You Won’t Believe What New York Tried To Make Crisis Pregnancy Centers Post For Women! Look How Judges Responded...

Kirsten Andersen : Jan 20, 2014
LifeSiteNews.com

"The appeals court rightly affirmed that the city cannot force pregnancy centers to communicate some city-crafted messages that encourage women to go elsewhere, but the court left one provision in place that still does that. Because this type of compelled speech is not constitutional, we are considering our options for appeal regarding the remaining provision of New York City's ordinance." -Matt Bowman, Alliance Defending Freedom

(New York, NY)—A panel of three federal judges has unanimously ruled unconstitutional a provision in New York City law requiring pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to post notices and verbally advise potential clients that they are not full service pregnancy care facilities because they do not offer abortions. The law also requires CPCs to inform clients that the city recommends women who think they may be pregnant visit a 'licensed provider.'

The ruling partly upheld a lower court decision by Judge William Pauley, who called the law "particularly offensive to free speech principles," and struck it down in its entirety.

But in a 2-1 decision, the 2nd Circuit appeals panel reinstated one provision of the law requiring CPCs to disclose whether they have a licensed medical provider on staff who performs or directly supervises all services offered at the facility.

That portion of the ruling met with dissent from Judge Richard Wesley, who said the law's wording was vague enough to give "unbridled discretion" to city officials to determine which facilities must adhere to the requirements. The provision could see CPCs targeted for harassment or even closure by city officials who have made no secret of the fact that they want to shut them down, calling them 'sham clinics' for their refusal to offer abortion and, in some cases, contraception.

"Local Law 17 is a bureaucrat's dream," Judge Wesley wrote: "It contains a deliberately ambiguous set of standards guiding its application, thereby providing a blank check to New York City officials to harass or threaten legitimate activity." Wesley also said the city "does not have a right to sweep all those who, for faith-based reasons, think that abortion is not the right choice in with those who would defraud or intentionally mislead women making this important and personal decision."

The split decision was met with mixed feelings by CPC owners and their attorneys. They praised the appeals panel for the parts of the law they did strike down but also expressed concerns that the reinstated provision's wording may cause major problems for CPCs, which—unlike abortion clinics—are generally funded by donations, staffed by volunteers, and offer expensive services to women free of charge.