Reproductive Freedom

Religious Freedom Battle Brewing Over California's New Crisis Pregnancy Center Regulations

New law requires religiously rooted clinics for pregnant women to offer info about state abortion services and admit if they are not medically licensed.

|

Preg Test Place/Facebook

Last Friday night, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law controversial legislation concerning so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs). Under the new regulations, these religiously rooted counseling and health care clinics for pregnant women will have to disclose when they're not licensed medical providers—something CPCs been known to gloss over in marketing and initial contact with women. CPCs that are licensed as reproductive health clinics must now post a notice or in some other way notify patients that the state has programs to help low-income women access both prenatal care and abortion services. The new law takes effect January 1, 2016. 

"California provides innovative public programs that offer critical reproductive and prenatal health care to women, regardless of ability to pay," Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco) said in a statement. "We know that reproductive and pregnancy-related care is time sensitive. Our legislation ensures that women receive timely and standard care when seeking services in our state, no matter where they go."  

Similar regulations have failed to pass legal muster in cities that have attempted them, including Austin, Baltimore, and New York. But Amy Everitt, director of NARAL Pro-Choice California, told Mother Jones that "this bill is sort of a lessons-learned bill from all the previous efforts." More from MJ

Regulating crisis pregnancy centers, even in blue states, has proved an elusive goal. Federal courts have struck down several laws forcing crisis pregnancy centers to make certain disclosures, such as informing women that they do not offer abortions, birth control, or referrals for those services.

Local officials in Baltimore, New York City, Austin, Maryland's Montgomery County, and San Francisco have all attempted to regulate crisis pregnancy centers with mixed degrees of success. Federal courts are split over several laws forcing crisis pregnancy centers to disclose up front that they are not medically licensed or do not refer for abortion, and to specify which medical services they do or do not provide.

Attempting to avoid a similar outcome in California, Everitt says, NARAL enlisted the office of Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris. Harris' office helped draft the bill from its inception with an eye toward eliminating openings for a First Amendment challenge—although a spokeswoman for Harris cautioned that the state's involvement was no guarantee of success. Harris vocally backed the new law. 

Their track record in federal court forced the drafters to leave what they saw as large holes in the new law. "We wish we could get crisis pregnancy centers to stop spreading scientifically unsound messages," Everitt says, but such a law would likely be struck down in court.

Care Net Pregnancy Center/Facebook

Without this requirement, the California bill may stand up to a constitutional challenge. The biggest overreaches in previous attempts to regulate CPCs has involved trying to force the non-medical clinics—what are essentially religious counseling and charity centers—to offer information on contraception and/or abortionstop and to stop spreading "medically unsound" information (such as saying abortion can increase breast cancer risk, something that may be discredited but isn't any more ridiculous than vaccines causing autism or diets based on your blood type or praying to increase fertility, all things we let non-licensed medical groups tell people).

The California bill merely requires these non-licensed CPCs to disclose that they are, in fact, not licensed medical centers. It's the licensed CPCs that must, regardless of operators' religious beliefs, provide a bare minimum of information about state-provided contraceptive, abortion, and prenatal services. There are almost 170 crisis pregnancy centers in California, according to NARAL ProChoice America, and about 40 percent are licensed medical clinics. 

The umbrella organizations behind many CPCs have been pushing affiliate clinics to seek state medical licensing in greater numbers. With it, however, comes less room to circumvent state medical regulations. "The more there's a relationship with the state, the more you have leeway to regulate crisis pregnancy centers," Rebecca Griffin, an assistant director for NARAL in California, told Mother Jones. "It's an opportunity for us."

Specifically, all licensed reproductive health clinics in in California, including licensed CPCs, must now post or directly provide patients with a notice that "California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number]." Whether this requirement can survive a First Amendment challenge is less certain than the medical licensing-disclosure requirement. 

CPCs are already pushing back against the new California law, with two groups filing a lawsuit against the state on Saturday. The plaintiffs, A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic of Marysville, California, and the Crisis Pregnancy Center of Northern California, are both licensed reproductive health clinics that provide services such as pregnancy testing and ultrasounds.

Their suit, filed by the Pacific Justice Institute, alleges that the new law "unconstitutionally compels (the clinics) to speak messages that they have not chosen, with which they do not agree, and that distract, and detract from, the messages they have chosen to speak," in violation of their right to freedom of speech. In addition, they say, "disseminating the mandated state message, which is inconsistent with plaintiffs' religious convictions, burdens these clinics' free exercise of religion, secured under the First Amendment."

Advertisement

NEXT: 2016 Candidates Should Address Millennials' Economic Woes, Not Promise Them World War III

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The California bill merely requires these non-licensed CPCs to disclose that they are, in fact, not licensed medical centers.

