Secular Pro-Life
  • Home
  • About
    • Meet The Team
    • Mission and Vision
    • Stances
      • Abortion
      • Religion
      • Contraception
      • The Rape Exception
  • Content
    • Index
    • Blog
    • Myths
    • 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
      • Fixed that meme for you
      • They can hear you
      • Parents can hear you
      • Our children’s heartbeats
      • Becoming Pro-Life
    • Publications
      • Overview Brochure
      • Why Secular People Should Care
    • Store
  • Contact
  • Get Involved
    • Volunteer Opportunities
    • Donor Opportunities
    • Why support SPL?
  • Donate
  • Menu Menu

Baltimore cannot “compel speech” from CPC.

July 9, 2012/0 Comments/in Uncategorized /by Monica Snyder

Similar to previous stories, a federal judge ruled that Baltimore cannot force a CPC to post signs stating the CPC does not provide abortions or birth control.

In 2009 Baltimore passed a law requiring such signs, and Archbishop Edwin O’Brien filed suit, claiming the law violated free speech and assembly, free exercise of religion, equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and a conscience clause under Maryland Code.

In 2011 a U.S. district judge issued a permanent injunction against the law, saying it amounts to unconstitutional “compelled speech.”  Baltimore appealed, and two more U.S. district judges upheld the decision, with another dissenting.

Niemeyer found the ordinance fails to target false advertising as it purports, it is overinclusive in its application to all pregnancy centers, and it ignores other alternatives that could accomplish the ordinance’s goal without imposing speech on the centers, like starting its own educational campaign.

He wrote, “That the City resorted to speech restrictions before trying these or other similar options is more than enough to doom the ordinance.”

 Several thoughts/questions:

  1. How would it affect the CPC if the ruling had gone the other way, and the CPC had been required to post a sign saying it does not provide abortions or birth control?
  2. I like that the judge specifically stated this law is overinclusive in its application to all pregnancy centers.  I’ve heard anecdotes of CPCs that mislead women, and anecdotes of CPCs that were forthright and helpful to women. What proportion of CPCs would need to be “bad apples” in order to justify compelling speech from all CPCs?  
  3. If some abortion clinics giving out false prenatal development information and some give out accurate information, what proportion of abortion clinics would need to be “bad apples” in order to justify, for example, mandating certain prenatal development information be discussed?  Or mandating ultrasounds?
  4. Do you think questions #2 & #3 are comparable?  Why or why not?
  5. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe free speech can be restricted or speech can be compelled?  For example, should there be limits to freedom of speech in medical/scientific settings?

Related Posts

Tags: free speech, informed consent, legal, 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
  • Link to Instagram
https://i0.wp.com/secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1stamendment.jpg?fit=400%2C225&ssl=1 225 400 Monica Snyder https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png Monica Snyder2012-07-09 13:36:002021-11-08 12:41:36Baltimore cannot “compel speech” from CPC.
You might also like
Pregnancy clinics have less 1st Amendment protection than Westboro?
What It’s Like to Be a Secular Sidewalk Counselor
Youth Sidewalk Counseling Day This Saturday
D.C. activists challenge abortion fence today
Your experiences with CPCs and pregnancy resource centers.
Prosecuting Women? Part 2.
Fixed that meme for you
Gonzales v. Carhart: What can you see?
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
  • Administrative
  • Adoption and Foster Care
  • Biology
  • Bodily Rights
  • en español
  • Late-Term Abortion
  • Legislation, laws, and court cases
  • Medication Abortion
  • Miscarriage & Pregnancy Loss
  • Personhood
  • Philosophy
  • Pro-Life Demographics
  • Rape Exception
  • Religion
  • Research
  • SPL Emails
  • Uncategorized
  • We Asked You Answered
  • Your Stories

Archive

As the national conversation on abortion intensifies, it’s more important than ever 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. Please donate today.

DONATE
© Copyright 2023 Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup

Related Posts

“Gnawing at my belly, chewing through my organs.” Prosecuting women?
Scroll to top