Google Cedes Ad Policy Enforcement to Abortion Lobby

Google capitulated to the highly profitable abortion industry this week and agreed to demands that the search engine ban “deceptive” ads posted by crisis pregnancy centers seeking to educate women about choices other than ending the lives of their unborn children. Praising Google’s decision Ilyse Hogue, president of the pro-abortion lobby NARAL, gushed “Google’s leadership in removing the majority of these ads is a victory for truth in advertising and for the women who have been targeted by a deliberate misinformation campaign by crisis pregnancy centers. We will continue to work with Google to ensure that their commitment results in women being directed to the resources and services they are seeking when they search online, ending this manipulation of women making vital health decisions.”

Google, of course, has every right to establish and enforce rules for advertising on its search engine. It’s not unfair of the company to insist on “relevance, clarity and accuracy.”

So, just how deceptive are the offending ads?  Judge for yourself. Here is a list of the most egregious violations of Google’s “strict guidelines” as identified by the aggrieved NARAL:

abortion 1 abortion 2

These ads are clearly not for abortion clinics, which is the search term Googled in the examples. The copy within each ad, however, does suggest that you will not be taken to an abortion clinic’s website if you click. And one could argue that the ads do lead to sites that discuss abortion clinics, but let’s concede for the sake of argument that the ads themselves are deceptive in that they do not advertise abortion clinics. So, then, case closed, right? Not quite.

If you Google the term “knee surgery” in northern Virginia you’ll be presented with this #1 paid result…
knee surgery

And when you click the ad you’ll be taken to a website that offers “a family of non-surgical adult stem cell and blood platelet treatments for common injuries and degenerative joint conditions…” (emphasis mine). Clearly, not a company offering knee surgery. Well, you might say, that’s just more proof that Google needs to do a better job policing its own policy. Perhaps that might fly if there were only a few violations here and there. But what if the search engine routinely allows deceptive ads? And what if many of those ads are for abortion clinics and are triggered to launch when someone Googles “abortion alternatives” or “crisis pregnancy center” and other related terms?

The following examples suggest a very selective enforcement of Google’s allegedly rigorous policy…

abortion alternatives

crisis pregnancy centerAnd there’s more deception. When you Google “abortion health risks” (again in northern Virginia) here are some results you might be provided:

  • A paid ad in the #1 position for “Gentle Abortion” from American Women’s Services. As you navigate the site you’ll finally encounter the term “risk” when you click on the “Gynecological Services” tab and learn that the Morning-After Pill “taken up to 5 days after unprotected intercourse…has been proven to reduce the risk of pregnancy up to 89% of the time” (emphasis mine).
  • A paid ad for Washington Surgi-Clinic, whose website’s only mention of risk is “warm, courteous professionals counsel each patient extensively on the benefits, risks, and alternatives of the procedure.”
  • A Tidewater Women’s Health Clinic paid ad leading to a website that doesn’t provide a single instance of the term “risk” in any context.
  • And finally a paid spot for the Falls Church Health Care website whose only reference to “risk” in any context is “Who is at greater risk for abnormal pap results?”

It’s no shock that Google has outsourced its ad policy enforcement to the culture of death. While company execs do hedge their political bets a bit, they overwhelming support the party of unrestricted abortion and in 2008, Google’s PAC, employees, and employees’ immediate families made Google the fifth-largest source of funds to Barack Obama’s election campaign. Recently, Google’s Exec Chairman Eric Schmidt has been cozying up to Governor Andrew “pro-lifers have no place in the state of New York” Cuomo.

Perhaps in light of the above evidence Ms. Hogue will reconsider her rush to judgment and “continue to work with Google to ensure that their commitment results in women being directed to the resources and services they are seeking when they search online, ending this manipulation of women making vital health decisions.” Or maybe Google will live up to its promise this week: “If we find violations, we’ll take the appropriate actions—including account disablings and blacklists—as quickly as possible.” But not likely.

Safe, Legal and…Hail Satan!

