Dear Lucas,
As you know, a federal judge recently issued a temporary injunction against the law I authored to regulate Crisis Pregnancy Centers in New York City.
Today's New York Times includes an editorial that underscores why the judge got it wrong and why we must keep fighting to stop these facilities from deceiving and harming women.
Here is a link to the editorial, which I have also pasted below: www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/opinion/25mon3.html
Thanks for your continued interest in this issue. We'll keep you posted as this fight unfolds.
Sincerely,
Jessica Lappin
NEW YORK TIMES
Editorial
Published: July 24, 2011
Why Won't They Say?
In a setback for women facing a particularly vulnerable moment in their lives, a
federal judge has temporarily barred New York City from enforcing a new law that
would require so-called crisis pregnancy centers masquerading as licensed
medical facilities to disclose basic facts about their services.
These centers, run by abortion opponents, have sprung up in many places around
the country. They typically draw clients with advertisements that appear to
promise neutral abortion counseling. Staff members in medical attire collect
information and perform pregnancy tests and sonograms and try to convince women
not to have an abortion. Women who share personal information are also unaware
that the centers are not covered by medical confidentiality rules.
The New York City law would require these centers to disclose in ads and
waiting-room signs whether they have a licensed medical provider supervising
services and whether they make referrals for prenatal care, abortion and
emergency contraception. Client information they collect would be subject to
confidentiality rules.
The decision by Judge William Pauley III of Federal District Court in Manhattan
acknowledges the city's interest in preventing deception related to
time-sensitive reproductive health care. The judge still granted a preliminary
injunction, mistakenly perceiving a violation of free expression in the law's
modest consumer protections.
The law does not prevent the centers from disseminating their anti-abortion
message or discriminate against the centers on the basis of their viewpoint.
Rather, it requires them to make truthful, factual disclosures about their
services. The judge claimed the measure's description of the facilities it
covers is too vague. But the criteria seem adequate to guide enforcement.
As the law stands, medical doctors can be required to convey certain factual
information to pregnant women to help them make informed choices. Under Judge
Pauley's ruling, crisis pregnancy centers pretending to be real medical
facilities cannot be made to disclose essential facts about their real services.
That makes no sense at all.