King County Board of Health Vote Forces “Limited Service Pregnancy Centers” to Post Warnings

The outcome was predetermined, but it was still a little bit surprising.

The meeting began with an hour of public testimony, limited to one minute per speaker, and dominated by those opposed to the proposal targeting pregnancy centers.

Nevertheless, the King County Board of Health voted 10-1 to require “limited service pregnancy centers” to post notices in their facilities, in 48 point font in 10 different languages, that say “This facility is not a health care facility.”

Councilmember Kathy Lambert was the lone vote in opposition.

The purported reason for the regulations was to prevent delay in receiving pregnancy information that can have an adverse health impact on both the woman and the baby.

However, public testimony in support of the proposal was conspicuously devoid of anyone who claimed to have been deceived, delayed, or otherwise harmed by a pregnancy center.

That isn’t to say no one was there to support the regulation.

A small parade of interns from the far-left legal group Legal Voice had several bad things to say.  None of them, however, claimed any personal contact with the organizations, much less harm.

Legal Voice is the organization who sent fake clients into pregnancy centers under false pretenses.   Unsurprisingly, they reported that the centers were deceptive and dangerous.

The staff report prepared by the Board of Health that is frequently referred to as the justification for the rule relied entirely upon the Legal Voice report.

Kim Triller, executive director of Care Net of Puget Sound, told the board emphatically that the contents of the report were false, but the board seemed uninterested.

We are not aware of any attempt by the Board of Health to independently verify whether the accusations were true.

The vast majority of those who attended the hearing were opposed to the proposed regulation. No fewer than 10 women, who had personally been served by the pregnancy centers, described how the pregnancy centers served them.

Council members attempted to acknowledge the good work the centers were doing and repeatedly emphasized that this was not an attempt to shut down the centers.

Still, the political rather than policy motives were transparent.

While the committee claimed to have been working on the issue for more than a year, they appeared to have done little actual thinking about the rule itself.

For example, a significant amount of time was spent trying to figure out how many pieces of 8.5 x 11 paper were required to print the notice in 48 point font in ten different languages.   That fairly rudimentary conversation seemed to betray the fact that very little actual thinking had been done about the rule.

Five minutes before the passage of the regulations one member pointed out that requiring pregnancy centers to post the warning on internet advertising in ten different languages makes many forms of internet advertising illegal or impractical for pregnancy centers.

Imagine the impact of the following advertisement with a warning printed in 10 different languages.

Kinda takes away the impact, doesn’t it?  Well. That’s the point.

While the notice might actually fit on a banner of this size, it could be illegal for a pregnancy center to purchase a smaller advertisement because there wouldn’t be room for the notice.

That fact creates a significant constitutional problem for the rule.

The council, however, was now more than two hours into the meeting. They appeared to be losing interest in discussing the actual impact.

So they just passed it.

Constitutional concerns about the rule abound.  Additional free speech concerns include prohibitions on government forcing people to engage in “compelled speech”.   Additionally, the rules would not apply to centers that perform abortions.

Several federal courts have found similar regulations to be unconstitutional and an appeal of a similar regulation from California is on the Supreme Court’s conference schedule for September 25, 2017.  As a result, the Supreme Court may soon be speaking to this issue soon.

Constitutional issues aside, it remains unclear whether any centers in King County actually fall under the definition of a “limited service pregnancy center” according to the rule.

The definition of a “limited service pregnancy center” excludes “health care facilities… where licensed, certified, registered, or otherwise authorized health care providers conduct functions that make it governed by 70.02 RCW.”

Virtually every pro-life pregnancy center meets this definition of a “health care facility” and is therefore exempt.

It is possible that in their effort to appease the abortion lobby, the county has drawn a circle so small that no one is inside it.

If that’s the case, even abortion industry lackeys can’t help but wonder whether the inevitable legal costs to the county are worth the effort to regulate no one.

Regardless, you can be sure that groups like Planned Parenthood, Legal Voice, and the National Abortion Rights Action League will use these rules to harass pro-life facilities even if, in the end, the rule is found not to apply to them.

After all, that’s the entire point of the rule is harassment, isn’t it?

Those who receive political contributions helping those who make political contributions.

