CMDA assists with two pro-life victories

Excerpt from "Maryland pregnancy centers in the clear," Onenewsnow.com by Charlie Butts. June 29, 2012--ADF is proud of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for ruling against two unconstitutional ordinances that regulated pro-life pregnancy centers in Maryland.

The Baltimore and Montgomery County laws required pro-life facilities to post signs saying they do not provide birth-control or abortions. Abortion clinics, however, were not required to advertise the services they do not offer. So, Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that pro-life centers should not be required to post material that discourages women from working with them.

"Pregnancy centers offer real hope and help to women. They should be free to share that message and not be forced to provide the government's preferred message," attorney Matt Bowman contends. "Pregnancy centers offer emotional support and practical resources to women, giving them more choices. They should not be made to speak negatively about the services they provide, and the Fourth Circuit was right to rule against that in both of these cases."

The Fourth Circuit decision upholds federal district court ruling last year that declared the ordinances infringed on the pro-life facilities' free speech rights (see earlier story). Similar ordinances in San Francisco and Austin, Texas are also facing court challenges. Full story can be found here.

CEO David Stevens, MD, MA (Ethics): "CMDA has been involved in a number of these cases on behalf of our members. This favorable ruling is likely to affect similar court cases in Austin, Texas and perhaps even San Francisco. There was no deceptive advertising here. These crisis pregnancy centers were simply hurting the business income of abortion clinics. Some women who would have paid for an abortion instead decided not to abort after entering a pro-life clinic. These abortion companies lobbied to get these laws pushed through.

"The government cannot compel speech except in limited circumstances. For example, they can compel drug advertisers to state the side effects and potential complications so patients can make informed healthcare decisions. In these situations, the groups that withhold true informed consent information are usually abortion clinics. A good example of this is Planned Parenthood whose own data in their 2010 annual report reveals they performed 329,445 abortions but only referred 841 women for adoptions. I suspect that one in 400 referral number represents women who had already made up their mind to put their child up for adoption before they walked in the door and couldn't be talked out of it.

"This ruling is important for pro-life professionals because abortion zealots are advocating that they also must post information that they don't do abortions, provide certain types of contraception or other information. The 4th Circuit ruling provides powerful ammunition to stymie those efforts.

AAPLOG et al Amici Brief for the city of Baltimore
Great Baltimore Center v. City of Baltimore 4th Circuit Court of Appeal
Centro 4th Circuit Ruling