|
Thursday, March 3, 2011 | Volume 2, Issue 2
NYC anti-pregnancy center vote passed 39-9, with one abstaining
Dear Heartbeat Affiliates and Friends,
The New York City Council just passed a law that attempts to stop the good works of pregnancy help centers in New York City (NYC).
On Wednesday, March 2, the NYC City Council chose to ignore the legal precedent set by the recent federal court ruling on a similar case in Baltimore. At issue in NYC – and previously in Baltimore – is pregnancy help centers’ First Amendment right to free speech.
The new NYC law is an even greater violation of constitutional rights. Many legislators around the country, at both city and state levels, including the NYC Council, are attempting to pass similar legislation in disregard of the constitutional obstacles to overcome.
Does the recent Baltimore decision ruling that ordinances which seek to regulate a pregnancy resource center’s communication with its clients is unconstitutional have any impact in New York City?
In our last issue of Capitol Matters we discussed federal district court Judge Garbis’ decision in Archbishop O’Brien, et al. v. Mayor and City of Baltimore, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00760-MJG (Filed 01/28/11), which determined that Baltimore’s ordinance seeking to regulate the time, place, and manner of a pregnancy resource center’s (PRC) communications with its clients, as well as the attempt to mandate certain disclosures, was unconstitutional.
Compare to two milleniums of Christian law |
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born"
(Letter of Barnabas 19).
|
Apparently, the New York City Council failed to read Judge Garbis’ opinion. This week, the New York City Council ignored Judge Garbis’ ruling and enacted legislation which has similar intentions and goals as the Baltimore legislation. The substance of the proposed NYC legislation appears to be innocuous: it requires verbal and written disclaimers for essentially any communication with clients or potential clients that the PRC does not provide or refer for abortions (abortion defined as specifically including chemical abortifacients). However, make no mistake; the intention of this legislation is to bring centers under very intense scrutiny and to provide pro abortion forces with a weapon. The desired effect of the proabortion movement through this type of regulation is to slow down, if not altogether stop, the work of PRCs nationwide.
You already know that the abortion lobby has turned its tactics away from failed national legislation and is pouring its efforts into local and state-wide attacks. Click here to learn more what this latest attack in New York means for you as well as what steps your center can take to protect your ability to serve clients.
| |
Blessings on each of your and your work,
Ellen Foell, Esq.
Heartbeat Legal Counsel |
|
|