To the Editor:

While it’s still fresh in everyone’s mind and considering we’re more than halfway into the Democratic primary for the 109th Assembly District, I’d like to revisit the April 16 Altamont Enterprise article “County bill would ban misinformation from ‘crisis pregnancy centers’.”

As many, I was outraged at the Albany County Legislature’s proposed Bill D. Kudos to Mark Grimm, Christopher Long, and Bishop [Edward] Scharfenberger for swiftly, effectively, and very passionately condemning this disgraceful, unAmerican bill.

They rightfully and justly called out the bill for what it truly is — a blatant infringement of crisis pregnancy centers’ First Amendment rights. Having said that, the bill was also equally abhorrent in other ways as Bishop Scharfenberger so well articulated.

I understand the bill has been put on ice for the time being. Although this is welcome news, I’m kind of disappointed the bill never came to a vote. At the very least it would have allowed Albany County residents to see how many comrades the sponsors of Bill D had in the legislature.

The fact that this toxic bill was met with such fierce and righteous pushback is a testament that Albany County residents are paying attention and not buying what sponsors of this bill are shamefully selling.

This leads me to the real reason I thought it necessary to submit this letter.

Myself and others believe that the sponsors’ virtuous claim that the only goal of the bill was to assure pregnant women receive only accurate and timely information is a lie. The true motive of the unveiling of this bill is much more sinister and unethical.

First, let’s take a close look at the highly suspect 2022 Albany Medical Center study that I guess is supposed to be the smoking gun evidence that Bill D is based on.

This was not a study. It’s more like a sting operation conducted by individuals with a phone and cup of coffee.

What were the exact questions asked? Were questions misleading or vague so as to get the responses desired? Everyone is just supposed to accept the percentages and conclusions as gospel just because they’ve written them down?

Where are the actual study transcripts? What warranted this study? Are there mounds of documented complaints of crisis pregnancy centers’ misbehaviors by clients who visited these facilities?

This study oozes prejudice and desperation; it’s a joke. This make-believe study is what “warrants “ a study. This is what sponsors want to use to justify destroying crisis pregnancy centers? Why not?

They also want Albany County residents to believe that crisis pregnancy centers are luring unsuspecting pregnant women into their facilities where, once inside, they are surrounded by volunteers in white lab coats and scrubs and are put under a spell and then tricked into keeping their babies?

And all this is happening right under our noses here in Albany County. Amazing.

In reality, all you need to do is just carefully read the study. It immediately collapses under the weight of its own contradicting language.

Now let’s take a look at the timing relation between the 2022 study and the recent roll out of Bill D right before the present Democratic primary.

In a phone call with Victoria Plotsky who is one of the bill’s sponsors, she told me they had been working on the bill for about two years. Having said that, isn’t it fair to ask, what came first: A) a study that required a bill or B) a bill that needed something, anything, OK, even a highly suspect study will do?

I believe that all I’ve alluded to thus far more than validates my and others’ suspicions of what the true primary motive was for sponsors creating Bill D and it’s the timing of its unveiling.

Sponsors of this bill, without conscience or second thoughts, determined it was to their and Planned Parenthood’s best interest to target and try to eliminate crisis pregnancy centers, which they have no political use for. They do this while simultaneously gaining the favor of Planned Parenthood, which they hope will advance their political ambitions present and future.

In my opinion, this strategy makes even more sense in a primary scenario like we’re in now.  This is because one has to assume that competing Democrats are pretty much on the same page in regards to the agenda of Planned Parenthood.

However, a sponsor/candidate can look Planned Parenthood square in the eye and say, “But look at what I’m willing to do for you.”

Let’s be clear this is not merely the widely accepted practice of one hand washing the other. No, this is a premeditated calculation of both hands to mutually benefit from the elimination of crisis pregnancy centers.

In my opinion, any individual who would engage in this type of policy is void of all integrity and should not be entrusted with any public office.

The good news is that, despite how cunning and politically savvy a politician may think he is, this unethical behavior only works if the electorate allows it.

My hope is that voters will not reward sponsor/candidates who were more than willing to use Bill D to unjustly batter crisis pregnancy centers just for what I can best describe as a little “election insurance “

Full disclosure: I have no donkey in this race and to me this wasn’t about political parties or abortion issues per se. The latter will never be addressed by what’s printed on paper. To me, this was simply about six individuals who seem to have lost their way. 

Anthony Meilak

New Scotland

Editor’s Note: The study referenced provides the script guidelines used by the “mystery callers” that spoke with crisis pregnancy center representatives. The questions — asked after the caller says she had a positive pregnancy test and is seeking advice —  offered by the script were: what are my options; what does an appointment include; are ultrasounds performed; can you tell me my due date; do you provide prenatal care; can you tell me about adoption; can you tell me about abortion; are there risks to pregnancy; are there risks to abortion; and is financial support available. 

The calls took place sometime before December 2021, and the authors state in the introduction that their intent was to build on an existing body of research into CPC tactics in states with significant barriers to abortion by investigating the tactics used in a state like New York, which has fewer barriers. 

Planned Parenthood, which is a not-for-profit organization, does not rely primarily on health services as a source of revenue. Instead, 70 percent of its revenue comes from grants and private donations, while the services it provides make up only a quarter of its annual revenue, and is offered on a sliding scale based on income. Furthermore, abortions make up less than 5 percent of the services performed by Planned Parenthood according to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability.