Power

Court Rules Against Disclosure Requirement for Some Baltimore Fake Clinics

The 2009 ordinance requires a so-called limited-service pregnancy center to post a disclaimer in its waiting room notifying clients that it “does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control services.”

A federal court last week ruled that a Baltimore city ordinance requiring “limited-service pregnancy centers," also known as crisis pregnancy centers or fake clinics, to disclose that they do not refer patients for abortion services. Shutterstock

A federal court last week ruled against a Baltimore city ordinance requiring “limited-service pregnancy centers,” also known as crisis pregnancy centers or fake clinics, to disclose that they do not refer patients for abortion services.

The 2009 ordinance requires a so-called limited-service pregnancy center (LSPC) to post a disclaimer in its waiting room notifying clients that it “does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control services.”

The disclaimer must consist of at least one sign written in English and Spanish, “easily readable” and “conspicuously posted” in the waiting room or an equivalent area. The ordinance defines an LSPC as “any person whose primary purpose is to provide pregnancy-related services,” but does not provide or refer for abortion care or contraception.

Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc., a local fake clinic owned by the Catholic Church, sued, arguing the ordinance violated its First Amendment free speech rights. A federal court and the panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and blocked the ordinance from taking effect. But in 2013, the full Fourth Circuit vacated that ruling and sent the case back to the lower court for another look.

The lower court on October 4 again ruled the ordinance unconstitutional, but only for those fake clinics challenging the law. That means the court refused to find the ordinance unconstitutional on its face.

The city failed to show enough evidence that patients came into fake clinics under any “false pretenses” or that they “suffer[ed] harmful health consequences because of it,” according to the court. A 2015 report based on an undercover investigation of California’s fake clinics showed that these clinics, often run by anti-choice activists, misinform and deceive pregnant people with the goal of bringing pregnancies to term.

A local news outlet reported that city officials are exploring their legal options to ensure patients are not misled or refused service to a full spectrum of reproductive health services.