Abortion, the 1st Amendment, and Your Money: Fresh News, Same Old Story

The Trump Administration has announced a proposed rule that would prevent federal Title X family planning money from going to abortion providers. That’s “proposed.” It’s a long road from announcement to implementation. Pro-lifers are cheering as though it’s a done deal, and abortion providers are screaming as only people who’ve been hit in the wallet can scream.

Take a breath, folks. The proposed rule is good news. It would protect taxpayers from involvement in the abortion industry. But the rule is not in place yet, and may never be. Continue reading “Abortion, the 1st Amendment, and Your Money: Fresh News, Same Old Story”

UL: Manchester PP Seeks Variance

The April 10 New Hampshire Union Leader has a front-page article announcing that Planned Parenthood is seeking a zoning variance to remodel its Pennacook Street facility. Reporter Mark Hayward includes a brief reminder of how PP got the building in the first place 18 years ago: it sued its way in.

For more about that, see Leaven’s May 2014 post “How PPNNE got its Manchester building – and how a federal court helped.”

The UL article goes on to quote PP’s spokeswoman: “Our services are generally staying the same. It’s pretty much going to be business as usual.” Yup. Pretty much. Generally.

And then comes the last paragraph: “Planned Parenthood said it plans to seek a conditional use permit from the Planning Board to address a parking shortfall if the variance goes through.”

For anyone who has followed the buffer zone issue, and for anyone familiar with the parking situation near 24 Pennacook Street, that’s an interesting sentence. Will a “parking shortfall” provide PP with an excuse to post a buffer zone, in the name of safety? What would be the terms of a conditional use permit? Would it mean setting aside some of the public on-street parking area for PP use, thus effectively imposing a buffer against peaceful pro-life witnesses without using the buffer zone law?

Or maybe “it’s pretty much going to be business as usual” is a straightforward statement. We’ll see.

 

Free Speech Case Could Affect Pregnancy Care Centers

Arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra will be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 20. At issue is a California law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to display information on how to obtain subsidized abortions.

Here’s a recent GrokTalk podcast in which I discuss the case with Steve MacDonald of Granite Grok.
Listen to “The First Amendment Doesn't Apply to You If You Are Pro-Life” on Spreaker.

 

In Which the Ventriloquists Feel Some Pushback

Update to a December post: In “Ventriloquists at Work”, I described cases in Connecticut and California in which government agencies are trying to tell pro-life pregnancy care centers what kind of signage they must post. The U.S. Supreme Court will take a look at the California case later this year.

Just yesterday, January 5, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to uphold a similar law targeting a pro-life clinic in Baltimore, Maryland. That’s good news for all of us First Amendment fans.

From a press release from the Becket Fund, whose attorneys are representing the clinic in Baltimore:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A non-profit pregnancy center that helps low-income women in Baltimore prevailed over a discriminatory city ordinance today. In Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit protected the Center from being forced to violate its conscience by referring for abortions or posting government messages about abortion on its walls.

…In 2009, the City of Baltimore targeted the Center, which operates out of Catholic Church-owned property, demanding they display a sign stating that they “do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth control services,” even though they already inform women in welcome papers and a lobby sign about the caring services they do provide for free and also that they do not offer abortions. Yet the City of Baltimore did not require abortion clinics to display the services they do not offer, such as adoption or prenatal care. The Fourth Circuit’s decision today criticized Baltimore for adopting “retributive speech restrictions” on pro-life speakers, calling the restrictions a “grave violation” of “our nation’s dearest principles.”

 Read the full statement from the Becket Fund. 

Note the date of the city ordinance: eight years ago. Eight years of litigation would force most nonprofit pregnancy care centers out of business. Maybe that’s one of the factors motivating ordinance supporters. Thumbs up to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and other public-interest law firms who take on such cases.

Ventriloquists at Work: Hartford Goes After Pro-life Pregnancy Help Center

This is a ventriloquist’s dummy. You can make it say anything you want.

Wikimedia Commons photo of Charlie McCarthy doll with case
“Charlie McCarthy.” Wikimedia Commons photo  

This is a pregnancy help center. The Hartford, Connecticut City Council is trying to treat it like a dummy.

St. Gerard's Center for Life, Hartford CT
St. Gerard’s Center for Life/Hartford Women’s Center, Hartford, Connecticut. (Facebook photo)

A newly-passed Hartford ordinance would require the Hartford Women’s Center, operated by St. Gerard’s Center for Life, to post certain language to address the fears of abortion advocates who think deception is at the core of what the HWC does.

The Hartford Councilors are not the only ventriloquist wannabes out there, just the latest.

A California law seeks to force pro-life pregnancy help centers to promote state-funded abortions via signage inside the centers. That one’s been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.

The Hartford ordinance passed 7-2 on December 11, a few weeks after a packed-house public hearing. The seven city councilors who voted “yes” had an eye on California case, though. Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of Connecticut notes,

…in a last-minute change, the Hartford City Council altered the ordinance so that it goes into effect next July, instead of the original language which had it going into effect 30 days from its passage.

Why next July? Because the Supreme Court’s term – presumably including a decision on the California law – wraps up at the end of June.

Read my post at DaTechGuy blog about the Hartford and California cases and the Family Institute of Connecticut’s statement on the recent Hartford City Council vote