More

San Francisco Crisis Pregnancy Center Law Targets Anti-Abortion Groups

 
First Posted: 10/19/11 08:55 PM ET Updated: 12/19/11 05:12 AM ET

San Francisco is as solidly a pro-choice town as exists anywhere in the United States and, with a vote by the city's Board of Supervisors this week, that standing now has been made all but official.

In an almost unanimous show of solidarity, San Francisco's eleven-member governing body has given preliminary approval to a law banning crisis pregnancy centers from engaging in what it labeled "false or misleading advertising practices."

At issue are two crisis pregnancy centers in the city designed to council expectant mothers though unplanned pregnancies that both take a staunchly pro-life stance. The measure, sponsored by Supervisor Malia Cohen, is aimed at making sure people don't go to the centers considering an abortion only to discover they're in a place largely designed to talk women out of terminating their pregnancies.

In August, Cohen and City Attorney Dennis Herrera singled out one of the centers, First Resort, calling its tactics "nothing short of egregious" for claiming to offer pre- and post-abortion counseling while listing the creation of "an abortion-free world" as a goal in its statement of purpose.

The centers would be liable for a $500 fine in each instance of being caught hiding that they do not offer abortion services.

The two pregnancy centers in question insist they aren't being misleading and make their opposition to abortion explicit to everyone who walks in the door. Additionally, they argue that the law unfairly singles them out, while leaving pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood untouched.

"The proposed ordinance regulates and restricts speech only by persons and organizations the city regards as having anti-abortion or pro-life views, exempting the rest," a First Resort spokesperson said in a statement to the San Francisco Chronicle. "This viewpoint and speaker discrimination is a blatant violation of the First Amendment of the United States."

First Resort's website makes the organization appear to be quite open to abortion. It lists testimony from a client who ultimately chose to terminate her pregnancy saying, "I really thank you for all your help and support. The decision I made isn't a pleasant one but I received good advice so that I wouldn't have to go through this again."

The site also contains a page listing types of abortion procedures that reads, "In trying to decide if abortion is the right choice, women have many things to think about and sort out. Learning the facts about abortion can help them in making the best choice for them."

Nowhere on the site does it mention the organization's opposition to abortion.

"This ordinance will make a real difference in the lives of women living in San Francisco who find themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy," said Amy Everitt, the state director of NARAL Pro-Choice California in a statement to SF Appeal. "No one should be misled about the counseling or medical services that they are looking for, and by passing this ordinance, San Francisco continues its tradition of always standing up to protect reproductive health-care access for the most vulnerable members of our community."

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, the lone vote on the board against the measure, expressed doubt that any women had actually been deceived noting that the law's supporters relied on anonymous Yelp reviews instead of bringing in fist-hand testimony or sworn affidavits. Elsbernd called the measure, "a solution in search of a problem."

Laws resembling the San Francisco ordinance have had difficulty standing up in court. The San Francisco Examiner reports:

Similar laws in other cities have been thrown out by judges for being unconstitutional. Last summer, a federal judge in New York struck down a law that would have required such centers to post a notice that they do not provide abortions or have licensed medical staff. In January 2010, a nearly identical law targeted at faith-based pregnancy centers in Baltimore met a similar fate.

The measure will come before the Board of Supervisors for a final vote next week.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SAN FRANCISCO

San Francisco is as solidly a pro-choice town as exists anywhere in the United States and, with a vote by the city's Board of Supervisors this week, that standing now has been made all but official. ...
San Francisco is as solidly a pro-choice town as exists anywhere in the United States and, with a vote by the city's Board of Supervisors this week, that standing now has been made all but official. ...
San Francisco is as solidly a pro-choice town as exists anywhere in the United States and, with a vote by the city's Board of Supervisors this week, that standing now has been made all but official. ...
San Francisco is as solidly a pro-choice town as exists anywhere in the United States and, with a vote by the city's Board of Supervisors this week, that standing now has been made all but official. ...
Filed by Aaron Sankin  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 71
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
05:59 PM on 10/25/2011
Usual scummy right wing lies.

