Time is of the essence.
A troubling new law that unconstitutionally targets crisis pregnancy centers in New York City is scheduled to be enacted on July 14th.
That's why today's hearing on our motion for a preliminary injunction asking a federal court to block it was so important.
As you recall, we filed a federal lawsuit in March against the City of New York, challenging the constitutionality of the new ordinance.
Here's the problem:
The ordinance requires crisis pregnancy centers to post signs in the lobbies of their counseling centers, add extensive additional written language to their advertising materials, and to provide oral statements during both "in person" and telephonic conversations regarding the services offered by crisis pregnancy centers.
This ordinance violates the constitutional rights of our clients and forces crisis pregnancy centers to adopt and express views about abortion and contraception that are not their own, that they strongly disagree with.
At a hearing today before Judge William H. Pauley in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, our attorneys argued that the new law violates the constitutional rights - including freedom of speech - of the crisis pregnancy centers. We also asserted that the law forces the centers to espouse a message they disagree with and interferes with their right to craft a message of their own choosing.
We pointed out to the court that this disturbing law violates the constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of the press, and due process of law, guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the New York Constitution.
In this case, we represent The Evergreen Association (Expectant Mother Care Pregnancy Centers-EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers) and Life Center of New York (AAA Pregnancy Problems Center) which operate a total of 13 crisis pregnancy centers across New York City.
Clearly, with the law set to take effect July 14th, we're expecting a decision soon from the court regarding our motion for a preliminary injunction.
It's our hope that the court will take the appropriate action and put an end to this measure before it ever takes effect.
The Supreme Court's 5-3 decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt , striking down two Texas abortion regulations, was a great disappointment . No question. Assuming the role of Supreme Medical Review Board, the Court took a magnifying glass to scrutinize the Texas regulations for any flaws or...
It’s the first time in nearly a decade since the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of abortion. In Monday’s 5-3 decision, the high court struck down a Texas law that required common-sense safety standards for abortion clinics – regulations designed to protect women. In writing for the...
It’s extremely disappointing. The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down commonsense safety standards for abortion clinics – regulations designed to protect women. The 5-3 decision in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt struck down a Texas law regulating abortion clinics. The Court missed...
Last summer, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) began to release a series of videos documenting criminal and other illegal acts of abortion providers, medical researchers, and fetal tissue procurement companies after the group spent a few years compiling an extensive collection of videos and...