One of the big headlines recently in the pro-life movement was the U.S. Supreme Court ruling California likely was violating the First Amendment by requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion.
As bad as that slap-down was, there’s now a second warning the state never to try such a stunt again.
It comes from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has determined that the state violated two federal laws with its Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act requiring the pro-life centers to promote abortion.
Don’t do it again, HHS warned in a new Notice of Violation sent to Attorney General Xavier Becerra, one of the biggest promoters of abortion in state government.
The letter noted the legal agreement adopted by the state that prevents it from enforcing its act, a result of the Supreme Court ruling.
HHS said it took that into consideration in not requiring other legal agreements to that effect.
“OCR is therefore closing these complaints as satisfactorily resolved,” said the letter. “However, if California were to violate the terms of the injunction it would be subject to a reopening of the complaints and further enforcement action by OCR.
“OCR reminds the state of California to take all necessary steps to ensure that no adverse action is taken against the complainants or any other health care entities discriminated against, or any other individual, for the filing of these complaints, providing information to OCR, or otherwise participating in this investigation. OCR’s closing of these complaints does not preclude future investigations based on new complaints or changed circumstances.”
The American Center for Law and Justice defended the pregnancy centers in court, resulting in the Supreme Court victory.
But it also filed complaints with the HHS Office of Civil Rights against the California bill, which was promoted by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris.
Harris announced Monday she’s a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020.
“While we were litigating the issue under the First Amendment, at the same time we filed complaints with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights. That agency is charged with enforcing a number of laws passed by Congress over the years aimed at protecting the conscience rights of individuals and entities whose religious beliefs and ethical principles prevent them from advocating for or participating in abortion,” ACLJ said.
“Two such laws – the Weldon Amendment and the Coates-Snowe Amendment – prohibit state and local governments from discriminating against individuals or health care entities because they do not provide, pay for, or refer for abortions. Sadly, these laws have mostly remained dormant since their enactment, little used during both Republican and Democratic administrations.
“But,” the organization reported, “no longer. Under the leadership of longtime conscience rights advocate, Roger Severino, HHS’s Office of Civil Rights has finally begun to take these conscience-protecting laws seriously. And so, just days ago we received notification from HHS that it has completed its investigation of our complaints against California’s FACT Act and ‘determined that California violated the Weldon Amendment and the Coates-Snowe Amendment.'”
The notice informed California that in violation of federal law it had subjected pro-life pregnancy centers “to an untenable choice that violates the Weldon and/or Coates-Snowe Amendments: violate the FACT Act and face financial penalties, lawsuits, attorney fees, costs, and, fines, or violate their protected right to be free from discrimination on the basis that they will not refer for or make arrangements for abortions.”
“This is an important victory for conscience, not only in the specific cases of our three California clients, but perhaps even more important, in what it says about the willingness of the federal executive branch to take seriously its distinctive role in protecting pro-life conscience rights,” ACLJ said. “With the legislatures and executives of many states firmly in the hands of Big Abortion, we are sure to see other efforts to squelch the pro-life message at the state level. With this action by HHS, however, we have an important additional tool in our arsenal.”
When the Supreme Court ruling was released, the justices said, “We need not decide what type of state interest is sufficient to sustain a disclosure requirement like the unlicensed notice. California has not demonstrated any justification for the unlicensed notice that is more than ‘purely hypothetical.'”
The opinion noticed California officials admitted that a billboard saying “Choose Life” would have to be surrounded with “a 29-word statement from the government, in as many as 13 different languages.”
The pro-abortion wing of the court, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, would have let the state force organizations to carry a message with which they disagree, in violation of federal law.
The state had claimed that it could not adequately promote abortion without pregnancy centers participating.
