Secular Pro-Life
  • Home
  • About
    • Meet The Team
    • Mission and Vision
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Stances
      • Abortion
      • Religion
      • Contraception
      • The Rape Exception
    • Privacy
  • Content
    • Index
    • Blog
    • Presentations
      • A Secular Case Against Abortion
      • Building Bridges
      • Deconstructing Three Pro-Choice Myths
      • Overlooked Findings of the Turnaway Study
    • Research
      • Abortion Law and Abortion Rates
      • Abortion Law and Pregnancy Rates
      • Later Abortion
      • Embryonic Hearts
      • Abortion Views and Gender
    • Collections
      • For the biology textbook tells me so
      • They can hear you
      • Parents can hear you
      • Our children’s heartbeats
      • Becoming Pro-Life
      • Ask An Atheist
      • Fixed that meme for you
    • Print Materials
      • 100 Pro-Life Sign Ideas
      • Overview Brochure
      • FAQ
      • Why Secular People Should Care
      • Tell People You’re Pro-Life
      • Bridges
      • Presentation Overview card
    • Store
  • Contact
  • Get Involved
    • Why support SPL?
    • Donor Opportunities
    • Volunteer Opportunities
    • Volunteer Survey
    • More Surveys
      • Why do you support SPL?
      • Best and Worst Abortion Arguments
      • “Ask An Atheist” Interview
      • Non-Traditional Pro-Life Survey
      • LGBT Pro-Life Survey
      • Parents experiences with prenatal screening
  • Donate
  • Menu Menu

Good news, bad news on free speech

October 13, 2010/0 Comments/in Uncategorized /by Kelsey Hazzard

First, the bad news. Most of you have probably already heard that abortion advocates have targeted New York City for an anti-pregnancy clinic effort similar to those in Baltimore and Austin. The proposed measure would force pro-life pregnancy centers to put signs on their doors saying that they don’t perform abortions and don’t “provide … contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

I have no serious issue with the message that they don’t provide contraceptives. Unlike Planned Parenthood, which advertises itself as a “reproductive health” center generally, pregnancy centers and clinics are quite clearly for people who are pregnant. There’s not a whole lot of demand for contraceptives in that demographic. But the proposed language makes it sound to me like pro-life pregnancy clinics have some kind of beef with the FDA, which is just strange and ought to be reworded.

Second, I would be okay with the “we don’t do abortions” sign if it were a two-way street. But when similar legislation was proposed in Baltimore, pro-lifers proposed an amendment requiring abortion businesses to post what services THEY don’t offer– e.g. baby supplies, parenting classes, adoption services– and the amendment was shot down. From that, it’s pretty clear that the aim of the legislation is not so much to inform women as to divert business. I would be stunned if such an amendment were tacked onto the New York City bill.

Legally speaking, then, there’s an equal protection issue on top of the free speech issue. The Baltimore law is currently being litigated. Hopefully, that case will come to a favorable resolution, and New York abortion advocates will think twice.

Anyway, I like to balance bad news with good news, so let’s turn our attention to Pittsburgh! There, pro-lifers have gotten an injunction against a local ordinance that hindered their ability to pass out literature.

UPDATE: A commenter on Jill Stanek’s blog shared this delightful photoshop:Why aren’t pro-lifers fighting fire with fire, and demanding signs like this in cities where the abortion advocates haven’t even tried their legislation yet?

Related Posts

Tags: abortion providers, free speech, sidewalk counselors & crisis pregnancy centers
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://i0.wp.com/secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/plannedparenthoodsign.jpg?fit=400%2C378&ssl=1 378 400 Kelsey Hazzard https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png Kelsey Hazzard2010-10-13 21:27:002021-11-08 12:58:25Good news, bad news on free speech
You might also like
AB 775: Forcing CPCs to Recommend Abortion in CA
NYC pregnancy center burglarized
Delusional for Davis: What Texas Abortion Supporters Have Wrong
Pro-lifer Arrested for Praying: Our Response
Gosnell and Abortion, Part 1 of 3
Indiana pro-life advocates need your help
Assorted news
What changed an abortion counselor’s mind
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow via Email

* indicates required

Categories

  • Ableism
  • Abortion pills
  • Administrative
  • Adoption & Foster Care
  • Biology
  • Bodily Rights
  • en español
  • Later Abortion
  • Legislation, laws, & court cases
  • Miscarriage & Pregnancy Loss
  • Personhood
  • Philosophy
  • Pro-Life Demographics
  • Rape Exception
  • Religion
  • Research
  • Speeches, Discussions, Presentations
  • SPL Emails
  • They Can Hear You
  • Top SPL Articles
  • Top SPL Graphics
  • Uncategorized
  • We Asked You Answered
  • Year In Review
  • Your Stories

Archive

It’s crucial that we demonstrate that anyone can–and everyone should–oppose abortion. Thanks to you, we are working to change minds, transform our culture, and protect our prenatal children. Every donation supports our ability to provide nonsectarian, nonpartisan arguments against abortion. Read more details here. Please donate today.

DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
© Copyright 2025 Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup

Related Posts

Upcoming event in Iowa Quick News Roundup: 10/14/10
Scroll to top
Want to receive our email newsletter?

We’d be happy to keep in touch. Subscribe for access to our newsletter and other updates.