SCOTUS Smacks Down California Law Requiring Pro-Life Clinics To Promote Abortion

Brittany M. Hughes | June 26, 2018
DONATE
Font Size

The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a California law that would have required pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to promote abortion services and funnel patients to abortion providers.

The law, upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before being referred to the Supreme Court, required pro-life clinics to display a state-written, large-font notice within prominent view of their patients, such as in waiting rooms, informing patients of their legal right to an abortion and providing a number they could call if they wanted to pursue abortion as an option. Any clinic that refused to post the notice was subject to a $500 to $1,000 fine.

But a notice encouraging patients to consider abortion is the exact opposite of any pro-life clinic's mission, and clearly violated pro-lifers’ First Amendment right to free speech by compelling them to say things contrary to their beliefs.

And apparently, SCOTUS largely agreed, ruling in a 5-4 decision that the California requirement “unduly burdens protected speech,” and adding that if the state truly wants to inform women about their legal abortion options, the state could “inform the women about its services ‘without burdening a speaker with unwanted speech.’”

"The licensed notice is a content-based regulation of speech. By compelling individuals to speak a particular message, such notices ‘alte[r] the content of [their] speech,’” Justice Thomas wrote in the Court’s opinion.

“Here, for example, licensed clinics must provide a government-drafted script about the availability of state- sponsored services, as well as contact information for how to obtain them. One of those services is abortion—the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing. By requiring petitioners to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions — at the same time petitioners try to dissuade women from choosing that option — the licensed notice plainly ‘alters the content’ of petitioners’ speech,” he continued.

The Court also smacked down a Ninth Circuit ruling that had claimed the state can infringe on free speech rights so long as it falls within “professional” speech – for example, what a doctor can, cannot, or could be compelled to say.

“But this Court has not recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech,” Thomas countered. “Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’”

The court’s ruling marks the latest swing-and-a-miss for big-government liberals seeking to muzzle any speech they don’t like – and a huge win for speech, pro-lifers, and families.

(Cover Photo: Elvert Barnes)

donate