Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of California Crisis Pregnancy Centers In Case Related To Free Speech And Abortion
The California law at the center of the case required clinics that counsel women against abortion to inform clients of the availability of abortions paid for by the state. The justices ruled that the measure violates the First Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that California can use other means to tell women about the availability of the procedure, but it "cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it."
The New York Times:
Justices Back Pregnancy Centers That Oppose Abortion, In Free Speech Case
Ruling for opponents of abortion on free speech grounds, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday that the State of California may not require religiously oriented “crisis pregnancy centers” to supply women with information about how to end their pregnancies. The case was a clash between state efforts to provide women with facts about their medical options and First Amendment rulings that place limits on the government’s ability to compel people to say things at odds with their beliefs. (Liptak, 6/26)
Reuters:
Supreme Court Blocks California Law On Anti-Abortion Centers
The justices reversed a 2016 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that refused to block the law because it likely did not violate free speech rights. California's Reproductive FACT Act, passed by a Democratic-led legislature and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown in 2015, required centers licensed by the state as family planning facilities to post or distribute notices that the state has programs offering free or low-cost birth control, prenatal care and abortion services. The law also mandated unlicensed centers that may have no medical provider on staff to disclose that fact. (Chung, 6/26)
The Washington Post:
Supreme Court Says Crisis Pregnancy Centers Do Not Have To Provide Women Abortion Information
[Thomas] said that the “government-drafted script” specifically mentions abortion — “the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing.” “By requiring petitioners to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions, at the same time petitioners try to dissuade women from choosing that option ... plainly alters the content of petitioners’speech,” Thomas wrote. (Barnes, 6/26)
The Wall Street Journal:
Supreme Court Casts Doubt On California Disclosure Law On Abortion Availability
Liberals, in a dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer, accused the majority of a double standard, in light of the court’s rulings upholding laws in other states that require abortion clinics to advise pregnant women of alternatives to the procedure, including adoption services and programs to assist with childbirth costs. Justice Thomas rejected that argument. States can impose such requirements because abortion is a medical procedure subject to a patient’s “informed consent,” while the notice California required “is not tied to a procedure at all,” he wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. (Bravin and Kendall, 6/26)
The Associated Press:
Pregnancy Center Ruling A Blow For Abortion-Rights Advocates
Despite the court's 5-4 decision Tuesday, abortion-rights advocates pledged to keep fighting what they call "fake health centers," but their next steps weren't immediately clear. Some saw potential to use the ruling to push back against laws in conservative states such as Wisconsin and Texas that require abortion providers to share information about adoption or to combat the federal push to ban U.S.-funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions. (6/27)
The Washington Post:
Supreme Court Decision On Crisis Pregnancy Centers Draws Strong Reaction From All Sides
“Today's decision will harm women, full stop. The Supreme Court's ruling will allow fake health clinics to continue peddling anti-choice propaganda and misinformation. It will let them lie to vulnerable women, pretend to offer licensed medical providers and withhold potentially lifesaving medical care, ” said Stephanie Schriock, president, Emily's List. (Cha, 6/26)
San Francisco Chronicle:
Supreme Court Rules CA Can’t Force Antiabortion Clinics To Disclose Options
Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, sponsor of the California law, said the court “gave in to extreme, anti-choice groups that have spent millions of dollars to control the lives of women.” But attorney Michael Farris of Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian organization representing the clinics, said the ruling recognized that “no one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their conviction.” (Egelko, 6/26)
The Hill:
Supreme Court Ruling May Pave Way For More Faith-Based Pregnancy Centers
The Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday in favor of anti-abortion clinics in California will make it easier for similar facilities in other states to dissuade women from getting abortions. (Wheeler and Hellmann, 6/26)
San Jose Mercury News:
Two Doors Apart, Planned Parenthood, Pro-Life Pregnancy Center React To Supreme Court Ruling
In what activists saw as a setback to California’s efforts to ensure a woman’s right to choose, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled the Golden State cannot force pro-life pregnancy clinics to inform women about low-cost abortion options available elsewhere. Abortion opponents celebrated the 5-4 ruling supported by the court’s conservative majority. (Prodis Sulek, 6/26)
