Metro Swathed In Anti-Abortion Shame
Is this woman pregnant with Metrobus’ baby?
Yesterday, I hopped on a 90 Metrobus in the hopes of escaping the downpour. Little did I know that the unsuspecting bus I was boarding was actually an anti-abortion vehicle of shame!
The bus was wallpapered, front to back, on both sides, with this “FREE Abortion Alternatives” Ad, pictured. The ad, for a local crisis pregnancy center, offers free pregnancy tests, counseling, and “services” to pregnant women at four D.C.-area locations. Also on the menu: A good shaming! The woman’s numb, downturned face says it all: “You’re lost. You’re confused. You’re thinking about killing a tiny human. We can help.”
Go ahead, try to look away: You’ll still have to look at another identical forlorn future abortionist!
Blogger Kat of “This is Everything” boarded a shame bus last month (she also snapped the photo). “Ick,” she wrote. “[I] pondered whether it would even be worth it to get off the bus (I decided against it since I had already paid the fare.. they have my money so no big deal whether I’m on the bus for six more blocks or not).”
Crisis Pregnancy Centers have a well-documented history of preying on the vulnerable, misrepresenting their legitimacy (what are these “services”?), and passing anti-abortion rhetoric as medical advice. In other words, not exactly what the women of D.C. need.
I know Metro likes to go all-out with its advertisements. And hey, I don’t like being bombarded with Obama-themed Pepsi ads either. But the all-or-nothing approach can be a good thing—last January, it helped underpaid Washington Post post-production workers gain traction in their WashingtonPostUnfair.com campaign. And I’ve spied many Metro ads in the past encouraging D.C. citizens to get tested and treatment for HIV.
But when ad bombardments are targeted specifically on a captive audience of economically vulnerable women, they can be outright threatening. Kat writes: “I totally understand how crucial advertisements are as a form of revenue and financial support for WMATA . . . [but] ultimately I feel it is irresponsible of Metro to run ads for a company, foundation, or organization that deliberately jeopardizes women’s health through misinformation and lacks respect for their autonomy.”
Until the ads are replaced, Kat plans to voice her disapproval of the ad to WMATA. While I’m not sure this “Metro Customer Comment Form” will get us anywhere, you can give it a try here.
Photo via This is Everything.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
Blogs Linking to this Article
-
Linked From: May 1st, 2009Sexist Comment of the Week - The Sexist - Washington City Paper
12:01 pm[...] This one’s a two-fer, in response to my post on the omnipresent anti-abortion Metro ads, “Metro Swathed in Anti-Abortion Shame.” [...]
10:24 am
Um, there’s a First Amendment issue here, folks. As a government agency, Metro cannot indulge in viewpoint discrimination. This matter was settled 30 years ago when the courts told Metro it could not refuse to run bus ads sponsored by the Gay Activists Alliance. I have been a member of what is now the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance since 1973, and this victory remains one of our signature achievements.
11:02 am
That’s a great point, and one that Kat discusses in her post. But I don’t think Metro’s legal position is really at issue here. Metro is legally required to post the ads, but that doesn’t mean that bloggers shouldn’t call attention to them and post about them to combat their message. Crisis Pregnancy Centers can buy as many ads as they want. Obviously, they will go away at some point and be replaced by other ads. But while they’re still up, there should be resources out there that address why they can amount to a very oppressive bus ride for some women. And I don’t think contracting Metro to let them know that—or choosing to get off a bus because the ads are too oppressive—is out of the question.
1:28 pm
Amanda, you pointed out the legal problem with this ad campaign yourself. When you say, “but when ad bombardments are targeted specifically on a captive audience of economically vulnerable women, they can be outright threatening,” you hit the nail on the head.
In Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, Justice Douglas says in a concurring opinion, “the right of the commuters to be free from forced intrusions on their privacy precludes the city from transforming its vehicles of public transportation into forums for the dissemination of ideas upon this captive audience.”
I think this applies here, and the revenue from the Crisis Pregnancy Crap Houses should be turned down. I don’t want to be forced to ride a shame mobile.
1:41 pm
Obscure Supreme Court knowledge FTW
3:37 pm
The bus I rode earlier this week had 17 of these ads and no others. If these are paid ads I suppose I am OK with that (provided they are PAYING for 17 ads). But if these are free or reduced rate ads I would be quite upset. My question would be if anti-abortion Metro employees are plastering their buses with these ads.
8:48 pm
It’s chilling that many of you want to silence one side of the abortion debate. First Amendment or not? Free society or not?
It would be one thing if the ads specifically said, “women are irresponsible and untrustworthy, especially the black and poor,” but as it is, the ads are clearly referring to abortion, not to sex, race, class, politics or astronomy.
And finally, what could be more racist and sexist than referring to grown or nearly grown adults as “the vulnerable,” who somehow need to be protected from corrupting influences? Let them decide for themselves. That’s the very definition of pro-choice, isn’t it?