I’m not sure I follow this, (and it could just be me) aren’t you talking about who is being manipulative when it comes to the rogue agencies? The image is fairly barmy but lots of the images used in advertising strike me as odd. But I’m not their target market, and with respect it’s likely you’re not either. Are you someone who would be easily open to manipulation in a crisis like this? I doubt it.

So the question is; would someone who was otherwise passive and easily lead get the message to be careful about who to talk to? I’m not suggesting that everyone who finds themselves with a crisis pregnancy is passive or easily lead. The fact is those who aren’t don’t need the ad to help them avoid the crazies, it is the ones who don’t know where to turn and are so at sea that they would latch on to anyone that the ad needs to talk to.

“On the campaign web page there is a list of advice given to women but nothing about the states responsibility to ensure that women are not put through the horror of being trapped into ‘counselling’ which is very directive. biased and very abusive.”

I’m not sure how exactly the state can 100% stop people advertising from their own pocket that they give ‘advice’, we’ve got people giving advice in all kinds of areas and the state isn’t able to regulate it. From mortgages to careers, some people are biased others are just useless.

This might even be a good case where some means of on-line review and rating from people who’ve used agencies hosted by the CPA might be useful with those in need of advice. To allow them to get some real feedback but there again, we can’t ignore that such systems are very open to gaming. I can just see the Mullenistas posting review after review. Web 2.0 fails again.

“Indeed the state funds two agencies who do not support a woman’s right to choose and have great difficulties in making sure full information is provided to women in crisis.”

The problem here is that the state does not have a fully formed view on a women’s right to choose at present. It is true the constitution has been found by the supreme court to provide that in certain circumstances terminations are not illegal but we’ve never made it properly legal either. There’s no law as such against it but there’s no law providing for it either.

I’m not attacking or defending any political party or position in this area, just saying that as there currently isn’t an official legal position on behalf of the Irish state that arguing that the state is somehow required to only fund those organisations that would provide 100% information on all options isn’t quite correct. The government may have made that part of the CPA’s remit in funding agencies but it’s not constitutional bound to do so. The state, much like a lot of its citizens, is very conflicted on the whole issue. It’s not so much an Irish solution to an Irish problem as it is an Irish problem with an Irish problem.

http://www.tv3.ie/ireland_am.php?video=12313&locID=1.65.74

Having seen some ads where men are presented as dumb as **** (like the meteor advert in the fridge – wouldn’t you just knock at the fridge door until someone else in the kitchen hears ya?), the image of woman-as-puppet – surely construes women’s agency as passive but it has echoes in some of the ads for unwanted pregancy (ie. what will mam say – not what will *I* do) and the adverts for tampons or thrush on tv are just yuk from the viewpoint of an ‘expert voice’ telling women what to do, rather than a woman speaking for herself. Not wishing to suggest the ad agency is blameless this case (I’m sure Mary H paid them well!), but isn’t there a wider Irish “style” of presenting women in the media that is problematic?