{"id":4319,"date":"2024-01-30T01:55:30","date_gmt":"2024-01-30T01:55:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cornelllawreview.org\/?p=4319"},"modified":"2024-01-30T01:55:30","modified_gmt":"2024-01-30T01:55:30","slug":"4319","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2024\/01\/30\/4319\/","title":{"rendered":"Regulating Crisis Pregnancy Centers: the State Attorney General Perspective"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This Note will discuss state AGs\u2019 role in addressing CPC regulations and in fighting questionable CPC practices. Part I introduces CPCs and their history, describes some of the earlier efforts in combating deceptive CPC practices, and summarizes the supreme Court\u2019s NIFLA <\/em>ruling that invalidated legislation designed to curb CPC harm. Part II grapples with the core of the note\u2014a proposed solution to regulate CPCs through state AG enforcement: subpart a lists the advantages of state AGs\u2019 position in battling problematic CPC practices, particularly its broad common law enforcement power, robust enforcement tools and thriving influences; subparts B and C introduce different types of problematic practices by the CPCs, point to the state statutes that can address the issues, and suggest solutions through case studies of past AG actions. the note concludes by reiterating the importance of state AGs in protecting the health of the citizens of their states and updating readers on recent developments in CPC regulations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To read this Article, please click here: Regulating Crisis Pregnancy Centers: the State Attorney General Perspective<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This Note will discuss state AGs\u2019 role in addressing CPC regulations and in fighting questionable CPC practices. Part I introduces CPCs and their history, describes some of the earlier efforts in combating deceptive CPC practices, and summarizes the supreme Court\u2019s NIFLA ruling that invalidated legislation designed to curb CPC harm. Part II grapples with the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,29,46,48,55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-clr-print-volume-109","category-issue-1-clr-print-volume-109","category-notes","category-print","category-print-volume-109"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4319","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4319"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4319\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}