    There’s a lot of things they are not. They are not licensed attorneys. Why not require them to disclose that? Hell, why not require every CPA to disclose that?

    They aren’t a licensed restaurant either, even though I bet they have coffee and cookies available. Probably ought to disclose that, too.

    I’ll be curious to know how many of the folks who opposed “mandatory disclosures” by abortion providers will oppose these mandatory disclosures by abortion opponents, and vice versa. I’m suspecting that principled positions will continue to be thin on the ground.

    1. This, I believe, is the best clue:

      religiously rooted

      I assume religiously rooted here means some form of Christian. If it were Muslims, I think that CA would lean towards a more hands off approach.

      I’m just speculating here.

      1. I suspect you are right, Hyperion.

    2. Agreed, R C Dean.

    3. What mandatory disclosures by abortion providers were being pushed? Legitimate question, not a gotcha.

      1. “Here, look at this ultrasound”?

        1. North Carolina?

          Too lazy to look up.

          1. Without even looking it up, I’m going to guess that Kansas has a few.

        2. That’s not a disclosure.

        3. Sorry, but forcing someone to look at an ultrasound she prefers not to see is not “disclosure”.

      2. Heartbeat sonograms, for starters.

      3. Ultrasounds, that kind of thing. Which could at least be justified as part of fully informed consent.

        There may have been some “alternatives to abortions” type disclosures, but I couldn’t say for sure.

        1. Ah okay.

        2. So, are these people tying up the women and forcefully giving them an ultrasound and then forcing them to watch it under threat of waterboarding?

          These are free services I’m guessing. So it should be illegal to say to someone ‘we’ll do this for you for free, but we want you to do this ultrasound first’?

          I don’t see how that should be illegal. It’s not illegal to subject school children to all sorts of state sponsored propaganda and they don’t even ask anyone if it’s ok first.

          It just sounds like a case of, if there’s going to be some propaganda, the state has a monopoly on that, and if you try to get in on it, we’re going to make you regret it.

          1. “if there’s going to be some propaganda”
            Therein lies the problem.

          2. Hyperion, I think there were (and still may be) various laws requiring someone to get and watch an ultrasound first, to listen to the fetal sonogram first, to get some materials on adoption, etc. first.

            Those were all mandatory disclosures, for lack of a better term, by abortion providers before they could root out the li’l parasite. Many objected on “principled” grounds.

            I’m just curious if anyone is really principled here, or whether those objections were purely political.

            1. “Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong and must be silenced” is a principle, isn’t it?

            2. Of course this is political. It’s payback for the shit that goes on in flyover country.

            3. “I’m just curious if anyone is really principled here, or whether those objections were purely political.”

              I’m not sure what your definitions are – the prolife movement wants laws which discourage abortion. The “prochoice” movement wants laws that *encourage* abortion.

              IIRC, even the federal courts acknowledge that the states have *some* authority to discourage abortion – I don’t think the courts have ever adopted the idea that the state can give absolutely no preference whatsoever to life vs. death – there are certain gentle nudges in the direction of life that the courts will sometimes put up with, and that’s OK.

              The protection of innocent human life *is* a principle. What kind of position, in your mind, counts as “principled?”

              Is it “principled” to be completely neutral between killing and non-killing? I can’t think of any policy which actually embodies that “principal” – the U.S., by legalizing most abortions, has not acted neutrally, but has put its weight on the side of death by stripping living human beings of their natural-law and positive-law right to the protection of the law. Making someone an outlaw isn’t neutral.

              1. I’m not sure what your definitions are

                In this context, “principled” means that, if you are going to argue that a law requiring you (and people you agree with) to speak be struck down on 1A grounds, you also call for laws that require other people (with whom you don’t agree) to be struck down on 1A grounds.

                1. If you equate the “harm” caused by *not* having an abortion with the harm caused by having one, then of course principle means requiring disclosures of both sorts of harm, or neither.

                  But, wait- what if these two forms of harm are categorically different? What if abortion causes, say the *destruction of a human life*? That seems a more compelling form of harm.

                  And what “harm” does this law protect against? The harm of not knowing the number to social services? The harm in not knowing that abortion is available?

                  1. As for the prolife mandate that the mother see a sonogram before doing the abortion – what would be the pro-abortion counterpart to such a law?

                    Forcing the pregnant woman to look at a picture of a tearful mother giving up her baby for adoption? Forcing her to look at a video of a misbehaving two-year-old?

                    1. You’re missing my point, Notorious.

                      I am looking solely at the stated principle for the position: the 1A. If forced disclosure is bad for the goose, why isn’t it bad for the gander?

                    2. Teaching her about maternal morbidity and mortality would be a better start.

                      But you could have her view pictures of dead people, explaining that all of them started out as infants but ended up suffering and dying.

