Opinion

Can the government force pregnancy centers to speak a message they disagree with?

An anti-abortion protester with tape over her mouth demonstrates outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on June 27, 2016. Photo by Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

(RNS) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday (March 20) in a case with serious implications for religious rights and free speech nationwide.

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates vs. Becerra, the court will decide whether pro-life advocates must refer clients to abortion clinics or face fines, penalties and possible closure.

The basic question the court must decide is whether the government can force pregnancy resource centers to speak a message that they fundamentally disagree with. California says yes. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates — also known as NIFLA — says no.

The implications are stark for Americans across the board, Americans as diverse as pro-life advocates, anti-war flag burners and NFL anthem kneelers. None should be forced to follow government speech. The government may as well be able to force Alcoholics Anonymous to advertise for beer, or to force Hindus to advertise the sale of hamburger meat.

Under the so-called Reproductive FACT Act, which California passed in 2015, pro-life centers must post a sign in their waiting area that provides information to patients on how to obtain a state-funded abortion. The sign must also list a phone number for the patient to call to get the abortion process started.

Noncompliance with this mandate could result in massive fines that would undoubtedly shut down pro-life centers.

Forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to become abortion referral agencies is a mandate that violates the foundational principles of these faith-based agencies. This is government-compelled speech, and it is clearly unconstitutional.

State and federal courts in Illinois, Maryland and elsewhere have found such laws unconstitutional, and in fact, a California state court judge ruled recently that this very law violates the free speech rights of California pregnancy centers under the state’s constitution.

This was a great victory for pregnancy centers of California, though it only affects the one pregnancy center that filed suit against the law. The Supreme Court should follow suit and declare the law unconstitutional. That would block other states from following in California’s steps.

The pregnancy centers represented by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates provide free care and resources to thousands of Californians. Many of these women are alone, desperate for support because the father of their child has abandoned them.

A pro-life pregnancy resource center may be the only nonabortive option available for disadvantaged mothers who wish to choose life.

The so-called Reproductive FACT Act endangers three separate constituencies.

First, it endangers unborn children, who are literally America’s most vulnerable demographic. This is not a matter of religion or faith — science has explicitly shown that a fetus is an independent human being.

Also in danger from this law are abortion-vulnerable mothers.

The Guttmacher Institute’s research shows that many women who get abortions do so out of fear of being single mothers and that they often face difficulties with the father of their child and even other family members, sometimes having been abandoned altogether.

Quite literally, many women are scared into having abortions because they believe it is their only option.

Finally, the law puts pregnancy resource centers in the crosshairs.

Whether these centers are among the 1,400 medical clinics, pregnancy care centers and/or adoption centers that are part of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, or the 3,000 total centers nationwide, pro-life centers are a critical lifeline to women experiencing a crisis pregnancy.

These centers help women see a brighter and better future, offering them free medical care, resources and a place to stay.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates is grateful that the Supreme Court is stepping in where California Gov. Jerry Brown and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra are not.

Brown and Becerra say they fight for the poor and downtrodden, yet both of these men are unwilling to stand up for the most vulnerable residents under their care — unborn children and mothers who have nowhere else to turn.

On Halloween, Becerra renewed his promise to force pro-life pregnancy resource centers to refer for abortion — even as his office continues to prosecute investigators who exposed possible lawbreaking by abortion providers relating to the sale of fetal tissue.

There is much at stake in this case. The Supreme Court must rule in favor of life and liberty, which are enshrined in our Constitution.

(Thomas Glessner is the founder and president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. Anne O’Connor is an attorney with NIFLA. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service. The piece originally ran in The Daily Signal.)

About the author

Thomas Glessner

About the author

Anne O'Connor

102 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • What a load of bullcrap.

    Religious belief is not an excuse to lie to people. If providing facts and important information is such an imposition on their beliefs, then maybe they should not represent themselves as anything but ministries.

    Pregnancy Crisis Centers only exist to lie to women and cajole them away from considering abortion. They are not medical clinics, nor run under any notion of medical ethics. They are pretending to be clinics to lure women in under false pretenses.

    Maybe if they weren’t so dishonest by nature, there would have been no need for those laws. Any pretension of moral or ethical standing from these people is a sham. Its all about forcing people to do as they want and being willing to use any foul means to achieve it.

