Proposed Ruling Would Prohibit Claims by Anti-Abortion Clinic

A judge’s tentative ruling prohibiting an anti-abortion clinic from posing as a neutral pregnancy advice center is the first against a nationwide group that claims to operate about 200 such clinics, a government lawyer said Wednesday.

“This is the first time the Pearson Foundation has ever been touched by a legal ruling” on a clinic’s advertising and claims to women, Assistant Dist. Atty. David Moon said. “What we’re hoping will be the impact is that the Pearson Foundation will no longer be able to sell its deceptive approach in California.”

But a lawyer for the St. Louis-based foundation, Francis Driscoll, said the proposed ruling “interferes totally with free speech” and with the right to protest “a crime against humanity,” referring to abortion. He said an appeal is likely.

Subject of Suit

Driscoll also said the Pearson Foundation does not operate the San Francisco clinic, called A Free Pregnancy Center, that is the subject of the lawsuit, although the foundation supplies the clinic with materials that include an anti-abortion slide show. Moon said the relationship was more extensive.

The clinic, which opened in 1985, has advertised itself as a birth control information center offering pregnancy testing. Several women testified that they were given pregnancy tests; then, while waiting for the results, they were shown gruesome slides and told by counselors that abortion was wrong and harmful. One 15-year-old said the clinic, without telling her parents, placed her with a family that had agreed to adopt her baby.

Witnesses also said the Pearson Foundation, started in 1970 by wealthy developer Robert J. Pearson, has advised anti-abortion groups throughout the country on setting up medical-style clinics with names that do not disclose their position on abortion, and has provided materials and financial assistance to dissuade clients from having abortions.

A suit by the city and the pro-abortion Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights resulted in orders restricting the clinic’s telephone book advertising. On Monday, Superior Court Judge Thomas Dandurand issued a tentative ruling that would go much further.

The ruling would prohibit both the clinic and the Pearson Foundation from engaging in “any conduct likely to deceive the public regarding abortions,” including clinic names, advertising and statements to clients.

In addition, the foundation’s slide show, called “Caring,” could not claim that abortion carried a high risk of injury or death without a disclaimer saying that the majority of studies found a much lower risk.

The San Francisco clinic, if it continued to show the slides, would also have to add statements that an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy has little risk and that most women suffer “no significant lasting psychological difficulties” after an abortion.

Not Yet Binding

The ruling would also forbid concealing a minor from her parents or operating an unlicensed adoption agency.

The ruling, a proposed permanent injunction, is not yet binding and is subject to change by Dandurand. But Moon said a tentative decision “indicates the court’s thinking” and usually does not undergo substantial changes.

Moon said a judge in Texas issued a similar ruling earlier this year against a clinic in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but that this was the first ruling against the Pearson Foundation. He said it would affect about 12 clinics affiliated with the foundation in California, and should have a “psychological impact” on clinics elsewhere.

Driscoll, the foundation’s lawyer, said the ruling “would seriously interfere with (the clinic’s) ability to try to convince people, particularly pregnant women, that there are substantial dangers to abortions.”

“We’re not getting into the views they hold,” replied Moon. “They’re certainly welcome to express those. What the district attorney’s office is concerned with is that they not deceive people into coming into their center.”