          3. WRONG! The forced-ultrasound movement targets ALL abortion providers, not only free ones.

        3. No, ultrasounds are not part of fully informed consent. Just as you are not required to view ultrasound images of a tumor in order to give informed consent to have it removed.

    4. As long as they aren’t misrepresenting themselves as one of those things, I don’t see why they should have to disclose what they aren’t.

      1. Yeah, they’re totally not misrepresenting themselves as places you can go for help in a pregnancy crisis.

        1. Shut up and birth that baby, woman.

        2. Are you saying they aren’t a place you can go for help if you are pregnant?

          Unless they only way to help someone who is pregnant is to give them an abortion, of course.

          I just don’t see this as something for which we need to kick down doors, throw flashbangs, and kill anyone who resists.

          Because by making this a law, that is exactly what they are saying.

          1. Are you saying they aren’t a place you can go for help if you are pregnant?

            Many of them don’t do much, even for women who always wanted to carry to term.

        3. I have no idea what they do, so I’m not commenting on that.

        4. Are you saying the only kind of help for a crisis pregnancy is an abortion?

        5. Are pregnant women walking into these centers thinking they’ll find a gynecologist? Are they rushing in with their partner(s), only to be hauled into a birthing chair and handed a Bible? Emergency =/= crisis.

          I keep hearing how us anti-abortion Bible-thumpers don’t take into account all the financial, social, cultural, and personal factors around pregnancy. So here’s a center that addresses some of those concerns, and it’s a “misrepresentation” because it doesn’t cover medical services.

          Can you propose a term for them that wouldn’t be a misrepresentation?

          1. Sure. How about “church”? You know, the place you usually go for religiously based counseling and charity services.

            1. So I should have to warn people about my organization’s religious affiliation and motivation? Nice. Separation of church and society.

    5. I’m generally for disclosure, but I’d reckon that if they are not licensed medical centers that they then do no provide medical services. I’d think the state would have more of a case if the centers were providing medical (as opposed to counseling services) while being unlicensed.

      But I think the aim of the pro-abortion crowd is to prevent women from going to these centers. It sounds like they believe women going to the CPCs expecting to get an abortion, but once inside the walls are subjecting to insidious brainwashing, convincing them to keep their baby.

      Those women will now go to the CPC and see a sign which says, “Hey, we aren’t licensed to do medicine! If you want an abortion, here’s where to go instead!”

    6. But CPCs don’t PRETEND to be licensed attorneys, or licensed restaurants. They DO pretend to be licensed medical providers. That’s the problem.

      1. Have they practiced medicine without a license? If so, isn’t that already illegal?

        1. No, one is not “practicing medicine without a license” unless one charges a fee for ones advice. For CPCs to withhold the info that they are not licensed medical professionals is NOT illegal unless they charge a fee. Currently they are allowed to tell medical lies and to dress up in white coats and surgical scrubs and deceive gullible clients, so long as they charge no fee. That’s the problem.

          1. Can you give an example of advice that you consider “medical lies”?

            Is it impossible for PP to deceive gullible clients? Most of them think PP does mammograms.

            If I take money for explaining why I believe abortion is the worst life decision available, do I need a medical license?

  2. Similar regulations have failed to pass legal muster in cities that have attempted them, including Austin, Baltimore, and New York. But Amy Everitt, director of NARAL Pro-Choice California, told Mother Jones that “this bill is sort of a lessons-learned bill from all the previous efforts.” More from MJ:

    IOW, we are Commiefornia and we gonna out regulate you, don’t give a shit who you are, nobody regulate more than us, nobody!

    1. “The more there’s a relationship with the state, the more you have leeway to regulate crisis pregnancy centers,” Rebecca Griffin, an assistant director for NARAL in California, told Mother Jones. “It’s an opportunity for us.”

      Indeed it is an opportunity to have Leviathan back you in imposing your will on others.

    2. IOW, something similar didn’t work, which is why it’s similar, not the same.

  3. Must disclose if asked what services you don’t provide (if someone comes in asking for an abortion, you’ve got tell them you don’t do those). No way in hell should they be required to do the states advertising for them.

  4. “We wish we could get crisis pregnancy centers to stop spreading scientifically unsound messages

    They could have just gone with “heresy”.

    1. I wonder if it’s ok if they tell people that GMOs will kill them and CA will all be underwater soon anyway because of global warming, so just go drink water near a fracking site and die.

        1. All my lies are truth!

      1. Yeah. If we’re going to shut people down for peddling scientifically unsound claptrap that amounts to religious opinion, let’s start with the EPA.

        1. Their science is Top Secret.

          1. And their top secret studies are beyond challenge.

            1. You can’t challenge them. They refuse to release them.

              1. I wonder if they planned that?

                1. Yes. Reason had a blog post about it a few weeks ago (which I can’t seem to find).

                  The EPA was keeping their “scientific” studies that they relied upon for rule making secret.