  • In January, the Fourth Circuit ruled against a Baltimore ordinance that required pregnancy clinics that don’t offer abortion to post a sign saying as much in their waiting rooms. “After seven years of litigation and a 1,295-page record before us, the City does not identify a single example [!] of a woman who entered the Greater Baltimore Center’s waiting room under the misimpression that she could obtain an abortion there.”

  • Author makes some really good points. The only way abortion is even acceptable in any circle is through the to this date successful movement to dehumanize unborn children as somehow less than human and therefore not worthy of life if they are an inconvenience.

  • The content of these signs is just factual information—no normative claims, nothing that’s inconsistent with the views of pro-life supporters. Just information about an option so that clients can make an informed decision.

    Hereabouts in the UK cigarette packs are all printed in black and white with information about the consequences of smoking, with pictures. Smokers can make their own informed informed decisions. Cigarette manufacturers would of course prefer that they decide to smoke anyway but they have to print those cigarette packs.

  • That’s nice, but the reason it is before the Supreme Court is because there are obviously issues with such a ruling. This is why we have a second layer of an appeals process.

    It still amounts to lying to people about the nature of the clinics. If they were honest and really cared about moral standing they would call themselves what they are, ministries.

  • Yup. Facts evidently attack the freedom of speech of religious people who feel the need to lie on behalf of God.

  • The author is justifying lying to people and coercing them to do as they say. Calling dishonesty freedom of religion denigrates the concept. The authors demonstrate what little regard they actually have for honesty or the lives of others.

    Anti-choice advocacy dehumanizes women. It posits notions that they are not people capable of making decisions about what goes on in their body. That they are property of the proponent.

    There are no unborn children. Its a contradiction in terms. Children are born. Dishonesty is apparently essential to that POV.

  • I am pro-choice. And I have seen plenty of evidence that so called pregnancy centers use deceptive tactics to try to stop abortions.

    However, I don;t think they should be forced to convey a message they do not believe.

  • And if society taught actual sex education and helped young people get birth control.

    We explained biology and the social aspects of sex to our daughter at 14. She rightly decided to choose to take the Pill. She’s 20 now…and makes mature decisions now as she did then.

  • As hopefully all parents do. I trust you included some words of wisdom about male condoms, the 50 cent ubiquitous answer to STD transfer and effective birth control when used in tandem with an IUD or the Pill.

  • How can you be human life but not A human life? As for not being a “legal person,” neither were slaves. That didn’t change the fact that they were human beings.

  • It’s pretty hard to read about this lawsuit and not reach the conclusion that these pregnancy centers are anti-choice. Constitutional issues aside, if these centers are so dead set against having this information available to women who visit, the only interpretation is that they don’t want women to feel like they have an actual choice in the matter.

  • Free speech? Aren’t there some states where the legislature tells the health provider he/she can’t talk about abortion as an alternative to giving birth? Aren’t there some states where the health provider is legally required to use materials that make the case against abortion. Where is the health provider’s free speech?

  • It is the 9th Circuit ruling that is being appealed, not the 4th Circuit. It is a California law that is before the Supreme Court, not the Baltimore ordinance.

    The case is really a compelled speech case. If the issue were fraud, a more limited statute would suffice.

  • But yet they often fail to clearly state that they do not provide abortions or abortion referrals. A bit of a bait and switch…from “good Christian church ladies” not trained in medical procedures.

  • “First, it endangers unborn children, who are literally America’s most vulnerable demographic. This is not a matter of religion or faith — science has explicitly shown that a fetus is an independent human being.”

    I call bull shit here. America’s children are the most vulnerable demographic as death rates of mothers and infants are rising in the US. Look no further than states who insist on mandatory birth yet shutter rural clinics that provide vital pre and post natal care. States that accept low bid contracts for the care of the unwanted, abused, and neglected children. Basic biology clearly demonstrates that until gestation is complete, a fetus is completely dependent upon a host. Can’t claim pro-life and avoid ALL the requirements to sustain life until the age of reason is met.

  • I would be in favor of ensuring they do not pretend to be actual medical facilities and to reveal they are a religious organization.

  • for example….living cells of any kind are human life at a basic level but not an individual human life. 90% + abortions BTW are performed even before a fetus develops a spinal cord.

    Your slave analogy breaks down. A slave does not require someone else’s body to live. You won’t find any slaves inside a uterus.

    Look..you can not like the fact that SCOTUS has ruled fetuses are not legal persons. You can even try to change it. But that’s the law today. Abortion is safe and legal and is likely to remain so.

  • Yep..we went through all that and helped her know where to find more resources. She knew where to go to get free condoms (fortunately we live in a college town..many groups have baskets of condoms free to all).

  • Yes, clearly state that they are ministries of ____ religion. That’s what came to mind when I learned that staffing by professionals in social and medical welfare was… optional.

  • Not really. The 4th Circuit decision could not find evidence of the deception alleged by the city. It was not that the clinics were doing the right thing or their speech was protected. It was that they did not find evidence sufficient to support the defendant’s justification for the signs. It turned on the facts presented, not the merits of issues argued.

    It is not a freedom of speech case, because there is no freedom to commit fraud or deceive people as part of the operations of these centers. If the trial court found evidence the clinics were deceiving the patients as alleged, then the clinics will lose here.

    The clinics lost at the appeals level here because the appellate courts found the speech to be “professional speech”. Wording applicable to any facility holding itself out as a provider of medical care.

    It is clear from the rhetoric of the authors that they have little to no care for giving women who come to the centers, objective and entirely factual advice. They are there to specifically push an agenda and do not care how it is done.

    Most of these clinics aren’t even being run by medical professionals. If they are holding themselves out as anything but ministries, they are lying to the public and people who come there.

  • Living cells, left in their natural environment, won’t eventually develop into a fully capable adult. As for your take on the law, for decades we’ve been one Supreme Court justice away from returning control over abortion law to the states. When it does eventually happen many states will restrict abortion to rape/incest, maybe even the state you live in. If that happens, will you believe that thanks to the change in the law those new human lives are separate human beings from conception?

  • “Living cells, left in their natural environment, won’t eventually develop into a fully capable adult”

    So what?

    ” If that happens, will you believe that thanks to the change in the law those new human lives are separate human beings from conception?”

    My beliefs won’t change. I will oppose any law that attempts to strip women of their body autonomy.

  • And I oppose any law that grants mothers the unlimited right to kill their babies. So we’ll cancel each other out at the ballot box.

  • I also do not want men or women to kill babies. I have no moral qualm about abortions..which is not killing babies.

  • As I said, the Mayo Clinic disagrees with you. It looks to me that the insistence that the unborn aren’t babies comes more from a rejection of the consequences or that recognition than anything science-based.

  • Preventing human deaths doesn’t equate to slavery. There’s a good reason why most pro-lifers accept abortion in cases of rape/incest, precisely so that pregnancy won’t be forced on women against their will.

  • Speaking of honesty, the 4th Circuit didn’t find any evidence of coercion or even of one person who was deceived.

    The issue before the court is compelled speech. The logical conclusion of your argument is that pro-life speech should be outlawed as it is ipso facto coercive, false, dishonest, and dehumanizing. In short, it is a secular heresy, and such errors have no rights. Fortunately, we have the First Amendment that allows speech where opinions differ.

  • Funny…you rely on Mayo Clinic and yet they are pro-choice.

    “A woman’s reasons for having a medical abortion are highly personal. You can choose medical abortion to complete an early miscarriage or end an unwanted pregnancy. You may have mixed feelings about being pregnant. You may have major financial problems or you may not be capable of parenting due to mental health problems or other issues.

    You can also choose to have a medical abortion if you have a medical condition that makes continuing a pregnancy life-threatening.”

  • Meaning they never ruled on the alleged free speech issue because the city could not justify the law on evidence presented.

    It turned on the facts and trial court findings. Appeals courts don’t evaluate facts and evidence,only legal questions. They cannot overturn findings of a trial court on facts established.

    In this case, the clinics lost at the trial level. That is why they are trying the free speech angle here. Free speech does not cover willful deception.

    There is no compelled speech here. A clinic holding itself out as a provider of medical services must hold itself to standards of informed consent of professional ethical medical standards

    These clinics lie about being providers of medical services. They are committing fraud and lying to those who go there. That is not protected speech. The speech here is to protect the public.

    The argument by the clinics is spurious at best. It will fall on partisan lines. 5-4 with Kennedy ruling for CA.

  • “Constitutional issues aside…”

    The whole point of the case is constitutional issues. The First Amendment protects speech that we don’t like.

