Save The Life Centers:
Sign the Petition Opposing NYC Bill 371:
Help by donating to EMC (the largest network of crisis pregnancy centers in NYC):
Get Informed :
First Amendment Flameout
February 26, 2011
Free speech is about the honest ex change of ideas, a fundamental principle of liberal democracy.
So why are allegedly liberal city Democrats seeking to silence speech?
On Thursday, after a 48-hour full-court press from the legislative and political establishment, a Soho anti-abortion billboard ad was taken down.
The ad's text, by a picture of a young black girl, read, "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb," with a Web site for more info.
Sure, the rhetoric is provocative.
But facts are indeed stubborn things.
* African-Americans make up 13 percent of the US population -- but account for more than 30 percent of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Insitute.
* In New York City, 60 percent of black pregnancies end in abortion -- three abortions per two live births -- according to the Health Department.
Cause for concern?
What do you think?
Should you be allowed to think?
Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio -- serious mayoral hopefuls both -- agitated hard against the board, having found its message "offensive."
Which is code for: "Shut up, go away. We don't like what you have to say, and we'll be damned before you say it."
And it's not just the billboard.
Quinn is a primary sponsor of a bill -- scheduled for a full council vote Wednesday -- that would impose major free-speech restrictions on city crisis pregnancy centers.
Without any evidence that these centers -- which counsel women on alternatives to abortion -- act irresponsibly or deceptively, Quinn's bill would require them to post signs that abortions or contraception are not provided; tell clients a doctor isn't available, even if he's temporarily off-site; and impose such strict confidentiality requirements that operators would be unable to report rape or prostitution to the police.
But why are Quinn and her colleagues so fretful?
Is New York City's 41 percent abortion rate not high enough for them?
Was the billboard's message so subversive that it had to be burned?
Along with the First Amendment?
View article on NYPost.com
Free choice, free speech: Proposal to regulate anti-abortion counselors is a bad idea
Monday, October 18th 2010, 4:00 AM
It is never a good idea for lawmakers to draft legislation based solely on the urgings of advocates for one cause or another, and it is particularly dangerous when the measure in question could curtail First Amendment rights.
That's what's happened with a bill sponsored by City Councilwoman Jessica Lappin and Speaker Christine Quinn. They should know better.
The National Abortion Rights Action League, a pro-choice lobbying group, has targeted 16 so-called crisis pregnancy centers in the city. These are establishments where abortion opponents present women with alternatives to ending pregnancies, such as adoption and single-parenting.
NARAL called eight centers and visited 10, posing as women who might be pregnant and inquiring about services. While finding that the centers "present themselves as hospitable places offering emotional support," NARAL asserted that they "engage in deceptive and manipulative practices," attempting to "coerce women considering abortion into carrying their pregnancies to term."
Without investigation or hearings, Lappin and Quinn - both pro-choice - drew up a bill to require centers to post notices stating that they do not provide abortions or contraception; disclose that no medical provider is available if none is on the premises, and commit to treating all information gathered from a client as confidential.
The implication: It is deceptive just to open up shop as an anti-abortion advocate, and an affront to present women with alternatives. As if women need to be shielded from this information.
What's more, NARAL's evidence shows no deception by the centers. None have "abortion" in their names; they have names such as Pregnancy Help and Pregnancy Resource Services.
More than half the websites say they are "pro-life" or do not recommend abortion. None of the centers gave researchers inaccurate information over the phone and, when asked, most said they don't perform abortions or provide referrals.
The report describes no harm sustained by any patient - and even contains potent disclaimers: "The findings contained herein are not exhaustive." "This report contains no insight into how CPCs would respond to a proven pregnancy."
All of which adds up to no basis for infringing on anyone's right to advance a cause, however disagreeable one finds it.
View article on NYDailyNews.com
Jan 28: Baltimore Pregnancy Center Law Ruled Unconstitutional!
:
Chris Slattery on Laura Ingraham discussing 371
Pastor Childress January interview on Kevin Cottrell (talks about Jan 10 rally, bill 371)
Basic info about Bill 371 (petition background)
Dr. Gerard Nadal interviewed by Childress 12/26/2010 (NYC Council's Collaboration With Abortion Industry)
Dr. Gerard Nadal interviewed by Childress 12/26/2010 (Abortion and African Americans)
New York Daily News Article About Intro 371
Catholic News Agency Article on Intro 371
American Center for Law & Justice - Analysis on Intro 371 (pdf)
Lots of Videos on Bill 371