The strategy of using abortion-related keywords to send a woman searching the web for abortion information to a nearby crisis pregnancy center is already a few years old. But the scheme only received real national attention a couple of months ago, when Siri, Apple’s new voice-activated search assistant, was caught sending women looking for abortion clinics to centers that specialize in talking women out of abortions.

Apple refuted accusations of an anti-abortion agenda, instead blaming the “glitch” on search engines like Google and user-generated guides like Yelp, from which Siri largely extracts its information.

Apple’s explanation matched claims made by anti-abortion rights groups, whose websites describe in detail how they use keywords and Google ads to direct abortion seekers to a central website called Option Line, whose primary function is to route people to one of the thousands of crisis pregnancy centers throughout the country.

The Siri scandal sent The American Independent on a search for evidence that anti-abortion activists are successfully thwarting abortion searches on the Web. We found that CPCs have a minor presence online, but what’s telling is not so much the quantity of CPC ads that appeared on each front-page Google search, but the subtle, universal messaging these sites use.

In many cases, the presence of an anti-abortion agenda is masked.

Searching ‘abortion’

Like most businesses trying to boost their visibility on Google, anti-abortion pregnancy centers buy ads through Google’s AdWords program. But at the heart of the strategy appears to be CPC websites that not only share a universal message, but also a universal Web design.

Using various Google search approaches – “abortion,” “abortion services” “how can I get an abortion,” “I need an abortion” – TAI discovered at least one ad or entry that was linked to Option Line or to Option Line-created software on each primary search page.

These pages often also included two or three entries for individual crisis pregnancy centers or anti-abortion websites. One search result turned up a list of “abortion services” in the D.C. area that included anti-abortion pregnancy centers.

A Google ad that popped up frequently during our searches is “Thinking of Abortion?” whose URL is listed as assistcpc.org. The ad links to the website for Assist Pregnancy Center, a CPC in Annandale, Va. At the very bottom of the website is a note: “Website created by Optionline e-Xtend.” This links to Option Line Extend, a website development program that provides pregnancy centers with “a professional Internet presence.”

Another Google ad titled “Abortion Stories” links to the website standupgirl.com, whose domain is owned by Oregon Right to Life. The site is mainly devoted to promoting pregnancy and hosts an Option Line chat service on its homepage.

Option Line is a 24/7 live-operator contact center headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, which fields inquiries from people seeking information about abortion and pregnancy. It has a Spanish-only version at estasembarazada.com, staffed by bilingual consultants.

Option Line was co-founded in 2003 by Care Net and Heartbeat International, two of the three largest CPC networks in the U.S. About half of the more than 4,000 centers across the country are affiliated with one of these two networks.

In 2007, Option Line created Option Line Extend to sell to centers affiliated with either Care Net or Heartbeat International. CPCs are charged $150 for “basic websites,” $300 for “premium websites” and $500 for “ministry websites.”

Care Net, which made about $7 million in revenue in 2010, reported spending $600,000 on Option Line. Heartbeat International, which reported making about $1.4 million in revenue (PDF) in 2010, reported spending about 46 percent of its budget on its Option Line program between October 2010 and September 2011.

The Option Line Extend model websites are designed with calm colors and messaging, a departure from anti-abortion websites like AbortionNO.org (whose domain is owned by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform), which links directly to a graphic video of a fetus being aborted.

Aside from live-chats and directions to the closest CPC, Option Line offers answers to questions about abortion, birth control and emergency contraception.

In an answer to the question, “Should I take the morning-after pill?” Option Line replies:

Many times women panic after having unprotected sex and rush to take the morning-after pill (Plan B One Step® or Next Choice®). However, you can only become pregnant on certain days of the month — around the time that you ovulate. Taking the morning-after pill during a time when you cannot become pregnant needlessly exposes you to large doses of hormones.

If you are already pregnant from an earlier sexual encounter, taking the morning-after pill is of no value and may cause harm6^, 7. To find out if you are pregnant, contact us, and we’ll connect you with a caring, qualified pregnancy center near you.

Questions about abortion are answered in similarly sober tones. Potential risks from abortion — often overstated by anti-abortion activists and CPC counselors — are stated here as what they are, potential risks. For example, while activists often argue that abortion is a direct cause of breast cancer, here the link is presented as uncertain. Option Line is also careful about putting disclaimers at the bottom of some of its pages, stating that its centers do not offer certain services, but this message is does not always appear on individual center sites.

