Jessica Prol Smith - Can NY Target Pregnancy Centers’ Speech?

The Supreme Court recently reinforced that counseling conversations are protected speech but New York’s attorney general is still pursuing legal action against pregnancy centers over what they say about abortion options. That raises a bigger question about where free speech ends and government authority begins.

Jessica Prol Smith of Heartbeat International joins the program to break down the case, what’s at stake, and whether this legal fight could redefine what counselors are allowed to say.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Welcome back to the Lawrence Clarkson Show. I want you to imagine this. You know you have First Amendment rights. We talk about First Amendment rights on this program all the time. But can the government come to you and say, if you've decided to tell a young lady who's decided to take an abortion pill, you know there's a way to reverse that, and do you know there's a way to save the life of that baby? Can the government come in and silence your free speech when it comes to something like that? Well, we're going to talk about the New York Attorney General, and that's Letitia James. I mean, there are a lot of reasons not to like Leticia James. Jessica Pearl Smith joins me now from Heartbeat International. Jessica, welcome back to the program. What is Leticia James trying to do to use, I guess, the government's power to silence people so they can't speak out and maybe save an unborn life?

SPEAKER_00 0:50

Well, thanks so much for having me, Lars. Yes, I'm afraid it's true. The Attorney General poses as a voice for the weak and powerless, but she's chosen to use her position as attorney general to try to silence pregnancy centers and heartbeat because we share the good news about abortion pill reversal. She's launched a legal assault on us, and she's claiming that our centers supposedly engage in false advertising, deceiving women by sharing the scientific findings supporting the safety and efficacy of APR. So they she appears interested in shutting down um conversations and opportunities for women to have a second chance at choice simply because she doesn't like that choice.

SPEAKER_01 1:35

And by the way, the reference you made to APR is abortion pill reversal, because whether people know it or not, abortions used to be primarily done in clinics as a physical operation. These days, almost two-thirds of them nationwide are done using pills, oftentimes in a young lady's house, uh, sometimes without her even physically seeing a doctor. But she should have the right to know, or you should have the right to tell her if you choose to, uh you you could reverse that pill, uh, you could change what's happened or what you think you've already done. You can unring the bell and save the life of that child. And Leticia James says, telling her that, that that Leticia James of the state of New York has the authority to tell you you can't do that?

SPEAKER_00 2:22

It appears that's what she's trying to do. And for those who don't know, abortion pill reversal uh is a safe and effective way for a woman to improve the odds of continuing her pregnancy to term after she's ingested methappristone. So the first pill in that abortion drug regimen. That drug, methopristone, is designed to block progesterone from the growing baby. So it's cutting off the food source. But within the first 24, possibly to 72 hours, there's still a window of opportunity where progesterone, a medical professional can prescribe progesterone and can improve the odds that that baby survives and that that pregnancy comes to term. And moms are looking for us, they are desperate for this information. So they are looking for us rather than us, you know, selling a product or do any doing anything of that sort.

SPEAKER_01 3:15

I'm talking to Jessica Prol Smith, who's with Heartbeat International, because isn't there already a U.S. Supreme Court decision that says things like counseling decisions, no matter which direction you're counseling a young lady, but counseling decisions are protected free speech?

SPEAKER_00 3:31

Well, Child v. Salazar, I think, is the case that you're mentioning. And we got some great news from the Supreme Court just at the end of last month. That particular court case talked about a counselor in Colorado. The issues were slightly different, but the Supreme Court came down in a resounding eight to one decision, indicating, um, saying many good things. I won't bore you with all of them, but there are just gems there. Medical consensus, they write, is not static. It evolves and always has. And they also noted, they kind of closed their argument. Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. So we're optimistic that that principle applies to our situation as well.

SPEAKER_01 4:30

Okay, and in that case, we did talk about that case and the way it it uh dealt with counseling and that sort of thing. But in the case of James, she's got a lawsuit going that that is basically a slapsuit, a uh what is that, strategic litigation against public participation, a way to target speech she doesn't like and say if you talk in a way I don't like, the state of New York will bring a lawsuit against you?

SPEAKER_00 4:55

That appears to be the case. Our attorneys have made that argument in court. So we were in court earlier this week, uh, Wednesday, the 15th, and um the judge indicated that his decision on our question there is whether or not that statute actually applies to the attorney general or not. And our attorneys argue that it is. The tool applies because certainly you have a powerful interest targeting a small organization uh based on disfavored speech or speech she doesn't approve of.

SPEAKER_01 5:28

Why are they so anxious to prove that they have a right to silence anybody who would talk a young lady out of getting an abortion, out of taking the pill, or maybe even to reverse the pill? Why do you suppose?

SPEAKER_00 5:40

Uh it's an excellent and telling question. Uh, we like to say we offer women a second chance at choice. And I think women find us in part because they have in many of them have instant regret after taking the first abortion pill. Some of them are coerced or forced by a boyfriend or partner. And so I think I think our um provision of abortion pill reversal indicates that there might be a flaw in the abortion, uh in the pro-abortion mindset, that this is um a happy and painless choice. Many women do regret an abortion. It obviously ends an unborn child's precious life, but many women are also harmed as well. And so we're here to offer a har uh offer, excuse me, an opportunity for hope and a possibility to continue the pregnancy and meet that precious child.

SPEAKER_01 6:31

Well, and Jessica, it's one of the reasons I've mentioned so many times on the show, the mechanism by which that drug works, the one you mentioned, Mifopresto, is by starving the baby. And I've just asked people, if you think about that for a moment, I mean it's horrific either way or any way you've decided to bring about an abortion. Uh you know, whether it's surgical, whether it's a vacuum, you know, it's DNC, whatever it is. But but the idea of saying we're gonna take this baby, uh, which is a baby and starve it, and we're gonna we're gonna starve it so that it dies of starvation, and then we'll take another pill and cause the body to expel it, I would think that most people would be horrified by that. Uh even people who are who could consider themselves very, very pro-abortion or so-called pro-choice would say, no, no, that's that's too horrific. I don't want to be involved in that. And I want those young ladies to have the opportunity to go out and reverse that through an abortion uh pill reversal. Jessica, thank you very much. That is Jessica Pearl Smith, who is with Heartbeat International. And I'll tell you what, I'd be glad to take a naysayer on that as well. Do you think that if a young lady is told you can reverse this, that the state of New York or any state in America is free to say, no, we're gonna silence you. You have no right to say those words and try to talk her out of it. Does your First Amendment freedom go that far? You're listening to the Lawrence Larson Show and the Radio Northwest Network.