Officials in San
Francisco are proposing a new city ordinance to target pro-life pregnancy centres, alleging that 
such
centres are engaged in misleading counseling
and advertising.
Advocates for the
centres say the proposal aims at prohibiting crisis pregnancy centres from using
the word “abortion,” in what are known as internet tags or key words, to reach
out to women considering the procedure.
The two officials
pushing the measure, City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Supervisor Malia Cohe, say
the legislation came about because of complaints about First Resort, a pregnancy
centres that operates locations in San Francisco, Oakland and surrounding areas.
The San Francisco
Chronicle indicates Herrera sent a letter to First Resort claiming that its
advertising methods are misleading by making women believe it performs abortions, because they try to compete
with abortion centres in purchase links at Google for searches on
abortion.
He claimed the
centres are “right-wing, politically motivated centres” engaging in conduct that
is “nothing short of egregious.” Beyond the legislation, he said that if First
Resort doesn’t change its advertising practices by August 31 he will file suit
on behalf of the city.
However, First
Resort, on its web site, makes no claim, as Herrera charges, that it carries out abortions.
“First Resort is a
Pregnancy Counseling Women’s Health Clinic. We provide counseling and medical
care to women who are making decisions about unplanned pregnancies,” it says.
In a statement, First
Resort CEO Shari Plunkett challenged Herrera to tour the facility and said, “We
look forward to a robust discussion about the appropriateness of this
legislation and we urge them not to test the constitutional boundaries of free
speech.”
The legislation is
similar to laws approved in New York City and Baltimore, Maryland and proposed
in Austin, Texas which require pregnancy centres to post signs claiming they are
not legitimate medical centres and to tell women that they do not do abortions
nor refer for them.
City officials in
those locations did not approve of corresponding legislation requiring abortion
businesses to disclose they do not provide pregnancy resources or
support.
The law Baltimore
approved attacking pregnancy centres there was struck down by a federal judge in
January after a lawsuit brought by the Archdiocese of Baltimore.
Under the law, a
non-compliant pregnancy centres may also be subject to a criminal misdemeanor
charge under the law and, if convicted, the pregnancy centres is subject to a
fine of $200, plus $50 for each day the offense continues. The non-payment of
fines could result in the pregnancy centre being held in contempt of
court.
Judge Garbis in
Baltimore granted summary judgment finding the anti-pregnancy centre law is
viewpoint-based and impermissible to render constitutional under the First
Amendment.
The city of Baltimore
and officials with the pro-abortion legal group Centre for Reproductive Rights
appealed the judge’s decision but pro-life law firms have filed legal papers
supporting it.
Matt Bowman of the
Alliance Defence Fund says Judge Garbis’ ruling was a correct
one.
“The judge ruled that
the law’s attempt to burden speech unconstitutionally discriminated against
non-commercial, unlicensed speech on the explicit basis that it came from a
perspective disfavoring abortion,” he said, calling it a “monumental decision
protecting free speech and women’s health.”