It Is Right and Proper to Laugh at the Suffering of Journalists
Here's the GOP Rep Whose Lightning Round of Questioning Wrecked the Biden DOJ
This Canadian News Outlet's Segment on the Recent School Shooting Makes MS Now...
CNN's Scott Jennings Wrecks a Lib Guest's Narrative on Election Integrity With a...
The Nancy Guthrie Abduction Story Has Become the Willy Wonka Ferry Ride of...
Lady, What the Hell Were You Thinking Eating This Crab!?
For Epstein Victims and Members of Congress, It’s Time to Put Up or...
The Brilliant 'Reasoning' of the Left
The Decline of the Washington Post
Ingrates R’ Us
Jeffries and Schumer Denounce Trump's 'Racist' Video — but Who Are They to...
NYC Needs School Choice—Not ‘Green Schools’
Housing Affordability Is About Politics, Not Economics
Is It Cool to Be Unpatriotic? Perhaps — but It’s Also Ungrateful
A Chance Meeting With Richard Pryor — and Its Lasting Impact
Tipsheet

Maryland Pregnancy Center Gets Big Free Speech Win in Case with National Implications

A three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against a 2009 Baltimore city ordinance Friday that required pro-life pregnancy centers to post messages specifying that they did not provide abortion or refer patients to it.

Advertisement

The judges found that the ordinance violated the First Amendment free speech rights of the Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, a Christian group that provides prenatal care and abortion alternatives.

The panel’s decision upheld an earlier October 2016 ruling by U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis in Baltimore.

Those arguing in favor of the ordinance said it addressed deceptive advertising and helped reduce health risks from waiting too long to have an abortion. 

In his decision, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, wrote that “the ordinance forces the center to utter in its own waiting room words at odds with its foundational beliefs and with the principles of those who have given their working lives to it.”

“Without proving the inefficacy of less restrictive alternatives, providing concrete evidence of deception, or more precisely targeting its regulation, the city cannot prevail,” he concluded.

David Kinkopf, a lawyer representing the clinic, was pleased that the court “strongly upheld the First Amendment rights of religious and other nonprofit charities to speak and to serve those in need in the manner their conscience dictates, without undue government interference.”

Carol Clews, executive director of the Center for Pregnancy Concerns, said those at the center “are committed to serving women in need in a way that respects their choices, comforts them in a difficult time and is in line with our mission. This court ruling means that we can do our job and the government can’t tell us what to say or how to say it.”

Advertisement

Related:

MARYLAND

This case is just one of many across the country against laws mandating abortion information be provided by pro-life pregnancy care centers.

The Thomas More Society filed a complaint on Thursday with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights following a similar case in Illinois where a pregnancy center was being legally compelled to discuss abortion. The Christian legal group is asking HHS to issue interpretive guidance clarifying that existing federal law prohibits such ordinances.

The Supreme Court agreed in November to hear the case of a California law mandating that pregnancy centers post abortion information. That case is expected to be argued before the court in the coming months.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement