NC House bill would ignore SCOTUS at women’s expense

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that targeting pregnancy centers with demands for donor records and other confidential information violated the First Amendment.  

But new legislation in North Carolina seeks to undermine this ruling at the expense of local women. House Bill 1120 would require pregnancy centers receiving state funding to publicize confidential financial information, staff credentials, and services provided. It would also divert millions of dollars from pregnancy centers to other “health” programs. 

Sponsor Rep. Julie von Haefen, D-Wake, claims that this won’t burden pregnancy centers.  

Unfortunately, HB 1120 specifically targets these organizations without appropriate justification. It will chill the speech and services of North Carolina pregnancy centers that state residents rely on with burdensome requirements that no other state nonprofits face.  

Indeed, this bill is a transparent partisan attack on local nonprofits that must be stopped.

I have practiced medicine in North Carolina for 28 years and serve as the medical director at four pregnancy centers across the state of North Carolina, including Charlotte, Chapel Hill, Wilson, and Nags Head. In these centers, we see women with unplanned pregnancies, providing life affirming health care by 24 clinical staff members, including registered nurses, sonographers, and OB/Gyn doctor. Clinical services include pregnancy testing; ultrasound; options counseling; prenatal education; management and referrals for miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and prenatal care; abortion pill reversal; and post-abortion care.

A continuum of care occurs both during pregnancy and after the baby is born. My non-clinical colleagues provide local women emotional, spiritual, and material resources like diapers, wipes, clothes, food, and housing referral. They also provide parenting classes, financial resources, services to support men, and career opportunities to set families up for long-term success. Our goal is nonpolitical: We exist to address the gaps in resources that cripple so many mothers and children. 

Through a combination of state funding, community connections, and donations, we offer all our services free of charge.  

Supporting women should be a unifying goal. Studies show that most post-abortive women only pursued this path because they lacked resources and support to make a true choice. Nationwide, organizations like mine annually provide hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of free resources to address their needs.  

Sadly, “pro-choice” advocates villainize our work to discredit us. They attack me for focusing on medicine that heals rather than destroys.  

I don’t expect state officials to share my beliefs, yet when Rep. Von Hafen introduced her bill — which specifically singles out pregnancy resource centers like mine — she was surrounded by pro-choice advocates. It was hard not to feel threatened seeing those who relentlessly attack our centers partnering with state government to demand our private information and strip our funding.  

The women running First Choice, the New Jersey pregnancy resource center in question in the Supreme Court case, faced a similar situation when their state attorney general demanded private donor information and records on the grounds that they may have “misled” customers, yet there were zero complaints involving their center.  

The lack of justification for this attack concerned pro-choice and pro-life advocates alike, and it was unsurprising that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the center. Recognizing this that offensive could have set a dangerous precedent for government leaders to punish nonprofits they disagree with politically, even the pro-choice ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting First Choice.  

Rep. von Haefen’s bill mimics this unconstitutional move by requiring pregnancy centers like mine to publicize private financial information. As the Supreme Court affirmed in First Choice, this will deter donations while forcing pregnancy centers to divert time and resources, which could be spent serving women, to compiling public reports on data that should be confidential. 

Rep. von Haefen defends her bill by arguing it’s about transparency. Then why is she targeting pregnancy centers when not a single other North Carolina nonprofit faces such burdensome requirements? 

She also claims that pregnancy centers receiving state funding should be regulated the same as medical facilities.  

If this is true, why is she excluding abortion facilities from the bill?  

My centers provide low-risk health care such as pregnancy tests and ultrasounds. Conversely, Planned Parenthoods offer chemical abortion drugs and invasive dilation and evacuation abortions — and receive over $800 million in government funds annually.  

In short, her justifications simply don’t pass muster.  

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision was exceedingly clear that political targeting of nonprofits is unconstitutional.  

That politicians are ignoring this ruling to similarly target pregnancy centers raises serious concerns — both about the implications of passing HB 1120, and the motivations of those behind it.

“NC House bill would ignore SCOTUS at women’s expense” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.