SCOTUS to Hear Arguments About California Pregnancy Center Law

Photo by Claire Anderson on Unsplash

In 2015, the State of California passed a law that required so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” to post notices that subsidized abortions and contraception are available for women.

The law requires that licensed healthcare facilities post a notice saying the state has programs for “immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services…prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women.” Non-licensed medical facilities, including many crisis pregnancy centers, are also required to post a notice stating that the center “has no license medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

However, the crisis pregnancy centers—Christian-based nonprofit facilities whose goal is to convince women not to have abortions—filed an appeal, arguing that forcing the centers to post the notices violates their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

“The state should protect freedom of speech and freedom from coerced speech,” said attorney Kevin Theriot of the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, who is representing the centers. “Information about abortion is just about everywhere, so the government doesn’t need to punish pro-life centers for declining to advertise for the very act they can’t promote.”

In an appeal before the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the state argued that the Reproductive FACT Act, as the legislation is called, is justified by its responsibility to regulate the healthcare industry. It also said the law is needed to ensure that women know the state has programs providing abortions and birth control.

“Information is power, and all women should have access to the information they need when making personal healthcare decisions,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The Reproductive FACT Act was upheld by the appeals court, which said that the state has the authority to regulate “professional speech” to protect patient welfare. It also held that the notices don’t “encourage, suggest, or imply” that women should get an abortion.

On November 13, the Supreme Court said it would take up the case. It will hear the case early next year and decide it by late June.

That’s not the only free speech argument SCOTUS is taking on. The court also agreed to hear a conservative group’s free-speech challenge to a Minnesota law prohibiting voters from wearing apparel with overtly political messages inside polling stations. It is also going to hear the infamous “gay wedding cake” case, in which a conservative Christian baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, another case brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom.