Posted on 11/24/2009 10:31:50 AM PST by GonzoII
City Council expected to approve rules for offices that don't provide abortion, birth control By Matthew Hay Brown | matthew.brown@baltsun.com
November 23, 2009
Both sides of the abortion debate will be focusing on Baltimore today, when the City Council is expected to approve a first-in-the-nation law imposing new regulations on faith-based organizations that try to steer women away from the procedure.
The measure, introduced by council President Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake at the behest of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, would require that crisis pregnancy centers that do not provide abortions or birth control post signs saying so.
Proponents frame the effort as a matter of public health. They accuse the centers of giving false or misleading information about the effects of abortion and birth control. Pregnant women, they say, should be told when they are not being given access to all of the options legally available to them.
But officials at such centers say they make their mission clear. They say the information they give is accurate, and making them advertise the services that they don't provide would be an unprecedented form of harassment.
"It really impugns our integrity," said Carol A. Clews, executive director of the Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, which has two locations in the city and a third in Dundalk. "We are very forthright about what we do here and what we don't do. To put us in a position where we would have to put up a sign is offensive."
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Ping.
Excuse me? If these faith-based organizations are not taking taxpayer funds (which none should be) then the government has no right to trample on the First Amendment rights of these groups to distribute information as they see fit.
Not seeing the problem. Yes I understand they want to talk women looking for abortions, out of abortions.
Suppose Code Pink opened up a phony military recruitment center to talk young adults out of joining military and showed them horrific war photo's ? We would be up in arms. .
This one will not cause a backlash.
The first Amendment -- freedom of speech --- entails the right to say what you want to say, and to refrain from saying what you don't want to say; fredom of the press, the right to publish what you like, and not publish what you don't like; freedom of religion, the right to believe one thing, and not believe another, etc. The only thing the government may intervene to stop, are fraud and force.
As for the antiwar activists: of course they have a right to open an office to show disturbing pictures and try to talk people out of joining the military. They do this, you know. If a man or woman walks into the place by accident or happenstance and doesn't like the message, they can walk out. Simple as that.
Same with pregnancy-aid centers.
This is not a matter of force, nor is it a matter of fraud. No prolife pregnancy center in the world forces a woman to come in, or calls itself an abortion clinic.
Excuse me?
Even the libs in Baltimore say this is a big deal, which it is, but you say no, Well goodness....you’re sick of libs yet you sound like one.
Your example of the Code Pink creating a bogus recruitment center is as far off as anything resembling reality as pretty much anything a lib would use.
First, a fake military recruitment center would be...illegal I’m thinking. It’s certainly not like the “Sussex County Pregnancy Center”, a real place near me. The SCPC is not pretending to do governmental activities. It IS...just what it says...a pregnancy center. It does NOT perform abortions but so what? It’s, let’s do this again...A PREGNANCY CENTER. It advises young woman on adoption, giving birth, tries to obtain financial help if possible. How is that a lie?
Maybe you don’t see the difference between that an a bogus recruitment center that tries to deflect folks away from the military. Maybe it’s a bit too nuanced.
Assuming your example is NOT breaking a law, which it is...again, pretending to be recruiting for the military, which is the job OF the military, is illegal I’m thinking. But suppose it’s not.
What makes you think we’d be up in arms? I can’t speak for anyone else but if it tells the truth I most certainly would not be up in arms. If they’re not lying why would I be upset?
All Planned Parenthood wants is the loss of business these “pregnancy centers” cause them to lose because young women are counseled into having their babies, perhaps helped psychologically and financially. PP then loses the revenue dontcha know.
But no crime whatsoever is being committed by the Sussex County Pregnancy Center not putting big red letters outside that it does NOT perform abortion. I suspect a young woman could call in advance and ask. I know they don’t lie.
The abortion mills can’t stand that they lose business thanks to dedicated God loving people who try to save the lives of the helpless unborn. It’s the same deceiving methodology the libs use to shut down Rush Limbaugh and other free speech.
