Davis with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2019 by saynsumthn

abortion pill birth control

 

The principal investigator of a study seeking to disprove the legitimacy of abortion pill reversal has direct ties — including financial ties — to abortion pill manufacturer Danco, which was formed by the eugenics-founded Population Council. This potential conflict of interest should demand scrutiny from the media — but instead, the media willingly questions abortion pill reversal based upon a single “expert” that receives compensation from Danco. This “expert” is Mitchell D. Creinin, a professor at University of California, Davis, sponsor of the study.

Mitchell Creinin has long history with abortion. He is an abortionist who was involved in clinical trials of RU-486 at Magee-Women’s Hospital Dept. of OB/GYN Pittsburgh, PA. He was the previous medical and lab director of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, as described by Oxford University Press. He worked on an abortion training publication for the National Abortion Federation (NAF). He has served on the Board of Directors for the Association for Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP). He is also listed among the advisory counsel for the early abortion training guide published by Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), part of UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health.

As I detailed in a Twitter thread shown below, Creinin’s abortion history and connections to the abortion pill’s manufacturer are deep and worth mentioning. This calls into question the validity of his study into abortion pill reversal. Creinin has financial incentive to make sure the abortion pill remains in demand, as do the study’s sponsors. This is a blatant conflict of interest.

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

Person behind “Clinical Trial” to attempt to disprove abortion pill reversal (APR) – connected to abortion and takes money from abortion pill manufacturer- can you say CONFLICT? https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/ 

The who’s who (and who not to trust) behind an abortion pill reversal study

Abortion advocates want broad access to the abortion pill, and are pushing studies funded by people who stand to gain financially from abortion pill sales.

liveaction.org

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

 

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

3/ Mitchell D Creinin is Professor at University of California, Davis (UCD) – the anti-APR study’s sponsor more here https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/ceovZv7Uqr

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets
View image on Twitter

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

4/ Mitchell D Creinin is a consultant for abortion pill manufacturer, receiving consulting fees $$/ honorarium f/ DANCO https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/GZ4s3kfmSp

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

5/ Mitchell D Creinin provided “third-party telephone consults,” for pill (Mifeprex or RU486) DANCO – formed by Population Council
More here https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/MsAH2mXW7v

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

6/ Creinin founding member of Society of Family Planning (SFP) began w/ Packard Foundation $$ – which is funding abortion pill studies/ publications. SFP funding study- granted UC Davis $401,764. https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/FTtWWM90gm

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

7/ Creinin, deputy editor SFP’s journal Contraception, publishes Packard-funded reports promoting self-managed abortion. Funds Gynuity which sponsors abortion pill expansion studies https://www.liveaction.org/news/exposed-conflicts-interest-abortion-pill/  more here https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/CarYNczMXg

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

8/ Packard’s investment seeded abortion pill MFG, DANCO including a $14 million loan as early as 1996 to bring drug RU486 (Mifepristone) to US Packard funds UC Davis sponsor of study https://www.liveaction.org/news/secrecy-abortion-pill-maker-investors/  More here https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/SYzUaTfwHV

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

9/ Creinin is Principal Investigator (PI) in another clinical trial by abortionist on pharmacy dispension of abortion pill https://www.liveaction.org/news/this-abortionist-claims-abortion-pill-doesnt-need-regulations-hes-wrong/ 
More here https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/ 

The who’s who (and who not to trust) behind an abortion pill reversal study

Abortion advocates want broad access to the abortion pill, and are pushing studies funded by people who stand to gain financially from abortion pill sales.

liveaction.org

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

10/ Creinin previous medical/lab director Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania – and an abortionist involved in original clinical trials of RU-486 abortion pill

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

11/ In summary- FOLLOW THE MONEY – something this @VICE report FAILED to do – https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/j5wqqp/theres-no-proof-abortion-reversals-are-real-this-study-could-end-the-debate 
These abortion “studies” are tied together by $$ from / Danco support from

There’s no proof “abortion reversals” are real. This study could end the debate.