                  These studies aren’t scientifically valid, but allow them to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.

        2. Hear, hear, C. S. P. Scholfield

      2. I’d posit that it’s perfectly apt to tell people that giant green beans beat Jesus to a pulp behind a whorehouse and huge icebergs are not frozen water but millions of chilled polar bears glued together and suspended indefinitely through aquatic harmony. The list is infinite and wonderful.

  5. The regulation-pushers here…want more abortion? Their goal is to refer more women to abortion providers? I think it should be legal pre-viability, but it seems sorta fucked up to try to stop people from discouraging women from having abortions.

    1. This is an answer for all the fundy bills mandating ultrasounds and verbal descriptions of the hatchling.

      AKA ancient Chinese game: FahQ FahqMe

    2. It’s Cali. I think we’re talking about the same group of people (I mean Moonbeam and his minions in Sacramento) who were preaching Eugenics and Malthusian theory way back when in the golden age of progressive utopianism.

    3. That’s the state of affairs on the Left these days. Abortion is so sacrosanct on the Left that Slate denounced government produced anti-tobacco adds for saying that tobacco harms fetuses.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/…..nsive.html

      1. Yeah, at one point I heard that they thought it was a good single issue to run a campaign on. Didn’t work out too well, but they tried.

      2. And that doesn’t even make sense. Wouldn’t that be useful information to people who want to harm fetuses just as much as it is to those who don’t?

    4. CPCs can also end up harming women who planned to carry to term, by failing to provide appropriate medical care.

      1. If only there were a way to sue somebody who causes harm by not providing appropriate medical care . . . .

        1. If they’re not a doctor?

        2. Anyone who provides medical care who is not a doctor has committed a crime. Now that I think about it, holding yourself out as a doctor, when you aren’t, is also a crime.

          So, if I follow, you think people who are prohibited by law from providing any medical care should be punished if they don’t provide appropriate medical care?

    5. That depends on HOW they attempt to discourage women from having abortions. Too many CPCs do it by pretending to be licensed medical providers and spreading medical lies.

  6. This is much more of a battle over free speech than freedom of religion. “1st Amendment Battle Brewing…” would be a more accurate headline.

    1. This. The state is compelling speech.

    2. Yeah. Are they defrauding anyone? No? Then they can tell people whatever they want. If you want an abortion, look for an abortion clinic.

      1. Defrauding? If you can look past kneeling everyday to divine Super King of the Universe and the running on streets of gold after death part… But since I like the state as much as I appreciate church the fraud rivers pouring from both orifices seems to balance out equitably and with similar tendencies toward actual violence perpetrated on the deviant.

        1. You had right up until “similar tendencies toward actual violence perpetrated on the deviant”.

          1. Religious conviction and its devotion to the cruel and macabre is the original basis for the state, bro, along with many fucking Platonic injections to be fair. The state has simply been cleverly usurped right along with its violent tendencies by the socialist/communist in many quarters.

            There exists very few truly merciful religious folk who are able to reject the brutality that lies within the so-called divine letters they live for.

      2. They do defraud people. At least some of them lie about abortion services to get women in the door.

        1. I bet there’s a law against fraud already.

          1. And yet for some reason it doesn’t cover a bunch of people pretending to run prenatal clinics when all they actually do is offer counseling.

            Honestly I don’t see how anyone would not think these places are run 100% on the basis of deceptive business practices. It’s the only way they can get clients.

            1. I’ll repost here. Why not?

              If they aren’t advertising abortions, why would you assume they provide them?

              If I see a restaurant advertising delicious Chinese food, should they have to post a sign that says they don’t serve pizza? Is it fraud for them to not sell food that they don’t advertise they are selling?

              1. “Unexpected pregnancy? We’ll help you understand your options.”

                Is that fraudulent if they won’t tell you about abortion?

                1. It’s every bit as fraudulent as a storefront that had a sign out front saying, “Troubled marriage? We’ll help you understand your options” and they don’t tell you ways you can off the bitch and totally make it look like suicide or an accident.

                  1. No, it’s every bit as fraudulent as a storefront that had a sign out front saying, “Troubled marriage? We’ll help you understand your options” but offer only pastoral counseling services about how divorce is wrong.

                    1. Still not fraud.

                      “Understanding your options” certainly includes information about how some of those options are bad.

                      Unless you think anyone providing an “understanding” different from your own is, ipso facto, committing fraud.

                    2. Even if they give their opinion about how divorce is against god, it’s not fraud to explain it that way.

                    3. Counseling is speech. It’s the offering of advice. Why should I be required to offer every possible side of the issue, especially ones that I find morally objectionable. Some people would recommend suicide to alleviate depression. Why should I be required to?

