The Enigma of the Pregnancy Center in Crisis


Experts call for regulation of pregnancy centers in crisis to fight freedom of expression issues and medical misinformation.

Emergency Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) are non-profit organizations that to bring free antenatal counseling and care for pregnant women. Many of these centers, which are usually have an explicit mission in favor of birth—have links with religious groups and anti-abortion organizations.

CPC frequently Marlet themselves as full-service medical clinics and promise To to bring free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and comprehensive advice on all pregnancy-related options. In fact, most CPCs lack medical establishment license, offer limited medical and social services, and here pregnant women with only two options: parenthood or adoption.

Because CPCs generally do not have a medical license and offer their services for free, they are often exempt federal and state regulations governing medical ethics and patient privacy, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Liability Act (HIPAA). In addition, although some CPC staff dress in coats or white coats, these are usually volunteers without formal medical training who may not be successful disclose if the CPC is not an approved medical institution.

Communities of color — which frequently face a shortage of health care providers, socio-economic barriers and difficulties in accessing health insurance—are particularly vulnerable to CPC risks pose. People in these areas are confronted with higher rates of unintended pregnancies, and in some communities of color, CPC to become the only accessible provider of prenatal and reproductive health services.

Reviews Claim than CPCs use deceptive tactics to attract patients and to encourage them to stay pregnant. They also claim that CPCs to prevent patients of manufacturing informed decisions about their reproductive health. For example, CPCs often make factual inaccuracies complaints on contraception and abortion for deter pregnant women to consider abortion.

Controversial attempts to regulate CPCs practices have fallen short. For example, in 2015, California adopted the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act (DONE), which mandated disclosures as to whether CPCs were medically licensed facilities. The status too obligatory CPCs should inform patients about the availability of free and low-cost family planning services elsewhere in the state.

Three years later, however, the Supreme Court of the United States annulled the FACT law in National Institute of Family and Life Defenders (NIFLA) c. Becerra. The tribunal justified CPC complaints, discovery that the law affected the centers First amendment rights.

After NIFLA, CPCs continue to proliferate. Today, more than a dozen states fund emergency pregnancy centers with taxpayer dollars, some contributing up to $ 38 million.

This week’s Saturday seminar highlights expert research on the impacts of CPCs on freedom of expression and access to healthcare.

  • The Supreme Court’s decision in NIFLA “Effectively neutralizes” the constitutional protections concerning the access of pregnant women to precise information on reproductive choices, Queen bradley of University of California, Irvine complaints in a First Amendment Studies Traditionally, he writes, governments could regulate “False commercial speech” in part because of the potential of commercial speech to cause harm if it is false. NIFLA, Nevertheless, avoid classifying the nature of CPC discourse and instead focuses on the state’s intrusion into the ideology of pro-life centers. Even though pregnant women “have been misled and harmed” by deceptive CPC advertising, Queen argues, NIFLA delete the legal basis for a government to “regulate false, misleading and misleading information” about reproductive services.
  • In NIFLA, The Supreme Court hit the FACT Act because the law required CPCs to promote abortion services – “the very practice they are determined to oppose”. But in a item published in the Buffalo’s Law Review, Mark Strasser of Faculty of Law of the University of the Capital argues that the Court’s rationale is inaccurate because the FACT Act only required CPCs to forward factual allegations regarding abortion services, which did not threaten the CPC’s anti-abortion position. Strasser suggest that the court’s reasoning may undermine state abortion regulations that require physicians to make statements designed to make abortion less attractive to female patients, because NIFLA “Implied that the state could not demand the dissemination of non-controversial factual information”.
  • In a Fordham Law Review item, the University of Colorado Law School Helen Norton demand what First Amendment law would look like if courts assessed regulations on abortion providers with the interests of those seeking information or care in mind. Norton complaints only in cases such as NIFLA, the Supreme Court only focused on the interests of CPCs as speakers. For example, she Remarks this NIFLA considered only what health care providers wanted to discuss – or not to discuss – instead of how the information provided by CPS employees would affect pregnant women who receive this advice. The government can already regulate Similar commercial speech aimed at consumers as well as speech in campaign finance scenarios, where activists must consider a listener’s “informational interests”, according to Norton. Applying this framework to abortion services would allow governments to require health care providers to “provide accurate and relevant information” when speaking with pregnant people.
  • Mandatory consultation on abortion lift up more significant First Amendment concerns than CPC disclosures, argues Caroline Mala Corbin of University of Miami Law School. In an article published by the Alabama Law Journal, Corbin discuss how “forced speech can undermine the goals and values ​​of free speech by cooling speech, distorting speech or infringing on the autonomy of speakers or the audience”. Forced speech – “Speech to the government forces a private entity to say “- has come to court on several occasions through mandatory abortion counseling and CBD disclosure issues. Corbin argues than regulating the freedom of expression of abortion providers undermines the autonomy of physicians and treaty patients as unable to make decisions about their reproductive health.
  • In a recent item in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, lawyer Kate Wallachian argues that state attorneys general should use consumer protection laws to reduce Deceptive activities of CPCs, such as distorting the services provided by a center, making misleading statements or withholding relevant information. Wallachian Remarks that most states have laws designed to protect consumers from “deceptive practices in the sale or offering of goods and services.” These laws give state attorneys general investigative and enforcement tools, which Vlach suggest give these officials “legal, practical and symbolic advantages” to challenge CPC practices.
  • Pregnant people who have exams or ultrasounds under false pretenses of CPCs should be able to advance a battery claim – “the intention causality harmful or offensive contact with another person’s person without that person’s consent ”- against such entities, Teneille R. Brown of University of Utah SJ Quinney College of Law In a recent article by Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, Brown offers “A new way to regulate deceptive CPC practices” following various attempts to do so through tort law. By allowing pregnant women to sue CPCs for intentional assault and battery, Brown suggest that such a private cause of action “put the injured party in the driver’s seat ”and to recover “The law of informed consent has its ethical and legal roots”.

The Saturday Seminar is a weekly feature that aims to put in written form the type of content that would be conveyed in a live seminar involving regulatory experts. Every week, Regulatory review publishes a brief overview of a selected regulatory topic, then distills recent research and academic writing on that topic.


Comments are closed.