If they want to counsel women on giving birth, fine. But I've had enough of these right wingers' total disregard for the truth.
07:43 AM on 10/21/2011
As a women, I ave one thing to say: GOOD!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
05:49 PM on 10/20/2011
I guess the First Amendment only exists for those who agree with what the political leaders in San Francisco say. They should just call the city a bastion of communism and be done with it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mcvet
History will educate you on the future
07:58 PM on 10/20/2011
Do you think calling people Communist is the solution?? They called us Communist during the 60's when we were marching to keep Blacks from being lynched.. didn't help their cause either.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
08:22 PM on 10/20/2011
Look at some of the laws that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have passed. Heck, many San Francisco politicians will freely admit they are socialists or communists.
06:01 PM on 10/25/2011
So now LYING is a First Amendment value?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
11:56 AM on 10/26/2011
Lying has always been protected speech. How else do you think politicians run for office?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rayosun
a life-long liberal Democrat and devout Christian
04:17 PM on 10/20/2011
I've been a Christian clergyman promoting choice at my http://liberalslikechrist.org/ChristianChoice web site for about 15 years. What I would advises pro-choice advocates to do, if they have any problem with "Pro-Life" protesters in their area is to create large banners reading something like "Mothers who abort deserve THE DEATH PENALTY" and to mix in with the pro-lifers. The truth of the matter is that pro-lifers PROVE that they themselves don't believe their own propaganda because when forced to face up to what their arguments should lead to, they come to the SAME CONCLUSION that pro-choice people do.
I'll bet you they would DISPERSE, rather than be associated with such a banner
I know where to get great banners 3 by 8 feet wide for just $100.
I'm relatively new here, and would welcome followers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
scrzbill
Liberal veteran
09:26 AM on 10/21/2011
Moving to the south will get you many followers of your fantasy sky pilot.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
baseballmom
My micro-bio is empty.
03:32 PM on 10/20/2011
Yep, remember the famous line from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are they who lie, deceive, and misrepresent themselves."
photo
homer winslow
Truth in Beauty, Beauty in Truth
05:01 PM on 10/20/2011
AKA Christian Fundamentalists...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olderthan
12:42 PM on 10/20/2011
Only in San Francisco, that city I love.
11:56 AM on 10/20/2011
why is it that christians , do not believe in being honest , the world would be a better place.they want to win at any cost ,isn't that devil game.
poppie0144
use our natural gas
10:48 AM on 10/20/2011
I hope that group take some to court and also sue them for monetary liability and the millions of dollars maybe this will make him understand you, not take some and free right to First Amendment away. It seems as though the First Amendment and there arises only for the liberals. This group has ever bit the same rights as the pro-abortionists.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Milash
It says I should edit my micro-bio, so I did.
12:02 PM on 10/20/2011
What someone does to their own body is no concern to you or anyone else it doesn't effect. Keep your morals out of my uterus.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Viable Way
05:28 PM on 10/20/2011
You are right...and BAIT AND SWITCH tactics are unethical in any situation. Let them state their positions up front, and free speech is not a problem. Once someone has traveled to a center, they are more vulnerable to coercion.

P.S. The book "Freakonomics" proposes the TRUE RESULT of reproductive rights has led to a decrease in CRIME as a result of fewer unwanted and uncared for children.
08:31 AM on 10/20/2011
I find it funny that a city named after a Saint would be among the most anti-Christian cities in America.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Milash
It says I should edit my micro-bio, so I did.
12:01 PM on 10/20/2011
I find it funny that christians are the biggest hypocrites I know.
01:47 PM on 10/20/2011
Actually, that would be liberals. They claim to be all about tolerance and diversity, but will demonize Christianity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Viable Way
05:43 PM on 10/20/2011
I have called them "hypoChristians" since I saw how selectively some people applied their principles.

My ex-mother-in-law is the shining example. The only funny thing is how easily she could be manipulated by her guilt!
01:41 PM on 10/20/2011
An error that my Spanish ancestors made. It should be called Liberation City.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gloriaswanson43
Ask and you will get more info.
04:36 AM on 10/20/2011
Calling themselves a "pregnancy crisis center" if they only want a woman to keep the pregnancy is misleading. Not illegal, per se.
11:13 PM on 10/19/2011
I believe abortion would no longer exists if women who have had abortions would stand up and tell the truth about the aftermath of abortion. But everyone wants to have a pro-choice world, yet condem the women who make that choice into shame for the choice society freely offers as a resolution.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gloriaswanson43
Ask and you will get more info.
04:34 AM on 10/20/2011
Nothing major happens. Your life continues. You work toward your life goals and if you choose you have children when the time is right.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ThatIsJustGreat
07:19 AM on 10/20/2011
False. Everyone I know who had an abortion suffered depression about the time the baby would have been born. Almost all of them later had fertility issues when they did want to have a baby. But you won't hear about that in the press.
12:50 PM on 10/20/2011
Have you had an abortion? If not then you really have no basis for your comment. That is all theory of how it works. But in reality, the baby is morned forever, depression & guilt run deep. And even today many women still have complications after the abortion, some of which lead to death. Have you had a friend die because they had a safe abortion in a clinic with a professional?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bella Lee
02:52 PM on 10/20/2011
I believe abortions wouldn't exist if anti-choice groups could be honest and less violent
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Viable Way
05:50 PM on 10/20/2011
They may not exist if mothers were permitted to raise ONE CHILD with public assistance at a standard of living that wasn't punitive. During the time the child was small, online education could help mom prepare for a job (if there were any jobs).