Life News
In the latest chapter of a saga that dates back to 2011, Chris Slattery of EMC Pregnancy Centers found himself before a New York City administrative court judge Dec. 13, pushing back against a $2,000 fine levied by the City’s consumer affairs department.
At stake is a disclaimer the City says Slattery’s center must post—in both English and Spanish—at its entrance, as well as on all website pages and website advertisements, declaring the following:
“This facility does not have a licensed medical provider on site to provide or supervise all services.”
The main problem with the City-mandated disclaimer—and the reason Slattery has refused to post it at his locations in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens—is that it isn’t true.
In fact, EMC—which operates under the larger umbrella “Evergreen Association”—does employ medical providers who are on site for the center’s free ultrasound and STI testing services, which are offered throughout the week on a rotating basis.
In the Bronx, where inspectors from the City’s consumer affairs visited three times this fall, EMC offers its medical services on Tuesdays and Fridays, all under the supervision of licensed medical professionals.
On days where EMC isn’t staffed with a medical professional, it offers peer counseling, self-administered pregnancy tests and material support including diapers and baby formula. In a twist of irony, that description puts EMC outside the City’s own official definition of a “pregnancy services center,” and thus, exempt from the law itself.
At stake is a disclaimer the City says Slattery’s center must post—in both English and Spanish—at its entrance, as well as on all website pages and website advertisements, declaring the following:
“This facility does not have a licensed medical provider on site to provide or supervise all services.”
The main problem with the City-mandated disclaimer—and the reason Slattery has refused to post it at his locations in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens—is that it isn’t true.
In fact, EMC—which operates under the larger umbrella “Evergreen Association”—does employ medical providers who are on site for the center’s free ultrasound and STI testing services, which are offered throughout the week on a rotating basis.
In the Bronx, where inspectors from the City’s consumer affairs visited three times this fall, EMC offers its medical services on Tuesdays and Fridays, all under the supervision of licensed medical professionals.
On days where EMC isn’t staffed with a medical professional, it offers peer counseling, self-administered pregnancy tests and material support including diapers and baby formula. In a twist of irony, that description puts EMC outside the City’s own official definition of a “pregnancy services center,” and thus, exempt from the law itself.
“We could certainly put up signs, but if we did, they would be false and misleading,” Slattery, who started the organization in 1985, said. “The position New York City is taking is that if you don’t have full-time medical supervision every hour you’re open—even if you’re only giving out diapers or clothes on other days of the week, then you’re in violation as a non-medical facility.”A Bureaucrat’s Dream
The sole vestige of the City’s Local Law 17—which the U.S. Second Court of Appeals excoriated in its 2014 decision, Evergreen Association (et al) v. City of New York, as “a bureaucrat’s dream”—the requirement is also being leveraged against Avail NYC in Manhattan, which has a hearing scheduled before the same administrative court in January.
Originally, the law essentially forced pregnancy centers to refer women seeking help away from their own offices, while mandating that they prominently advertise the services they do not offer, including abortion and abortion referrals, the morning-after abortion pill or prenatal care.
In what Slattery and others hope to be a preview of an upcoming case before the U.S. Supreme Court, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, the circuit court struck down all of those requirements in January of 2014.
Life New article continues here
Originally, the law essentially forced pregnancy centers to refer women seeking help away from their own offices, while mandating that they prominently advertise the services they do not offer, including abortion and abortion referrals, the morning-after abortion pill or prenatal care.
In what Slattery and others hope to be a preview of an upcoming case before the U.S. Supreme Court, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, the circuit court struck down all of those requirements in January of 2014.
Life New article continues here
No comments:
Post a Comment