37 Comments - Hahaha - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:06 am: Beyond the legal jargon and hilariously vague and subjective verbiage of this bill, the bottom line is Democrats want the state to have the ability to go around fining pro-life pregnancy centers as they exercise their first amendment right to convince women to give birth instead of terminating the pregnancy. Women still have the ability to choose what they want to do. I don’t see how this remotely passes both the public and legal smell test. Beyond the pale. - Chicago Republican - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:15 am: Oppose. Pregnancy Centers have the right to offer their services. They have a first amendment right to speech, which includes advertising. The Pro Choice crowd might not like the message, but their solution here is to “stifle the messenger” with threatened financial penalty. Not to mention that many women who are pro-life, and become unexpectedly pregnant do not want to engage with Planned Parenthood because of their political reputation. Moreover, to punish these centers could potentially remove an option for women of all political persuasions to access car seats, diapers, wipes, clothing, and a whole host of resources meant for low income women. I am fine with Pro-abortion legislators passing pro abortion laws, but to attack Pregnancy resource centers is uncalled for and damages low income women. - TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:16 am: –Women still have the ability to choose what they want to do.– And men still have the ability to choose which roofing contractor they want to hire to replace the roof on their homes. Yet, it’s still illegal for a contractor to use deceptive practices to ‘convince’ that guy to make a certain decision. If you have to use deceptive practices to ‘convince’ someone, no matter what you are selling, it’s not legal and has zero bearing on the ‘1st amendment’. I’ve gotta say though; “My 1st amendment rights are being violated, because I can’t use deceptive practices” has to be one of the weakest arguments I’ve ever heard. Let them use that argument all day long. It really does speak for itself. - Pundent - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:21 am: Support. Let’s draw a clear distinction on how Illinois views women’s health and reproductive care. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:22 am: - Hahaha - The essence of the bill to the discussion ===A limited services pregnancy center shall not engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact, with the intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression, or omission of such material fact: (1) to interfere with or prevent an individual from seeking to gain entry or access to a provider of abortion or emergency contraception; (2) to induce an individual to enter or access the limited services pregnancy center; (3) in advertising, soliciting, or otherwise offering pregnancy-related services; or (4) in conducting, providing, or performing pregnancy-related services.=== To the QOTD? “Support”, but there’s a line to the ethical that this bill is trying to promote and protect for women, if these facilities can meet the ethical aspects, I’d like to see what that facility could be… but until that time, “support” This is all I will comment, and to the actual discussion to what the bill is, not what others want it to seemingly be. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:24 am: It fell off when it hit “say it” “It’s also necessary to the point other states are now making criminal travel to get an abortion, so deceptive business practices in the name of ‘life’ is beyond the pale” Apologies. - lake county democrat - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:25 am: Seems vague and convoluted. Couldn’t you just have a consumer protection statute that requires early disclosure that the agency does not support and will not advise abortion options? - Arsenal - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:27 am: ==Beyond the legal jargon== In other words, “don’t read the bill just blindly believe whatever I tell you the ‘bottom line’ of the bill is”. Support. These people should not be deceiving women in the middle of a difficult decision. - /s - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:33 am: Strongly support. The issue is not a first amendment one. If all these facilities were doing is offering their support for alternatives, fine. But the tactics they use are what’s at issue. These facilities deliberately choose similar names to medical clinics that offer abortions, they advertise their services as being medical in nature, they use fake ultrasound images and misleading pictures of fetuses to scare people, etc. In short, they lie. And the first amendment doesn’t cover false advertising. - Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:40 am: Oppose Dem’s engaging in first amendment attacks on individuals who are pro-life. They also just may finally be going too far with a pro-abortion agenda, which will get pushback from Catholic voters in particular. Every archdiocese in the state has a strong and popular ministry supporting pregnancy care centers. https://www.ilcatholic.org/resources-for-expectant-women-and-mothers/ - Jerry - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:42 am: I support. No need for Big Government Nanny State Conservatives to manage individual healthcare decisions. “Pro-Life” is a Socialist political position, not “conservative” or “limited government”. Republicans have lied about this for years. In addition, yelling “FIRE” in a crowded movie theatre is NOT protected speech. