California Assembly Advances Bill Ordering Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortion

Pregnancy Test pd-compressedSACRAMENTO — The California Assembly voted Tuesday to advance a bill that would require pregnancy centers to inform all clients that they can obtain an abortion at state-funded facilities.

As previously reported, AB 775 is known in the legislature as the Reproductive FACT Act, but to pro-lifers, it is dubbed the “bully bill.” The text of the act states that its author, Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco), takes issue with pregnancy centers that don’t provide abortion referrals to women.

“The author contends that, unfortunately, there are nearly 200 licensed and unlicensed clinics known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in California whose goal is to interfere with women’s ability to be fully informed and exercise their reproductive rights, and that CPCs pose as full-service women’s health clinics, but aim to discourage and prevent women from seeking abortions,” it reads.

The legislation therefore requires that licensed pregnancy care centers to provide the following message to clients in print: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at (telephone number).”

Unlicensed facilities must post a notice stating that they are “not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.” The message must be posted inside of the facility, on the center’s website and in all advertisements.

Last month, an Assembly committee voted 11-5 in favor of the legislation, and on Tuesday, the full Assembly–mostly Democratic—voted 49-26 to advance the bill to the Senate.

Allison Ruff, aide to co-author Assemblywoman Autumn Burke (D-Los Angeles), told reporters that the effort would keep pregnancy centers from “misinforming” mothers, as she noted that pro-life facilities counsel against abortion.

  • Connect with Christian News

“That is their focus, and they have every right to focus on adoption and other services, but they also can’t misinform,” she stated.

Ruff didn’t elaborate on how pregnancy centers are currently “misinforming” women in their opposition to ending the lives of unborn children, or how forcing facilities to provide direction toward government abortion programs solves the perceived problem.

But Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R-Fresno), a co-founder of a pregnancy center and father of two adopted children, spoke against AB 775 following its approval, remarking that requiring pro-life facilities to point mothers toward abortion services cuts against the entire reason for the centers’ existence.

“It is an effort to force objectionable, state-mandated speech on pro-life pregnancy care centers which have freely formed in order to compassionately present alternative views—views which are rightly protected by the Constitution,” he said. “To force these centers to post and to distribute how to obtain free abortions cuts to the core of their founding purpose and their reason for being.”

“Two of my adopted children and all three of my grandchildren are the living witnesses of the profound and life-affirming options these centers provide,” Patterson continued. “Privately-funded pregnancy resource centers, and the compassionate people who volunteer at them, have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech. And it is our duty as officers of the state of California to protect that right, not to assault it.”

He said that there ought to be at least one aspect upon which both Democrats and Republicans agree: “Unconstitutional, government-imposed speech upon the views of the minority is wrong.”

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Paul Hiett

    I think you’re the one that needs a history lesson. Many of the “founders” were Deists, not Christians.

    • brine

      That is called revisionist history and has been debunked by quotes from the founding fathers themselves. I have previously posted quotes and portions of their own writings showing the vast majority were not deists. I will not go through that trite argument again. Keep on trolling.

      • Paul Hiett

        Oh, so you ignore what people like Thomas Jefferson wrote (many times) because you enjoy having your head in the sand and pretending everyone surely must believe the same as you do.

        Sorry Brine, when historical figures say things and have those things recorded, it’s simply a matter of historical fact. You can’t change history no matter how much you want to believe you can.

        • brine

          Thomas Jefferson is not a majority by any stretch, first off. Second, and again, I had this discussion with someone of your ilk before and trotted out all the evidence. The final answer after being presented with the evidence…”Well a lot of them owned slaves”. BTW, even Jefferson’s writings (your favorite that suddenly makes everyone deists) was favorable towards Scripture and the truths contained therein.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, you’re right…one man does not make a “majority”.

            But, let’s start throwing in names like Ben Franklin, George Washington, James Maddison, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine.

            I can’t really think of bigger names than those right there, can you?

          • brine

            Again, your revisionist history. Just a sampling here for you…George Washington wrote a 70 page letter to congress on file at Library of Congress stating the formation of our nation was for the furtherance of the gospel of ‘Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’….sounds like a deist to me….Again vast majority of founders identified with Christianity. Those that didn’t still had a healthy respect of the Bible.

          • Paul Hiett

            LOL at “revisionist history”, as though I can modify the facts somehow. Sorry, but you can choose to either accept the truth, or discard it. Your choice.

            Either way, the US is not and never has been a “Christian” nation. There are many quotes from many of our forefathers that prove this. Such as:

            “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
            Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for
            his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government
            reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with
            sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which
            declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting
            an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
            thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church
            & State.”

            Again…you can’t argue facts.

          • Chuck Bryant

            Owning slaves supports the Idea of rule on Biblical principles.

            America turned away from the Bible when we abolished slavery.

            Unlike in the Bible , our society doesn’t force raped women to marry rapists.

          • brine

            There are different types of ‘slavery’ discussed in the bible and that word has different meanings. Working to pay off a debt is considered a type of slavery by modernists when it was actually a true form of indentured servitude…and there were proper rules governing it, including release from the debt after a certain time frame…

  • tyler

    I’m not a fan of any religion, but your rhetoric about Muslims is that of a conspiracy theorist. Also, reading some of your other posts, you are completely hypocritical by pushing for Christianity in public places.

  • Michael Ellis

    The First Amendment does NOT prohibit this law, as it has nothing to do with religious establishment or expression. It is a conflict of laws issue with no religious aspects whatsoever.

    • Phil Blank

      Learn to read PAST the first sentence..

      First Amendment
      The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

      • Michael Ellis

        Sorry Phil, you don’t know what your’e talking about

  • Michael Ellis

    Not a theocracy, but clearly founded primarily on Judeo-Christian principles and values

    • Chuck Bryant

      Those weren’t written in Texas nor anywhere in the USA either. And therefore unenforceable under the proposal

      • Michael Ellis

        The proposal is a conflict of laws issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with First Amendment concerns of religious establishment or expression.

      • Christian

        Of course! You want no laws right? Everything is situational for you isn’t it? You do know one of the Ten Commandments is Thou shalt not kill and another is Thou shalt not steal right? Hmmmm, both of those are illegal nationwide. I bet you’d be the first one screaming if someone stole from you too!

        • Chuck Bryant

          You don’t need the 10 commandments to tell you stealing and kiling are wrong. You need empathy. Look at the rest of the 10 commandments (which were not written in the USA) and notice that the majority of them are not codified into US Law..

          Start with 1: have no other god before Elohim/Yawe

          The.1st amendment contradicts the 1st commandment.

          Then remember the sabbath? You’re free too, but US Law won’t punish those who work that day.

          How about Adultery? Might be grounds for divorce, but rarely a crime

  • Johnny 5

    If there isn’t a need, or there isn’t a threat, then why try to defeat it? Let it pass. Therefore it would be an unnecessary law that hits the books and no harm is done. However, if there is opposition to this law and they are using that as an excuse, we should be concerned. To be honest… Who cares if it offends someone. We can’t make everyone happy and I am being offended everyday because it appears we are hell bent on tearing down the fabric of America and making it a home for those that want to destroy it… Wake up AMERICA!!

  • Christian

    Go ahead and keep those blinders on because when you finally see it will be too late! Our rights under the First Ammendment are dwindling at a rapid rate. I’m guessing you have no religion so it doesn’t apply to you and you’ve never tried to understand it.