Creating diversions on the Internet

According to a recently released updated report (PDF) on crisis pregnancy centers produced by the Family Research Council, Option Line averages about 1 million visitors per year and makes about 20,000 contracts per month, with media partners such as Heroic Media and Online for Life.

Last September, The American Independent reported that Heroic Media, an anti-abortion media group headquartered in Austin, Texas, was employing what’s known in the industry as “landing pages” or “doorway pages,” which Google defines as “poor-quality pages where each page is optimized for a specific keyword or phrase … written to rank a particular phrase and then funnel users to a single destination.”

The single destination where Heroic Media was trying to funnel users was Option Line’s homepage. Heroic Media’s parent company, Majella Cares, registered the Web domain freepreghelpline.com, which, when clicked on, goes to optionline.org/get-help.

Heroic Media discussed this strategy on its website when the Independent first reported the story.

This was an excerpt that we recorded from this page:

Internet keyword advertising is targeted and measureable. We can reach scared, abortion-vulnerable women with life-affirming messages and monitor effectiveness by the number of views, clicks, and visits to our site. We recently launched a new landing page at www.freepreghelpline.com to optimize reporting on just how many women are connected with life-affirming resources.

Keyword advertising on Google is also extremely cost-effective because you only pay for clicks, which cost an average of less than three dollars. That’s three dollars to connect abortion-vulnerable women with life-affirming information and people who can help.

A recent screenshot of the same web page we excerpted back in September shows that Heroic Media deleted the paragraph about freepreghelpline.com (also, the alleged amount of monthly “abortion” searches has jumped from 2 million to 6 million):

Screenshot from HeroicMedia.org, click to enlarge.

When asked if the organization is still using landing pages, Heroic Media spokesperson Marissa Gabrysch said the organization never used them.

“That’s inaccurate, although I understand why it was confusing,” Gabrysch told TAI in an email when asked about the doorway pages. “I have made the clarification on our website. Heroic Media’s keyword ads for Option Line link directly to optionline.org.

“The freepreghelpline.com site has not been advertised through keyword ads,” she continued.

Florida state Sens. Evelyn Lynn, R-Daytona Beach, and Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville (Photo: flsenate.gov/Office of Senate President)

Two state lawmakers — one Democrat, one Republican — have come together to file legislation that would require pregnancy resource centers, or crisis pregnancy centers, to protect the private medical information of women who visit them.

The Pregnancy Confidentiality Act was filed by state Rep. Lori Berman, D-Delray Beach, and Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Daytona Beach.

These centers, commonly known as CPCs, are religious-based centers that dissuaded women from having abortions. In Florida, some CPCs receive state funds: Last year the state’s pregnancy resource services received $2 million in taxpayer money — a fixed amount it has received each of the past six years — while other health centers saw deep cuts to their state funding.

As Marcos Restrepo here at The Florida Independent wrote in October of 2010, despite their state funding, the centers have received little oversight and regulation from state agencies in the past. Berman and Lynn’s legislation would reverse the trend by creating a regulation.

The Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates wrote in a press release today that Lynn and Berman’s bills focus on “protecting privacy of Floridian’s who utilize facilities in the ‘pregnancy resource center’ industry often referred to as ‘crisis pregnancy centers.’”

According to the release:

These centers are currently not regulated medical facilities and are not mandated to keep information provided private and confidential.

…

“Crisis pregnancy centers” are non-medical facilities that often provide free pregnancy testing and ultrasounds and counsel pregnant women against abortion and emergency birth control services. Many receive government funding and often advertise themselves in a way that suggests that they offer comprehensive reproductive health services by trained doctors and nurses, even when that is not the case.

This bill will ensure that women and men who are given a medical diagnosis or information at a “crisis pregnancy center” will have their personal and medical information protected, despite the fact that these are not medical facilities.

A state senator recently filed legislation that would commend “the compassionate work of the volunteers and staff at Florida’s pregnancy resource centers.” The bill would celebrate CPCs providing ”important support and resources for women who choose childbirth over abortion.”

“The 92 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2011,” Guttmacher reports, “shattered the previous record of 34 adopted in 2005.”

Included in the list of common restrictions enacted this past year were: bans, waiting periods, ultrasound laws, insurance coverage bans, clinic regulations and medical abortion restrictions.

