Abortion agencies try to shut down faith-run pregnancy centers

Early this year a very dangerous new bill was introduced in the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee.

Senate Bill 6452 was a direct attack on Washington’s faith-run Crisis Pregnancy Centers by pro-abortion advocates diametrically opposed to their mission.  The bill was an
out-and-out assault on both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

As many of you know, CPCs are non-profit pregnancy resource centers generally associated with a religious community. They offer advice and support that encourages pregnant women to choose life – that is, to keep their baby or give it up for adoption rather than to abort it.

Senate Bill 6452 required Crisis Pregnancy Centers to submit to a series of state regulations that would completely undermine this mission. The regulations would define CPC’s as “Limited Service” Pregnancy Centers.

All “Limited Service” Pregnancy Centers must:

1. Offer “medically and scientifically accurate” reproductive health information. (They would not be able to teach abstinence only.)
2. Deliver pregnancy test results immediately without any counseling or intervention. (Essentially silencing any efforts to offer abortion alternatives.)
3. Protect any medical information, including pregnancy test results (no parents can be notified).
4. Post notices in at least 30 pt. type in English and Spanish explaining that the center does not provide medical care, abortion or comprehensive birth control services. The notices must be posted on entry doors, inside the building at the registration desk and on the Web site and any advertisement for the CPC.
5. Be subject to the Consumer Protection Act. That means anyone who is “injured” under this Act can bring a lawsuit to prevent future violations and recover actual damages, including the cost of the lawsuit and attorney’s fees. The court can also award triple punitive damages up to $25,000. One successful lawsuit would shut down the average CPC.

The Crisis Pregnancy Centers have always aimed to reduce the need and desire for abortion by encouraging women to consider the long-term ramifications of continuing a pregnancy or ending it…to think more deeply about what’s at stake. They show new mothers that their pregnancy is not just a collection of cells, as some believe, but a living human being.

CPCs provide an alternative to abortion-centric Planned Parenthood. It’s clear their mission is succeeding if abortion proponents are willing to introduce legislation this malignant.

SB 6452 was introduced quickly, under the radar, at the instigation of the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. These agencies aim to force the above regulations on CPCs, but specifically exempt themselves on the basis of their willingness to provide abortion services. Since CPCs are largely affiliated with religious organizations, it is unlikely that they could, in good conscience, accept these regulations.

This bill was an assault on religious liberty, which is absolutely protected by Article 1, Section 11 of our state Constitution and freedom of speech, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Thankfully, the Crisis Pregnancy Centers learned of the bill early and hundreds of CPC supporters showed up to the hearing, clearly shocking the Democrat committee chair who expected to sneak this bill through committee unchallenged.

Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, testified eloquently against it. You can hear his testimony by clicking on his photo. It’s well worth a listen.

Because of this avalanche of opposition, the bill died in committee.

If this malicious legislation had become law, it would have shut down the efforts of religious organizations to encourage women to choose an alternative to abortion. Then how long would it take before another bill was introduced to muzzle what can be taught at church-related events, and later, in our churches?

It is unlikely that we have seen the last of this bill. I expect it to surface again in 2011, but this time we’ll be ready.

Please commit to speaking out against legislation like this, even if it means coming to Olympia to register your displeasure in person.

Sincerely,