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:49 am: ===first amendment attacks on individuals=== Not weighing in on the question, but this isn’t about the opinions of individuals, it’s about imposing a business offense on limited services pregnancy centers if they mislead the public. You’re heading into LP category lately. Last warning. - Hahaha - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:52 am: The problem is in who is determining what constitutes “false advertising” - as evidenced by the language in the legislative intent. “Misleading information”? Which partisan government official gets to decide what is “misleading”? So a pregnancy center will get fined up to $1,000 for accurately quoting death rates caused by abortions because they didn’t also report the death rates caused by birthing? Seriously? Can you not see that is speech police? - OneMan - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:53 am: ==(1) to interfere with or prevent an individual from seeking to gain entry or access to a provider of abortion or emergency contraception; == So I guess I would want to understand what the legal definition of interfering is. So in Aurora, we now have one of these places on the other side of what I think is a private road from the PP clinic (it’s an access road to a strip mall) I take that road going into and/or out of the Marianos just to the west of both of them. Often, people on the north side of the road at the edge of the property of the alternative will be facing the PP on the other side of the road. I can’t hear if they are saying anything (sometimes there as assistance folks on the PP side). They also have a large LED sign/video screen facing the PP clinic. Can the screen and the people (I don’t see them obstructing movement into the PP clinic) be considered interfering? - Socially DIstant watcher - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 10:55 am: Support It’s awfully rich that the same eople who want to require doctors to revite medically irrelevant information to patients or offer medically unnecessary services in order to operate, like admitting privileges at local hospitals, now object to being told how to treat their customers. - Pundent - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 11:03 am: =Which partisan government official gets to decide what is “misleading”?= A business, any business, can’t engage in false advertising and/or deceptive business practices and claim that they’re somehow protected under the 1st amendment. Why would we treat these businesses any differently? - Jibba - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 11:05 am: Oppose the bill but support the goal. I think these centers need to be shut down for their misleading approach, but I don’t want to set the state up for an expensive settlement when the regulations are nebulous. There must be a more intelligent and legal approach to dealing with these places, such as requiring onerous regulation similar to what the southern states have done to clinics providing abortions, including requiring oversight by doctors, medical licensing, etc. - education first - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 11:07 am: strongly support. These groups both lie and are amazingly inconsistent. As we were looking at adoption, I thought the perfect place to ask about referrals for adoption would be the above named places. NADA. NOTHING. None of them were even aware of what the adoption process entailed. HYPOCRACY, thy name is pro-life. - Captain Obvious - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 11:10 am: This bill is offensive. The terms overly broad, intrusive, vague, and chilling effect come immediately to mind. - JS Mill - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 11:33 am: Support. Primarily because I do not like deceptive business practices. And what @ Inviseableman stated. - H-W - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 11:45 am: I support the bill. It is simply more just and moral to be honest about services being offered, and those not offered. It is also less moral and less just to suggest that abortion is a risky medical procedure. Initiated early, abortion is about as safe as having corns removed. If you want to help some women figure out how to handle being pregnant, and help pregnant women manage their pregnancies, that is moral and just. But you also need to clearly state that your organization does not assist women seeking abortions, and you need to say that up front, and often. It is easy to be honest. Lying requires continually reinventing arguments about why a lie is not a lie. Do not deceive. Just be honest. - G'Kar - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 11:52 am: Support. Invisible Man pretty much wrote what I would have said. - Jocko - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 11:58 am: Until CPCs are willing to be honest in terms of the services they do and, more importantly, do not provide…I support the bill. Imagine walking into an urgent care clinic that only provides band aids and someone looking up WebMD. - DougChicago - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 12:33 pm: Anything involving Peter Breen is suspect. - froganon - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 12:40 pm: I support this bill. Deceptive advertising is wrong and these places are