Back in my January post Three Cheers for Infanticide! I applauded an abortionista for her candor in admitting that “the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.” Well, it seems honesty is catching on in the pro-death camp. Fast-forward to the 5:15 mark in the video below of pro-life testimony by Ashley Granger. Listen for the chorus in the background.

Caitlin v. George: A Tale of Two Tillers

It didn’t take long for Caitlin Tiller’s story to get bumped—not only off page one, but out of the news cycle entirely. According to Google, the last two major media accounts of the teen mom appeared on and on May 6, four days after the story broke. And Caitlin’s cause is conspicuously absent from the torrent of cyber-opinion, where stories develop, crusades are launched and offenders are held accountable. In case you’re not familiar with Ms. Tiller’s story, here’s a brief recap from ABC:

A high school student is fighting back after her senior photo was pulled from the school yearbook. The photo shows North Carolina senior Caitlin Tiller holding her now one-year old son. The school asked students to have their picture taken with something that best represents them or an achievement. Tiller chose her son because he represented her drive to stay in school. The school didn’t see it that way. Caitlin says she was told the picture promoted teen pregnancy. She sees it as a symbol of responsibility and love. “They should be proud that the students are willing to stay in school and graduate and make something of their self and not try and hide it,” Tiller said. School officials would only say the yearbook should be all about the student and not an extension of the student’s family.

So, where is the outrage from the champions of “choice?” Here’s a young woman who made a brave decision to keep her baby and finish high school, but nothing from Maureen Dowd, Cecile Richards, Rachel Maddow, Ilyse Hogue, et alia? Meanwhile Sandra Fluke continues to grab favorable headlines on an almost weekly basis even though Rush Limbaugh hasn’t called her a “slut” since February, 2012.

slate_caitlin tiller searchA search on for “Caitlin Tiller” produces one result…for George Tiller, the notorious late-term abortionist who was murdered in 2009. A search for “George Tiller,” of course, produces seven pages of results, including glowing stories like, “The Bravery of George Tiller” and “What Made George Tiller so Special?” Other news and commentary outlets that carry water for the abortion industry have lots of positive stories about “Doctor” Tiller, as well, but here are the stats for Caitlin:

The Nation: 0
The Village Voice: 0
Salon: 0
The Kos: 0
The New Yorker: 0
Mother Jones: 0
The New Republic: 0
Feministing: 0
Planned Parenthood: 0
NARAL: 0 0

A case could be made for the downside of publishing a photo of Caitlin with her one-year old son in the yearbook, i.e. promoting teen pregnancy, but no one seems up to that task. And there was a time when any birth out of wedlock, much less a teen birth, was kept quiet to minimize shame and scandal. But in these “progressive” times, it is absolute hypocrisy that those who try to badger and bully the rest of us into celebrating promiscuity, buggery, late-term abortion and other “choices,” simply ignore the choice of young Caitlin. Abortionistas are quick to accuse pro-lifers of having a “love affair with the fetus”1 while doing nothing to support women with “crisis” pregnancies or children who are born into poverty. This is complete nonsense, but not the subject of this post, so I urge you to visit the Pregnant on Campus Initiative or any major pro-life website for proof and elaboration. On the flip-side, however, when it comes to supporting women who choose life, there is a deafening silence in the pro-abortion crowd.

1. Incredibly, this moronic quote came not only from an M.D., but from the M.D. in 1994, President Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders.

What about the children?!

Ah, yes, the children. It’s always about the children. Well, almost always. The sign below hangs in a Los Angeles office building garage. Does the State of California also require Planned Parenthood and the Beverly Hills third-trimester abortion mill Pro-Choice Medical Center to post similar warnings in their offices? Or at least in their garages?

chem warning

Woman Shot and Killed at Gun Show

The following news story is hot off the press. Stand by because gun-controllers across the country are taking to the streets in righteous indignation.

