A few weeks ago President Obama and members of his administration started a war against Fox News. They refused interview requests from the network, claiming it offered only opinion.
The anti-Fox campaign elicited a plethora of commentary from those on all sides of the political spectrum in defense of the network. They argued that government favoritism can flip depending on who is in power; the American people are smart enough to decide for themselves which news outlets to trust; and that a free society depends on a free press treated equally under the law.
The argument for impartiality is both noble and logical and should apply to how government treats all organizations, including those on both sides of the abortion debate. But Democratic legislators in Montgomery County and Baltimore City are acting just like Obama administration thugs when it comes to crisis pregnancy centers.
Montgomery County Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg introduced legislation to require crisis pregnancy centers that don’t offer abortions to inform clients they must go elsewhere for medical advice and should consult with a medical provider before deciding whether to keep their children.
She did not return a call requesting comment for this column. But if the bill is all about truth in advertising, why did she not also require abortion clinics to give clients notice of the services they don’t provide?
As Gail Tierney, executive director of the Rockville Pregnancy Center said, “Why don’t they have to post that they do not provide free prenatal vitamins, do not provide free sonograms … STD [sexually transmitted disease] testing … Pap smears … clothing. …?”
Tierney also said that the legislation makes no sense because the Rockville facility, which serves about 2,000 women per year, is a medical clinic, with two OB/GYNs on staff and other medical professionals.
Legislation in Baltimore City also targets pro-life counseling centers without also requiring an equivalent disclaimer of abortion providers. And it would fine “limited service pregnancy centers” $150 each day that they do not post proper signage in English and Spanish about services they do not provide. The National Abortion Rights Action League, an abortion rights group, says this is first-of-its-kind legislation.
Abortion rights activists say the legislation is necessary because crisis pregnancy centers often give false medical advice to patients and mislead them about the safety of abortions. They give as evidence a January 2008 report from NARAL Pro Choice Maryland Fund about practices at these clinics. While there are plenty of charges within the report, there is not one specific example of wrongdoing.
Baltimore City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake buys NARAL’s argument. She said in a statement, “I believe this measure is needed to secure women’s access to accurate and safe medical information.”
But this is not about information or about public health. The legislation is payback for years of support from abortion rights groups to Democratic candidates at a time when public approval of abortion is at a nadir.
A recent Pew Research Center poll and Gallup survey show support for abortion rights are shrinking. The May Gallup poll showed 51 percent of Americans are pro-life, while 42 percent are pro-choice.
This is in no small part thanks to technology. Parents can now listen to their child’s heartbeat and see a picture of him or her in the womb early on in a woman’s pregnancy, making it more difficult to describe a baby as a “fetus” after that point.
Abortion is legal. But how is it legal or moral for the government to favor providers of abortions over those who promote alternatives? This is especially true because the crisis pregnancy centers provide thousands with free medical care, usually considered a public good.
As a condition of supporting the legislation both Rawlings-Blake and Trachtenberg should require abortion clinics to publish online the percentage of their business related to pro bono medical services versus fee for service abortions.
It won’t be a surprise if it turns out they care more about money than the women they allegedly serve. Better yet, they should both withdraw the legislation and start treating their constituents equally under the law.
Examiner Columnist Marta Mossburg is a senior fellow with the Maryland Public Policy Institute and lives in Baltimore.