Four states already mandate that doctors advise women their abortions can be reversed.

news.vice.com

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

As shown in the Twitter thread above, Creinin serves as consultant for abortion pill (Mifeprex) manufacturer, Danco, and receives consulting fees and compensation from the company. In addition, he receives honorarium from Danco. Creinin also provides “third-party telephone consults” for Danco. Creinin’s study sponsor is financed by the Packard Foundation, one of Danco’s major financial investors.

If this all weren’t enough to show a major conflict of interest, Creinin is also a founding member of the Society of Family Planning, which is collaborating on the study. This organization’s mission is to support abortion research, it, too, is funded by the Packard Foundation. Creinin is also the deputy editor of SFP’s official journalContraceptionPackard-funded studies in this journal unsurprisingly support the pro-abortion cause, claiming self-managed abortion is safe, and urging the undoing of current FDA safety standards restricting dispensation of the abortion pill (known as REMS). The Journal’s editorial board has been stacked with abortion industry insiders, including a National Abortion Federation board member and members of the Population Council (responsible for bringing the abortion pill into the US and forming DANCO, the manufacturer of the pill).  Obviously, the journal is pro-abortion.

Creinin is also the principal investigator in another clinical trial run abortionist/researcher Daniel Grossman (professor at University of California, San Francisco) on pharmacy dispension of the abortion pill.

Despite the fact that this conflict exists between the study’s “investigator” and Danco, media outlets ignore it. Such was the case over at Vice, which published the latest attack against abortion pill reversal, highlighting Creinin’s study without drawing one line to his connections to the abortion pill’s manufacturer. Vice headlined their hit piece: “THERE’S NO PROOF ‘ABORTION REVERSALS’ ARE REAL. THIS STUDY COULD END THE DEBATE,” in spite of the fact that Creinin’s study is only at the recruiting stage, and hasn’t reached any conclusions yet.

Or has it?

Creinin makes no secret that he doesn’t believe in abortion pill reversal  — and his profitable relationship with Danco should give any critically thinking person reason to question the motivations behind this push to “test” the effectiveness of the abortion pill reversal protocol.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Fake ‘pregnancy center’ learns women want parenting help, not abortion

Posted in ANSIRH, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Contraception Journal, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Fake Pregnancy Center, Feminist Womens Health Center, Planned Parenthood Employee with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 7, 2018 by saynsumthn

Image: All Options abortion billboards (Image credit Facebook)

The profitable abortion lobby with their language of “choice” has for years lashed out against pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRC), falsely labeling them “fake” and “dishonest.” However, one pro-abortion referral service has chosen to masquerade as a PRC in Indiana. All-Options was specifically modeled after pro-life pregnancy centers, according to a blog post at the Abortion Gang (written by Catrina Otonoga, whose LinkedIn page states she works at the Preterm abortion facility). But one glaring difference is seen on the All-Options billboard below, where “abortion access” is listed as the first service:

Image: All Options billboard (Image: Facebook)

All Options billboard (Image: Facebook)

All-Options began in 2004 as Backline in Portland, and expanded to several other states, with its Talkline “counseling” number offering women the opportunity to speak to counselors who are “not licensed healthcare providers or mental health specialists.”

Image: All-Options Talkline no licensed counselors

All-Options Talkline

In 2014, All-Options created a GoFundMe page to raise money for a brick and mortar in Bloomington, Indiana, where it planned to offer “free pregnancy tests and condoms… Concrete resources like diapers, baby clothes, care packages, and educational materials… Referrals to pregnancy, birthing, abortion, adoption, parenting, and contraceptive providers and community resources.”

All-Options told supporters, “It is time to demonstrate that anti-abortion organizations do not have a monopoly on supporting parents and people who are continuing their pregnancies.” But is “All-Options” really about all options for women?

