NRL News

Censored and Attacked for Providing Life-Affirming Services Pro-Abortionists Loathe

by | Oct 20, 2011

By Dave Andrusko

Shari Plunkett, CEO of ‘First Resort"

As we would expect, the decision Tuesday by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to edge one step closer to passing a law harassing pregnancy centers in the Bay area has drawn kudos from pro-abortionists.

For those who missed it, the Board voted 10-1 to pass an ordinance barring First Resort from engaging “in false or misleading advertising practices.” ( A final pro-forma vote will come up next week.

First Resort adamantly and eloquently denied it was misleading anyone, a position reaffirmed by the lone dissenter on the Board.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said, “There has been no testimony, no documentation, no affidavits of any woman seeking service who has been misled. There is nothing in the record documenting that.” Elsbernd added, “What I hear we are doing today is passing a solution in search of a problem.”

And today pro-abortion outlets praised the board’s action, joyfully laying out each of the charges made by Supervisor Malia Cohen, who is leading the charge. They include a piece by Aaron Sankin on the Huffington Post.

However, at the very end of a piece, Sankin mentions, almost in passing, that “Laws resembling the San Francisco ordinance have had difficulty standing up in court.” He then quotes from a story from The San Francisco Examiner:

Similar laws in other cities have been thrown out by judges for being unconstitutional. Last summer, a federal judge in New York struck down a law that would have required such centers to post a notice that they do not provide abortions or have licensed medical staff. In January 2010, a nearly identical law targeted at faith-based pregnancy centers in Baltimore met a similar fate.

Two things don’t get mentioned in any of these accounts. First, judges have tossed these laws out with dispatch and with a furious denunciation of these attacks on the First Amendment right of free speech. Among many other points these judges have made is, of course, that pro-abortion clinics are not required to post signs saying what they DON’T do.

Second, these assaults are part of a coordinated attack proudly and unabashedly launched by NARAL. They use as their battering ram what they invariably call “a congressional study” that “revealed that most CPCs are not regulated and often engage in false advertising.” That’s an allusion to a 2006 tract produced for pro-abortion Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member at the time, by the minority staffers on the House Committee on Government Reform.

Note that pro-lifers adamantly denied that they engaged in false advertising. Note also that a key portion of the Waxman “investigative report” was supposedly that CPCs were distributing “medically inaccurate information.” What that means is that pro-lifers are distributing information pro-abortionists don’t agree with.

But pro-lifers stand by the conclusion that “A conservative estimate from the best available data is that 20% to 30% of women who undergo an abortion will experience serious and/or prolonged negative consequences,” according to Priscilla Coleman, Ph.D., who has researched and written extensively on the subject. Likewise there is an abundance of evidence that an induced abortion does increase the chances of a woman having breast cancer.

First Resort will be hammered next week by passage of a law which will come to pass because (as First Resort CEO Shari Plunkett said Tuesday ) the Board “disagrees with the services we provide, and therefore seeks to limit what we say, and how we say it to the women we serve.”

Let’s hope the law is challenged in court and goes down in flames, as have similar laws in New York City, Baltimore, and Montgomery County, Maryland.

Your feedback is so very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at