CPCs are technically not medical clinics, but rather ministries with intent to provide women with information about the pregnancy and basic medical services such as ultrasounds. At face value, these practices do not seem that nefarious. However, studies and news stories have revealed a darker side of the extent to which CPCs will go to convince women against getting an abortion. Several studies have found CPCs often mislead and misinform patients about their option and the consequences of said option. A study done in North Carolina found 86% of North Carolinian CPCs post inaccurate information on their websites. Furthermore, large numbers of CPCs have misinformed patients about the risk of infertility and metal illness after receiving an abortion. Some of these ministerial clinics have gone as far as convincing a woman she could receive an abortion at any point up to term in order to get her to miss the first trimester deadline.
CPCs are heavily unregulated in the US. Most CPCs do not have to disclose they are not medical clinics to their patients. Many have adopted practices to give their ministers an appearance of medical professionalism. They have been criticized by many pro-life activist such as Julie Rikelman who wrote, “many CPCs purposefully mislead women about their mission. In every way possible, from their advertising, to their physical appearance, to the uniforms of their staff, CPCs are designed to look like medical clinics, not religious ministries.” Most attempts by city and state governments to prevent this dissemination of misinformation have been unsuccessful in the courts. The groups running the CPCs have used their first amendment rights as religious organizations to block ordinances and laws implemented to prevent the spread of misinformation.
Consultations from CPCs are more readily available than from Abortion Clinics. In the United States there are 2,500 CPCs while there are a total of 1,800 abortion clinics. California State Representative David Chiu introduced a bill in 2015 which required CPCs to disclose their non-medical status and inform women abortion was an option. California passed the law hoping to provide women with a clearer path towards medically informed reproductive healthcare. The law has been upheld by the courts and has made its way to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS is expected to make a ruling on the law before the court's term ends in June. The Justices must determine if CPCs practices are protected by the free exercise clause. The implications of the decision will affect the status of CPCs around the country.
I believe the practices of CPCs are not protected by the first amendment. Considering the negative impact CPC’s misinformation can have on a woman’s reproductive health and general well-being the facts of this case clearly establish their is a large state interest in regulating CPC practices. If one applies the Sherbet test in this case, it becomes clear there are no less restrictive means to ensure the State’s interest is met. Even after the ruling in Burwell V. Hobby Lobby precedent would dictate the court must rule in favor of California. In the court’s decision they held to the sherbet test and found there were less restrictive means by which female employees could acquire birth control. In the case of the CPCs, the state has an obligation to ensure its citizens are not misled when receiving information concerning their healthcare. The free exercise clause was not written to protect a preacher acting as a doctor. I can understand how one would be concerned about the government overstepping its limits and dictating what a congregation could preach, however the scope of this case is very limited to that of healthcare. If the court were to rule in favor of California, it would only allow states to ensure congregations do not preach on medical matters while masquerading as health care providers. Considering the legal precedent and the clear state interest, I hope the Supreme Court allows the States to regulate the practices of CPCs when it is clear they have become predatory misinformers preventing women from getting the healthcare they desire.
I think that it should be illegal to provide women with false medical advise. Although they do have their first amendment free speech rights and their first amendment free exercise rights, which means they do not have to tell women that they could get an abortion if that is against their religion, they must admit and show that they are not medically certified and make sure that women are aware that they are not a register medical facility. There is a compelling state interest for people to receive adequate medical care and medically accurate information
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah. I party agree with David Chiu's bill and partly do not. I think that the CPCs should be forced to reveal their non-medical status. Further, I even think that CPCs should be forced to demonstrate their religious affiliation in their buildings and websites. Once this is done the issue of them posing as a medical facility will be dealt with. Once completed, there is no reason to make a religious entity go against their religion by informing women who come to a non-medical, religious space about operations that go against their beliefs. This would breach the religions free exercise rights. The issue here is that religious organizations are posing as medical experts. If they come clean and are speaking to women from a transparently religious perspective, it would be violating their free exercise rights to make them inform women about abortions.
ReplyDeleteI think it's very important that CPC's start to become regulated. Anyone could walk into one of these buildings assuming it's a legitimate medical center and leave being extremely mislead and become scared about the decisions she may have to make during her pregnancy. There has to be some law against fake medical centers! How are they getting away with this? They have a right to express their pro-life views where ever they want but they should not be allowed to take it this far. I agree with Julia here that they absolutely should be forced to reveal their non-medical status and demonstrate their religious affiliation and opinions all over their website in order to not mislead women in this way.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do think it is important for accurate scientific information to be distributed to those that are searching for the information, I think we must be careful when stating that these types of ministries must be regulated. These clinics are established and allowed with good intent to allow women who might not want to go to an abortion clinic but might feel more comfortable finding out information elsewhere. These ministries exercise of the religion can not be regulated but the scientific information should be. That would allow for good care for these women and flexibility for the church.
ReplyDeleteAbortion, as well as many other forms of contraception, have been a heavily debated topic for years. I believe in the complete separation of church and state with this regard, as everyone is constitutionally entitled to their own right as citizens to free exercise. I will, however, say that David Chiu's bill was a positive stride towards increasing transparency between mother and health care provider. As women have the right to choose whether or not to receive an abortion, they must also have the right to receive access to legitimate and accurate medical experts. After all, due to the skewed proportion of CPC's to abortion clinics, a bias opinion may persuade an individual a certain way. Thus, it is the duty of the government to ensure women fair and equal opportunity to receive the best medical advice possible, which will then allow the individual to make the most informed decision possible.
ReplyDelete