More than 60 people signed up to speak against a proposal from county Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer that would have asked for greater scrutiny, and possibly legal action, against crisis pregnancy centers operating across the region in a manner that some say restricts access to abortion.
Many waited through a long agenda for their chance to speak from the heart in support of what they called pregnancy resource centers.
Anna, who did not share her last name, said she regretted an abortion and found little help from a local center authorized to provide the procedure when she returned requesting help to carry her second baby to term. A resource center in South Bay, she said, helped her get on Medi-Cal and comforted her when she miscarried, an eventuality she attributed to her previous abortion.
“As a mother who cowardly chose to kill her first child, and a mother who couldn’t save her second, I urge you to shut down the real fake clinics that literally profit on killing innocent children and support pregnancy resource centers that give hope, restoration and love (of) life,” she said.
In her request, Lawson-Remer called for her colleagues to support an educational campaign and possible legal action “to shut down fake and fraudulent crisis pregnancy centers,” accusing them of spreading “blatant misinformation, presented as ‘medical advice,’’ that is designed to “stop individuals from terminating their pregnancy.”
But several who spoke during Tuesday’s hearing pushed back against the notion that these centers are not qualified health care providers. Leslie Carrillo, who did not state a specific affiliation, said that many have government oversight.
“Some of these licensed clinics are accredited by the Accreditation Association of Ambulatory Health Care, a nonpartisan accreditation bureau that sets medical, operational and governance standards,” Carrillo said, noting that the organization also enforces standards at other well-known names in local health care.
She also pushed back against the notion that these centers intentionally slow down access to abortion for women who choose to end their pregnancies.
“It would have been quite evident that clinics do not delay care,” she said. “In fact, their policies and procedures and standing orders are written so as to not delay a woman’s care, nor do they actively try to stop individuals from terminating their pregnancy or actively interfere with a person’s agency and decisions.”
Others who spoke during Tuesday’s hearing, which proposed asking county staff to investigate creating an educational campaign on crisis pregnancy centers in addition to looking into potentially trying to close centers through legal action, were more focused on ideology.
Resident Jasmine Wilson, the first to speak, said that these centers “are literally saving innocent lives for God,” adding that “a child is a gift from God,” and that “abortion is contrary to the will of our creator.”
Ultimately, the matter died on a split vote, with Lawson-Remer and board chair Nora Vargas voting for the proposal and supervisors Jim Desmond and Joel Anderson voting no.
While he said he does acknowledge the right of women to “have the choice in where they receive care and education,” Desmond did not accept the suggestion that women were being unduly influenced.
“Abortion is legal and free in the state of California, so I don’t think anyone’s preventing anyone when they’re going out and trying to look at their options,” Desmond said.
But Lawson-Remer said she brought the item before her colleagues because residents contacted her office “who were fed very serious misinformation and lured in an unsuspecting way into these clinics that did not actually provide medically-accredited care.”
As to those who insisted Tuesday that they operate with appropriate oversight, the supervisor said they have nothing to fear.
“Let us be clear, there are a range of services and a range of crisis centers here in San Diego County,” Lawson-Remer said. “The purpose of this bill today is only to target those that are operating outside the law, that are not accredited, that are not providing medically certified treatment and services.”
The matter is likely not finished. Because the vote ended in a tie, and the board is missing one of its members due to the departure of former Supervisor Nathan Fletcher, the matter will be re-heard on Dec. 5.
The matter clearly has the public’s attention. The board reported that it received 1,062 written electronic comments on the agenda item with 975 in opposition, 60 in favor and 11 neutral.
