San Diego County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer’s Attack on Pregnancy Centers
Early in December San Diego County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer introduced agenda item 25 to the December 5th Supervisor Meeting. This agenda item was the same as was introduced in the November meeting but failed to pass on a 2-2 vote. Remer hoped with the inauguration of Democrat Supervisor Monica Montgomery-Steppe she could secure a 3-2 vote. She proposes $500,000 of taxpayer funds to buy advertisements. These ads would falsely smear the 16 pregnancy centers (soon to be 17) across the County. The advertising funds would also be used to, as Supervisor Remer put it, “share information about vital reproductive health services from reputable and qualified providers such as Planned Parenthood.” Additionally she requests the County’s legal counsel investigate ways to litigate the closure of San Diego Pregnancy Centers.
The premise of Supervisor Remer’s proposal is founded on blatant viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. There is no reference to a violation of any law. No evidence is provided that a Pregnancy Center is using deceptive practices or misleading women. Supervisor Remer has not visited a Pregnancy Center. Her November proposal was full of debunked talking points developed and reused by organizations that profit on abortion. She removed much of this rhetoric after getting an earful from 66 people that spoke against Supervisor Remer’s proposal. No one but Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer and Nora Vargas spoke in favor of the proposal. The hearing in November can be viewed here starting at 1:07:15. Highlights from those who spoke included facts like:
- Twelve of San Diego’s Pregnancy Centers are licensed by the California Department of Public Health.
- Two are physician partnerships. All fourteen clinics are staffed by licensed physicians, Registered Nurses, and Sonographers.
- The remaining two unlicensed Pregnancy Centers in our county do not offer medical services. They are careful to not appear that they are offering medical services. These centers assist women and men with resources including diapers, wipes, baby clothes, and housing.
- All together the San Diego Pregnancy Centers are helping 1 Million families with free resources funded 100% by donors on a shoestring budget!
- Multiple women shared their testimony of abortion and the coercion, and misinformation they received from the abortion provider.
Supervisor Remer Advocates to Break the Law
By trying to shut down pregnancy centers, San Diego County is actively removing choice! Women deserve the opportunity to learn about all their options. Supervisor Remer is trying to define what constitutes “Reproductive Healthcare” as exclusively related to who performs abortion. Never mind that abortion is exactly the opposite of reproduction. This definition is being used to exclude, and deliegitimize pro-life clinics most solely because they disagree with the position of pregnancy centers on abortion. It is unconstitutional to force pregnancy centers to promote or refer for abortion and to continue to do so is a waste of time and resources of taxpayer dollars.
In the 2018 NIFLA vs Becerra case which was litigated by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of California Pregnancy Centers lead by our own PCC, and Fallbrook Pregnancy Center made clear that Governments could not compel speech. The First Amendment both protects what we say and what we do not say. In the case of Pregnancy Centers, no government can insist that the content of their speech (verbal, written, and action) include that government’s preferred message. The County of San Diego cannot insist that we provide, or refer for abortion in order to keep from being harassed and slandered by Supervisor Remer’s proposal. Chief Justice Kennedy wrote a response rebuking California legislators,
“It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”
PCC’s attorney at Limandri and Jonna wrote a letter as chief counsel for the Thomas Moore Society, to Supervisor Lawson-Remer and the Legal Counsel for the County. They outlined that Californians have a right to procreative choice stating,
“The public’s right to receive information dovetails with individual San Diegans’ right to “procreative choice.” As stated in Supervisor Lawson-Remer’s Board letter, last year Californians amended their constitution to “enshrin[e] … [the] right to choose within the California constitution.” But the “right to choose” has always been broader than the right to abortion. Indeed, it found its origin in misguided attempts by the government to limit their citizens’ ability to have children—as here, by seeking to deny them access to free pro-life resources. The right at issue is the right to “procreation,” which is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race….
But to be crystal clear, the Reproductive Privacy Act states: “A person who aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise be deprived of their rights, based solely on their actions to aid or assist a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article with the pregnant person’s voluntary consent.” The right to procreative choice is “among the most intimate and fundamental of all constitutional rights.”
The Chief Legal Counsel of National Center for Law and Policy (NCLP) Dean Broyles, who also represented PCC in the NIFLA vs. Becerra Case ,wrote a letter to each of the County Supervisors outlining how viewpoint discrimination by a government is tyrannical and violates the Constitution.
Particularly, when it comes to controversial issues, including human sexuality and when life begins, it is not the place of government to decide for its citizens regarding matters of conscience or seek to impose its preferred orthodoxy regarding controversial issues on all citizens. As a board of supervisors (“BOS”), you must be mindful that the government in our democratic republic is limited by the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. As such, you must be very careful to not question, undermine, attack, supplant or strive to forcibly replace the sincerely held philosophical and religious beliefs of the citizens whom you serve. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized: If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).
