Another blow to logic and freedom...

Supreme Court sides with crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

By VICTORIA COLLIVER

The Supreme Court Tuesday morning handed faith-based crisis pregnancy centers a victory by ruling a California law that requires the clinics to advise women about free and low-cost abortions probably violates the First Amendment.

The court held 5-4 that the centers "are likely to succeed" challenging the state’s Reproductive FACT Act, which requires the anti-abortion, often religiously affiliated clinics to display written notices about abortion access. The court also ruled that requiring clinics to disclose they have no licensed medical providers, which is another provision of the California law, would also likely violate the First Amendment.

The ruling instructed lower courts to impose a preliminary injunction against the law, while holding out the possibility that California might at some point be able to justify some portion of it.

The pregnancy centers objected to having to disclose information at odds with their beliefs, while proponents of the law argued the clinics offered misleading information to women seeking pregnancy advice.

Supporters of the centers said the ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra amounted to a victory for free speech.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said people "should not be forced by their government to promote a message with which they disagree," and that the centers should "not be forced to advertise abortion and undermine the very reason they exist."

"This ruling proves that when it comes to important issues, the government doesn’t get to tell people what to believe, and it also doesn’t get to tell people what to say about it,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket, a nonprofit that supported the centers.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra called the decision "unfortunate" and said the state will continue working to "ensure that Californians receive accurate information" about their health options. His office did not indicate how the state would respond.

“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women — regardless of their economic background or zip code — deserve access to critical and non-biased information to make their own informed decisions,” Becerra said.

In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "Neither California nor the Ninth Circuit has identified a persuasive reason for treating professional speech as a unique category that is exempt from ordinary First Amendment principles."

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the dissent, noted California’s law "does not, on its face, distinguish between facilities that favor pro-life and those that favor pro-choice points of view. Nor is there any convincing evidence before us or in the courts below that discrimination was the purpose or the effect of the statute.”

During oral arguments in March, the justices — including some on the court’s liberal wing — expressed concern that the California law requiring notification in as many as 13 languages may go too far in targeting these clinics, which counsel women against abortion. However, all four of the liberal justices sided with California.

The decision is expected to affect other litigation involving these clinics as well as states with similar laws, including Hawaii and Illinois, which are also being challenged in the courts. Of the 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers nationwide, about 200 are located in California, including the two named plaintiffs in the case, Pregnancy Care Center and Fallbrook Pregnancy Resource Center — both in the San Diego area.