{"id":178313,"date":"2018-01-25T15:03:13","date_gmt":"2018-01-25T20:03:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=178313"},"modified":"2018-01-25T15:03:13","modified_gmt":"2018-01-25T20:03:13","slug":"pregnancy-centers-speech-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pregnancy-centers-speech-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Pregnancy centers free speech case set for oral arguments at Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

(Pregnancy Help News<\/a>) Wednesday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court announced March 20 as its date to hear oral arguments in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra<\/em>.\u00a0A case both sides of the abortion<\/a> divide agree is the Court\u2019s most significant of 2018, NIFLA v. Becerra<\/em> challenges a 2015 state law in California forcing over 100 privately funded pro-life pregnancy help medical clinics that offer free ultrasounds to post signage directing their clients to a taxpayer-funded abortion program through Medi-Cal.<\/p>\n

The clinics\u2014which are state-licensed, but receive no taxpayer funding\u2014argue that the state\u2019s so-called \u201cReproductive FACT Act<\/a>\u201d co-opts and overrides their right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.\u00a0With lead plaintiff NIFLA joined by co-counsel Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the pro-life organizations are now gearing up for their day at\u00a0the nation\u2019s High Court. Groups representing pro-life, Christian and free speech constituencies\u2014plus 22 states and 144 members<\/a> of the U.S. Congress\u2014have filed amicus<\/em> briefs<\/a> in support of NIFLA.<\/p>\n

“NIFLA looks forward to prosecuting our case against the state of California to enjoin its horrendous violation of the free speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers,” Thomas Glessner, J.D., NIFLA president and founder, said. “This law compels pro-life centers to violate their consciences and promote abortion. As such it cannot and will not stand.”<\/p>\n

\"pregnancy<\/p>\n

While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals\u2014the nation\u2019s most reversed court\u2014upheld the law in 2016, Riverside Superior Court Justice Gloria C. Trask\u00a0granted a temporary injunction<\/a>\u00a0for one mobile ultrasound unit on grounds the law violates California\u2019s \u201cfreedom of mind\u201d guarantee as laid out in the state\u2019s 1849 Declaration of Rights.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe State can deliver its message without infringing upon anyone\u2019s liberty,\u201d Trask wrote. \u201cIt may purchase television advertisements as it does to encourage Californians to sign up for Covered California or to conserve water. It may purchase billboard space and post its message directly in front of Scharpen Foundation\u2019s clinic.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn this case, however virtuous the State\u2019s ends, they do not justify its means.\u201d<\/p>\n

In addition to its specific demands on centers that offer free ultrasounds, the law also compels 100 non-medical pro-life pregnancy help centers to post signage proclaiming themselves as such.<\/p>\n

Similar measures have been struck down as unconstitutional infringements of free speech across the country. In a 2014 decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, justices derided a comparable New York City ordinance<\/a>, calling it, \u201ca bureaucrat\u2019s dream\u201d with \u201ca deliberately ambiguous set of standards guiding its application.\u201d<\/p>\n

Like the New York City edict, California\u2019s law comes equipped with major questions surrounding its application and enforcement. At NIFLA\u2019s challenge before the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in 2016, legal counsel for California\u2019s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, was unable to say<\/a> which authorities in the state, counties and cities would be responsible for enforcing the law.<\/p>\n

As the law has marched through the legal system on its way to Washington, D.C., it has remained largely unenforced throughout the state. The only known instance where centers have been forced to comply with the law is in the City of Los Angeles, where City Attorney Mike Feuer leveraged an obscure business<\/a> regulation against three\u00a0centers in August 2016.<\/p>\n

Part of an ongoing effort from the abortion lobby to squelch or commandeer pro-life speech, California\u2019s law has served as the model for a 2017 mandate in Hawaii<\/a> that NIFLA and ADF are also challenging in court.<\/p>\n

Along with New York City\u2014which has recently revitalized<\/a> its effort to combat pro-life centers\u2014abortion advocates have failed to make their attempts stick in Austin, Texas and Montgomery County, Maryland\u2014where taxpayers were forced to pay over $330,000 in lawyer\u2019s fees after LifeSiteNews.com\u2019s public records request revealed an unethical collusion<\/a> between city officials and abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America.<\/p>\n

In December 2017, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down<\/a> the City of Baltimore\u2019s attempt to enforce the same law that had failed in Montgomery County.<\/p>\n

Laws forcing pro-lifers to post signage deterring women from their services are currently on the books in Oakland<\/a>, San Francisco<\/a> and Hartford, Conn<\/a>.\u00a0The Supreme Court’s\u00a0decision is likely to affect all of those laws, as well as in Hawaii and Illinois\u2014which gutted its Healthcare Right of Conscience Act<\/a> to force pro-life medical professionals to refer for abortions and advise patients on abortion’s “benefits” in 2016.<\/p>\n

In an email to supporters Wednesday, NIFLA called on supporters and friends in the pro-life movement to join in an ongoing prayer vigil from Feb. 1 through March 20, and also announced plans to host a rally along with ADF on the steps of the Supreme Court the morning of the arguments.<\/p>\n

The notice, which the law specifies must either be posted as a public notice in \u201c22-point type,\u201d \u201cdistributed to all clients in no less than 14-point font\u201d or distributed digitally \u201cat the time of check-in or arrival,\u201d applies to all pregnancy help medical clinics licensed by the state.<\/p>\n

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”<\/p>\n