Terra Lawson-Remer’s proposal seeks to establish a government pro-abortion orthodoxy and monopoly in San Diego County by targeting, destroying and eradicating pro-life pregnancy care centers who dissent from or diverge from her personal pro-abortion beliefs. That is not the American way. San Diego County citizens must remain free to support PCCs and, when in need, seek the assistance of life-affirming organizations consistent with their beliefs and worldview, even if Ms. Lawson-Remer or other BOS members disagree. Therefore, you would be well-advised to refrain from the statist impulse to abuse your authority and influence by coercively imposing government-preferred orthodoxies, especially those implicating human sexuality, life and death, on the organizations that our citizens freely chose to support and patronize. The government may educate but must never indoctrinate. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution’s First
Government coercion of citizen’s thoughts and actions is inimical to freedom and is fundamentally un-American. Ms. Lawson-Remer’s backward-thinking, overreaching and authoritarian proposals target and are unconstitutionally hostile towards both the content of PCC speech (human sexuality) and viewpoint of PCC speech (life-affirming). While trying to dress itself up in the guise of purportedly regulating fraud and deceit,2 agenda item 25 quite ironically, fraudulently and deceptively targets freedom of thought and freedom of belief, both of which are well-protected by the First Amendment.
The Thomas Moore Society fought against a nearly identical law to what Supervisor Remer has proposed, and won a victory in August! Gov. Jay Pritzker, signed the Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers Act (SB1909) on July 27. State Attorney General Kwame Raoul has agreed to a permanent injunction against the law, which falsely claimed pregnancy centers were engaging in “deceptive business practice” or “consumer fraud” by informing women of abortion’s risks, dangers and alternatives. US District Judge Iain Johnston heard the case and began his permanent injunction ruling by recalling,
“Justice Scalia once said that he wished all federal judges were given a stamp that read ‘stupid but constitutional.’” Brown v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 824 F.3d 713, 714 (7th Cir. 2016). SB 1909 is both stupid and very likely unconstitutional. It is stupid because its own supporter admitted it was unneeded and was unsupported by evidence when challenged. It is likely unconstitutional because it is a blatant example of government taking the side of whose speech is sanctionable and whose speech is immunized—on the very same subject no less. SB 1909 is likely classic content and viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.
Both the NIFLA vs. Becerra Case, and the Thomas Moore Case in Illinois resulted in Millions of taxpayer dollars being given over to the legal teams that defended the First Amendment. Should Supervisor Remer’s proposal move forward it would no do doubt meet the same fate, and cost San Diego tax payers millions in litigation.
Community Outrage Causes Agenda 25 Withdrawal
The 16 Pregnancy Centers in San Diego were on high alert after the November hearing. We readied ourselves with press releases and news blasts, and waited for the December 5th agenda to be released. As soon as we heard the news, we engaged our communication plan not notify everyone we could about what the County Supervisors were considering. The day after the County Supervisor’s agenda was released, we got word Supervisor Remer had withdrawn her proposal (Agenda 25). We asked around to try and learn her reasoning. One of our Pregnancy Center Directors was at a community event a few days before December 5th, and she saw Supervisor Remer there. She took the opportunity to shake her hand and thank her for withdrawing Agenda 25. Supervisor Remer was gracious, and thanked the Director for saying so. She said, “I was just doing the will of the people.” Public comments and letters to the County Clerk in opposition to Agenda 25 counted over 100 in one day! We don’t know how many letter went into Supervisor Remer’s office, but the long and short of it is the public’s opposition and outrage was sufficient for her to stop it!
Each County Supervisor meeting allows for public comment on non-agenda Items. We were counseled to appear in person on December 5th even though the proposal was withdrawn. This would allow Pregnancy Centers and our supporters to have the last word on the subject. and emphasize the good work we do. The opportunity for us to speak was pushed to the very end of the meeting. I spoke at about 9:45 PM that night. My points we to emphasize the good work we do. In particular Supervisor Remer’s proposal supposed that women were being ill treated at Pregnancy Centers. I shared that PCC has been serving the community for 30 years. We have a Google review of 5 stars, and a Yelp review of 4.2 stars. Compare this to Planned Parenthood in El Cajon, and the 1st Street surgical center that have 3.8 stars, or the Sarah Weddington Center near SDSU that has 2.5 stars! If San Diego has $500,000 that they don’t need to spend on homelessness, and if they really wanted to protect reproductive healthcare choices, they should partner with the more reputable Pregnancy Centers that do it for free!
Vigilance
Supervisor Remer’s proposal was withdrawn this time. But we must keep our eye on San Diego County Supervisors, and the agendas they are pursuing. We have demonstrated the voice we have can get loud enough that the direction of policy can change. legislation like Supervisor Remer’s and the legislature of Illinois can pop up anywhere.
Support the work of Pregnancy Care Clinic. We can’t offer life affirming alternatives as missionaries to California without your help!
Educating the public about the threat, watching the agenda items, and commenting for or against bad ideas is how we all can achieve victories. Please share this article! Check out the following for information as well:
Josh McClure interviewed by Pastor Scott on KPRZ
Josh McClure interviewed by Pastor Grant Van Leuven for Man’s Chief End Radio
Josh McClure interviewed by Mark Larson on KOGO at Night with Mark Larson
Reformation 21 has a blog article calling for support of Pregnancy Centers in a State that needs California Missionaries.