While All-Options advertises itself as a PRC, its stated goal is “to increase the availability of nonjudgmental pregnancy options counseling and to break down the silos that separate providers of abortion, adoption, pregnancy, and parenting services.”

In other words, All-Options openly supports abortion.

Image: All Options PRC (Image: All Options Facebook )

All Options PRC (Image: All Options Facebook )

As seen below, the center’s executive director “serves on the steering committee of All* Above All” — a group seeking to “build support for lifting bans that deny abortion coverage” — and ran the California Coalition for Reproductive Freedom:

 

Image: Parker Dockray (Screenshot: All Options website)

Parker Dockray (Screenshot: All Options website)

The center is so pro-abortion that, according to the social media posts below, it sued the state of Indiana over its abortion regulations:

Image: Shelly Dodson center director All Options abortion fake PRC (Image credit: Twitter)

(Image credit: Twitter)

In 2015, the All-Options Pregnancy Resource Center launched in Indiana, offering diapers and access to abortion funds are offered as “services.”

Image: All Options PRC services include abortion funds

All Options PRC services include abortion funds

And this “PRC” has a very cozy relationship with the profitable abortion industry.

  • Wanda Savala, public affairs manager for Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, is currently on the board of All-Options.
  • Some All-Options volunteers also serve at Planned Parenthood.
  • Treasurer Kwajelyn Jackson currently serves as Community Education & Advocacy Director at the Feminist Women’s Health Center in Atlanta, Georgia.

On its website under “resources,” All-Options recommends that women contact the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood, among others, for abortion.

Image: All Options PRC Refers to Planned Parenthood NAF for abortion

All-Options PRC refers to Planned Parenthood, NAF

A study, “What Women Seek from a Pregnancy Resource Center,”  funded by the pro-abortion David and Lucile Packard Foundation and published in 2016 in the pro-abortion journal Contraception, analyzed “survey data from first-time clients” of All-Options “between July and December 2015 on their reason(s) for seeking services….” Contraception is the official journal of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and the Society of Family Planning (originally founded as The American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians by Alan Guttmacher). It is run by abortion supporters, and its 2018 editorial board consists of several high ranking abortionists and abortion advocates. It was no different in 2016, when the above study was published.

Author Katrina Kimport is on the faculty and staff of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), a group which publishes workbooks on abortion training… and which is behind a host of questionable and discredited studies. Kimport is also with the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, which is involved with “pioneering new methods of abortion, expanding the ranks of doctors specializing in abortion, and bolstering awareness of the positive impact of abortion on women’s lives.”

Also listed as authors are the aforementioned J. Parker Dockray and Shelly Dodson of All-Options PRC. The data, of course, came from a survey of All-Options PRC clients.

Dockray has been quoted as saying, “The prochoice movement is not always great about visibly supporting parents.” No argument there. And yet, it seems, according to the pro-abortion organization’s own survey, it was parenting support that was most sought out at All-Options… not abortion access.

 

Image: Fake PRC All Options promotes abortion

All-Options promotes abortion

The data compiled from the All-Options PRC survey of 270 clients, found that women using the All-Options PRC came to them for:

  • Free diapers (87%)
  • Baby clothes/items (44%)

In peer counseling, the clients most frequently discussed:

  • Parenting resources/referrals (55%)
  • Pregnancy options (6%)
  • Abortion (2%)

The study’s pro-abortion and highly biased authors admitted, “PRC clients largely sought parenting, not pregnancy, resources. The underutilization of pregnancy-options counseling and high demand for parenting materials and services point to unmet needs among caregivers of young children, particularly for diapers.” The authors concluded that the study’s results “suggest the need to rethink the allocation of resources toward funding or eliminating PRCs solely for the purpose of influencing women’s decisions about abortion.”

With thousands of legitimate pregnancy resource centers operating nationwide, why would Contraception focus on this fake “pregnancy center”? Perhaps they thought it would show a demand for more “abortion access.”

They thought wrong.