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.