2023 law allows Attorney General to target pregnancy centers’ marketing and advertising
By Guy Page
Lawyers for two Vermont pregnancy centers will challenge in federal court today the 2023 law they say unconstitutionally restrict the centers’ speech and provision of services.
ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. Clark refers to Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark, who under the law is empowered to pursue legal action against pregnancy centers deemed in violation.
The hearing at the Elmwood Avenue federal building begins at 1:30 PM.
Last May, Gov. Phil Scott signed S.37 into law, which the Alliance for Defending Freedom says “impedes the ability of pro-life pregnancy centers to continue providing help and support to Vermont women and families,” according to a May 15 statement.
The law censors the centers’ ability to advertise their services, the ADF says. It also precludes the ability of centers to offer even non-medical services, information, and counseling unless provided by a licensed health care provider. ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of the pro-life pregnancy centers in July.
“Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should know they have life-affirming options available to them, from emotional support to practical resources,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Vermont’s law, however, robs women of these options—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. We are urging the court to support the rights of these critical care services.”
NIFLA is a religious nonprofit that provides pro-life pregnancy center members with legal resources and counsel, with the aim of developing a network of life-affirming ministries in every community across the nation. NIFLA has six member facilities in Vermont, including Aspire Now in Williston and Branches Pregnancy Resource Center in Brattleboro, two faith-based pregnancy centers that have joined the lawsuit.
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 messages are misleading.
Supporters of S37 say the pregnancy centers mislead consumers by not saying they perform abortions. However, a review of websites for Vermont pregnancy centers specifically say they do not perform abortions.
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.
Further, ADF says, Vermont’s law precludes the ability of centers to offer even non-medical services, information, and counseling unless provided by a licensed health care provider. This restriction harms pregnancy centers by preventing their non-medical staff and volunteers from providing clients with any information related to pregnancy and counseling clients about their options. It also prevents non-medical pregnancy centers, like Branches, from providing women with information or counseling about pregnancy without hiring medical staff.
Michael Tierney is serving as local counsel on behalf of NIFLA and the pregnancy care centers.
When interviewed on WVMT’s Morning Drive program Wednesday morning, AG Clark was asked about the personhood of the fetus. She declined to answer, saying the question is a smokescreen for what she said is the real motivation of the pro-life movement, which she said is the control of women’s bodies. She added that pro-lifers should advocate instead for more vasectomies.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Life&Death
“ She added that pro-lifers should advocate instead for more vasectomies.” Isn’t the State AG violating the law (S 37) by providing “information” herself? Does she have a medical license?
Leftist, radical ideology put into practice always leads to societal decline. And the modest influx of folks from New York and Southern New England cannot counteract the ongoing nativist and Leftist destruction. Vermont is declining as compared to the rest of the nation that is growing. We will remain ideologically pure, regardless of the cost. Who would think that a health center should be banned from discussing health information? But Leftists say you must distribute only our Truth, which of course are lies.
But she wants to prevent the Pro Pregnancy Centers from being able to represent what they provide.
Actual Women’s Health Care.
The politics of VT has been poisoned by the infiltration of hate.
Article 5 was written on computers in former Attorney General Donovans office by 16 members of planned parenthood. That’s right, Donovan provided time, space and VT State assets to be used by planned parenthood for their agenda of destroying babies in the womb.
Article 5 morphed into H89, the now Constitutional amendment that provides for abortion to the moment of Birth and the chemical, physical, sexual and psychological destruction of children of any age. It provides immunity for anyone who harms the child. It provides for criminal charges against any Parent or Health Care worker who would fight to protect the child.
It provides for the State to take your child away from you.
Scott supports this, and 24 VT State GOP Representatives voted for it.
Governor Scott has a 100% rating from planned parenthood and he has provided them Millions of your State Tax dollars while never providing One Cent to any Pro Pregnancy Center in VT.
You have seen me write many times we are in a Spiritual Battle.
Those with an agenda of death and destruction prove themselves.
We must prove ourselves, put on The Armor of God.
Be the voice of the most innocent, pray for the Pro Pregnancy Centers to defeat this evil agenda today and everyday.
I defend a woman’s right to abortion. I also defend the 1st Amendment.
A trained pro-life volunteer can not sit down as a friend and offer help and support when a woman is faced with an unexpected pregnancy. However school teacher’s with no training at all, can recommend gender affirming care and any child can self diagnose as having gender dysphoria and start on hormones or proceed to surgery.
Excellent point, Rebecca!
Phil Scott signed this blatant unconstitutional law last May. Phil Scott allowing Truth and Reconciliation (aka repackaged, rebooted Weather Underground) to meet in secret on the taxpayers dimes (a clear violation of law and no transperancy the leftwits love to bellow from the rooftops.) To Phil’s fanboys, do you need some smelling salts or is your cognative dissonence permenant?
Of all the bills I heard while on the House Healthcare committee S. 37 was the worst! The testimony was hard to listen to. I’m glad the pregnancy centers are suing, good luck to them!
Mr. Rosenthal,
Just wanting to be clear here and understand what you’re saying:
You said you defend a woman’s “right” to abortion. Where in natural and moral law is a woman given the “right” to kill her innocent, defenseless preborn baby?
If we extrapolate your thoughts about your supporting a woman’s “right” to either kill her preborn baby herself, or hiring someone to kill him/her for her, would you also defend plantation owner’s—or anyone’s—“right” to own slaves?
1.) Why or why not?
2.) Can you delineate a difference between the two examples?
Thanks.