                    4. In other words, not fraudulent at all.

  7. Fucking babies are wrinkled stumpers getting the adult enclaves hostile all the time.

    The rule of the sloppy infant thumb should be along the lines of: strong opinion and ideology are unavoidable and natural whether you are the state, a religious org, an abort clinic, or Grandma Thurston with the Universalist Winged Souls of Godless Embracings but it is unnatural and reprehensible to force others to be an unwilling conduit for the opinion or ideology of another no matter what the fucking angle or persuasion.

    1. Propaganda wars, bro.

      1. Propaganda imbued by regulation bats and prayer lasers. A clear manifestation of war if there ever existed one.

    2. I heard it was wrong to fuck babies.

  8. I like all the state-mandated disclosure rules.

    For instance, Seattle wants to force gas-station operators to “disclose” that filling up at the pump contributes to climate change. What does it all mean in the end?

    1. But much less warming will occur if a state employee trained in pump filling and making $15 an hour, does the filling.

    2. I always overfill as a matter of principle when they have those PITA vapor recovery nozzles.

    3. Uh…where else are they supposed to fill up?

      1. The organic methane farm.

        1. + 1 carbon credit

      2. Your mom?

    4. “What does it all mean in the end?”

      ^ This. I was just reflecting to myself the other day as I was looking at the massive wall of workplace-compliance notices in our office that there is simply *way* too much information on that wall for any of it to mean anything to anyone. No one is going to stand there for the 8-10 hours it would take to read all that shit.

      Likewise, everywhere you go in CA there’s a Prop 65 sign that says “CA knows that everything you are breathing right now will kill you.” The signs are so ubiquitous they are white noise.

      I do wonder, though, that if a court case decides that these places can’t be compelled to give notice regarding state-offered services if employers who don’t agree with minimum wage laws can’t be compelled to post minimum wage notices. Would be an interesting outcome . . .

  9. I thing the Dems in California would object strongly if Kansas passed a law requiring HIV centers to disclose if they are medically licensed or not and to stop spreading scientifically unsound messages, such as the belief that anal sex with a condom is safer than vaginal sex without a condom. According to the CDC, bareback vaginal sex is the safer option for the receiver.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html

    1. That’s not very helpful information if you don’t have a vagina.

      1. Nobody is forcing you to not have a vagina, Zeb.

        1. But I deserve the right to have a vagina.

          1. You can have as many as you like, Zeb, just make sure that each vagina files the proper consent forms with the state first.

          2. Stan: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.

            Reg: But you can’t have babies.

            Stan: Don’t you oppress me.

            Reg: Where’s the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?

          3. If you like your vagina, you can keep your vagina.

      2. Nor is the abortion information.

        1. It’s not helpful to know the place you’re going doesn’t provide the service you want?

          1. If they aren’t advertising abortions, why would you assume they provide them?

            If I see a restaurant advertising delicious Chinese food, should they have to post a sign that says they don’t serve pizza? Is it fraud for them to not sell food that they don’t advertise they are selling?

          2. Or walk up to the receptionist and say, “Hi – do you do abortions?”

            If they say “yes” but they don’t, you have a case.

          3. Not if you don’t have a vagina. I was responding to Zeb.

      3. If I say I have a vagina, I have a vagina. Quit invalidating me.

      4. Zeb, the vast majority of receivers have vaginas. One’s personal contacts are never a valid sample group.

        1. Huh? Are there a lot of (or any) HIV centers advising straight people to have more anal sex on the basis that it reduces the risk of HIV infection?

          1. An HIV center in California got bareback sex banned on film sets in Los Angeles in the name of preventing HIV transmission but did nothing about the anal sex on those sets. It’s now looking to get a statewide law passed.

            HIV centers will often mention condom use as a way to reduce transmission risk without mentioning picking a different hole as a more effective way to reduce transmission risk.

            1. Heh. Listen at what James Young says in the first moments of this video. It’s pretty hilarious actually, all the ‘liberal’ politicians in the CA legislature should have to see this. You know lots of them where around back then.

              CA legislature concerned about backwards Satanic lyrics

              The more things change…

            2. The AHF doesn’t wield any regulatory power. LA voters got bareback sex banned on set. Also, I’m not sure where you’re getting your safer sex material from, but “without mentioning picking a different hole as a more effective way to reduce transmission risk.” is just false.

              1. AHF pushed for the law and was the force behind it according to major news outlets.

                http://www.theguardian.com/cul…..p-in-court

                http://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/…..oms-on-set

                And the HIV nonprofit in my town does recommend condom use while failing to mention the choice of holes. Granted, that is a small sample size, but there’s at least one center that fits my description. Jess.in.mb, what HIV centers do mention the choice of hole?

