Tag Archives: ZZ: Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County

WalshLaw: This morning’s lively en banc proceedings at the Fourth Circuit in abortion-counseling-related First Amendment challenges did not produce clear signs of a winner, but raised questions (at least in my mind) about what legal issues the court took the cases en banc to address. There was virtually no discussion of commercial speech doctrine, and no judge or set of judges developed a line of questioning that would seemingly lay the foundation to displace strict scrutiny as the appropriate standard of review. That said, oral argument reveals only so much. | Related ADF Media Information Page and Press Releases

LifeNews: “Pregnancy centers, which offer real help and hope to women, shouldn’t be punished by political allies of abortion sellers,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, co-counsel for the Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center. Bowman added: “Pro-life centers provide women with the emotional support and practical resources they need, giving them more choices. They should be free to share that message instead of being compelled to provide the government’s preferred message, which sends women elsewhere. The 4th Circuit panel was right to rule against Montgomery County’s law, and we trust the full court will agree.”

An Alliance Defending Freedom attorney will be available for media interviews following oral arguments by co-counsel Thursday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in a lawsuit involving a Montgomery County, Md. law that forces pro-life pregnancy counselors to advise women against using their services.

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Matt Bowman regarding Thursday’s decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to review a three-judge panel’s decision in Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County and Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.

Bloomberg: The full U.S. Appeals Court in Richmond, Virginia, agreed to rehear a case involving a law that requires anti-abortion pregnancy centers to post an advisory encouraging their clients to consult with medical professionals. The court set Dec. 6 for oral arguments in the rehearing, accepting a request by Montgomery County, Maryland, to review a split decision by a three-judge panel.

The Center for Reproductive Rights and the City of Baltimore filed a petition for a new hearing today before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in their case defending a truth-in-advertising ordinance requiring crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to post modest signs in their waiting rooms indicating that they do not provide or make referrals for abortion or comprehensive birth control services.

Gary Bauer at Human Events: But the day before the much-heralded Obamacare decision, another court case was decided that has important implications for the First Amendment and the pro-life cause. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Montgomery County, Maryland, cannot force a pro-life pregnancy center to post a public disclaimer that discourages pregnant women from using its services . . . So, with the help of lawyers from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), Tepeyac sued Montgomery County. A district court struck down the first part of the disclosure but upheld the second, on the grounds that it “does not require any other specific message and in neutral language states the truth.” But ADF filed an appeal, and on June 27, the entire disclosure requirement was struck down.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed Wednesday that laws in Baltimore and Montgomery County, Md. that force pregnancy resource centers to post signs discouraging women from using their services are unconstitutional.

The court held that the disclaimer required by Ordinance 09-252 is “a form of compelled speech” that “alters the course of a [pregnancy] center’s communication with a client or prospective client about abortion and birth-control” and “is based, at least in part, on disagreement with the viewpoint of the speaker.” The court entered a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys will be available for media interviews following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in a lawsuit involving a Montgomery County law that forces pro-life pregnancy counselors to advise women against using their services.

Mary Frances Boyle Heritage Foundation Foundry Blog: Earlier this year a federal judge found part of a similar law in Montgomery County, Maryland, unconstitutional. The law required pregnancy centers to post a sign in the waiting room notifying women that there is no medical professional on staff and encouraging them to see a licensed health care provider. With the help of organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund and American Center for Law and Justice, Slattery’s group fought the bill alongside other nonprofits like Boro Pregnancy Counseling Center and AAA Pregnancy Problems Center.

National Right to Life News: The suit was brought by Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is one of four of what are called “limited-service pregnancy centers” affected by the law. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) sued on behalf of the Center on First Amendment freedom of speech grounds. “We will show that the county has no facts to justify the idea that any signs are needed except the ideological complaints of abortion activists,” Matt Bowman, an ADF attorney, told the Gazette newspaper. “There are no facts, no examples of a pregnancy center doing anything but offering real help to women.”

