Reversing the National Abortion Trend

After developing the first and only repeatable Linear Service Model for the pregnancy resource center movement many have asked me where the terms came from and what the differences are between a Linear Service Model or LSM and the traditional way a Pregnancy Center operates. Essentially, we started applying the terms in 2004-05 in an attempt to distinguish between what CompassCare had been doing and what we were now doing.

What is the difference anyway?

The definitions in the context of a Pregnancy Center are as follows:

• Linear Service Model (LSM): An approach to serving women that focuses on solving the common problem of unplanned pregnancy each woman faces by taking each woman through a consistent, chronological, scripted, step-by-step decision-making process in an effort to answer the right questions in the right order. One of the key assumptions in a good LSM is that the manner in which services are provided is just as important as the services themselves. An LSM standardizes services to women and ensures that those services are provided the same way with each and every patient for the purposes of accountability (which safeguards the organization from attack), and for measurability (which allows for targeted changes to keep the organization on the cutting edge of service). This LSM can also accurately be termed the “Problem-focused Model” as it allows the organization to be an expert at solving a particular problem without having to be an expert at the individual circumstances of each patient/client. This is a more Biblical approach because it is the approach that God in Christ took by solving each person’s sin problem through solving the issue of sin itself on the cross.

• Global Service Model (GSM): An approach to serving women that focuses on developing a relationship with each individual client using several different types of services in an effort to provide a place of “unconditional positive regard” an idea first developed by Carl Rogers. This model places the client in the driver’s seat by providing her with a menu board of services from which she can choose, also based on one of Carl Rogers’ ideas known as “Client-centered Therapy.” Each client is served differently at the discretion of client advocate or counselor usually beginning with a client-driven conversation lasting up to an hour. Often the counselor defers to the client as to her abortion-vulnerability rather than an objective assessment of her socio-economic situation which actually is the basis of the pressure to drive a woman to terminate her pregnancy. The counselor then attempts to provide certain types of information to dissuade her from having an abortion. The GSM is based on an unbiblical, modified, secular humanistic counseling model and is difficult to improve primarily because there is no way of accurately assessing the overall performance of the organization when each patient is served differently. Another term that could be used for the GSM is a “Client-centered Model.”

For case studies on centers implementing CompassCare’s Linear Service Model called the Optimization Tool go to www.compasscaretraining.org.

The only way to ensure that your pregnancy help medical clinic’s good intentions actually are provided in a way that is consistent and ethical requires that we as Executives know what our ethical standards are and that those ethics are applied with every step of a client/patient interaction. Just because we believe in the good intentions of our volunteers and staff does not necessarily mean that they are interacting with our clients in an ethical manner. Being a Christian is not enough for ethically delivering services medical or otherwise to women facing unintended pregnancy.

Sadly, you and I know that a woman’s decision about the outcome of her pregnancy is so often fraught with irrational fear, inadequate information, little to no counseling, sales tactics from financially vested interests, and coercive pressure from self-interested others that a woman does not feel like she has any other choice. In a 2004 study published in the Medical Science Monitor 84% of the American sample of women said that they did not receive adequate counseling before receiving an abortion. Additionally 64% felt pressured by others which would include boyfriends, parents, spouses, etc (Medical Science Monitor, 2004; 10 (10): SR5-16, Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women; Vincent M. Rue, Priscilla K. Coleman, James J. Rue, David C. Reardon).

Given these considerations and the importance of insulating women facing an unplanned pregnancy from intentional or unintentional negative influence, all organizations seeking to assist these women should employ 3 categories of ethical standards in their delivery of services: A) Supportive Decision-making, B) Informed Decision-making, and C) Transparency.

A.  Supportive Decision-making:

To respect and enhance a woman’s ability to make decisions regarding pregnancy outcomes, organizations should help by using these important pregnancy decision-making tasks:

Assessment of woman’s current social situation including relationship support structures (i.e. father of the baby, parental involvement, etc)

1. Assessment of woman’s current social situation including relationship support structures (i.e. father of the baby, parental involvement, etc)
2. Identification of circumstantial pressures (i.e. finances, education, unsupportive relationships, medical care, child care, age, long-term goals, etc)
3. Careful exploration of the full range of available options including abortion, birth, and adoption.
4. Careful consideration of potential short and long-term physical, social, and emotional outcomes of each available alternative.
5. Maintain a safe environment that helps a woman firmly resist pressure from self-interested parties.

Update:  See Part III:  Ethical Standards for Serving Abortion Minded Women