Here, the record establishes, at most, only isolated instances of misconduct by pregnancy centers generally, and, as the City concedes, none by the Pregnancy Center itself. Indeed, the record contains no evidence that any woman has been misled into believing that any pregnancy center subject to Ordinance 09-252 was a medical clinic or that a woman in Baltimore delayed seeking medical services because of such a misconception. The City instead cites allegations of deceptive practices occurring in other locations or second-hand reports of "stories about harassment."Judge King dissenting called the majority's conclusion "indefensible." He argued:
Rushing to summary judgment, the court subverted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ... by ... denying the City essential discovery, refusing to view in the City’s favor what evidence there is, and making untoward findings of fact, often premised on nothing more than the court’s own supposition.Defending the city, the dissent said:
The evidence relied on by the City Council revealed that limited-service pregnancy centers were using questionable tactics to delay women from accessing abortions. Such tactics included counseling women to undergo pregnancy tests and sonograms that were scheduled weeks after their initial pregnancy center visit, and misinforming women about abortion services, including when abortions could be lawfully obtained. Such delays placed the health of women who decided to have abortions at risk....Newsmax reports on the decision.