Daniel McConchie writes at LifeSiteNews: Mark Rienzi, an attorney allied with the Alliance Defense Fund and Americans United for Life, helped fight the law in court. In an email, he stated, “We’re very happy with the Judge’s ruling. The County has no business taking over the walls of pro-life pregnancy centers to tell women to go elsewhere.”

Gazette.net: Matt Bowman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said he believed the pregnancy center would prevail. “We will show that the county has no facts to justify the idea that any signs are needed except the ideological complaints of abortion activists,” he said. “There are no facts, no examples of a pregnancy center doing anything but offering real help to women.”

Washington Examiner: “The First Amendment prevents the government from compelling people to speak the government’s message,” said Matt Bowman, a lawyer for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the lawsuit. “That message was an attempt to force pregnancy centers to tell women to go somewhere else.” Lawyers from the Alliance Defense Fund challenged the law on behalf of Centro Tepeyac, a Silver Spring pregnancy clinic, which does not provide birth control or abortions. Bowman says the law targets pro-life organizations and infringes upon their First Amendment rights.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/maryland/2011/03/judge-halts-montgomery-pregnancy-center-law#ixzz1GsLt7YQd

Daily Record: Chasanow barred Montgomery from enforcing that second requirement pending the outcome of the lawsuit brought by Centro Tepeyac, a Limited Service Pregnancy Resource Center in Silver Spring. The Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-life litigation group that is representing Centro Tepeyac, said the court “did the right thing.” “The First Amendment does not have an abortion exception to it,” ADF attorney Matt Bowman said. “Cities and counties cannot take over the walls of pro-life pregnancy centers and require them to tell women that they should go elsewhere.”

MSNBC (AP): “Lawyers for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, challenged the law on behalf of a pregnancy clinic that does not provide birth control or abortions, saying it was unconstitutional.”

Washington Post: “A federal judge has ruled that a portion of a Maryland county law targeting pro-life pregnancy clinics with signage requirements cannot be enforced . . . Lawyers for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, challenged the law on behalf of a pregnancy clinic that does not provide birth control or abortions, saying it was unconstitutional.”

Most of a Montgomery County law forcing pro-life pregnancy counselors to advise women against using their services was put on hold Tuesday by a federal court while a lawsuit against the ordinance moves forward. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys represent a Silver Spring pregnancy resource center in the lawsuit against the county.

The Examiner: Montgomery County’s top attorney is standing behind a local law that requires pregnancy centers to post signs in their waiting rooms informing patients if they don’t employ medically licensed professionals, even though a judge threw out a similar ordinance in Baltimore . . . But now the Alliance Defense Fund, a District-based organization that focuses on anti-abortion and freedom of speech cases — and represents Centro Tepeyac in the ongoing lawsuit — says the ordinance won’t be on the books much longer. “What it communicates to women is that the government thinks you should go somewhere else,” said attorney Casey Mattox. “The laws are virtually indistinguishable. They intentionally crafted this bill to make sure it would not cover abortions but would single out pregnancy centers.”

Christian Post: “U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis ruled on Jan. 28 that city council violated the pregnancy centers’ freedom of speech by requiring “pro-life” pregnancy centers to post such a sign. Alliance Defense Fund Senior Council Casey Mattox anticipates the Baltimore judge’s ruling will be favorable towards the pending case of a Silver Spring pregnancy resource center forced to post signs declaring that it is a limited-service pregnancy center.”

Gazette.net: “The Baltimore case, though, is rather directly on point and should make it clear that the Montgomery County law also is unconstitutional,” said Casey Mattox, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund. The Alliance Defense Fund, based in Washington, D.C., specializes in free speech and anti-abortion cases. The organization is representing the pregnancy resource center for free. Mattox said both laws restrict pregnancy centers that do not provide abortions, and both also regulate the centers based on their speech. Both laws, he said, were specifically intended to avoid imposing restrictions on abortion facilities.”That’s viewpoint-based discrimination,” Mattox said, adding that abortion clinics are in need of further regulation.