GERMANTOWN, Maryland, Feb. 8, 2013/The Warshington Post/ – A 29 year-old woman was pronounced dead at a local hospital in Germantown, Maryland, on Thursday, February 7th, as a direct result of a gunshot to the head apparently fired point blank during a routine firearms exhibition at a gun show popular with the Capitol Tea Party and sponsored by the National Gun Owners of America (NGOA). NGOA Executive Director Willy “Hog Leg” Johnson, who attended the show and was present during the accident, has been unavailable for comment and is reportedly vacationing at Ted Nugent’s Sunrize Acres Ranch in Jackson, MI, where NGOA members can hunt world-class trophy whitetail deer, American buffalo, Quebec black bear and “various exotics.” Johnson was hailed as a “hero” in Nugent’s latest documentary “The Second Amendment Blues,” which premiered recently at the Glen Beck Rally for Freedom on the site of the First Battle of Bull Run near Manassas, Virginia.

On the very same day that the young woman died, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) posted on their website approval for the NGOA to hold firearms exhibitions throughout the country without any inspection of their weapons, ammunition or personnel.

Perhaps you’ve deduced by now that this story is a complete fabrication. This one, however, is not…

GERMANTOWN, Md., Feb. 8, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ – A 29 year-old woman was pronounced dead at a local hospital in Germantown, MD on Thursday, February 7th, as a direct result of complications experienced during a 3rd trimester abortion by LeRoy Carhart – who was hailed as a “hero” in the film “After Tiller” at the recent Sundance Film Festival…

Thursday morning around 5am, the young woman was short of breath and in intense pain. When she and her family tried to contact LeRoy Carhart for assistance and follow-up care, he could not be reached…

On the very same day that this woman died, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene posted on their website that they issued a license to Carhart’s clinic to perform abortions – without a single inspection of the facility.

Now, ponder with me for a moment the media attention that the first, fake, story might garner. Front page material, no? Any doubt that every major newswire, newspaper and TV station in the country would lead with this atrocity? And what about the web? Would not Google News be awash in hundreds of thousands of results (0.28 seconds)? And for the second, real, story?

Go ahead, take a guess…

Nope, not even close. The answer is…1 (sort of). Post Local, the “hyper-local” internet arm of The Washington Post daringly posted an epic 118 word blurbsposé that they attributed to the Associated Press, but which cannot be found on the Associated Press news website.

ap leroy carhartAs for the others…

NY Times – nothing
Baltimore Sun – nothing
Los Angeles Times – nothing – nothing – nothing – nothing – nothing – nothing
UPI – nothing
Reuters – nothing
Google News – nothing, except of course, articles from pro-life advocacy organizations

Now, I’m no conspiracy-theorist, but there’s something rotten above the fold. Clearly, there’s a story here and I’m sure every “mainstream” media outlet has an ethics policy similar to that of the Gray Lady’s:

As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it.

So, what gives?

Three Cheers for Infanticide!

In her column for Salon So what if abortion ends life? Mary Elizabeth Williams brags, “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.”

Hallelujah! What candor! Life? And at conception, no less! Sister Williams, perhaps you betray what’s truly in the minds of all “pro-choice” folk:

All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

Yes, shout it from the mountaintops!

When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory.

You go, girl!

We’re so intimidated by the wingnuts, we get spooked out of having these conversations.

Yes! We wingnuts—who agree with you about that whole “life question” and are so wingnutty as to think that ending life is, well, a bad thing—applaud your frankness and welcome the new “conversations.”

My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless.

Indeed! Let’s have that respectful and empathetic conversation about that kid who “finally goes to college,” but fails to maintain the GPA we expect. Or that kids who doesn’t go to college. Why should mom and dad have to continue footing the bill for that lazy overgrown non-autonomous entity? Let’s be “fearless” here. Not sure what the D&E equivalent is for a 19-year-old SOB who’s outlived mom’s tolerance, but let’s find it—and get the Feds to subsidize it—so moms can live “not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families.”

Oh, Sister Mary, how you fulfill us! Leave us, we beg, with one more pearl:

And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.