                1. Yes, AHF advocated for the law. It also didn’t help that there was a fairly major STD outbreak in the local porn industry during the lead up to the vote, which seriously undermined the porn industry’s ability to message that they were self-regulating.

                  I’m really having a hard time figuring out what you’re saying here. If you’re going to have anal sex anyway, then it’s prudent to recommend that you use a condom and that you use one properly. If you’re having vaginal sex it’s prudent to recommend you use a condom or birth control or both because those methods do have a known failure rate. If I told a couple that they should just do oral instead of use birth control to prevent pregnancy everyone one would tilt their heads and give me the “you’re slow, aren’t you” look, which is kind of where I’m at with your position. Condoms are a harm reduction, not elimination, method for anal and that has been made clear at every STI checkup I’ve ever undergone. I’ve met very few people who didn’t see oral sex or dry humping as safer, but potentially less satisfying sexual options.

                  1. Jesse, I think you are having trouble following my argument, because you didn’t read my comment that started this train of thought. I said that the Dems in California would protest if Kansas required HIV centers to stop giving the impression that wearing a condom is more effective than choosing vaginal and oral sex over anal when it comes to preventing the spread of HIV.

                    AHF spread this misconception when it advocated for a condom mandate but did not advocate for a ban on anal scenes. My local AIDS nonprofit tells people to use condoms, but does tell them to avoid anal. You were unable to point to an HIV center that does warn about anal sex. Instead, you distracted from that failure by launching an insult. Try to play the ball, not the player.

                    Your argument that people stick to anal because it feels better could also apply to bareback sex. I also challenge that position. In my experience, receiving anal is much less enjoyable than sucking a penis. Half of gay couples don’t do anal, which suggests that giving up anal is a viable cause to advocate. What data do you have to backup your claims about the joys of receiving anal?

                  2. Wrong Hole vs Right Hole (http://youtu.be/RehpsPcp3K4) is a funny video that highlights how taboo it is to imply that anal sex is bad. It was a spinoff of the music video, Wrong Hole, in which a straight couple accidentally discovers that they love anal.

                    The Left would strongly object if a musician sang about finding out how great bareback sex is when his condom slips off. They would accuse him of promoting dangerous behaviors. They would also protest a video that jokingly called condom advocates intolerant.

          2. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is pushing for condoms in porn. It’s webpage on the topic is here: http://www.aidshealth.org/#/ar…..ms-in-porn

            1. Well, most of the professional pr0n isn’t any good anyway. And the good stuff is free. They’re just trying to demonstrate their moral superiority. They’re going to stop ‘unsafe’ pr0n the way they stopped ‘unsafe’ rock music. Condoms, backwards Satanic lyrics, it’s all the same tiring and impotent pontificating from these new age puritans.

      5. Furthermore, about 100% of receivers have mouths, and oral sex is also much safer for the receiver. It is quite possible to be gay without having anal sex, just as it is possible to be straight without having anal sex. To say otherwise is to confuse “who you love” with “what you love”.

        1. Your handjob just spermed letters all over a public commons, dear.

          1. I am relaxed. I also happen to be a tightass, which disappointed my last date. 🙂

        2. Speaking of which, I had an unpleasant surprise. I met up with Riven, who looked remarkably young. One thing led to another, and we ended up having unprotected anal sex.

          Then she gave me the bad news: she’s over 18.

          1. And you told me you had candy and a puppy in your van.

            Imagine my surprise when you opened the door on your windowless van and the only sight to greet me was a tear-stained mattress.

            Maybe we could all stand to be a little more honest.

            1. Candy and puppies aren’t for nasty girls who lie about their age.

              1. And here I was thinking I had different reasons to be nasty… Learn something new every day!

                1. I made you wince, so I feel like I at least accomplished something. But really, sex with an adult? Disgusting.

                  1. Hey, I wasn’t the only adult in the situation!

                    At least those pictures you took are legal now.

  10. Wherever government has attached it’s tentacles, freedom cannot exist.

    1. OK, now you’ve got me thinking of anime.

    2. *considers implications of complete penetration…*

  11. The biggest overreaches in previous attempts to regulate CPCs has involved trying to force the non-medical clinics?what are essentially religious counseling and charity centers?to offer information on contraception and/or [abortion] and to stop spreading “medically unsound” information (such as saying abortion can increase breast cancer risk, something that may be discredited but isn’t any more ridiculous than vaccines causing autism or diets based on your blood type or praying to increase fertility, all things we let non-licensed medical groups tell people).”

    So, religious groups are saying what they think and doing what they believe in–and they’re using the excuse that they’re doing it on their own property?

    Yes, the government must stop them.

    Incidentally, will these groups still be allowed to write what they believe on their own websites–or is this law just supposed to infringe on their First Amendment rights when they’re speaking in person? Because any law that still lets religious people write about what they believe online isn’t going far enough.