Your logic is specious. And dumb.
I agree. If it’s true (big if) that inaccurate medical information is provided, that should be stopped.
RE :”Your logic is specious. And dumb.”
Yours is. Only one purpose of opposing this, you want to lure women seeking abortions in. That in itself doesnt bother me, but the argument that they have some right to hide that objective falls flat on me.
Glad you admit liberals agree with you on this one, who gives a crap?
Amazing how you can put a contrarian post at reply#4 and get lots of angry pings! LOL
I get bored with agreeing with post after post.
I give up.
I will pray for you.
I promise I will not get an abortion or advise anyone to!
But I will not lie!
When I served on the BoD of a pregnancy center in Maryland, we took exactly $0.00 from government of any sort. We were listed on United Way and CFC, but those are (corrupt) clearinghouses for private donations. Everything else came through direct donations from private individuals or fraternal societies.
My refusal to further answer this idiot’s silly commentary does not infer in any way that I agree.
Moving on.
WOW a real constitutional expert. You're the first one here to claim that argument, today!
The bill of rights does not apply to businesses, only to individuals. Like forcing those cigarette warning labels are not prohibited.
Try telling your female employee you like her rear end and see how much the Bill of Rights protects you. Try telling your customer you dont like his race or sex.
Fishtalk wont reply because he knows I am right :)
This is clearly wrong and unconstitutional.
Abortion clinics don’t serve Big Macs, change tires, or frankly a wide array of useful information about how birth control fails but there is little or no regulation.
In fact, this bizarre logic has created a world where abortion clinics are among the least regulated health entities in the nation— all because any regulation of them or compulsion directed toward them is immediately spun as a restriction on abortion.
What exactly do abortion clinics HAVE to do? Anything ?
Why aren’t all requirements on abortion clinics and ‘unconstitutional infringement of the ‘right to choose?’
"The bill of rights does not apply to businesses, only to individuals. Like forcing those cigarette warning labels are not prohibited."
Point A, pregnancy aid centers are not engaged in commerce. They provide a free service, with no exchange of money.
Point B, the can be regulated to stop force or fraud, as I said before. But they dont't engage in force or fraud.
Point C, cigarette warning labels? You're serious? You're going to defend government-mandated cigarette warning labels? How about fat-content warning labels for Pasta Alfredo? Percentage of fiber in your favorite snack-crackers? Mandatory warnings on the backs of refrigerators that say "Don't try to carry this on your back down a flight of stairs"?
In a conservative forum, it's so rare to hear this kind of approving reference to the unfortunate proliferation of nanny-state regulations that I'm rather taken aback.
"Try telling your female employee you like her rear end and see how much the Bill of Rights protects you. Try telling your customer you dont like his race or sex"
Now I'm completely floored. All of these ought to be personal liberty social-decorum "free speech" issues. Demeaning race or sex talk disgusts me, but I don't think the jackasses involved ought to be prosecuted or litigated. If you talk this way and it's getting in the way of your work, I support the right of your boss to fire you.
Yes, some of us do defend all that conservative-liberty stuff including the right to annoying free speech. It's as good a reason as any to hang around Free Republic.
Are you kidding? Do they have employees? Are they Incorporated? If someone slips on ice on the property, who gets sued? The individual?
Are you making the argument a nonprofit business is an individual under the constitution?
When they make YOU wear a sign I will be the first to defend your rights as an individual.
I thought the question was, Should they be doing this?
I say no.
They were investigating whether to prosecute the ACORN expos-ea film-makers. Maryland tried to prosecute Linda Tripp. The mayor is on criminal trial for criminal activities but still holds office.
If the law required the centers to post a health warning on carrying out pregnancies to birth I'd be concerned. But they have no intention of providing an abortion so the pregnant woman has a right to know that, freedom of association.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.