California Family Minute  >  California Family Minute  >  California Family Minute  >  California Family Minute  >  California Family Minute

California Family Minute

October 26, 2011

Limiting Real Choice in San Francisco

by Rebecca Burgoyne, 
CFC Research Analyst

With the recent death of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, more focus has been placed on him as the product of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy – given up for adoption at birth. Biographer Walter Isaacson said that Jobs saw himself as “chosen and special” – not abandoned by his birth parents. And that conviction, Isaacson said, stayed with Jobs throughout his life. Jobs’ saving grace was he was born in a pre-Roe v. Wade era. Abortion was not a legal option for his birth mother, a graduate student at the time. 

Prior to 1973 – when the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade decreed the “right” of a woman to choose abortion – 9 percent of all infants born to never-married mothers were given up for adoption. In recent years, only 1 percent of all babies born to unwed mothers have been given up for adoption. Today abortion has whittled down the opportunities for millions of couples who want to adopt. 

For 40 years, crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) – also called pregnancy resource centers – have given women real choice and helped millions avoid the heartache of abortion. Often faith-based, thousands of these centers operate in the United States and Canada, providing counseling, testing, maternity care, and support to women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy. Peggy Hartshorn, president of Heartbeat International has described the movement as “dedicated to empowering women with life-affirming alternatives so abortion is unwanted now and unthinkable for future generations.” 

Sadly, thorough information and real choice isn’t what the abortion industry really wants; it wants to restrict a woman’s “choice” to abortion, an ideology that has financed and empowered Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America. As pro-life organizations and individuals nationwide have responded to abortion with life-affirming alternatives, pro-abortion organizations have opposed the successful work of crisis pregnancy centers, whom they view as competition. (CPCs now outnumber abortion clinics.) 

Over the last three years, legislation has been introduced in Congress and at least nine states, including California, targeting pregnancy centers. When a coalition of pro-life organizations was able to blunt much of this focus, abortion advocates re-focused on cities and counties. Orchestrated by NARAL, ordinances have been approved in New York City, Baltimore, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Austin, Texas. Now, the focus is on San Francisco, where last week the board of supervisors initially approved an ordinance limiting CPCs. Final passage is expected this week, making San Francisco the first city in California with such an ordinance.

The ordinance, introduced by Supervisor Malia Cohen, would prohibit CPCs – defined as “limited-service pregnancy centers” for their failure to refer for or provide abortions – from making misleading or incomplete statements in their advertising – something already prohibited by consumer laws. The ordinance would mandate that all crisis pregnancy centers accurately advertise only the services they provide. Supporters of the ordinance claim these centers are deceiving women who may expect counseling options to include abortion. However, the language in the ordinance is vague and many argue that it is a form of viewpoint discrimination, since those who support abortion are free to falsely present a message of “comprehensive” care. The city claims the ordinance will protect women from losing their window of opportunity to abort, because such a decision is time-sensitive. 

One of the centers that would be affected by the ordinance, First Resort, issued a press release strongly denouncing allegations that their communications mislead their clients. Instead, they argue, “Simply stated, the Board disagrees with the services we provide, and therefore seeks to limit what we say, and how we say it to the women we serve.” 

The sole supervisor to vote against the measure, Sean Elsbernd, said the backers showed no evidence that women are being misled. Despite the fact that similar ordinances elsewhere have been struck down or blunted in the court – and a warning from the city attorney that they must provide a record of false or misleading advertising to mount a strong defense should the measure be challenged in court – city supervisors chose to proceed with an ordinance that targets one viewpoint, while failing to apply it to groups with a competing message. 

Women are not the only ones affected by abortion. The preborn child in the womb is most at risk of victimization, yet lacks its own voice. God sees each of us as “chosen and special,” even an unplanned child. God has a plan for each life – however short or long. Crisis pregnancy centers – protecting each life – deserve our protection, our support, and our prayers. 

What you can do:

  • Contact a local pregnancy center and ask what you can do to help. You can find a center by visiting Option Line, a project of two faith-based organizations — Heartbeat International and Care Net. 
  • Help spread the story of CPCs to friends, churches, local legislators, and media. 
  • Pray for pregnancy centers – their work, their volunteers, and their funding. Pray that God would protect and use these life-affirming alternatives. 
  • The Alliance Defense Fund and Life Legal Defense Foundation have promised to challenge the San Francisco ordinance should it go into effect. Find out more about these organizations and their work. 
  • Printer-friendly version