In a surprising free speech win that will directly affect pro-life advocates, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled to support a pregnancy clinic’s free speech rights. Last week in Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the Court said the Center should not be forced to refer for abortions or post government messages about abortion on its walls as it would violate their conscience.
The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. is a nonprofit pregnancy center that helps nearly 10,000 low-income women facing unplanned pregnancies. They help nearly 10,000 women a year. Volunteers help more than 1,200 women for free with basic services such as pregnancy tests, baby and maternity clothes, parenting classes, and job placement. The Center also counsels more than 8,000 local women per year through its 24-hour helpline.
A 2009 city ordinance forced the Center to either refer for abortions or display government abortion messaging on the walls of their church-owned property, which violated both their mission and conscience. In 2010, the Center sued the mayor and city council of Baltimore for the right to continue to serve women according to their mission. The Center won in 2010, and, following the government’s appeals, the Center won again last week.
“We are committed to serving women in need in a way that respects their choices, comforts them in a difficult time and is in line with our mission,” said Carol Clews, executive director of the Center for Pregnancy Concerns. “This court ruling means that we can do our job and the government can’t tell us what to say or how to say it.”
In November last year, the Supreme Court said they would hear a case this year on a similar topic. In 2015, California passed a law that requires similar pregnancy clinics to inform clients about abortion.
On Nov. 13, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on whether a California law passed in 2015, which requires anti-abortion pregnancy centers to inform clients about free or low-cost abortion services, is a violation of their free speech. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra seems to mirror the Baltimore case on merits. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court oral arguments go, and how their ruling compares, to the one which found in favor of the clinic last week.
For now, the ruling is a win for free speech and pro-life advocates in Maryland.
Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator’s Young Journalist Award.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