deceptive. If they advertised their services as support for pregnant women, stopped trying to mimic nearby full service clinics and told the truth about the risks of pregnancy versus abortion and birth control, they are fine. If they advertise themselves as medical providers, they should be governed by the same regulations as Planned Parenthood and other full service clinics. They should also be required to follow HIPPA regulations with ultra-sounds and all information they gather from their visitors. - Leap Day William - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 12:59 pm: Highly Support. Also, this argument: == They have a first amendment right to speech, which includes advertising. == Very much falls flat in the face of current first amendment law. They have a right to speech, but they do not have a right to fraudulent speech. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12180 “Although content-based laws generally trigger strict scrutiny, possibly including laws regulating false statements, the Supreme Court has historically allowed certain limited categories of speech to be regulated based on their content. These categories include defamation and fraud, both of which entail false speech.” “The common law of fraud imposes liability on a person who makes a fraudulent misrepresentation for the purpose of inducing someone else to act, detrimentally and justifiably, in reliance on that material misrepresentation.” - Leap Day William - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 1:01 pm: As an addendum to the previous comment: == So a pregnancy center will get fined up to $1,000 for accurately quoting death rates caused by abortions because they didn’t also report the death rates caused by birthing? == Perhaps when they start accurately quoting death rates caused by abortions they can easily avoid getting fined? All around the country, they have been deliberately lying and misconstruing facts. https://sph.unc.edu/sph-news/crisis-pregnancy-centers-come-up-short-in-providing-access-to-information-on-pregnancy-options/ When their tactic to get you to give birth is “you might die from an abortion”, but fail to say “your risk of dying is 14 times higher if you give birth”; that’s like, textbook fraudulent behavior, and should absolutely be regulated out of existence. If they want to provide their other services, go for it. - Norseman - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 1:04 pm: Supportive of the idea that people not be misled. I’m concerned that the bill may go too far. These “centers” should be clear that they do not provide abortion services. Perhaps a sign at the door and disclaimers in their paperwork. The only other regulation should relate to health safety requirements applicable to other providers. - Jocko - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 1:46 pm: ==These “centers” should be clear that they do not provide abortion services.== and are fundamentally opposed to the practice based on their beliefs…NOT the science. Everything they say or do will come back to this tenet. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 1:51 pm: Support. It’s pretty ironic that so many CPCs feel that violate one of the big ten (the one about not bearing false witness) is necessary. - Politix - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 2:24 pm: ==This bill is offensive. The terms overly broad, intrusive, vague, and chilling effect come immediately to mind.== You know what’s intrusive? Tricking vulnerable women into manipulative, coercive discussions. - Lurker - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 4:23 pm: Oppose. What one depicts as deceptive practices others depict as best practices. - Politix - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 4:31 pm: ==…best practices.== Best practices for…? Means nothing. - Lurker - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 4:36 pm: And I like what lake county dem proposed: Seems vague and convoluted. Couldn’t you just have a consumer protection statute that requires early disclosure that the agency does not support and will not advise abortion options? I’m fine with that as I choose my hospital based on a pro-life disclosure that I support. - Suburban Mom - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 5:53 pm: ===The only other regulation should relate to health safety requirements applicable to other providers.=== Part of what’s at issue here is that THEY ARE NOT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. They are unlicensed, they have no licensed staff. They advertise themselves as providing health care, but they can’t and don’t, because that would be illegal. It’s the misleading advertising that’s the problem. You’ll note that they’re not going after pro-life hospitals because those are health care providers truthfully telling people they don’t perform abortions. These are misleadingly-named “clinics” who exist to trick people into not visiting planned parenthood or a real doctor, that provide essentially no services whatsoever except berating you into not having an abortion. - RNUG - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 7:46 pm: See it as poorly written,too vague and subjective. Oppose the bill. Plus, as vague as it is, I can see both sides trying to use it against the opposite side. - Mama - Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 11:12 pm: I support it as long as “deceptive business practices” is clearly defined. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.