 


Print pagePDF pageEmail page
8 replies
  1. Terry Trudel
    Terry Trudel says:

    The decision by the King County board of health is Disgusting. We should not be surprised. Many of our elected and administrative bodies hate Jesus and the Gospel of Christ. But crisis pregnancy centers that with hold health information from clients such as the result of the pregnancy test share in the responsibility for this decision. They have provided the ammunition that is now being used in an attempt to destroy them. The alleged reason for with holding the result of a pregnancy test is that staff do not want to contribute in any way to the decision of having a abortion. This is faulty reasoning in the extreme. Providing accurate information is the primary reason for the existence of crisis pregnancy centers. It is also unscriptural..in Ezekiel 18:1-24 the scripture is clear that it is the person who sins that bears responsibility. Let us be wise as we represent Christ in the world in which we must live.

    Reply
  2. Michael B Babbitt
    Michael B Babbitt says:

    We should stop being disappointed that Progressives do everything we don’t want. They are in a mindset and that is the world as they understand it. Be shocked when they don’t do the inhuman or stupid thing.

    Reply
  3. Anikó Juhász
    Anikó Juhász says:

    I am shocked about this. How is it that pregnancy centers are required to do this but Planned Parenthood is exempt. This is clearly a double standard that favors them.
    I am so disappointed that Board appeared to biased in how they viewed the information presented and how they ruled. It appears that they already had an agenda before the meeting and came with closed minds.
    This also clearly demonstrates another double standard tactic. Legal Voice went in “under cover” to get their “information” and it was accepted. When other do the same to get the truth they are criticised for using underhanded tactics. It shows how blinded our politicians are to only hear and believe the liberal view and totally disregard the views from conservatives.
    I agree that this should be taken to the ACLJ to review. Perhaps this should be taken to the Supreme Court and brought to the attention of the public to see the truth of how our politicians are not standing up for people they serve.
    No matter the outcome of yesterday, He is in control and His Will will prevail. We need to continue to be vigilant and in prayer for God’s working in this matter.

    Reply
  4. Patriot O'Grady
    Patriot O'Grady says:

    There are four lies often used to justify abortion. Please memorize the objections which follow. May God grant us success when we present them.
    Lie #1. A woman has a right to her own body.
    No, she doesn’t, not if she wants to take a life — even if that life is her own. That is why all fifty states have suicide laws. Without them, no intervention would be legally possible.
    Lie #2. A woman’s right to her body allows her to kill her baby.
    This is a non-sequitur. No part of a baby is part of a woman’s body. Half the time the baby is a different sex, many times it has a different blood type, all the time it has different DNA. No part of a baby is part of a woman’s body.
    Lie #3. Abortion is health care.
    No part of killing a baby is health care. No health care procedure requires the death of a baby. Killing a baby cannot preserve the mother’s life or health, including the mental health of the mother which undergoes lifelong torment and anguish after an abortion.
    Lie #4. Abortion is justifiable in the case of rape and incest.
    The penalty for rape is not the death of the guilty perpetrator. On what basis can it be the death of the innocent baby?

    The above rejoinders completely obliterate any pretended argument for abortion. Please memorize these rejoinders and object to these lies whenever they come up in the abortion debate.

    Reply
    • IMBTMN
      IMBTMN says:

      To Patriot O’Grady, I think your points are well thought out and it seems you have done your research. I do believe though that there are rare occasions when a mother may die during pregnancy. Women can have clotting factor issues that can trigger and they can have complications- there are many different ones. Mothers can also have placenta abruption which can cause the mother to bleed to death. These are not the norm which is something to be thankful for, however the pro-death agenda will use them to further their cause.

      Reply
    • Larry Ingram
      Larry Ingram says:

      Thanks for your comments Patriot. This is simple logic. If it is legal to kill an unborn human as a result of rape. it should also be legal to allow the woman who was raped to have the option to impose the death penalty on the rapist. The argument for abortion is based on the right to privacy – that if I am alone in my home, I can do anything that I want. In other words, I can sin in any manner I choose. For non-Christians, doing anything one chooses includes killing human life, or that was the argument that allowed Roe vs. Wade to proceed to the Supreme Court.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *