Supreme Court: California law on abortion information is unconstitutional

[Lord Coke]

There are clinics in California and elsewhere that give pregnancy help. The State of California passed a law that said these places need to advertise that patients can go elsewhere to get ab abortion on the CA tax payers dime. i.e.


“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.”

The Court found that this was unconstitutional compelled speech and struck the law. I think this was a hard case but easier than the baker's case of compelled speech. And that is why the Court took it and ruled on the merits. This is some pretty tough stuff. What if the State of CA says you can't discriminate on political affiliations? \The Court is slowly trying to design a test but it is wading in there slowly.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-california-law-abortion-information/

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the 5 to 4 decision.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent for the court’s liberals, and read parts of it from the bench.

The California legislature said some centers trick women into thinking they provide contraceptive services, including abortion, and sometimes delay a woman until it is too late to schedule an abortion.

But the centers said the law violates their constitutional rights by forcing them to deliver a message that is antithetical to their mission of encouraging women to carry on their pregnancies rather than end them.

The California law at issue requires centers that offer some medical services, such as ultrasound exams, meet specific requirements and be licensed. They also must display or relay to a woman the state’s message:

“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.”


A clinic that does not offer medical services is required to post a sign include in advertisements that it is “not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

California said its messages take no position on abortion. It makes sense to require the centers to tell patients of the state’s offered services because that it is when women are most in need of them, the state contends.

In their brief to the Supreme Court, the centers said that “forcing a pro-life group to advertise for abortion has to be unconstitutional.”

They said the law violates two “cardinal First Amendment principles: it targets disfavored speakers and compels them to deliver the state’s message. And it does so in the context of speech on a subject where there is profound moral and ideological disagreement.”

The Trump administration had taken the position that the sign provision for the licensed centers was unconstitutional. But it said the restrictions on the unlicensed centers should be upheld.

While similar notification laws in Baltimore and other jurisdictions have been struck down, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld California’s act.

The case is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.

 

[xcvbn]

I'm glad both California and the Supreme Court continue to focus on the real issues that plague this country.

 

[Not A Theist]

I'm glad both California and the Supreme Court continue to focus on the real issues that plague this country.

Health care, abortion rights, availability of abortions, compelled speech, the constitution... Seems marginally important. I think it's important to know how far a state can go to make abortions readily available. Nothing but good comes from that.

 

[Quipling]

There are clinics in California and elsewhere that give pregnancy help. The State of California passed a law that said these places need to advertise that patients can go elsewhere to get ab abortion on the CA tax payers dime. i.e.


“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.”

The Court found that this was unconstitutional compelled speech and struck the law. I think this was a hard case but easier than the baker's case of compelled speech. And that is why the Court took it and ruled on the merits. This is some pretty tough stuff. What if the State of CA says you can't discriminate on political affiliations? \The Court is slowly trying to design a test but it is wading in there slowly.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-california-law-abortion-information/

There are a lot of pro-life speech requirements (imposed by state govts on abortion providers) that are similar. I haven't read the opinion yet, but I'm wondering how they survive.

 

[Lord Coke]

There are a lot of pro-life speech requirements (imposed by state govts on abortion providers) that are similar. I haven't read the opinion yet, but I'm wondering how they survive.

Ive been thinking about this and the gay baker case regarding the test I would impose and I am not sure yet.
There are some real public policy and federalism concerns due to the fact how big and diverse the country is if this Court just makes a blanket rule.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Governments require businesses to display signage all the time.

 

[abiG]

Planned Parenthood kills more kids - read: separates them from their families - more than guns by a long shot, but liberalism refuses to take note. And somehow, we have to pay for this?