A three judge panel for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously overturned a Baltimore abortion law, ruling it is unconstitutional to force pro-life pregnancy centers to inform patients that they do not offer abortions.
In 2009, the City of Baltimore passed an ordinance requiring that pregnancy centers post signage in their waiting rooms informing patients if they do not perform or refer abortions. Many of these pro-life pregnancy centers are backed by religious organizations or non-profit organizations. Their purpose is to provide maternity care options to pregnant women that do not include abortions. The City of Baltimore believed that these pregnancy centers were confusing patients and tricking them into thinking they could receive abortions there (even though they can't). That was the justification behind the city's ordinance requiring clinics to advertise if they do not perform abortions. The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, a Christian non-profit aimed at providing pro-life maternity care, sued the city and challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance. They argued that forcing them to inform patients about abortion options was a clear and obvious violation of their First Amendment rights. Their lawsuit was successful. The ordinance was overturned in Federal Court in 2016. The District Court judge determined that in the seven years since the ordinance's passage, the City of Baltimore couldn't point to a single instance where a pro-life pregnancy center had deceived a pregnant woman into thinking she could get an abortion there.
Because of the city's inability to prove any actual harm, U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis determined that it was blatantly unconstitutional for Baltimore to force “a politically and religiously motivated group to convey a message fundamentally at odds with its core belief and mission.”
The City of Baltimore appealed the ruling, however, a three judge panel in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the District Court's previous ruling. Appellate Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote the opinion and he went out of his way to make sure people understood this has everything to do with the First Amendment and nothing at all to do with abortion.
“This court has in the past struck down attempts to compel speech from abortion providers. And today we do the same with regard to compelling speech from abortion foes. We do so in the belief that earnest advocates on all sides of this issue should not be forced by the state into a corner and required essentially to renounce and forswear what they have come as a matter of deepest conviction to believe."Since the same Circuit Court has previously struck down laws that forced abortion centers to advertise pro-life messaging, they had no choice but to apply the same standard when the roles were reversed. “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," the clinic's executive director Carol Clews released in a statement. Suzanne Sangree, who argued Baltimore's case during the appeal, said that she was disappointed in the ruling and that the city was weighing its options. While the City of Baltimore could decide to appeal to the Supreme Court, they may not get that opportunity. The Supreme Court is expected to hear a case this term challenging a similar California law that requires licensed pregnancy centers that are run by religious non-profit organizations to post signs informing patients on how they can get information on state-funded abortion procedures and birth control. If the Supreme Court upholds California's law and sets a precedent nationwide, it could open the door for Baltimore to re-craft its ordinance to comply with the ruling. But if the Supreme Court overturns California's law, it will mean the end to Baltimore's court challenge.