  • That doesn’t change the fact that they recognize babies for what they are. From their webpage on 1st trimester development:

    “You’re pregnant. Congratulations! You’ll undoubtedly spend the months ahead wondering how your baby is growing and developing. What does your baby look like? How big is he or she? When will you feel the first kick?”

  • Anti abortion views consider women to be chattel property of the state. Incapable of exerting control or decisions over their body. Good call there.

  • Preventing mothers from killing babies that result from their own freely chosen actions isn’t slavery, any more than the draft is slavery.

  • Babies are born. They exist outside of the trimester framework.

    Moreover, you are still missing the part where you come up with the authority to make your opinions controlling over what a woman does with her own body.

  • So she is your property to do as you command because she might make a decision concerning her body that you don’t like.

    Control over the bodies of people is slavery.

  • I don’t disagree. I would expect SCOTUS to say this is unconstitutional, and they’re probably right to do so. Still, the fact the pregnancy centers made this a case to begin with just shows they aren’t just pro-life, they’re anti-choice.

  • I’ve often though that the same words would apply to hyper conservative Christians when it comes to gay people and our place in society.
    Threat to western civilization.
    Worse than terrorists.
    enemies of the family.
    Enemies of Christ.
    Leviticus.
    danger to children.
    threat to marriage.

  • You want women to involuntarily serve you. That’s unconstitutional. Again, what part of this is confusing you?

  • I want mothers to accept the consequences of their freely chosen actions. Again, what part of this is confusing you?

  • Free speech does not cover commercial fraud. The cure for willful deception is to outlaw the deception, e.g. require a notice that the clinic does not perform abortions. There are already laws against fraud and misrepresentation. The CA law goes beyond that.

  • You don’t understand how consent works, basically. Here, let’s try this.

    ‘If a woman consents to having sex can she still revoke consent and say no during sex?’

    Yes or no, please.

  • You don’t understand how the creation of a new life is a point of no return. Let’s try this.

    “If a woman has voluntarily cooperated in the creation of a baby and she regrets that decision, should she be able to kill her baby?”

    Yes or no, please.

  • You are weaselwording here. If the clinics are operating as non-profit enterprises, they would not be committing COMMERCIAL fraud. So the CA law may fill a need to plug that loophole here. Free speech does not include lying to people

    They are willfully lying to people about the nature of the facilities, what they offer, their qualifications to give advice to people. The law here has as much validity as warning labels and those long disclaimers in pharmaceutical commercials. Protection from misleading or deceptive speech.

    The notice also was to inform people that they were not licensed medical facilities. If these facilities really cared about the public, they would just be honest and call themselves ministries. Then they can invoke religious freedom to lie to people as they see fit, in service of their beliefs.

    Of course CA can also do is similar to the TX laws. Require these facilities to be run by medical professionals and licensed by the state. That would cause them to dry up altogether.

  • I could agree with that. It should be possible to outlaw commercial fraud without compelling speech.

  • They are to you. Evidently like a slave, you feel that you have control over their bodies. As if they are your property.

  • Actually forcing people not to prevent their freely chosen actions is the clearest definition of slavery. It makes no difference why you want to do it.

  • They do. By their own free will they are choosing not to carry the pregnancy which goes on in their bodies and they bear 100% of the physical burden of. Just because you don’t like their choices or find them irresponsible, doesn’t mean you have any say in them.

    But its good to know that s1utshaming is a vital part of your POV. Women being so immoral and licentious that evidently they must defer to you for their personal decisions.

  • If you supported outlawing fraud, you would support measures which require honest disclosures to the public and prevented it. But clearly you don’t here.

  • Doug: You are aware that even without human intervention many more fertilized eggs, busily dividing and on their way to becoming recognizable structures, are spontaneously aborted than ever reach term and are born as babies. It seems that this is the way we are made. Abortion is natural and God designed it that way. Why do we accept a cluster of cells lost in the first week, but can’t accept a fetus aborted in the 10th week? It’s not natural, some say. Is a heart transplant natural? I’m a Christian and I believe God gave us minds to use and the freedom to choose how to use them.

