Board approves ordinance to bar knowingly misleading advertising by limited-service pregnancy centers on first reading

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed, on first reading, an ordinance Tuesday that would amend the Administrative Code to prohibit limited-service pregnancy centers from knowingly disseminating false or misleading statements about services they offer.

The ordinance, introduced by Supervisor Malia Cohen, was described by the sponsor as a consumer-protection measure aimed at preventing advertising that misleads people about the medical services available at centers that do not provide comprehensive reproductive-care choices. “The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to protect consumers of pregnancy related services by prohibiting limited service pregnancy centers from knowingly disseminating false or misleading advertising information about the services that they provide,” Cohen told the board.

Nut graf: Supporters framed the ordinance as narrowly focused on advertising claims and enforceable through the city attorney’s office after a prior notice-and-cure period; opponents argued the legislative record did not document local harm and voiced constitutional concerns.

Key provisions and enforcement: The ordinance would bar false or misleading advertising by limited-service pregnancy centers. It does not change licensing of clinics or the types of services centers may provide, the sponsor said, and it includes a process requiring the city attorney to provide a minimum 10-day notice and an opportunity for a center to correct an alleged violation before filing suit.

Board debate: Supervisor Ross Elsberga (transcript: “Supervisor Ellsberg”) said he would oppose the ordinance, cautioning that the committee record did not show substantial evidence of local harm and noting that similar ordinances in other cities had faced legal challenges. “I think the best phrase to describe my feelings on this is that we’re putting forward a solution to a problem that in San Francisco has not been documented,” Elsberga said.

Supporters, including Supervisors Scott Wiener, David Campos and John Avalos, defended the measure as narrowly drafted to survive legal scrutiny and as a necessary consumer-protection tool. “This is really about San Francisco working to protect women’s right to access reproductive choices,” Wiener said, calling the marketing materials and websites at issue “misleading.” Several supervisors said they had met with both sides and had considered constitutional risks but would back the ordinance.

Vote and next steps: The motion to approve the ordinance passed on first reading with 10 ayes and 1 no (Supervisor Ellsberg recorded as the lone no). The clerk announced, “There are 10 ayes, 1 no. This ordinance is passed in the first reading.” The sponsor and proponents said they would continue to work with counsel on language and to monitor legal risk.

Ending: The ordinance’s sponsor said the proposal was intended to be narrowly tailored and enforced as a consumer-protection rule, not a regulation of clinic services. Opponents emphasized the need for a stronger local record of harm to sustain potential constitutional challenges.

Vote record (item 7, first reading): Ayes (10): Avalos; Campos; David Chiu (President); Carmen Chu; Malia Cohen; Farrell; Kim; Marr; Mercarimi; Wiener. No (1): Elsberga (Ellsberg).