A free-speech fight that was elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court after California imposed a requirement that faith-based pro-life crisis pregnancy centers advertise nearby abortionists has justices questioning its compatibility with the First Amendment.
The case challenges AB775, adopted in 2015, which demands that the centers post the location and phone number of nearby abortionists, even though the requirement violates the clearly established federal prohibition on compelled speech.
A report from National Public Radio said justices “on both sides of the ideological spectrum” were concerned about the constitutional issue.
“While some more liberal justices appeared receptive to the state’s case initially at the court Tuesday,” NPR reported, “the arguments appeared to unwind during several instances. Problems repeatedly arose for those defending the statute.”
The report said Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potential swing justice in the case, said the law in certain circumstances would seem to impose an undue burden.
“He cited a hypothetical example of a billboard in Los Angeles with the words ‘Choose Life.’ He asked the lawyer for the state if it was paid for by an unlicensed facility if it would have to say so in large font and in multiple languages,” NPR reported.
“The lawyer for the state said that it would. For Kennedy, that seemed to be too much.”
The state of California has claimed it cannot adequately promote abortion without the help of the mostly nonprofit, mostly faith-based crisis pregnancy centers that counsel women to complete their pregnancies.
The pro-abortion attorney general in California, Xavier Becerra, has claimed, “We’re simply trying to make sure the recipient of health care information or advice understands exactly what he or she is entitled to in terms of services and that the information is accurate.”
Yet the law makes no demands of abortion businesses.
Mark Sherman predicted for the AP that “the Supreme Court seems likely to strike down a California law that mainly regulates anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.”
Similar laws already have been struck down by lower courts in several jurisdictions, and the same fight is going on in Hawaii and Illinois.
Abortion-advocating Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern about the law.
Kagan said the state had “gerrymandered” the law to target the pro-life centers. Sotomayor suggested the state requirements, in some circumstances, were “burdensome and wrong.”
Janae Stracke of Concerned Women for America said: “Freedom of speech includes not only the right to speak without government silencing you but also the freedom not to be forced to speak what you don’t want to say. No one should be forced to violate their conscience in order to make the government’s job easier.
“CWA of California has fought against this law since its infancy. We have followed it all the way to the Supreme Court and will not stop fighting for the rights given to us in the Constitution,” she said.
“If you do not support free speech for everyone, you do not support free speech at all. This case should be decided 9-0. It is that clear. The Supreme Court has had a history of protecting free speech, and we hope to see the same in NIFLA v. Becerra,” said Stracke.
Several crisis pregnancy centers sued, and several organizations have been fighting for them in court.
Michael Farris is general counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, one of those groups.
After arguing in the court Tuesday, he said, “A government that tells you what you can’t say is dangerous, but a government that tells you what you must say – under threat of severe punishment – is alarming.”
He said the state of California, at the behest of the abortion industry, is “using its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to be complicit in abortion by telling women how to get one free or at a reduced cost.”
“Even worse, AB775 specifically targets these small non-profit organizations that exist to provide women with life-affirming information they may not otherwise receive,” Farris said.
“Other federal courts have already recognized that this type of government compelled speech violates the foundation of the freedom we have in the America, making the 9th Circuit’s denial of free speech the exception rather than the rule. In fact, courts have invalidated or mostly invalidated similar laws in Texas, Maryland and New York City.”
He said no one wants the government “setting up its own advertising mandates for nonprofit organizations and then punishing any who disagree.”
“The First Amendment does not allow the government to force you to speak its message. That’s especially true when you are pursuing a religious mission of simply providing resources and support to women free of charge.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said: “When you look across the country, we have about 2,500 of these care pregnancy centers, almost exclusively funded by individuals like you. Their average budget is about $125,000 a year. Let me tell you what this is designed to do and what California is doing and why I’m so grateful for NIFLA fighting it, and ADF leading the charge legally. This is designed to shut down these care pregnancy centers. The first fine is $500, the second a $1,000 a day. You can do the math, it doesn’t take long on a budget of $125,000 to shut down these care pregnancy centers. And guess what’s happening in these care pregnancy centers – they’re opening a window to life to these mothers through technology. And guess what’s happening? They’re choosing life.”
Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, noted the majority of justices voiced concerns that the law violated the First Amendment.
“he justices boxed in the state attorney when he had to admit that the mere words ‘Choose Life’ on a billboard and the name of the pregnancy center requires the mandated contrary message in 48-point font in 13 languages in Los Angeles County,” he said.
“Justice Sotomayor remarked this requirement is burdensome. The California law forces crisis pregnancy centers to speak a message that goes directly against their religious beliefs and mission to save lives. The First Amendment protects the right to speak and the right not to speak. I am very optimistic after the oral argument that the court will strike down the law.”
Here’s a look at the reasons the fight is going on:
[jwplayer x2l9TMAK-pszPfxYQ]