  • After reading a bit more on this case, I revoke my previous assent that that the court should rule in favor of the pregnancy center. The article implies this organization openly admits to being an advocacy group. It does not. It is an organization that pretends to be a medical facility when it is not. That type of deception is potentially dangerous, and could result in women not getting needed medical care. If a woman thinks she’s seeing a trained medical organization and isn’t, she could potentially be endangered as a result. I don’t believe that kind of speech is protected under the First Amendment. I see no problem with California requiring these organizations to disclose their advocacy status.

  • Of course she can, there is no new life created yet and so all that is at stake is the pleasure of the couple. No answer mine.

  • Yes, I am aware of that. I am also aware of the difference between natural occurrences and deliberate human actions. For example, people get sick all the time, it’s perfectly natural. However, anyone that chose to deliberately spread disease could, if it was serious enough, end up being tried for using a WMD.

  • So yes, women can be allowed to change their minds as to what happens with their bodies. Hence why abortion is legal.

    Thanks for agreeing with me. Next question.

    Does a ‘right to life’ supercede another person’s right to bodily autonomy? Yes or no, please.

  • No, as I said your question involves only possible, momentary pleasure between two consenting adults, not the death of the third life that might result. Now answer my question, please.

  • So yes, you still agree with me. Consent can still be revoked when it comes to what women decide with their own bodies. To argue otherwise is to advocate for rape. Your nonsequitor about pleasure doesn’t change this. Consent is consent.

    Your questioned is answered by your answer to mine. I need to determine what your “values” are.

  • Once the mother is pregnant, consent is only relevant if you can get the consent of the baby to be killed.

  • Honest disclosures, yes, but not forced to advertise something it opposes. A no-kill animal shelter should disclose that it is a no-kill shelter. It shouldn’t be compelled to say that there is a shelter down the road that will kill your animal for you. Given the First Amendment issues, the law should be drawn narrowly, not broadly.

  • Pregnancy crisis centers advertise that they give professional advice about medical issues with pregnancy. That is clearly incorrect and with the intent to deceive.

    So they aren’t even following the standard you are positing here.

    If they just were upfront about being fetus worship ministries, there would be no issue here. But since they don’t, harsh measures are needed to deal with their lying.

  • As Justice Gorsuch pointed out in oral arguments very familiar anti-fraud laws would “have the virtue of applying evenly to all persons and all industries.” Justices Alito and Kagen noted the law seemed targeted or gerrymandered in a “very suspicious pattern.” If you’re trying to educate a class” of people “about their rights,” Justice Gorsuch stressed, “it’s pretty unusual to force a private speaker to do that for you under the First Amendment.”

    In short, this looks more like compelling speech rather than controlling fraud.

  • Should the American Lung Association be required to post notices that the sale of cigarettes is still legal and where one can purchase them? Should AA meetings be required to advertise the hours and phone number of the bar down the street? Should McDonalds be required to post the address of a health food restaurant? Should abortion clinics be required to post that in many cases abortion stops a beating heart? All of those signs would be factual.

  • As for your first question, I know of no state that prohibits doctors from talking about abortions. After all, legal abortions are performed by doctors in every state by the hundreds and by the thousands. They would have to talk to their patients at some point. As for the second question, yes, there could be a free speech issue there depending on how the court rules in this case and what those materials say.

  • As Justice Gorsuch pointed out in oral arguments very familiar anti-fraud laws would “have the virtue of applying evenly to all persons and all industries.” Justices Alito and Kagen noted the law seemed targeted or gerrymandered in a “very suspicious pattern.” If you’re trying to educate a class” of people “about their rights,” Justice Gorsuch stressed, “it’s pretty unusual to force a private speaker to do that for you under the First Amendment.”

    In short, this looks more like compelling speech rather than controlling fraud.

    Has California ever brought a simple case of fraud to bear on these cases? Would that be too much to ask before passing targeted harsh measures that compel speech?

  • There is no need to pass a new harsh law that compels speech to plug a loophole, and you haven’t proved this is the case. Has California ever, even once, pursued a simpler, non-political, non-speech targeting case on the grounds of simple fraud? One might even think a civil plaintiff might have been found somewhere in California on the fraud issue. They couldn’t find even one in Baltimore.

    As Justice Gorsuch pointed out in oral arguments “very familiar” anti-fraud laws would “have the virtue of applying evenly to all persons and all industries.” The justices seemed very suspicious that this harsh law is targeting unpopular (in California) speech. Even Justice Kennedy appeared suspicious today about the state imposing an “undue burden” that would “invalidate the statute.”

