Supreme Court to hear arguments about California abortion law

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over whether pro-life pregnancy help centers in California should be required to post notices informing women of the availability of abortions elsewhere. First, it forces the pregnancy centers that are medical clinics to point the way to abortion by providing a phone number that they can call to access state-funded abortions. “Why should the state free-ride on a limited number of clinics to provide that information?” he asked.

In spite of a discovery period that lasted seven years and resulted in nearly 1,300 pages of documentation, the lead justice struck down the case because NARAL could never produce even one example of a woman harmed by a pregnancy center.

They are “fake women’s health centers”, said Maggie Jo Buchanan, former associate director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, a policy institute which describes itself as dedicated to “progressive ideas”.

“It seems to me that is an undue burden…and that should be enough to invalidate the statute”, Kennedy said in court, Politico reports.

“If it has been gerrymandered, that’s a serious issue”, Kagan said. That sort ambiguity is at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case known as NIFLA v. Becerra, which begins oral arguments this morning.

The case represents a crossroads of two contentious issues: abortion and the breadth of the right to freedom of speech under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. It is one of several First Amendment cases the justices are considering this term. They challenged this in the courts and got a favorable ruling. These women told me they would have chosen to give birth had they received information about alternatives and seen a sonogram of their unborn child.

Crisis pregnancy centers say they offer legitimate health services but that it is their mission to steer women with unplanned pregnancies away from abortion.

‘Reasonable licensing’ or government interference? It involves California’s law that requires pro-life pregnancy centers – not doctor’s offices, for-profit abortion clinics or any other place women may visit to discuss their pregnancy options – to post signs that tell women how to seek state-subsidized abortions. A federal appeals court struck down parts of a 2011 Florida law that sought to prohibit doctors from talking about gun safety with their patients.

Hawaii and IL have similar laws. Justice Breyer strongly pushed the argument that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander-there should be a consistent rule about whether pro-life states can force pro-choice counselors to make disclosures about adoption and whether pro-choice states can force pro-life counselors to make disclosures about abortion. The Alliance Defending Freedom is the same group behind the Supreme Court challenge brought by the Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for the marriage of a same-sex couple.

“If this law is allowed to happen, the very heart and soul of the First Amendment will be gone”, Glessner stated. They say the law discriminates based on their anti-abortion viewpoint.

But the impact of the law doesn’t end with its intrusion into matters of morality and conscience, because the subject of abortion also implicates politics and policy.

“California has a compelling interest in informing pregnant women when they are using the medical services of a facility that has not satisfied licensing standards set by the state”, Judge Nelson wrote. Violators are liable for a civil penalty of up to $500.

Kennedy’s hypothetical bothered both sides of the bench; Justice Sotomayor asked California’s Joshua Klein to address it at least three times.

Crisis pregnancy centers, many of them sponsored by religious organizations, advertise themselves as offering a range of pregnancy-related services, but do not provide abortions and advise their clients not to terminate their pregnancies.

The Supreme Court seems likely to strike down a California law that mainly regulates anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.

“What [this law] does not do is regulate how NIFLA and other centers counsel the women who come to them”, Gorod continued. “In fact, the clinics don’t make abortions and contraceptive coverage available”.

“There are so many risks for young women, and when you are in vulnerable situations and having to make critical a decision about your reproductive health care – which can be really scary and hard – it’s especially critical to get the full, accurate information you need to make the most informed, best decision”, Lauren told Teen Vogue.

The Ninth Circuit also upheld the requirement that unlicensed clinics disclose that they are unlicensed.

The Supreme Court has addressed the core issues presented in this case, albeit in different factual contexts.

They certainly have their own situations in mind – it’s not hard to see where some pro-abortion politicians in MA might take such a legal principle if it were allowed to stand in California.

That would mean the state is saying “we have these general disclosure requirements, but we don’t really want to apply them generally, we just want to apply them to some speakers whose speech we don’t much like”, she said.