A rocky day at the Supreme Court bodes poorly for California's 'crisis pregnancy center' law
newsdepo.com
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, the first big reproductive rights case under President Trump. The case—involving the state’s ability to impose disclosure and notificatiA rocky day at the Supreme Court bodes poorly for California's 'crisis pregnancy center' law
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, the first big reproductive rights case under President Trump. The case—involving the state’s ability to impose disclosure and notification requirements on so-called “crisis pregnancy centers”—has major implications for not only reproductive rights, but the right’s quest to weaponize the First Amendment. NIFLA stands for a network of Christian crisis pregnancy centers, facilities that typically prey on women seeking information about reproductive health or medical procedures, like abortion. Their aim isn’t education or information: It’s to get women in the door, then convince them to complete their pregnancies by whatever means necessary. In California, these centers register as family planning facilities but do not have licensed medical providers or offer medical services. Many provide misleading or incomplete medical information. That’s why the state passed a law requiring family planning facilities to post notices about the availability of free and low-cost birth control as well as abortion services and mandating that facilities without a medical provider on staff disclose that fact. NIFLA and company claim the law violates their First Amendment right to free speech by compelling speech. California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Joshua Klein argued for the law’s constitutionality, emphasizing, as several justices would, how similar California’s requirement is to the types of mandates red states have imposed on physicians and clinics that provide abortions. Regrettably, it also differs in several ways that open it to legal attack. Read more