New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has withdrawn subpoenas issued to 10 crisis pregnancy centers in what pro-life backers called a “politically motivated campaign” to shut them down.
Spitzer’s office announced an agreement today with one center and said it “has begun settlement discussions with the counsel for several other CPCs.”
The battle is not over, however, insists Chris Slattery, director of Expectant Mother Care, a counseling service with five sites in New York City.
“It’s a relief that the subpoenas have been lifted,” he told WorldNetDaily, “but it would be extremely unwise to let our guard down and think that we have accomplished our mission. The attorney general is by no means going away. We still have to reach a negotiated settlement, or ultimately we decide to fight in court.”
Slattery said the agreement reached with Birthright of Victor New York, Inc., is not acceptable to the nine other groups under investigation for allegedly violating state law by “misrepresenting the services they provide” and “diagnosing and advising persons on medical options” without a license.
“The agreement reached with a tiny operation with a tiny facility which chose not fight is being used as leverage to try and get us all to accept a model agreement which goes far beyond earlier oppressive consent judgments of the ’80s and ’90s,” Slattery claimed.
In a statement, Spitzer’s office said “preliminary investigation raised concerns that the subpoenaed centers’ advertising and business practices could lead women to believe that the centers provide medical services – including professional pregnancy testing – or that they provide abortions or referrals for abortion when in fact their goal is to persuade women not to consider abortion.”
In January, Spitzer issued the subpoenas to the centers, which are among the 3,000 non-profit, mostly Christian-based groups that help pregnant women find alternatives to abortion.
Two weeks ago, Slattery’s group moved to quash a subpoena filed in New York’s Supreme Court in Manhattan by Spitzer’s office, charging that the action seeks to “intimidate” and “stifle” the message of a crisis pregnancy and counseling center.
The American Center for Law and Justice, representing Expectant Mother Care, called Spitzer’s actions part of a “politically motivated campaign which coincides with a strategy of the National Abortion Rights Action League to target crisis pregnancy centers.”
The California affiliate of NARAL trained pro-abortion volunteers in early February to “expose the hidden agendas and activities that take place behind the doors of CPCs.”
South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon, a supporter of crisis pregnancy centers, said on a television interview program last night “there appears to be a clear case of bias” on Spitzer’s part.
Speaking on Alan Keyes’s MSNBC program “Making Sense,” Condon said he wrote to Spitzer of his appreciation for the centers and his concern about the investigation.
“He actually called me up personally, was really irate that I even bothered to write him,” Condon said of Spitzer, according to an MSNBC transcript. “And I was really stunned with the comments he made. In fact, he implied that they were involved … with the murder of abortion providers in the state of New York, which I thought was an outrageous accusation or implication to make.”
Spitzer said in his statement today that “for women seeking alternatives to abortion, CPCs can provide valuable services. It is imperative, however, that the staff and management of these facilities understand and adhere to the law regarding advertising and counseling.”
The New York lawman said that under the agreement reached with Birthright of Victor the group will address his concerns by:
- Clearly informing persons who inquire about abortion or birth control that it does not provide those services or make referrals for them;
- Disclosing verbally and in writing – before providing a pregnancy test or counseling about pregnancy – that the center is not a licensed medical provider qualified to diagnose or accurately date pregnancy, and informing women that only licensed medical providers can confirm pregnancy or provide medical advice about pregnancy;
- Clarifying in advertising and consumer contacts that the pregnancy tests it provides are self-administered (i.e., over-the-counter tests); and
- Telling persons who call or visit the center that it is not a medical facility.
With the matter taken out of court for the moment, each center must negotiate a settlement, Slattery said, but “there is no way the centers are going to accept this oppressive and unconstitutional agreement” the state made with Birthright of New York.
“The agreement reached with Birthright provides the attorney general with a way to cripple the chance of abortion-minded women coming into crisis centers,” he said.
Birthright – which is open just four hours a week and saw only 20 women last year – does not aim to assist women who want to have an abortion, Slattery explained. Their primary focus is to help women who want to keep their babies.
“If all the crisis pregnancy center movement is about is handing out diapers and social work then frankly it wouldn’t have any impact on the abortion battle,” he said. “Crisis pregnancy centers in this country are having an impact on the abortion battle because we are saving lives.”
Slattery believes the type of regulations placed on Birthright restrict speech by placing “onerous” disclaimers and warnings in advertising and contacts by phone and at the center.
“It’s what I call turn-off regulation, intended to sway women from coming into a pro-life facility,” he said. “There are so many warnings about what we aren’t that people are going to be turned off to what we do.”
Vincent McCarthy, senior counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, said his group will now closely monitor the attorney general’s actions regarding Expectant Mother Care and also the actions of NARAL.
“There has never been any evidence that the crisis pregnancy centers have done anything wrong,” McCarthy said in a statement after Spitzer’s decision. “The subpoena was a heavy-handed tactic designed to intimidate and harass our client. It is clear the subpoenas should never have been issued in the first place. And, now it appears the state attorney general’s office has finally reached that conclusion.”
