Pregnancy center law unconstitutional, justices rule
- By Sophie Cocke scocke@staradvertiser.com
-
June 27, 2018
A Hawaii law aimed at making religious-based pregnancy centers give women information about abortion as an option could be deemed unconstitutional, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision Tuesday that said a similar law enacted in California likely violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
Read more
Mahalo for reading the Honolulu Star-Advertiser!
You're reading a premium story. Read the full story with our Print & Digital Subscription.
Subscribe Now
Log In
Already a subscriber? Log in now to continue reading this story.
A Hawaii law aimed at making religious-based pregnancy centers give women information about abortion as an option could be deemed unconstitutional, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision Tuesday that said a similar law enacted in California likely violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
Gov. David Ige signed Act 200 into law in 2017 requiring “crisis pregnancy centers,” which are typically supported by Christian groups opposed to abortion, to notify clients that the state provides free or low-cost access to contraception and pregnancy-related services. The notices must provide information on how to apply for Medicaid coverage and state that only ultrasounds performed by qualified health care professionals and read by licensed clinicians should be considered medically accurate.
The language of the law is obtuse, but it’s intent — to ensure that women have information about how to access an abortion — was clear to anti-abortion activists who provided bitter testimony against the measure as it made its way through the Legislature last year.
Hawaii’s pregnancy centers, represented by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates — the same organization that was party to the Supreme Court ruling — sued the state upon the bill’s enactment.
The pregnancy centers refused to comply with the Hawaii law as they awaited the Supreme Court’s decision in the California case, said Jim Hochberg, the local attorney for NIFA. Likewise, he said, the state has not tried to enforce the statute, which carries penalties of $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for subsequent offenses.
Hochberg said that NIFA will ask the courts to halt the law’s implementation and hopefully be able to file a motion for summary judgment to invalidate the Hawaii law.
“The Supreme Court essentially clarified something that California and Hawaii should have been well aware of and that is the government cannot force people to express messages that violate their convictions,” Hochberg said. “There are differing opinions in a diverse society and free speech requires tolerance and respect for different opinions.”
Hawaii’s statute, while containing minor variations, was modeled after California’s law known as the Reproductive FACT Act.
There are at least five crisis pregnancy centers operating in Hawaii, including A Place for Women in Waipio, which is run by Calvary Chapel Pearl Harbor; Malama Pregnancy Center of Maui; The Pregnancy Center in Kailua Kona; and the Pregnancy Problem Center, which has offices in Honolulu and Pearl City.
The Hawaii law was supported by the Women’s Legislative Caucus, Planned Parenthood and the Hawaii chapter of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Critics of the pregnancy centers have charged that they target young and poor women who aren’t informed of the anti-abortion agenda. Medical doctors have also accused the centers of subjecting women to unscientific propaganda about the health risks of abortion and, in more egregious cases, lying to women about how far along they are in their pregnancies to narrow their abortion options.
Lt. Gov. Doug Chin, who served as attorney general when the state was initially sued over the law and is currently running for Congress, denounced the Supreme Court ruling.
“All women deserve to be informed and are entitled to make personal reproductive health decisions with complete and accurate information regarding their rights to access the full range of health care services available to them,” Chin said in a statement. “Today’s decision erodes those rights. I will continue to fight for women and their right to be fully informed of their choices.”
Planned Parenthood’s advocacy arm was more strident in its response, tweeting, “Let’s be clear: fake women’s health centers are deceptive and harmful to women — lying to women, withholding medical information, and cutting off access to care. Nothing in this SCOTUS decision suggests otherwise.”
77