Last April, we posted a blog regarding a Baltimore City ordinance, which required local crisis pregnancy centers to post signs in their clinics disclosing that they did not offer abortion or birth control services if, they in fact, did not offer such services. Because of this requirement, many clinics chose to post separate notices informing the public about clinics that offered abortion services. Consequently, the Archdiocese of Baltimore, filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court, seeking to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. One of its arguments was that the City should be prohibited from compelling speech by requiring the clinics to post signs.
On January 28th, 2011, District Court Judge, Marvin Garbis, ruled that the ordinance violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and, as such, is unenforceable. In his opinion, Judge Garbis wrote: “Whether a provider of pregnancy-related services is ‘pro-life’ or ‘prochoice,’ it is for the provider — not the Government — to decide when and how to discuss abortion and birth-control methods.” According to the opinion, “[t]he Government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, require a ‘pro-life’ pregnancy-related service center to post a sign as would be required by the Ordinance.”
The dynamic of this litigation is fascinating, revealing nonsensical and unpredictable aspects of the abortion debate. One could argue that the original passing of the ordinance was fueled by an underlying “pro-life” attitude. After all, why would the City require clinics that don’t offer abortion services to publically state that they don’t offer abortion services? My personal opinion is two-fold: 1) to discourage individuals in need of abortion services from seeking abortion services, and 2) to reveal to the public the number of clinics that don’t offer abortion services in order to paint a picture that the public is generally pro-life (this is particularly true because the ordinance did not require clinics offering abortion services to post notices that they offered such services).
Interestingly, the ordinance backfired. Some of the clinics required to disclose that they did not offer abortion services chose to inform the public about other clinics where abortion services are available. There is nothing wrong with that, right? Well, apparently the Archdiocese did not think so, and, in my personal opinion, here is the real reason why: As soon as it became apparent that many of the clinics could simply choose to post notices about other clinics, which offered abortion services, it also became apparent that the ordinance was de facto prompting free advertising for abortion services all over the city.
I can’t imagine that the Archdiocese was too thrilled about that. Hence, the litigation ensued and the opponents of the ordinance prevailed on an argument, which is commonly and usually made by the “pro-choice” side of the abortion debate. At the heart of Judge Garbis’ opinion is the notion that the government should not legislate morality or religion. On January 28th, the Archdiocese and other “pro-life” groups prevailed on an argument, which has undermined and discredited the “pro-life” position for decades. How ironic!
Have you have been following this litigation in Baltimore City? What are your thoughts? Was Baltimore’s ordinance misguided or spot-on? Will Judge Garbis’ decision be reversed or upheld on appeal?
Photo from foxnews.com