Back to the October 2002 Newsletter Index

Atty. General targets Md. pregnancy centers

The state attorney general's office has launched an investigation of Maryland's crisis pregnancy centers, instigated by the Maryland branch of the National Abortion Rights Action League.

NARAL of Maryland on August 16 asked for an investigation of the CPCs, alleging that its own undercover investigation of centers in the Baltimore-Washington area showed they were violating Maryland's Consumer Protection Act.

"Maryland's consumers are in need of protection from the unfair practices and false and misleading information promulgated by the numerous crisis pregnancy centers in Maryland," Md. NARAL charged in its investigation summary report.

According to this. report, between April 2001 and June 2002, Md. NARAL sent volunteers, posing as clients, to 17 centers in Montgomery, Prince George's, Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties and Baltimore City.

"The purpose of our investigation was to determine whether the practices of Maryland crisis pregnancy centers were, in fact, targeting vulnerable women with unintended pregnancies in an effort to dissuade them from exercising their right to choose," the report stated.

A publication released by NARAL several years ago paints a somewhat darker picture.

"Choice Action Kit: A Step-by-Step Guide-Unmasking Fake Clinics" details a comprehensive strategy for attacking pregnancy centers nationwide.

The stated goal of NARAL's campaign is to create negative publicity and to lay the groundwork for lawsuits and legislation against the pregnancy centers.

The Action Kit tells prospective volunteer investigators that it will provide them with fake background information, such as the name of their school, college major, age, and the name and race of their fictitious baby's "father." The handbook advises the "investigators" to fake pregnancy at the centers by passing off urine samples obtained from pregnant friends as their own.

It suggests that volunteers secretly tape record their time at the centers, where the state law allows.

(Maryland law forbids such taping.) Md. NARAL sent two women in at a time to collaborate each other's story.

The 14 pregnancy centers (some had satellite centers, bringing the total to 17) targeted by NARAL are: Baltimore Pregnancy Center, Birthright of Annapolis, Birthright of Wheaton, Bowie Crofton Pregnancy Center, Christie Lighthouse Pregnancy Care Center, Centro Tepeyac (Silver Spring), Forestville Pregnancy Center, Greater Baltimore Pregnancy Center, Laurel Pregnancy Center, Mary's Center (Glen Burnie), Pregnancy Center North and Pregnancy Center West (both in Baltimore), Rockville Pregnancy Center and Shady Grove Pregnancy Center (Gaithersburg).

NARAL's investigation summary mentions only a single complaint against the state's CPCs, citing "a member of the public who complained to us about being upset by CPC practices." In marked contrast, pregnancy center records abound with clients who are "repeat customers," or who have been referred by friends or relatives who were also clients.

NARAL's attack on Maryland CPCs follows close on the heels of its New York campaign, in which NARAL-friendly Atty. Gen.

Elliott Spitzer issued subpoenas to 10 crisis pregnancy centers in January.

Spitzer's subpoenas alleged that the centers might be violating state law by engaging in false advertising, deceptive business practices, and practicing medicine without a license.

A sharp and spirited response from a group of the centers came February 13 in the form of petitions to quash the subpoenas.

Calling the wholesale issuing of subpoenas a politically motivated "fishing expedition" designed to harass and intimidate the centers with burdensome document requests, the petitions warned of their chilling impact on free speech.

"Volunteers are anxious that their lawful, First Amendment-protected efforts to persuade women to save their children will be treated as civil or even criminal law violations," they stated.

The petitions charged Spitzer with unequal enforcement of the law, pointing out that while he targeted nonprofit pro-life organizations, he "turned a blind eye" toward the activities of for-profit "prochoice" organizations.

They noted that Spitzer had not investigated abortion clinics to insure that they were not "practicing medicine without a license," even though Planned Parenthood of New York City was advertising on its website for an unlicensed volunteer whose duties would include triaging patients, taking blood pressure and performing pregnancy testing.

Regarding Spitzer's allegation of possible consumer fraud, the petitioners replied that their "primary purpose is not to sell anything but to advance their message that women should consider alternatives to abortion.

'This message is both religious and political in nature and, therefore, twice protected by the U.S. Constitution under the Free Speech Clause and Free Exercise Clause. . .

"There are no 'consumers,' nor is there any possible 'consumer fraud' involved in the Center's pro bono services to women. . . . The Attorney General, thus, has no business butting into the charitable relationship between the Center and women in need." Two weeks after the petitions to quash were filed, Spitzer withdrew his subpoenas, leaving the impression that (1) he knew he didn't have a legal leg to stand on, and (2) the main purpose of the subpoenas was to harass and intimidate the centers and publicly smear their reputation.

One small New York pregnancy center, Birthright of Victor, was apparently cowed into signing an agreement, agreeing to submit to the attorney general's office all ads, procedures and promotional materials for approval.

"In my opinion, Birthright of Victor signed away many of their First Amendment rights," a director of one of the other targeted centers commented sadly.

Spitzer's office jumped on this one agreement as a precedent to be used to try to pressure other centers into signing similar agreements.