Breast Cancer Scare Tactics
Amy Jo Kjolsrud, f/k/a Amy Jo Mattson v. MKB Management Corp. d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic (North Dakota)
In 1999, an anti-choice "sidewalk counselor" sued Red River Women’s Clinic for false advertising based on a pamphlet distributed by the clinic which states, among other things, that induced abortion does not cause breast cancer. In crafting its brochure, the clinic relied on scientific data provided by the National Cancer Institute and the National Abortion Federation. Leading scientific experts who have devoted their lives to studying the causes of breast cancer have concluded that induced abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the protestor had no right to use a false advertising law to harass the state’s sole abortion clinic. The decision maintains a lower court ruling that recognized there is no established link between abortion and breast cancer.
Links to Relevant Medical Studies:
"Choose Life" License Plates
Henderson v. Stalder (Louisiana)
In August 2000, the Center filed a lawsuit challenging a Louisiana statute that provides for the distribution of "Choose Life" license plates. The law stipulates that no money shall be distributed to organizations that counsel women to consider abortion, provide referrals to abortion clinics, provide abortions, or engage in pro-choice advertising. The law also requires that state taxpayer dollars be used to make and distribute the license plates and to establish and maintain a "Choose Life Advisory Council" to oversee the distribution of funds from the sale of the plates. A federal judge blocked the production and distribution of the "Choose Life" license plates, but that decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The Center then challenged the entire specialty plate scheme, charging that it infringes on First Amendment rights. By only permitting some viewpoints to be expressed on license plates, Louisiana was violating the free speech rights of those who disagreed with the Legislature on a variety of issues. On July 8, 2003, a federal judge ordered Louisiana to end the production of all specialty license plates, including "Choose Life" plates. That decision is currently on appeal.
Hill v. Kemp (Oklahoma)
In 2003, the Oklahoma Legislature authorized the sale of specialty license plates expressing a "choose life" viewpoint, but then refused to issue plates expressing a contrary "pro-choice" viewpoint. Proceeds from these license plates are currently required to be distributed to organizations that counsel women to bring their pregnancies to term, but the money is prohibited from going to groups—such as the plaintiff Oklahoma Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Education Fund, Inc.—that offer counseling on a full range of pregnancy options, including abortion and adoption. The Center, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, and the Hardwick Law Office filed a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, arguing that the legislation violated their right to free speech. State officials have agreed not to distribute the proceeds from the specialty license plates until July 1, 2005.
Carey v. Maricopa County (Arizona)
The District of Arizona challenged Dr. Carey the termination of his positions as Chief of OB/GYN and Director of the OB/GYN Residency Program at Maricopa County Hospital in Phoenix. Dr. Carey was fired for advocating that, to comply with accreditation requirements, the program must provide access to training in abortion to residents who do not have moral or religious objections to abortion. The County Board of Supervisors, sought to make such training unavailable, and ordered Dr. Carey’s discharge when he publicly expressed his opposition and disseminated the accreditation rules of the Accreditation Committee for Graduate Medical Education that prohibit residency programs from impeding access to abortion training. This act is in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and disparate treatment under the Arizona Civil Rights Act and Title VII. The Court has extended discovery and other aspects of the litigation schedule by approximately five months.
