Victory for Life: Stay Granted in Crisis Pregnancy Center Case | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion

Verified

A Win in Crisis Pregnancy Center Case

By CeCe Heil1396911458000

The ACLJ represents two non-profit organizations that operate numerous pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in New York City in a lawsuit challenging a City law that imposes burdensome disclaimer and confidentiality requirements upon crisis pregnancy centers. Today we received a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that will protect our clients’ First Amendment rights while the case moves forward.

The law, enacted in March 2011, was designed by pro-abortion legislators to severely limit the ability of pro-life centers to advertise their services, and to divert the course of conversations that these centers have with women who are interested in their services, by requiring three lengthy disclaimers to be included, in English and Spanish, in any advertisements, in conversations in which a woman asks about abortion, contraception, or pre-natal care, and on signs posted at the center’s entrance and waiting area. Non-compliance with the law is punishable by thousands of dollars of penalties.

In July 2011, on the eve of when the law would take effect, the trial court granted our motion for a preliminary injunction, allowing our clients to continue to speak freely while the case moves forward. The court concluded that the law significantly burdens our client’s ability to speak freely, and is not the least restrictive way to promote the City’s interests. The court also concluded that the law’s definition of “pregnancy services center,” which determines what facilities are subject to the law’s requirements, is unconstitutionally vague.

The City appealed to the Second Circuit, and on January 17, a three-judge panel agreed with the trial court in holding that two of the law’s three disclaimer requirements violate our clients’ First Amendment rights. However, by a 2-1 vote, the panel also upheld a third disclaimer requirement and concluded that the law’s definition of “pregnancy services center” is not unconstitutionally vague. Judge Wesley wrote a separate opinion in which he stated that

Local Law 17 is a bureaucrat’s dream. It contains a deliberately ambiguous set of standards guiding its application, thereby providing a blank check to New York City officials to harass or threaten legitimate activity. . . . [T]he entire statute is irredeemably vague with respect to the definition of a pregnancy services center (PSC).

The Second Circuit later declined to rehear the case with a larger panel of judges concerning the third disclaimer requirement and vagueness issues. We then asked the court to allow the preliminary injunction to remain in place during the time it takes to prepare and file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, and also during the time it takes for the Court to consider the petition. The City opposed our motion, and we filed a reply brief supporting the motion.

Today the Second Circuit granted our motion, which means that our clients will not need to comply with the law while the appeal moves to the Supreme Court in the coming months. This is a significant win because the law violates our clients’ constitutional rights for the reasons set forth by the trial court and Judge Wesley.

Latest in
Pro Life

House Members Seek Protections for Babies

By Palmer Williams1474582720570

I first met Thandi in 2006 while working at an orphanage for abandoned infants in South Africa. She was a thriving four-month-old with an infectious smile and a very distinctive scar on her tiny bald scalp. Even at only four months old, Thandi exhibited a profound fighting spirit to overcome the...

read more

The Evil Logic of “Mercy Killing”

By Geoffrey Surtees1474466400000

“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.” The words of Hippocrates , the fourth century B.C. father of Western medicine, are plain rubbish according to many “health” professionals today. For proponents of euthanasia (literally, but falsely, meaning “a...

read more

Obama Admin Overreach Sides with PP

By ACLJ.org1473969080593

The Obama Administration continues its abrasive Executive overreach to push its agenda, bypassing Congressional approval and in direct opposition to the will of the American people. In its latest move, the Obama bureaucracy is trying to push through a new regulation to prevent state governments...

read more

Federal Judge's View of Pro-life Activism

By Walter M. Weber1473713288232

The media, typically sympathetic to abortion and slanted against pro-lifers, tends to paint those who stand up against abortion in a rather, let's say, unflattering way. Those who, in turn, draw their general impressions about groups from mainstream media therefore often share that prejudice...

read more