I want to pick up on David French's post announcing our victory for life in a closely-watched free speech case in New York City.
There was a problem with this law from the very start.
It singled out and targeted pro-life advocates - crisis pregnancy centers - in New York City. The requirements were burdensome and quite frankly, unconstitutional.
That's why we filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law and brought you an update last month when we participated in oral arguments before the court on our request for a preliminary injunction in this case.
The decision granting our request for a preliminary injunction - blocking the implementation of this discriminatory law - represents a significant victory. The opinion, issued by Judge William H. Pauley in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, came on the eve of the law's scheduled enactment.
What's encouraging is that the court clearly understood that this measure is not only wrong, but violates the First Amendment rights of our clients. The court correctly concluded the law violates free speech saying the law's "over-expansiveness is evident from its very language."
The court was especially critical of the City's desire to single-out crisis pregnancy centers with the new law.
"Defendants' second argument--that Plaintiffs engage in commercial speech because they are provided an audience to whom they can espouse their beliefs--is particularly offensive to free speech principles," the court declared. "While Defendants apparently regard an assembly of people as an economic commodity, this Court does not. Under such a view, flyers for political rallies, religious literature promoting church attendance, or similar forms of expression would constitute commercial speech merely because they assemble listeners for the speaker."
The opinion states: "This Court will not upend established free speech protections in service of Defendants' overly broad definition of commercial speech." The court added: "Local Law 17's fundamental flaw is that ... permits the Commission to classify a facility as a 'pregnancy services center' based solely on unspecified criteria."
The complete opinion is posted here.
As you'll recall, this 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. The requirements apply only to crisis pregnancy centers and not to abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood.
It forced crisis pregnancy centers to adopt and express views about abortion and contraception that they strongly disagree with.
That's why we filed a federal lawsuit that contends that the ordinance 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. The lawsuit is posted here.
Now that we've secured this important First Amendment victory through a preliminary injunction, our attention turns toward making this injunction permanent. Of course, the City of New York may decide to appeal this decision. And, if that's the case, we will aggressively meet that challenge.
At the end of the day, though, we're confident this troubling measure will never be enacted. And, with the issuance of this preliminary injunction, we took an important step toward ensuring that the constitutional rights of crisis pregnancy centers in New York City remain protected.
Big Abortion is irate because Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers are using technology to steal their business and save babies. According to a recent report , the radical abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America is livid with search engine Google for allowing pro-life advertisements, resulting in users being...
On Friday, June 29, 2018, the American Center for Law & Justice filed an amicus curiae brief – a “friend of the court” brief – at the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Preterm-Cleveland, et al. v. Lance Himes, et al . We filed our brief on behalf of the ACLJ and our Committee to Defend...
Today, in a 5-4 decision , the United States Supreme Court held that California cannot conscript pro-life pregnancy centers into mouthing a government-dictated message motivated by that state’s pro-abortion ideology. This is a resounding victory for the First Amendment right to free speech and the...
Recently, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge brought by Planned Parenthood against an Arkansas law requiring abortion pill providers to contract with a physician who has hospital admitting privileges. Planned Parenthood had successfully convinced a trial court to grant an injunction against the...