Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court attacking Vermont's recently-enacted SB 37 which, among other things, imposes new regulation on anti-abortion pregnancy counseling centers. The law prohibits advertising of services that is "untrue or clearly designed to mislead the public about the nature of the services provided." It also provides that licensed health care professionals who provide services at such centers are responsible for ensuring that services, information and counseling at the center complies with these requirements. The complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, (D VT, filed 7/25/2023) contends that these provisions are unconstitutionally vague and also violate the free speech rights of clinics, alleging in part:
111. The Advertising Prohibition provides no guidance as to how it should be applied to advertisements including medical information on which there is no medical consensus.
112. The Advertising Prohibition is also unclear as to whether it requires a disclosure in all advertisements that the pregnancy center does not provide abortions or "emergency contraception."
113. Requiring such a disclosure would compel the centers' speech.
114. The Advertising Prohibition has chilled Plaintiffs' speech.
115. For example, Aspire's medical director created a video about abortion pill reversal that Aspire would like to post on its website....
168. Because Plaintiffs do not charge for their services, the Provider Restriction, 9 V.S.A. § 2493(b), regulates Plaintiffs' non-commercial speech.
169. The Provider Restriction is a viewpoint- and content-based regulation of pure speech because it directly regulates speech about health-care-related" information" and "counseling" by "limited-services pregnancy centers," even when no medical treatment or procedure is involved. 9 V.S.A. § 2493(b).
ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
