NRL News

CPCs Fighting Back

by | Jun 9, 2011

By Dave Andrusko

Judge Marvin J. Garbis

Even as NARAL continue its war on Crisis Pregnancy Centers, CPCs are fighting back. Care Net, six Care Net affiliate pregnancy centers in the State of Maryland,  and other national pregnancy center organizations have filed a “friend of the court” brief challenging a 2009 law passed by the city of Baltimore.

As we reported in late January The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns initially won its challenge before U.S. District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis.  In a withering critique, Judge Garbis concluded, “The Court holds that the Ordinance violates the Freedom of Speech Clause of Article I of the Constitution of the United States and is unenforceable.

“Whether a provider of pregnancy-related services is ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’ it is for the provider –– not the government –– to decide when and how to discuss abortion and birth-control methods,” he said in his 29-page-long decision.

But unrepentant, the City of Baltimore appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The city is represented by the New York City-based Center for Reproductive Rights.

In a press statement, Care Net President Melinda Delahoyde said the legislative attacks against pregnancy centers are of deep concern, but not surprising. 

“The public needs to know that these legislative attacks against pregnancy centers are focused on urban areas, the very areas where abortion providers are prevalent, support for abortion alternatives is lacking, and abortion rates are skyrocketing,” Delahoyde said.  “Truly, we wouldn’t be seeing all this activity by abortion advocates if pregnancy centers weren’t making a difference in helping women choose alternatives to abortion.”

At the time of the law was introduced, the Baltimore Sun reported that the bill was introduced “at the behest of Planned Parenthood, a pro-choice organization that hopes the Baltimore legislation will serve as a model for a national effort.” It was a prophetic observation.

Similar laws have been passed in Montgomery County, Maryland, and New York City. The city of San Francisco is the latest to prepare to go after women-helping centers (

According to San Francisco Chronicle reporter Katie J.M. Baker, Supervisor Malia Cohen is the sponsor of the bill. And, once again, NARAL’s fingerprints are all over the measure.

“NARAL’s state director, Amy Everitt, said the organization is pushing for sign laws in San Francisco because of strong political support among local officials and the city’s large percentage of pro-choice voters,” Baker reports.

Pro-abortionists are nothing if not candid in their objectives. If you go here, you can  watch NARAL Pro-Choice New York as it is “revealed a national strategy to specifically target pregnancy centers in urban areas for hostile legislation intended to shut down these centers and direct women to abortion providers,” as Delahoyde explains.

“Currently, a vast majority of abortion providers are located in metropolitan areas. Many of them are in predominantly minority-populated communities, thereby contributing greatly to the disproportionate impact of abortion on minorities. Statistics show that African American and Latina women account for only 27% of the female population in the U.S., yet they undergo 59% of all abortions. In many urban communities, abortion providers outnumber pregnancy centers by a ratio of five to one. Care Net is working on expanding access to the important resources provided by pregnancy centers so that women in urban areas are empowered to carry their pregnancies to term.”

See here.

Categories: Pro-Lifers