By Dave Andrusko
I think it would be fair to say that the savvier pro-abortionists understand there is case pending before the Supreme Court that has the potential to seriously upset a major objective of the Abortion Industry: compelling pro-lifers to compromise their principles, lessen their impact, and to force them to do the bidding of the likes of Planned Parenthood.
We’ve written or reposted a dozen stories or more about California’s so-called Reproductive FACT Act [“FACT” stands for Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency]. In a word, the legislature is threatening to cripple pregnancy help centers if they do not comply.
Today we revisit the topic in light of former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse’s latest diatribe which appeared today in the Times’ opinion section.
Understand, these are alternative to abortion organizations, which rely heavily on volunteers (like my middle daughter), and receive no government funding. As Jay Hobbs has explained
California’s law orders the pro-life organizations to prominently post and distribute the following notice. “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”
What about pregnancy centers that do not offer free medical services such as ultrasounds?
They must post the following disclaimer “conspicuously at the entrance to the facility” “in no less than 48-point type”: “This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”
Greenhouse can’t be bothered with the Big Brother aspect of this case: the entire force of the California governmental apparatus coming down on organizations who are hopelessly outgunned.
What about other courts which, unlike the oft-overturned U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, struck down very similar laws? That doesn’t delay Greenhouse either.
She takes up the distinction without a difference argument the 9th Circuit used to uphold the Reproductive FACT Act versus a New York Appeals court that struck down a similar law. And, of course, she bludgeons the Supreme Court for opening the floodgates by recognizing and protecting free speech rights.
Greenhouse’s overarching argument is all that California is requiring is the truth. Which(a) misses the whole point of compelling a pro-life organization to advertise to its clients that they can get free or reduced abortions elsewhere, and (b)is grounded in the pro-abortion meme that women-helping centers are by nature liars and ought to be put out of business.
Her snarkiest remark (there are many to choose from) is that a proper “translation” of this requirement is “if you were enticed here under false pretenses, the state is ready to help you get what you want.” That abortion clinics might fudge the details, manicure the truth, let alone flat-out lie to vulnerable women is a thought that could never, ever cross Greenhouse’s mind. Planned Parenthood—the epitome of truth.
To come full circle, a primary mission of the abortion industry and its legion of media apologists is to drive its “competition” out of business. What makes them so nervous is not their bogus pretense that women are lied to at these crisis pregnancy centers but that there are so many of them.
And nothing but nothing is more important to the Planned Parenthoods and Linda Greenhouses of this world than that no baby ever escape their clutches.