Florida, among the 24 states where the majority of the anti-abortion measures were enacted, passed both an ultrasound law and an insurance-coverage ban for abortions in plans created through the health care reform law. The state also made it onto a list for cutting deeply into the state budget for family-planning services — an investment states make to reduce unwanted pregnancies that can result in abortions.

Already this year, the Florida Legislature has introduced seven anti-abortion/reproductive rights bills for the session starting next week.

Florida Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Palatka (Photo: myfloridahouse.gov/Meredith Geddings)

Last week, Florida state Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Palatka, followed through on his announcement that he would bring back a bill that bans abortion in the state of Florida, providing only an exception to save the life of the mother. Van Zant’s bill would make performing an abortion a felony.

House Bill 1151 would create the “Florida for Life Act,” a law that would essentially outlaw all abortions in direct defiance of legal abortion rights in the U.S.

According to a summary, the bill would prohibit “induced abortions,” the operation of a facility that provides abortions, the termination of any pregnancy “unless specified conditions are met.”

Van Zant’s bill (.pdf) states that “the Legislature acknowledges that all persons are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that first among these is their right to life.”

The bill does not provide exceptions for rape or incest, either. It only provides an exception for a woman who is facing a threat to her life if she carries out a pregnancy. According to the bill, “woman’s life is a superior consideration to the concern for the life of the fetus and the woman’s health is a superior consideration to the concern for the health of the fetus when such life or health concerns are in conflict.”

According to the bill:

A termination of pregnancy may not be performed unless:

(a) Two physicians certify in writing to the fact that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the termination of pregnancy is necessary to prevent the death of the patient;

(b) Two physicians certify in writing to the fact that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the termination of pregnancy is necessary because to continue the pregnancy would unreasonably reduce the likelihood of successful treatment of a life-threatening disease of the patient; or

(c) A physician certifies in writing that a medical emergency existed and another physician was not available for consultation prior to the time necessary to perform the termination of pregnancy. The physician’s written certification must clearly describe the medical emergency.

The bill also requires that “physicians and personnel at a medical facility … provide certain women and minors who have been treated by the facility with information regarding adoption and a statewide list of attorneys available to provide volunteer legal services for adoption.”

Van Zant, an ordained Baptist minister, has unsuccessfully introduced a similar bill multiple times. This past October, he told Creative Loafing he would be introducing the bill again.

The Legislature has already introduced a bill written by the Florida Catholic Conference that would redefine the death of a “viable fetus” as the death of an “unborn child.” The bill would also change laws for vehicular manslaughter involving a pregnant woman.

Another bill introduced by state Sen. Anitere Flores, R-Miami, would restrict “the circumstances in which an abortion may be performed in the third trimester or after viability.” Flores’ bill also pushes forward a handful of anti-abortion measures that did not make it through last session, including targeted laws for abortion providers and a waiting period for women seeking an abortion.

Early last month, state Rep. Daniel Davis, R-Jacksonville, introduced a “fetal pain” bill that would outlaw abortions after 20 weeks.

Van Zant’s proposal brings the running count of anti-abortion/reproductive rights bill to seven for the 2012 session. During last year’s session, 18 such bills were introduced.

Sen. Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville, has introduce the Senate version of Van Zant’s abortion ban.

A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that about 20 percent of 17-year-olds who called in to a pharmacy to ask for emergency contraception that day were unable to receive it. Seventeen-year-old women legally have access to the morning after pill, also known as Plan B, without a prescription. The decision would have removed a prescription requirement for any woman seeking emergency contraception.

According to the study:

The availability of emergency contraception did not differ based on neighborhood income. However, in 19 percent (n = 138) of calls, the adolescent was told she could not obtain emergency contraception under any circumstance. This misinformation occurred more often (23.7 percent vs 14.6 percent) among pharmacies in low-income neighborhoods. When callers queried the age threshold for over-the-counter access, they were given the correct age less often by pharmacies in low-income neighborhoods (50.0 percent vs 62.8 percent. In all but 11 calls, the incorrect age was stated as erroneously too high, potentially restricting access.

The researchers concluded that “although we found approximately 80 percent same-day availability of emergency contraception in US metropolitan areas, misinformation regarding access was common—particularly in low-income neighborhoods.”

Immediate access to emergency contraception is vital to its effectiveness. Prolonged wait times or other types of barriers to same-day access can lead to an unplanned pregnancy, which is why many women’s health advocates have criticized the federal government for intervening in the FDA’s request.

