{"id":180630,"date":"2018-03-20T11:31:23","date_gmt":"2018-03-20T15:31:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=180630"},"modified":"2018-03-20T15:44:29","modified_gmt":"2018-03-20T19:44:29","slug":"supreme-court-pregnancy-centers-speech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/supreme-court-pregnancy-centers-speech\/","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in pregnancy centers’ free speech case"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

On March 20, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra<\/em> regarding California’s Reproductive FACT Act<\/a>, also known as the “bully bill.” The law requires pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming resources to women, to distribute the following:<\/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><\/blockquote>\n

The law has already been challenged and made its way through the court system. Last October, Superior Court Judge Gloria Trask ruled that<\/a> the above speech was “compelled speech,” and thus unconstitutional. The suit had been brought by Scott Scharpen of Go Mobile for Life. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals however, in October 2016, ruled that<\/a> the law could stand. This particularly pro-abortion circuit has been overturned<\/a> 80 percent of the time. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing a pregnancy center network and two pregnancy centers in California<\/a>, appealed their case to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Last November the Supreme Court agreed to decide<\/a> the fate\u00a0of the law with National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra. <\/em>The March 20 date was announced in January<\/a>.<\/p>\n

READ: Ten numbers you should know about pregnancy centers<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The case is being billed by pro-lifers as a First Amendment issue, in that no person should be forced to engage in government compelled speech, particularly when it has to do with deeply held beliefs. The Court agreed to hear it<\/a> on free speech grounds, but declined to decide whether the compelled speech interfered with the free exercise of religion.<\/p>\n

A rally was held outside the Court during oral arguments, A Rally to Give Free Speech Life<\/a>. NIFLA also encouraged supporters to participate in a tweet fest from 8:00 to 11:00 Eastern time, with #GiveFreeSpeechLife.<\/p>\n

The law has long had support from NARAL Pro-Choice America, before it even passed. NARAL<\/a> has a history<\/a> of attacking pregnancy centers<\/a>. Their role in the FACT Act was no different<\/a>, in that NARAL president Ilyse Hogue appeared against Lila Rose to debate the bill and, along with<\/a> NARAL Pro-Choice California State Director Amy Everitt, wrote an op-ed<\/a> published in The Mercury News, just before the bill was signed into law by pro-abortion Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.<\/p>\n

Leading up to Tuesday’s oral arguments, NARAL has continued to share across social media<\/a> their claims that pregnancy centers are fake clinics which lie to women as a reason why these centers should be compelled to communicate the government’s mandated speech.<\/p>\n

But NIFLA is not without allies. In January, an amicus brief<\/a> signed on by 128 U.S. House Representatives and 16 U.S. Senators was filed by Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Rep. Andy Harris, M.D. (R-MD), and Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT).<\/p>\n

“No person or entity can be required by the government to say or promote ideas they do not believe. That\u2019s exactly what\u2019s happening here, and it\u2019s wrong,” LaMalfa said in a press release<\/a> from his office. Daines offered:<\/p>\n

California\u2019s coercive law does not simply restrict these centers\u2019 speech, it fundamentally alters it \u2013 in turn violating the centers\u2019 constitutionally protected conscience rights. I call on the Supreme Court to uphold the First Amendment and strike down this unconstitutional law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n