    Up against the wall, motherfuckers!

    1. Was it Virginia or NC that recently had a case where they tried to stop a guy writing about alternative healthcare (supplements and herbs) on his website because he wasn’t a certified and licensed nutritionist? Something like that.

      1. I used to write copy for the website of a health supplements supplier. During that gig, I looked over the relative FTC laws. It’s illegal for a milk seller to advertise that whole milk helps the body build strong bones, even though this fact is true. I suspect the feds don’t want people drinking more whole milk, because they are worried about folks getting fat.

        1. I remember when John McCain was heading up an effort in the Senate to ‘regulate’ supplements. It didn’t go to well, thankfully.

        2. I appreciate that we should all be free to write what we think, and that there isn’t anything special about free speech rights from natural rights (rather than legal rights) perspective.

          But regulating writing about nutritional supplements or whole milk doesn’t violate an individual’s religious rights, and isn’t that what we’re talking about here, too?

          These people are doing and writing these things because of their religious beliefs. The government should not require people to do or say something that violates their religious beliefs–and should not prohibit them from exercising their religious rights freely.

          If they use their First Amendment religious rights to defraud some pregnant woman, who later wants to sue them for that, then they should be liable for fraud. Just like the Second Amendment doesn’t prevent the government from prosecuting people who violate other people’s rights with a gun, the First Amendment doesn’t protect people using speech or religion to violate someone else’s rights.

          Regulating nutritional supplements and whole milk before anyone is harmed by them is wrong, too, but the free exercise of religion is spelled out plainly in the First Amendment. All those unnamed legal rights we have that are reserved for us in the Ninth Amendment don’t have a chance if the ones that are spelled out clearly in the First Amendment are openly violated by the government. And in that sense, I suppose religious rights are special.

  12. Here – is the text of the statute – you’re welcome!

    Based on my cursory reading, the statute offers the prolife counseling centers three options: (a) Become a licensed medical facility, (b) warn potential customers that they’re *not* a licensed medical facility, or (c) have a licensed medical person perform or directly supervise *all* the center’s activities, including pregnancy tests, counseling on abortion alternatives, running the sonogram machine, etc.

    Option (c) is kind of expensive and unnecessary. Maybe some prolife centers will be able to take this option, but most will find it too burdensome.

    Option (a) isn’t going to fly because if they were a licensed medical facility they would have to advertise the government’s abortion services and abortion advice.

    So that leaves (b), tell the customers you’re not a licensed medical facility. Even if the *reason* you’re not a licensed medical facility is that you refuse to cooperate with government-promoted abortions.

    Joseph Heller could do a novel about this.

    1. Thanks.

      I noticed immediately that this law requires all OB/GYNs to pass out the info on how to get a free abortion, as they qualify as a “licensed covered facility”. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some plain old primary care docs also get caught in that definition.

      Does that change anyone’s views on this? That it will mandate disclosures even by people who are in no way participating in the abortion wars?

      1. Wow, I missed that angle.

        1. So if the facility hires a licensed doctor or nurse, that person will have to tell customers about the possibility of abortion?

          1. OK, I’m still confused.

          2. if the facility hires a licensed doctor or nurse, that person will have to tell customers about the possibility of abortion

            Yup. That’s how I read it. And it will apply to every OB/GYN (and nearly every plain old GYN) because they will meet these requirements:

            whose primary purpose is providing family planning or pregnancy-related services, and that satisfies two or more of the following:

            (1)The facility offers obstetric ultrasounds, obstetric sonograms, or
            prenatal care to pregnant women.

            (6)The facility has staff or volunteers who collect health information
            from clients.

            1. That law is toast.

  13. How about a law requiring all pregnancy clinics that don’t offer abortion referrals to offer harlot-baptizing services instead?

    1. Is there a job position for testing to see if the harlots have repented?

  14. Serious question, when women show up at a crisis pregnancy clinic, what might they not be aware of lest it be fully ‘disclosed’ to them?

    1. They probably aren’t aware they aren’t medical facilities. If they were, why would they go? Even if you wanted to carry to term, why would you go somewhere that could do nothing but confirm you are pregnant?

      1. It’s a Catch-22 because, if they become a licensed medical facility, they’d have to advertise government-referred abortions.

        Why would a prolife center get licensed if that’s the condition of licensing?

        Oh, wait, perhaps that’s the point.

      2. Ok, so what’s going on here then? After the clinic confirms that you’re pregnant, if they’re not medical facilities, then they can’t perform any medical services, so at that point, barring disclosure, do they just stare at each other across the desk– presuming the woman went to the clinic expecting some sort of further medical treatment?

        Is it that the woman might want an abortion, but these crisis centers play ‘mum’ on any mention of abortion thus nudging the woman towards an adoption instead of terminating the pregnancy?

