Oakland seeks to ban false advertising by anti-abortion clinics


#1

sfgate.com/news/article/Oakland-seeks-to-ban-false-advertising-by-8343909.php


#2

I wonder if the law would include fining abortion clinics for advertising as “health care” instead of “hired killers” as they truly are? Of course not, liberals only want to protect their world view while crowding out and silencing those who disagree.


#3

I don’t see that it is a problem for adoption agencies to get the ear of people seeking abortions.

That is what advertising is all about.


#4

IANAL, but I honestly don’t see this ordinance passing judicial review vis a vis the 1st Amendment.


#5

Did you read the article? It says:

Some crisis pregnancy centers challenged a similar false advertising law in San Francisco, which took effect in late 2011. Last year, a district judge upheld the law, saying false and misleading commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment.


#6

The article says the law is directed towards Internet searches for abortion that gives links to crisis pregnancy centers . I’m not exactly sure how this will be enforced. This follows up on an absolutely ludicrous California law that makes crisis pregnancy centers post information on where one can get an abortion or other family-planning services.


#7

“Pro-choicers” certainly reveal their Culture of Death credentials when they get so paranoid and antsy about people being given information on making a valid choice with all avenues being presented to them to explore.

Choosing without having to think about it is not really choosing at all.


#8

I did read the article. The text of the SF law was not provided, so I cannot comment on what constitutes “false advertising” in that regard. As articulated in the SFGate article for Oakland, I do not see “false advertising” as an actual object of this law in Oakland. Indeed, I see nothing but a 1st Amendment argument.


#9

I guess we’ll have to see.


#10

How are crisis pregnancy centers speaking falsely? They claim to offer information on abortion. They do. They target people seeking abortions. Where is the problem?


#11

I believe that offering information is different than offering clinical services. If someone makes an appointment to have a medical exam and then finds herself in a counseling situation without being forewarned, it then requires her to seek out other clinics that DO offer medical exams and procedures. They call that false advertising.

Counseling is not the same thing as a medical exam and procedure.


#12

The problem is they don’t kill babies, and that’s what the governments in California want.


#13

I don’t think that has anything to do with it. California wants organizations to be upfront with the services they offer. If it’s counseling, then say it’s counseling. There is no problem with that.


#14

Sure they do. Rabidly pro-abortion politicians just want truth in advertising. They don’t want to shut places that are anti-abortion down. They don’t want to come down on their political and moral enemies. :rolleyes:


#15

Are they going to require abortion clinics to quit advertising they offer reproductive services?


#16

The problem is sf they say they offer abortion counselling they come up in an internet search of abortion service. Oakland says that has to stop.


#17

The District Court decision cited in the article is First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera, 80 F.Supp.3d 1043 (2015), and is currently on appeal to the 9th Circuit. The action was commenced by First Resort, Inc. as a pre-emptive move to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional prior to any potential enforcement against them and organizations like them. The Court held “that the Ordinance only restricts false and misleading commercial speech, which is not protected by the First Amendment. That aside, First Resort has otherwise failed to show that the Ordinance violates the First Amendment in every conceivable application.” First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera, at 1053-54 (internal quotes and citations omitted, emphasis added). The Court did *not *rule on whether the ordinance could or would apply to the advertising practices actually employed by the plaintiff.


#18

The SF Gate article doesn’t mention that these crisis pregnancy centers are even claiming to offer services they don’t actually offer. This is about Oakland’s City Council (only slightly more ineffectual than SF’s Board of Sups) taking a swipe at internet search terms and claiming that purchasing space in search results constitutes false advertising. This is nonsense.


#19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.