English
Korean
Spanish
AUSTIN—Several pregnancy resource centers and Catholic groups have filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Austin alleging that a local ordinance abridges the free speech rights of pro-life ministries.
The ordinance, which took effect in April 2010, requires pregnancy resource centers to post signs in Spanish and English that say, “This center does not provide abortions or refer to abortion providers. This center does not provide or refer to providers of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved birth control drugs and medical devices.”
Failure to post the sign results in a $250 fine for the first offense, $350 fine for the second offense and a $450 fine for the third offense. The ordinance applies only to “limited service pregnancy centers,” defined by the city as centers that provide pregnancy counseling; do not perform or refer clients for abortions; do not provide or refer for “comprehensive birth control services,” including the abortion-inducing morning-after pill; and are not licensed by the government to provide medical services.
“The issue overall with the ordinance is that it’s an unlawful imposition of compelled speech,” Hiram Sasser, director of litigation at the Liberty Institute in Plano, told the TEXAN. “One of the things that free speech protects is that (the government) cannot make you say stuff. You cannot be forced to say the government’s message.”
The Liberty Institute, a legal group that defends traditional values, is representing four plaintiffs in the case—the Austin Pregnancy Resource Center, the South Austin Pregnancy Resource Center, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Austin and Catholic Charities of Central Texas. Another pregnancy center, Austin LifeCare, filed a separate suit.
According to Sasser, the government can force citizens to communicate various messages under a narrow set of circumstances. However, the first amendment and Texas law forbid the government from restricting the speech of religious groups without demonstrating state interest of the highest order, he said.
“In this case there is no real compelling interest for the government to be advancing this restriction,” Sasser said.
The ordinance was developed by NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly the National Abortion Rights Action League) as an attempt to target pro-life groups. In a YouTube video, the policy director for Austin city council member Bill Spellman admits that the ordinance originated from conversations with NARAL, according to the complaint filed by Austin LifeCare.
The purpose of the ordinance, Sasser said, is “to drive people from going in the door of the resource center for them to have the opportunity to present their side of the abortion issue.” It is viewpoint discrimination that violates the Constitution, he said.
“It would be the same as making Planned Parenthood or somebody else post a sign that says, ‘We kill babies,’ on the front door to try to run people off from hearing their views,” Sasser said.
Similar ordinances have been declared unconstitutional in Baltimore and Montgomery County, Md., and New York City.
But the Austin case is unique in that it compels the centers to make false statements, Sasser said. While the required sign says they do not refer for birth control, some of the centers do refer married couples for some forms of birth control.
“Most of the time, these types of disclosure things are meant to give truthful information to people,” he said. “In this case it’s compelled false speech, probably the first compelled false speech case I’ve ever seen.”
Keet Lewis, chairman of Texas Life Connections, a pro-life group that works with the SBTC, called the ordinance an attempt to malign pro-life ministries.
“Some of the regulations posted really would be frightening to read,” Lewis told the TEXAN. “… It almost makes a person feel like they are walking into a center that is not medically related and has a shady look to it. And I think it was to impugn the integrity of those organizations. In the ordinance, there’s nothing that the abortion providers have to do. This really is a targeted attempt to restrict [pregnancy centers].”
Ironically, abortion providers are the ones with a documented history of not telling the truth, according to Lewis, while pregnancy resource centers are upfront with clients about their agenda.
“Most of our pregnancy centers clearly communicate where they are, and people know going into our pregnancy resource centers that they’re going to have a discussion about life and that they will in many cases show them videos or give them materials that tell scientifically and medically about the process of abortion,” he said.
Sasser and Lewis speculated that the ordinance would be struck down in court.
“I don’t think the city of Austin fully thought through everything that they were doing. I think they just tried to give a political favor to NARAL and move on down the road to get NARAL probably off their back,” Sasser said.
“It’s a poorly drafted ordinance by any measure and certainly unconstitutional by several measures. And so at the end of the day I don’t think there’s any choice for the court but to strike it down as unconstitutional.”