    We have to see how this turns out in June, but from oral arguments today, this case is not as simple as you might want to think.

  • I take your point. However the question isn’t whether they should post information but whether it is legitimate for the state to require information be posted where it’s in the public interest. It is in the public interest to have lists of ingredients on labels on processed food and in some places restaurants are required to print calorie content on menus. The aim is to enable consumers to make informed decisions by providing information that would otherwise be difficult or for all practical purposes impossible to get. No need for the Lung Association to provide information about where to buy cigarettes—displayed at every Seven-Eleven.

    The argument is that clients at these pregnancy centers likely do not know that they can get a state-funded abortion or where they can go to take that option. That said, I’d be perfectly happy if Planned Parenthood were required to post information about alternatives to abortion—not rhetoric about ‘stopping a beating heart’—but information about the adoption as an alternative and of the option of leaving a baby at a hospital emergency room or other facility, no questions asked. That is another bit of information that most people don’t have—that having a baby doesn’t mean you have to keep it.

  • “Aren’t there some states where the legislature tells the health provider he/she can’t talk about abortion as an alternative to giving birth?”

    37 states require a physician to provide patients specific information prior to an abortion.

    28 states mandate waiting periods before an abortion procedure.

    28 states require abortion clinics to informed consent brochures providing information on alternatives to, and risks of, abortions as well as an explanation of fetal development stages. 11 the brochure to be handed to patients, 17 require it be offered to them.

    This differs from the case before the SCOTUS:

    – doctors are licensed by the state;

    – informed consent is a fundamental principle in the laws of every state for medical and mental healthcare providers;

    – physicians perform services for fees.

    “Aren’t there some states where the health provider is legally required to use materials that make the case against abortion.”

    No.

    “Where is the health provider’s free speech?”

    Outside the performance of their licensed duties.

  • Potential endangerment, whatever that means and whatever the danger might be, doesn’t trump First Amendment rights.

  • Provide an actual example of a pregnancy crisis center advertising that they give professional advice about medical issues with pregnancy.

    In every state that I’m familiar with that would be illegal.

  • You don’t have the First Amendment.

    In addition, cigarettes are the product of a commercial enterprise, which is why our cigarettes have warnings on them as well.

  • You’ve made a great argument for placing women who wish an abortion in an environment where they can wait for God to perform it.

    Since this deals with the question of procured abortion, not spontaneous abortion, the relevance of your observations is otherwise not apparent.

  • The trimester framework exists outside of any moral analysis.

    It sprung straight from the imagination of Harry Andrew Blackmun.

  • Morals have nothing to do with your position. It’s not about the sanctity of life for fetus worshipers. They certainly demonstrate a contempt for the born. it’s about treating women as property.

    The trimester framework was dropped by O’Connor in Casey. Viability is the benchmark now anyway

  • It looks like they won’t even go into the speech issues and will find a narrow ruling for CA to adjust it’s laws. Even the liberal judges are finding it overoverbroad. More a criticism of methods than intent.

  • Yes, it does. It’s well established that speech which encites panic or violence is not protected, nor is something like impersonating an officer. Impersonating a medical facility could be considered to fall within the exceptions to the first amendment.

  • This case does not involve speech inciting panic or violence.

    If it did, those would be the criminal charges and it would not be heading for the SCOTUS.

    If they were impersonating a medical facility, that might fall under California Penal Code 529, false personation, but the fact they weren’t so charged indicates the facts don’t support it.

  • California legislature has gone too far, requiring pro-life centers to post information about availability of abortion. On the other hand, pro-life pregnancy resource centers should not be presenting themselves as any kind of healthcare facility. There’s a happy medium. I hope the Supreme Court will mandate it.

  • “Just information about an option so that clients can make an informed decision.” And therein is a key problem before the court. Pro-lifers should not be required to advise women where to get abortions, and pro-choicers should not be required to advise women where to get pro-life information.

  • Just to clarify my stance, these centers do not need to be supported by a religion, although their staff and volunteers may hold pro-life views based on religious belief — or no religious belief.

  • Since the question the Petitioners presented to the SCOTUS was:

    “Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.”

    it is going to be hard to avoid the “speech issues”.

    The Court can’t order California to “adjust its laws”.

ADVERTISEMENTs