Since Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced her decision, reproductive health advocates and policy-makers have expressed disappointment with the decision and claim it was based on political calculations, and not on scientific research. Last week, more than 35,000 signatures were sent to President Obama denouncing the decision.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has already sought legal action challenging the federal agency’s decision and a judge is considering hearing it.

The movie, which premiered last week in Des Moines, promotes a strategy of pursuing federal legislation that would grant civil rights to fetuses, on the grounds that their equal protection rights are protected by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, an idea championed by current presidential contender Newt Gingrich.

In a recent article, two physicians argue that the film is problematic because, in medicine, physicians must learn to separate their personal feelings from those of their patients.

Via ReligionDispatches.com:

Dr. Anthony Levatino, interviewed at length in the film, is an OB/GYN who formerly performed abortions. Levatino and his wife had fertility problems and were seeking to adopt a child; at one point he describes his regret as he was performing a first trimester abortion while he and his wife were undertaking that process. They eventually adopted a child who was later tragically killed after being hit by a car. Levatino describes a second trimester abortion he performed after the death of his daughter, after which he concludes about his patient, “I didn’t see her wonderful right to choose and I didn’t see what a great doctor I was helping her with her problem pregnancy.”

The Gift of Life draws on Levatino’s personal tragedy to portray his decision to stop performing abortions as a policy answer, rather than an individual, understandable response to grief. Dr. Daniel Grossman, senior associate at Ibis Reproductive Health, told me, “It is true that abortion providers often have conflicting feelings about the work we do.” But, he went on, “most of us have those feelings and are able to separate our personal feelings from those of our patients and what they need and want to do with their current pregnancy.”

Dr. Douglas Laube, Board Chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, echoed this view, describing Levatino’s reaction as “normal” given his circumstances, but noting that his patient’s reaction was not discussed. “I see it as a disconnect,” said Laube. “It does not connect logically with a reason not to support the right to choose. It’s his feelings versus her right to choose.”

Laube goes on to argue that the film peddles several abortion falsehoods, such as a claim that all fetuses feel pain and that abortion providers attempt to maximize the number of abortion procedures they perform, in order to profit from them:

The anti-choice activist Carol Everett claims she once worked for an abortion provider that aimed to perform three to five abortions on 13-18 year old girls so they would be accustomed to using abortion as a birth control method into adulthood. Dr. Laube called these claims “pure nonsense,” “pure fiction,” and “really a stretch.” He noted that abortion comprises 3-5% of Planned Parenthood’s budget, and that abortion is “certainly not a money-maker. At best, it’s a break-even.”

The fetal personhood movement, which aims to define life from the moment of conception, has swept the country in recent years. Personhood initiatives have cropped up in many states — most notably in Mississippi, where a personhood amendment was recently rejected by voters despite support from state policy-makers. In Florida, personhood organizers have told The Florida Independent that they are currently working toward placing an amendment on the state’s 2014 ballot.

In an interview conducted last month, Laube told the Independent that attempts to define human life from the moment of conception “flies in the face of common sense” and could have “wide-reaching impact to access to women’s health: cancer treatment, fertility treatment, birth control.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (FLORIDA INDEPENDENT/ Cooper Levey-Baker) 

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (FLORIDA INDEPENDENT/ Cooper Levey-Baker)

Former presidential contender and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has teamed up with Citizens United to promote “fetal personhood,” a movement sweeping the country in the form of amendments that aim to define as beginning at the moment of conception.

Huckabee acts as narrator in Gift of Life, a film that promotes legislative action meant to overturn the landmark abortion rights act Roe v. Wade. He spoke about the film during a segment that aired last Saturday on his eponymous Fox News program, saying he had a recent discussion with his 5-year-old grandson about his passion for abortion issues.

Huckabee says that the film, which he helped produce, will remind voters that, “while the economy and jobs are center stage, treating every human with worth and dignity is still essential in selecting a leader.” Throughout the film, Huckabee espouses his support for fetal personhood bills, which have become increasingly divisive. Though supporters argue they only want to outlaw abortion, critics have argued that defining life in such broad terms could lead to a variety of unintended consequences and have wide-ranging impacts on cancer research as well as in vitro fertilization.

