Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, February 5, 1993 TAG: 9302050203
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium
COUNSELING-AD BILL CLEARS PANEL
A bill to prohibit deceptive advertising by nonprofit pregnancy counseling centers was expanded Thursday to prohibit such practices by anyone offering counseling or referral services.The House Corporations, Insurance and Banking Committee unanimously endorsed the bill, which was substantially rewritten after representatives of the centers complained they were being unfairly singled out.
Also, University of Richmond law professor Gary Leedes said the bill as originally written might violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Anti-abortion activists considered the rewrite of the bill a victory.
"I think we really showed them that these clinics are not engaging in deceptive practices," said Anne Kincaid, a lobbyist for the Family Foundation.
Karen Raschke, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, said the bill still accomplishes its original purpose of prohibiting misleading ads.
The bill by Del. William Robinson Jr., D-Virginia Beach, was intended primarily to bar crisis pregnancy counseling centers from advertising under "abortion" in the Yellow Pages. He also wanted the centers to state in their ads that they do not offer abortions or abortion referrals.
Michael Daily, director of the Richmond Metropolitan Area Crisis Pregnancy Center, said it would be unfair - and maybe unconstitutional - to require such a disclaimer without also forcing abortion clinics to state that they do not offer prenatal care.
Harriet Lewis of the Christian Action Council, which oversees 450 centers nationwide, said the centers have a policy of not engaging in deceptive practices.
"It's clear the abortion industry is attempting to censor the voices of a network of volunteers," she said. "They have a glaring fear . . . of the free market of ideas."
Leedes said the bill was "vulnerable to constitutional challenge." He said it would be easy for a center that is required to put a disclaimer on its ad to go to court and ask, "Why aren't all the people in the Yellow Pages subject to this?"
Raschke said the bill was simply "a consumer protection measure." She said it was designed to prevent women from going to a clinic expecting one service and getting a completely different one.
She added that abortion clinics are staffed by medical personnel who already are strictly regulated and run the risk of losing their licenses if they deceive patients.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1993