- Gentlemen, start your drones: Judge’s ruling opens door for commercial use
- Soldier who hid, bragged about not saluting flag to be punished — in secret
- ‘Maverick’ of the seas: ‘Top Gun’ school for U.S. ship officers to launch
- Putin declares Sochi Paralympics open amid Ukrainian protest
- ‘In Jesus name, we pray’ sparks ire at Ohio council meeting
- Navy’s first laser weapon ready for prime time; drone killer to deploy this summer
- Billionaire backer: Rick Santorum ‘needs to be heard’ in 2016
- Obamacare fallout: 49 percent pessimistic; 45 percent ‘scared’
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
Pregnancy center’s suit vs. Montgomery County goes to court
National interest in pro-life case
A law forcing Montgomery County women’s centers to tell patrons if they don’t have a doctor on staff is set to be heard by a federal appellate court on Thursday as attorneys weigh the need for accurate abortion information against constitutional rights of free speech.
At issue is a Montgomery County law adopted in early 2010 that requires any Montgomery County person or place that provides “pregnancy-related services” but does not have any medical personnel on staff to post a notice saying so. The sign also must state that “the Montgomery County Health officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider.”
The two-year battle, according to court documents, pits the county’s “concern about the accuracy and truthfulness” of information about pregnancy provided by those organizations against the Centro Tepeyac Silver Spring Women's Center, which claims the county’s law is unconstitutional and is “designed to regulate pregnancy counseling by pro-life centers, but not … by abortion clinics.”
Similar debates are raging across the United States. Because it is in federal court, this case could have national implications on how local governments can communicate pregnancy options to women.
Centro Tepeyac describes itself as a nonprofit Catholic women’s service center that offers pregnancy tests, education and counseling as well as a “meaningful alternative to abortion.” Under the law, it would be forced to post in its waiting room the message about not having medical providers and the advice about seeking a licensed health care provider.
On the other hand, abortion clinics, which require on-staff licensed medical professionals to perform the procedures, would be exempt from the rule, the alliance argues in court papers. The lawsuit, filed by Centro Tepeyac, claims this is discriminatory and requiring the signs infringes on its free speech and 14th Amendment rights.
The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments from both sides of the debate in Richmond on Thursday.
Matt Bowman, an attorney with the Alliance for Defending Freedom, which is representing Centro Tepeyac, said his hope is that the court will preserve the center’s right to share its pro-life message without government interference.
“The law says that if you’re pro-life and you want to talk about pregnancy, and you’re completely truthful, you still must recite the government’s negative messages to try to scare women away from the real pro-life resources you are offering them,” he said.
The center argues that facilities that offer abortions may not have health care professionals counseling women on pregnancy-related issues.
“Abortion clinics can counsel women about pregnancy options without disclaimers as to the scope of their services,” Centro Tepeyac’s lawsuit states. “These clinics are exempt from the law, even if no licensed healthcare providers are involved in the pregnancy options counseling in any way.”
According to court papers filed by Montgomery County Attorney Marc P. Hansen, the county enacted the law as a result of the County Council’s worry that incorrect information was being shared by some women’s health organizations.
Among supporting evidence used in the county’s case was a 2008 report by NARAL Pro-Choice America Maryland, which gave details about some pregnancy resource centers “providing misleading, or, in some cases, completely false,” information.
Among the “misinformation” listed in court cases were testimonies from clients that mentioned emotional and physical side effects from having an abortion.
“We certainly don’t disagree with their ability to exist,” said Jodi Finkelstein, who is the executive director for NARAL Pro-Choice America Maryland. “They certainly have that right, and not everybody believes in abortion. We have a problem with misinformation handed out.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Meredith Somers is a Metro reporter for The Washington Times. She can be reached at email@example.com.
- Lenten season marks big business for seafood sector
- ACU at 50: Strong and looking ahead
- Ready for spring? D.C. cherry blossoms to bloom by mid-April
- MOVIE REVIEW: 'Son of God'
- Experts say immigrants are changing the U.S. religious landscape
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Tammy Bruce
- Bill Clinton cashes in on struggling nonprofit hospital
- Putin has transformed Russian army into a lean, mean fighting machine
- BRUCE: Obama's bizarre immigration rules
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- IRS to turn over Lerner emails in tea party targeting probe
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Unemployment insurance vote could happen next week
- PRUDEN: Likening Putin to Hitler on Ukraine shows Hillary's shaky grasp of history
- DELAY: A revolution for the Constitution
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again