The issue is even more urgent, Huckabee says, because of the recent FDA approval of over-the-counter sales of the Plan B pill — which Huckabee called “a drug that kills a developing baby.”

The personhood movement has had its setbacks recently — an attempt at an amendment in Florida never yielded enough signatures for ballot placement and, despite support from state legislators, a personhood amendment in Mississippi on the state’s November ballot failed.

A Personhood Florida spokesman told The Florida Independent that, despite those recent setbacks, his group would again attempt an initiative for 2014.

Since Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced her decision, reproductive health advocates and policy-makers have expressed disappointment with the decision and claim it was based on political calculations, and not on scientific research.

According to the group’s press release:

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, today sent a letter signed by 35,194 Americans to President Obama opposing the administration’s recent decision to overrule a recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to follow medical experts’ recommendations to remove a restriction on the Plan B® emergency contraceptive.

“We had a major opportunity to improve young women’s access to contraception, which is the best way to reduce unintended abortions and thus the need for abortion, and the Obama administration missed the mark,” Keenan said. “We will continue to call on the administration to follow sound science and recommendations from health experts.”

The grassroots letter, which comes almost a week later, is leading a grassroots public-education and advocacy campaign to mobilize grassroots supporters to take action in response to the administration’s decision reject the FDA’s recommendation. NARAL Pro-Choice America leveraged its activist network to launch a public-education effort immediately after the administration’s decision was announced. The group’s efforts also came as senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and members, led by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), sent letters to the administration expressing their disapproval of this action.

Since U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced her decision, reproductive health advocates have expressed disappointment and claim that the decision was based on political calculations, and not on scientific research.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has reopened “its 2005 lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for imposing unnecessary age restrictions on emergency contraceptives, and seek immediate relief to allow broader access to available drugs,” a new press release from the group states.

The group has also sought to add “Sebelius as a defendant in the reopened case for her role in overruling the FDA’s approval of Plan B One-Step last week,” according to the press release.

According to the group:

This fight is far from over. We intend to take every legal step necessary to hold the FDA and this administration accountable for its extraordinary actions to block women from safe, effective emergency contraception,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEP for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “It has been ten years of battling to bring emergency contraception out from behind the pharmacy counter. The FDA cannot simply continue moving the goal posts down the field for women’s reproductive health care.”

While U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman found the contempt motion moot because late last night, the FDA decided to deny the 2001 Citizen Petition to lift age restrictions on emergency contraceptives— two years after the judge had ordered the agency to fairly reconsider the petition— he proceeded to invite the Center to reopen its 2005 lawsuit and agreed that the Center could add Secretary Sebelius as a defendant.

During the hearing, Judge Korman repeatedly noted the striking similarities between recent events —including last night’s denial of the Citizen Petition and Secretary Sebelius’ unprecedented decision to intervene and block the unrestricted sale of the drug—and the findings in 2009 that the FDA under the Bush Administration had “acted in bad faith and in response to political pressure.”

“The FDA has essentially been holding women’s reproductive health hostage to political calculations,” said Suzanne Novak, the senior staff attorney who argued for the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The Washington Post reports today that “Korman said he was willing to hear arguments over whether the agency should have allowed the sale of the morning-after pill to girls younger than 17 without a prescription, and he instructed advocacy groups to file the appropriate legal motions.”

In a statement announcing her decision, Sebelius said that although “the science has confirmed the drug to be safe and effective with appropriate use, the switch from prescription to over the counter for this product requires that we have enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately. ”

“I do not believe that Teva’s application met that standard. The label comprehension and actual use studies did not contain data for all ages for which this product would be available for use,” she said.

Reproductive rights advocates immediately denounced the decision. Numerous groups have already released statements and written letters to Sebelius and the White House expressing disagreement with the decision.

The Washington Post reports that now a group of U.S. senators have written a letter to Sebelius requesting an explanation.

According to the letter:

We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision.

As numerous medical societies and patient advocates have argued, improved access to birth control, including emergency contraception, has been proven to reduce unintended pregnancies. Nearly half of all pregnancies that occur in the United States each year are unintended. Keeping Plan B behind the counter makes it harder for all women to obtain a safe and effective product they may need to prevent an unintended pregnancy.

We ask that you share with us your specific rationale and the scientific data you relied on for the decision to overrule the FDA recommendation. On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women’s health will be based on medical and scientific evidence.

President Obama has publicly supported Sebelius’ decision.