It started out as an effort by abortionists to ensure a continued stream of revenue: They convinced local and state lawmakers in several jurisdictions to require that crisis pregnancy centers – even those run as Christian ministries – promote abortion by advertising the nearest abortionist a woman could consult, explains a new report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
The centers protested the free speech violation and sued, resulting in conflicting rulings from various courts. So the Supreme Court now is reviewing the issue and likely will issue a ruling this summer.
The federal government, in an analysis of the issue, said the ruling could have a significant impact on speech rights and related laws and regulations beyond the abortion issue.
"The parties in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra dispute whether California's Reproductive FACT Act is a viewpoint - or content-based restriction on speech subject to strict scrutiny (and thus presumptively invalid) or a professional or commercial regulation subject to less exacting scrutiny," the government analysis says.
TRENDING: Greatest Show on Earth: The Hur report hearing
"The path the court chooses could have implications for lawmakers both in the context of family planning or pregnancy-related services and, more broadly, in the regulation of professional and commercial activities."
The dispute centers on whether states can require crisis pregnancy centers, many of which are run as Christian ministries, to promote nearby abortionists. In the California case, NIFLA objected to the state's demand that its workers promote abortion in violation of their faith, and the California courts said their faith wasn't relevant.
The most recent development came when the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Baltimore ordinance imposing that requirement.
The court found that the ordinance violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
The opinion said: "The compelled speech at issue here raises particularly troubling First Amendment concerns. At bottom, the disclaimer portrays abortion as one among a menu of morally equivalent choices. While that may be the city's view, it is not the center's."
The ruling also found the ordinance was an impermissible attempt by Baltimore officials "to use compelled speech as a weapon to run its ideological foes into the ground."
Liberty Counsel represents three additional pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that have been fighting the same battle in California, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.
The federal government has sounded off on the issue in a legal sidebar from the Congressional Research Service by legislative attorney Victoria Killion.
She points out that the Supreme Court already has endorsed a law requiring doctors performing an abortion to inform the patient of state recommendations for alternatives to abortion.
That issue "could have broad consequences for abortion regulations," the analysis explains. "Some legal commentators have posited that if the court rules in favor of the NIFLA challengers, the decision could render notice and disclosure requirements championed by abortion opponents susceptible to invalidation."
However, it is unknown "whether the court would view a law that requires the disclosure of medical risks … on the same plane as a law that requires the dissemination of informational material more generally."
For the rest of this report, and more, please go to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.