Search  |  Login  |  Register

Update in Crisis Pregnancy Center Appeal

By ACLJ.org1347296602000

This Friday, September 14, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear oral arguments concerning a New York City ordinance that targets pro-life pregnancy centers.

The ordinance requires pregnancy centers—facilities that offer free, non-medical assistance to women who are or may become pregnant—to include lengthy disclaimers in both English and Spanish in all of their advertisements, on signs posted in their lobbies, on their websites, and in any phone or in-person conversation regarding the services that they offer. The ordinance imposes substantial financial penalties for non-compliance; a facility that fails to comply with the ordinance for one month could face $76,000 in fines. The intent and effect of the law is to single out facilities that oppose abortion for disfavored treatment, while abortion-providing facilities are exempt from the law.

In the litigation, the ACLJ represents The Evergreen Association (Expectant Mother Care Pregnancy Centers-EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers) and Life Center of New York (AAA Pregnancy Problems Center), which operate numerous pro-life pregnancy centers across New York City. The ordinance would prevent these Plaintiffs from using certain forms of advertising and would significantly increase the cost of other forms of advertising.

The ACLJ has alleged that the ordinance violates the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of the press, and due process of law guaranteed to the Plaintiffs by the United States and New York Constitutions. Similar ordinances have been struck down in whole or in part by federal judges in Baltimore and Montgomery County, Maryland.

Last July, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City of New York from enforcing the ordinance, concluding that there was a high likelihood that the ordinance violated the Plaintiffs’ free speech rights and was impermissibly vague. The judge stated that the law was not comparable to laws that regulate commercial advertising because the pregnancy centers offer assistance for free in furtherance of their religious and charitable missions. In addition, the judge concluded that there are multiple ways for the City of New York to protect its interests, including through the neutral enforcement of existing laws, without forcing the pro-life pregnancy centers to speak a government-crafted message.

The City of New York appealed the judge’s decision to the Second Circuit, and briefs were filed by both sides from October 2011 to February 2012. The case was consolidated with another lawsuit brought by pro-life facilities that are or may be subject to the ordinance’s requirements. A panel of three judges will hear oral argument and subsequently issue a decision.

Latest in
Pro Life

Late-Term Abortion Is Disgraceful

By Carly F. Gammill1431965295788

The 2013 trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the late-term abortionist convicted of murdering babies who were born alive after undergoing abortion procedures, presented the public with graphic descriptions of the abortions, and even photographs of many of those babies. What words might describe such...

read more

Bureaucracy Bullies Adoptive Families

By ACLJ.org1431694800000

Even as orphans in need face overwhelming obstacles, those loving and caring families who wish to provide them the care they so desperately need – to adopt them – are being targeted by an out-of-control federal bureaucracy. The international orphan crisis currently affects over 153 million children...

read more

Now It’s the Senate’s Turn

By Jay Sekulow1431553246396

Today, two years after abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murdering babies born alive after botched abortions , the House of Representatives voted 242-184 to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Thank you for making this happen. You gave voice to the voiceless. You stood up...

read more

Gosnell’s “House of Horrors”

By Olivia Summers1431533011721

Two years ago today , Kermit Gosnell was found guilty on three counts of murder in the first-degree, as well as “hundreds of lesser charges.” Certainly, a trial resulting in a conviction that significant was followed closely by the American media? Not so. Most media outlets barely covered the trial...

read more