## Facts

- A nonprofit pregnancy counseling center opposed to abortion advertised in a telephone directory under headings suggesting it provided abortion-related and medical clinic services.
- The center did not perform abortions, but women seeking abortions contacted it believing it was an abortion clinic.
- Callers were allegedly given evasive or incomplete information that reinforced the impression that abortions were available, and appointments were scheduled.
- Upon arrival, women completed medical-style intake forms and provided urine samples for free pregnancy tests.
- While awaiting results, women were shown graphic anti-abortion materials; many began to suspect only then that the facility was not an abortion clinic.
- Counselors, including an individual associated with the center’s operations, attempted to dissuade women from abortion and later made follow-up contacts.
- The State sued under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees.
- The trial court enjoined specified conduct, required advertising disclosures, imposed civil penalties (including for violating a temporary injunction), and awarded attorney’s fees; the center and the individual appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the center’s advertising and counseling practices occurred “in the context of a transaction in goods or services” such that the DTPA applied.
2. Whether the challenged practices constituted deceptive and/or unconscionable conduct under the DTPA.
3. Whether the injunction, disclosure mandates, and penalties violated constitutional protections for speech, press, or religion.
4. Whether the defendants received adequate notice of the prohibited conduct and whether the evidence supported penalties against the individual defendant.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment.
- It held the DTPA applied because the challenged conduct occurred in connection with the provision of services sought by consumers responding to the advertisements.
- It upheld findings of deceptive and unconscionable conduct based on directory listings and interactions that led women to believe abortions or clinic services would be provided.
- It rejected constitutional challenges, reasoning the State regulated deceptive commercial practices rather than suppressing an anti-abortion viewpoint.
- It found adequate notice through the statute, pleadings, and prior temporary injunction.
- It found no reversible evidentiary error and held the record supported penalties against the individual based on personal participation.

## Legal Principles

- The DTPA reaches unconscionable courses of action occurring in the context of a consumer transaction involving goods or services, including service-oriented interactions framed as clinic-type services.
- Misleading advertising and consumer communications that create a false impression about the nature or availability of services can constitute deceptive and unconscionable conduct under the DTPA.
- The State may require truthful disclosures and enjoin deceptive commercial practices without violating constitutional protections for speech or religion when the regulation targets deception rather than viewpoint.
- Civil penalties may be imposed for DTPA violations and for violating court-ordered temporary injunctive relief; individuals may be liable when they personally participate in the unlawful conduct.

## Conclusion

The court upheld injunctive relief, mandated advertising disclosures, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees under the DTPA against a pregnancy counseling center and an individual participant for misleading practices that led consumers to believe abortion or clinic services would be provided, concluding that regulating deception did not violate constitutional guarantees.


Mother & Unborn Baby Care of N. Tex., Inc. v. State, 749 S.W.2d 533 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1988)