But I’m skeptical that the state couldn’t go after any fraudulent practices by pregnancy centers under existing laws, and I share Breen’s concerns that this measure will be used to target speech.
The law’s scope is broad, barring not just “deception” and “fraud” from “limited service pregnancy centers” but also “false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation,” as well as “the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact.” This gives the state a lot of leeway to go after pro-life pregnancy centers for all sorts of marketing tactics, attempts at persuasion, or statements that blur the line between opinion and fact.
And pro-choice politicians have a history of targeting crisis pregnancy centers in overbroad and overzealous ways. For instance, last year, 21 Democratic senators asked Google to “limit the appearance” of anti-abortion pregnancy centers in search results for abortion.
And California passed a law in 2015 forcing such centers to notify patients about state services, including abortion, for low-income pregnant women. The law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018.
The Thomas More Society is now suing over the Illinois law. A complaint filed July 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeks to stop the state’s attorney general from enforcing it. The complaint was filed on behalf of several Illinois pregnancy centers and pro-life groups as well as the Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA).
Breen said that the state has “not had cause to take legal action against pregnancy help centers, using the tools of the law that were already available.” And according to Breen, a Freedom of Information Act request filed by his group showed that “the Attorney General has received zero complaints from members of the public against an Illinois Pregnancy Help Center for alleged violations of the Deceptive Business Practices Act.”
NIFLA is also suing over a Vermont law regarding crisis pregnancy centers. That law, which took effect in May, states that “it is an unfair and deceptive act and practice…for any limited-services pregnancy center to disseminate or cause to be disseminated to the public any advertising about the services or proposed services performed at that center that is untrue or clearly designed to mislead the public about the nature of services provided.”
The NIFLA lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and plaintiffs also include two pregnancy care centers. Vermont’s law “suppresses the free-speech rights of faith-based pregnancy centers,” said ADF Legal Counsel Julia Payne.
“The Vermont Legislature specifically didn’t apply this law to anyone except for pro-life facilities,” Payne told VTDigger. “It doesn’t apply to abortion clinics. It doesn’t apply to centers that refer for abortion. And so this law is different, because of that viewpoint discrimination.”
But according to the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, the discrepancy is because abortion clinics are already subject to the state’s false advertising laws, since they charge a fee for their services.
“In the suit, the plaintiffs also call into question the law’s provision that only licensed health care providers can provide health care services, information and counselling,” notes Vermont Public. “Payne argued that this limits the ability of non-medical centers like Branches to provide ‘general pregnancy information, drug store pregnancy tests or counselling about pregnancy options.'”
Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark told Vermont Public that “the law prohibits lying and deception in the marketplace. Who would be against that? I look forward to defending this lawsuit for Vermont.” |