Peggy Hartshorn, president of Heartbeat International, writing at the blog of the St. Michael Society: “In three places now, restrictions on center advertising have been rushed into place: Austin, Baltimore, and Montgomery County, Maryland. In case you missed it, two small pregnancy help centers in these targeted areas are suing to have the reputations of all our centers cleared! The Washington Post and Washington Times recently covered one of the lawsuits, just filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, close to Washington, D.C., by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of a small Spanish language center, Centro Tepeyac. The other suit has been filed by the Archdiocese of Baltimore on behalf of Baltimore’s Center for Pregnancy Concerns. Yeah! We are not sitting still in this attempt at strangulation through regulation.”

Washington Times: “A crisis pregnancy center in Silver Spring has become the second group in Maryland to sue a Washington-area government over laws that pro-lifers say are part of a national campaign to snuff out anti-abortion speech . . . The Alliance Defense Fund, which is part of the legal team involved in the Montgomery County lawsuit, said NARAL’s investigations are part of a nationwide strategy by pro-choice groups to force crisis pregnancy centers nationwide to post signs so that women intending to get abortions will not unwittingly enter. ‘The CPCs are taking away their clients,’ spokesman [Matt Bowman] said.”

Gazette.net: “An anti-abortion pregnancy center has sued Montgomery County over a law requiring it to post information about the care it provides . . . Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center in Silver Spring says the law is unconstitutional, said [Casey Mattox], the center’s lead attorney. Mattox, with the Alliance Defense Fund, said the county law restricts freedom of speech.”

OneNewsNow: “Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has filed suit against Montgomery County, Maryland, charging discrimination against pro-life pregnancy centers . . . ‘The government can’t create special speech rules just because people want to talk about pregnancy, and it absolutely can’t target pro-life speakers with these special requirements and fines,’ [Casey Mattox] contends.”

RH Reality Check: “Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center, which is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, claims that the disclaimer forces a set of ‘special speech rules’ that only pro-life speakers have to adhere to, where as pro-choice speech remains ‘unregulated.’ Lawyers for the Center so far have not addressed how stating that they do not have licensed medical staff on site violates their free speech rights.”

LifeSiteNews: “Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit this Wednesday against Maryland’s Montgomery County on behalf of the Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center . . . ADF Legal Counsel [Casey Mattox] said that Montgomery Council’s practices were unconstitutional. ‘The government’s enforcement of policies against pro-life pregnancy centers and its refusal to apply the same rules to abortion facilities is an unconstitutionally discriminatory practice,’ he said.”

Washington Post | Breaking News Blog: “An anti-abortion pregnancy center has sued Montgomery County over a law requiring it to post information about the care it provides, The Gazette reports. Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center in Silver Spring believes the law is unconstitutional, said the center’s lead attorney [Casey Mattox]. Mattox, with the Alliance Defense Fund, said the law restricts freedom of speech.”

WorldNetDaily: “A new law in a Maryland county that apparently intends to shut down the speech of pro-life counselors is being challenged in federal court by a pregnancy center that wants to continue offering free advice to mothers-to-be . . . ‘The government’s enforcement of policies against pro-life pregnancy centers and its refusal to apply the same rules to abortion facilities is an unconstitutionally discriminatory practice,’ said ADF Legal Counsel [Casey Mattox].”

Gazette.net: “An anti-abortion pregnancy center has sued Montgomery County over a law requiring it to post information about the care it provides. Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center in Silver Spring believes the law is unconstitutional, said the center’s lead attorney [Casey Mattox]. Mattox, with the Alliance Defense Fund, said the law restricts freedom of speech.”

LifeNews: “Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit Wednesday against Montgomery County on behalf of a Silver Spring pregnancy resource center . . . ‘The government’s enforcement of policies against pro-life pregnancy centers and its refusal to apply the same rules to abortion facilities is an unconstitutionally discriminatory practice,’ said ADF Legal Counsel Casey Mattox.”

New Montgomery County law deters women from talking to pro-life pregnancy counselors