The Trump administration and pro-life activists hailed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a California law that forced pregnancy centers to steer women…
The Trump administration and pro-life activists hailed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a California law that forced pregnancy centers to steer women to abortionists.
The High Court ruled the state burdened the free speech rights of pro-life centers by mandating that they post notices providing pregnant women with information about obtaining abortions. Clarence Thomas and four other Republican-appointed justices said such notices were “government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement… wholly disconnected from the State’s informational interest.”
“One of the state-sponsored services that the licensed notice requires petitioners to advertise is abortion—the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing,” the majority said in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. “The (law) unduly burdens protected speech.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions praised the 5-4 decision, saying that lawmakers should not attempt to mandate or otherwise chill the free speech of citizens. He pledged that the Department of Justice, which filed an amicus brief in favor the pregnancy centers, would continue to support the freedom of Americans to speak and exercise “their deeply held beliefs and conscience.”
“Speakers should not be forced by their government to promote a message with which they disagree, and pro-life pregnancy centers in California should not be forced to advertise abortion and undermine the very reason they exist,” Sessions said in a release. “This Department will continue to vigorously defend the freedom of all Americans to speak peacefully in accord with their deeply held beliefs and conscience.”
California was the first state in the nation to pass legislation cracking down on pro-life clinics that provide services and goods to vulnerable pregnant women. Lawmakers in other states condemned attempts to coerce speech from volunteers and doctors at such centers. Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) praised his state’s 41 centers for providing “a valuable service to mothers in need,” adding that they should be protected from discrimination.
“To force a pro-life clinic to advertise the very thing it opposes is an egregious violation of the First Amendment,” Cotton said in a statement. “The state of California’s discrimination against crisis pregnancy centers was deliberate and cruel, and the Court rightly upheld these centers’ right to free speech.”
Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, criticized the Court and accused pregnancy centers of being ” fake ” healthcare providers because they do not advocate for abortions. NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue accused the Court of turning “its back on women” in a release.
“Five Justices still refused to act on behalf of women who need accurate information to make the best decisions for our families and our lives,” Hogue said. “The Supreme Court turned its back on women and condoned the deceptive tactics used by fake women’s health centers.”
Ashley McGuire, a senior fellow with the Catholic Association, said abortion supporters attempted to use the state to silence its opponents, rather than debate them. She said the crackdown on pregnancy centers demonstrated the “extremism of the abortion industry” and the bullying tactics of lobbyists for abortion.
“Today’s decision protecting pregnancy centers from having to advertise or refer for abortion reveals the extremism of the abortion industry,” she said in a statement. “The abortion lobby bullied them all the way to the Supreme Court because they could not tolerate authentic choice for women… Compelled speech is the doing of authoritarian regimes, not free and flourishing democracies.”
Pro-life groups welcomed the decision. Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life, said pregnancy centers should not be forced to violate their consciences and their status as an abortion alternative for “women who want to choose life for their children.” She said California’s law, which threatened prohibitive fines against centers that resisted the notice, could have denied millions of dollars in care and goods to vulnerable women.
“The government has no business compelling these centers to work against their life-affirming mission, violating their first amendment right to free speech,” Mancini said in a statement. “We applaud the Supreme Court for preserving these centers’ free-speech right and allowing them to continue offering such comprehensive and critical support to women in need, including providing over $ 100 million in free services (child care, clothing, diapers, transportation, etc.) annually.”
Religious liberty advocates said it is important for the courts to preserve space for free and open debate, rather than to use the enforcement of laws to force citizens to toe an ideological line. Mark Rienzi, president of the non-profit law firm Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said lawmakers erred by overreaching into the “religious mission” of the Christian charity at the center of the case.
“Both sides of a debate matter, and the government cannot silence one side’s speech just because it may be unpopular,” Rienzi said in a statement. “Crisis pregnancy centers like NIFLA serve women and children according to their religious mission, and California should respect that. This ruling proves that when it comes to important issues, the government doesn’t get to tell people what to believe, and it also doesn’t get to tell people what to say about it.”
California is not the only state that has targeted pro-life organizations to force them to recommend abortions to their clients. Hawaii and Illinois have similar laws that are now the subject of federal lawsuits. Neither Illinois Republican Gov.
