Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
Similar to an Illinois law already deemed “stupid and very likely unconstitutional,” this legislative attempt to smear and silence crisis pregnancy centers in order to encourage abortion is nothing more than the government engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
A court has ruled that a suit filed by pro-life pregnancy clinics against a Vermont law that specifically singles out pro-life centers may proceed.
Last year Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed SB 37 into law. SB 37 defines clinics that do not provide abortion as “limited-services pregnancy centers” and imposes additional regulations on these clinics.
Those regulations include an advertising restriction that bans pro-life centers from “misleading” the public about the services they provide or the risks of abortion. The legislative findings of the bill claim that pro-life pregnancy centers engage in false advertising that makes women believe they provide abortions or referrals for abortions and argues that they spread false information about abortions.
The advertising regulations also prohibits clinics from advertising abortion pill reversal.
SB 37 also has a provider restriction, which states that licensed health care professionals are responsible for making sure all services, counseling, and information provided at the clinics are conducted or disseminated in compliance with state law and professional standards of practice.
The law does not provide clear definitions for health services or counseling and says that if any person at the clinic does anything that is not in compliance with state law and standards, the licensed professionals who work or volunteer at the center will be held responsible for the violation and may be fined or have their licenses revoked.
No complaint is required for the Board of Medical Practice to act.
The state does not subject clinics that do offer abortion to the same standards.
The National Institute for Family and Life Advocates, along with two pro-life pregnancy centers, Aspire Now and Branches, filed suit against the state, claiming the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The plaintiffs claim the law unconstitutionally seeks to target pro-life pregnancy centers based on their viewpoint.
Judge William K. Sessions III with the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont agrees that the law could discriminate based on viewpoint and has now ruled that the lawsuit may proceed.
He explained that “the provider regulation makes licensed providers responsible for the (non-professional) speech/conduct of others. The statute seeks to regulate the speech of non-professionals — unlicensed medical providers — by treating them as professionals even when they would not otherwise be subject to state licensing regimes if they worked anywhere else.”
He added that the “specific issue is with the narrow category of individuals who are made accountable for non-licensed speech: licensed providers who work at LSPCs. This suggests content (and viewpoint) discrimination. The law does not make all licensed providers at pregnancy clinics responsible for ensuring that health care services, information, and counseling comply with Vermont law. Instead, it singles out LSPCs for that treatment, subjecting the conduct and speech of medical service providers with particular views to heightened burdens.”
Under the law, Sessions argued, non-licensed individuals are exempt from medical professional standards “if they work at any clinic other than an LSPC” or “if they work at an LSPC that does not employ a licensed provider.”
Sessions labeled this “under-inclusivity” that “raises questions about whether the provider regulation is actually a conduct regulation or a licensing scheme directed at restraining speech.”
All three plaintiffs may now challenge the law.
Julia Payne, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is providing legal support for the plaintiffs, stated, “Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should know they have life-affirming options available to them, from emotional support to practical resources.”
She continued,
“That is what our clients offer to their communities, and that is why the court rightly saw fit for this lawsuit to proceed. Not only does Vermont’s law force faith-based pregnancy centers in the state to speak and act against their conscience; it also robs women of these options and impedes their ability to receive critical services during a difficult time in their lives. Pregnancy centers should be free to serve women and offer the support they need without fear of unjust government punishment. As our case continues, we will urge the court to support the rights of pregnancy centers that provide these critical care services.”
Pro-life clinics aren’t misleading women because they openly state that they don’t provide abortion and they don’t support abortion. Pro-abortion zealots are the ones misleading women into thinking that crisis pregnancy centers that offer help for them and their baby are harmful and that their only choice should be abortion.
States across the U.S. are targeting pregnancy clinics by falsely claiming that they somehow mislead the public or engage in deceptive business practices.
Illinois, for example, passed a law similar to Vermont’s which specifically targeted pro-life centers. That law was shot down by a federal judge for being “stupid and very likely unconstitutional,” as well as “painfully and blatantly a violation of the First Amendment.”
The Vermont law is equally egregious in its disrespect for the right of crisis pregnancy centers to have a different viewpoint than the government.
Who gets to decide what “false” claims about abortion or abortion pill reversal are? Planned Parenthood, which spends millions of dollars lobbying to influence legislators and legislation that favor abortion and their business? A biased legislature?
Just because the government doesn’t like what pro-life centers say based on evidence provided by pro-life medical doctors doesn’t mean that their statements aren’t true. And just because they’d rather women not know about the risks of abortion or about the options they have in carrying their pregnancy to term doesn’t mean that they are allowed to ban or censor such conversations.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