        I guess I’m trying to understand the real-world harm that’s taking place.

        1. After the clinic confirms that you’re pregnant, if they’re not medical facilities, then they can’t perform any medical services, so at that point, barring disclosure, do they just stare at each other across the desk– presuming the woman went to the clinic expecting some sort of further medical treatment?

          No, they say things like, “Hey, poor pregnant lady, this is how we can help you get free baby clothes!”

          1. Right, so that represents the ‘nudge’ away from abortion?

            1. Oh they nudge harder than that.

              My issue is more that these places are worthless except as a way to funnel people away from abortions. If you want to offer religious counseling and charity services, we have churches and soup kitchens. There’s only one reason for these places to exist, and everyone knows that.

              1. I guess this is what I’m trying to figure out– especially when trying to put my finger directly on a ‘harm’.

                Pregnant woman (presumed poor, I guess) goes into a place with the intent to discover if she’s pregnant, then get ‘something’ presuming the test is positive. I suppose that something could be advice or counseling on her options.

                Someone believes that the ‘something’ might be unduly influenced or denied to these women through what is presumably a ‘deceitful practice’.

                Is it deceitful if your organization doesn’t like or believe in abortion, and tells women “you shouldn’t get an abortion”?

                For instance, if a woman went there specifically for a medical consultation with a pregnancy condition where an abortion would be a valid treatment for said condition, I can definitely see a harm there. But if someone is discussing or deciding whether or not to keep a baby, are those opinions (pro or con) a ‘medical’ discussion?

                I guess I too am concerned about free speech. It seems reasonable to open up a crisis center called “We’ll talk you out of your abortion, Inc”

                1. Frankly, I’m not that concerned about the “nudging,” although I think anyone who does it is a piece of shit who should suffer for decades. I’m concerned with the time they waste among women who show up thinking they can find out more medical information or get an abortion referral. Those women need to act as fast as possible, and CPCs will only get in their way.

                  Is it deceitful if your organization doesn’t like or believe in abortion, and tells women “you shouldn’t get an abortion”?

                  No. The deceitful part is where they say, “we’re going to counsel you about your options,” knowing full well they are not in fact going to do that.

                  For instance, if a woman went there specifically for a medical consultation with a pregnancy condition where an abortion would be a valid treatment for said condition, I can definitely see a harm there.

                  Abortion is always a valid treatment for the condition of pregnancy.

                  It seems reasonable to open up a crisis center called “We’ll talk you out of your abortion, Inc”

                  I would love it if they were called that. Then the only people who went would be those who didn’t want to terminate.

                  1. Abortion is always a valid treatment for the condition of pregnancy.

                    As a choice, sure. Just as certain medical procedures can make me look younger, but aren’t required to save my life.

                    But I do see what you’re saying and I at least understand the concerns a little better. Where I get concerned is what limiting principles are at play when we force someone to engage in a certain speech.

                  2. “Those women need to act as fast as possible”

                    Why? Pregnancy isn’t cancer. In fact, give it a few months and the condition goes away.

                  3. Re: Just Say Nikki,

                    Abortion is always a valid treatment for the condition of pregnancy

                    Just like murder is a valid treatment for the condition of being married.

                  4. Abortion is always a valid treatment for the condition of pregnancy.

                    You seem to want a fairly controversial proposition to be taken as a given.

                    Do you think vegans should be forbidden to provide nutritional counseling, unless they provide state-sponsored notices about where they can get counseling on how to get protein from animal products?

                    1. Nikki is Tulpa with tits.

                      This is a pure free speech issue.

              2. and there’s something so wrong with nudging people away from abortions that the state has to make laws to limit it? We are talking about speech, right?

                Why should anyone be compelled to echo the government’s preferred opinions on a subject?

            2. Free baby clothes are worse than rape

  15. “We wish we could get crisis pregnancy centers to stop spreading scientifically unsound messages,”

    I may be missing something here – what ‘medically unsound messages’ and what do those messages have to do with state provided assistance for abortion/birth control?

  16. Sounds like one heck of a deal to me dude.

    http://www.CompletePrivacy.tk

  17. Forcing Religious institutions to do the State’s work is, or ought to be, even more repugnant than forcing the State to do Religious work. Freedom FROM religion ought to include freedom FROM Statheism.

    As completely privately funded operations, the only threat should be from a loss of funding. If the State has nothing it can remove, then it really has nothing it ought to say. How far will this be taken? How many other private conversations will the State insist on inserting itself without good cause?

    Freedom of Speech is NOT tested with Politically “correct” speech, but rather with speech that may offend many. And be very careful, a government that uses its power to shape things in the way that you prefer, is also big enough to one day shape things in a tyrannical way against your will and better judgement.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.