Pregnancy care centers have filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Vermont for injunctive relief, claiming a bill signed into law discriminates against them and violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. I agree, and I’ll do you one better.
Related: Everyone is Claiming Vermonters Voted to Protect Abortion, But That’s Not What the Amendment Says
But we’ll get to that in a moment. First,
On May 10, 2023, Governor Phil Scott signed Senate Bill No. 37 (“SB 37”), attached hereto as Exhibit A. That law impedes the ability of pro-life pregnancy centers to continue providing help and support to Vermont women and families in two ways: First, it censors the centers’ ability to advertise their free services (Advertising Prohibition). Second, it precludes centers from offering non-medical services, information, and counseling unless provided by a licensed health care provider (Provider Restriction).
Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the pregnancy care centers and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. This religious not-for-profit organization oversees crisis pregnancy facilities across the United States.
“Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should be empowered with life-affirming options, emotional support, and practical resources,” said ADF Legal Counsel Julia Payne. “Vermont’s law, however, does the opposite—it impedes women’s ability to receive critical services during a difficult time in their lives and suppresses the free-speech rights of faith-based pregnancy centers. Pregnancy centers should be free to serve women and offer the support they need without fear of unjust government punishment.”
…
The lawsuit explains that the Vermont law specifically targets pro-life pregnancy centers as “limited services” providers because they do not refer or perform abortions. Under the law, the state attorney general has the authority to fine pregnancy centers up to $10,000 if she believes its life-affirming messages are misleading.
The law applies only to pro-life pregnancy centers—an abortion clinic that provides identical information would not be subject to the law. Also, the law does not define “misleading,” so it is left up to the discretion of the attorney general.
SB 37 quite clearly targets pregnancy care centers. And I get that Gov. Scott is a social-progressive Republican, but I’m unclear why he would sign this into law. Even if he wanted it, he could make noise about it being unconstitutional and let the Legislature override the veto. Instead, we got this.
“Today, we reaffirm once again that Vermont stands on the side of privacy, personal autonomy and reproductive liberty, and that providers are free to practice without fear.”
Shouldn’t reproductive liberty include the option to reproduce? “Choice” in the ruling class Democrat dictionary is defined as what they want and nothing else. Still, even the average Democrat voter understands the true definition—1,726 (or however many) different options for how to get your coffee at Starbucks. Scott and the Dems running the Legislature deliberately kneecapped the competition of a campaign donor. Abortion providers heap money on progressive politicians across the spectrum.
Pregnancy care centers not only do not donate to them, but they don’t typically charge any fees for their services, and no one is forcing taxpayers to fund them as if it is some protected right.
As for “without fear,” based on the complaint, SB 37 places pregnancy care centers in constant fear of being fined $10,000.00 by the state if it decides any communication is misleading. Speaking of which, free speech and other concerns aside, the state passed, and voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive liberty. If they have not already, ADF might want to consider that SB37 may also violate this new addition to the Vermont Constitution.
Sec. 2. Article 22. [Personal reproductive liberty] That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.
What is the state’s compelling interest, and how is SB37 the least restrictive means?
HT | ADF Media.org
