Finally, Little by Little Pro-Abortion Rants Are Losing Ground Even In California

Supreme Court weighs challenge to California’s abortion disclosure law: Does it violate free speech?

Los Angeles Times
David G. Savage
October 27, 2017

The Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear an anti-abortion group’s challenge on free speech grounds to a California law that requires “crisis pregnancy centers” — which advocate alternatives to the procedure — to also advise clients that the state offers free or low-cost contraception and assistance in ending their pregnancy.

The justices could announce as early as Monday whether they will hear the case, the latest in a series of clashes pitting the 1st Amendment against the state’s power to regulate the medical profession.

The California Legislature said two years ago that it was concerned that the more than 200 pregnancy centers in California sometimes provided “intentionally deceptive advertising and counseling practices that often confuse, misinform and even intimidate women from making fully informed decisions” about their medical care. The so-called Reproductive FACT Act requires these centers to disclose whether they have medical professionals on the staff and to inform patients that the state offers subsidized contraception and abortion.

Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law against claims that the disclosures were a kind of “compelled speech” that violated the 1st Amendment.

But three separate appeals are pending before the Supreme Court, including one from the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, which says it has “over 110 nonprofit, pro-life pregnancy centers” in California.

At issue is whether “the state of California can compel nonprofit, faith-based, pro-life licensed medical facilities, against their religious convictions and identity, to advertise a government program that provides free or low-cost abortions,” wrote Jay Alan Sekulow, counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and a personal attorney for President Trump.

…The California Legislature said two years ago that it was concerned that the more than 200 pregnancy centers in California sometimes provided “intentionally deceptive advertising and counseling practices that often confuse, misinform and even intimidate women from making fully informed decisions” about their medical care. The so-called Reproductive FACT Act requires these centers to disclose whether they have medical professionals on the staff and to inform patients that the state offers subsidized contraception and abortion.

Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law against claims that the disclosures were a kind of “compelled speech” that violated the 1st Amendment.

Read the entire article HERE.

–##–

Looks like they may need to add a fourth to that list of challenges.

JUDGE RULES ON LAW FORCING PRO-LIFERS TO ADVERTISE TAX-FUNDED ABORTION

Conservative Republican News
Jeff Trent
November 3, 2017

A California state court ruled this week on a law forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise abortion clinics to all pregnant women.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gloria Trask struck down California’s so-called “Reproductive FACT Act,” which forced medical providers to inform all pregnant women on how and where to get taxpayer-funded abortion.

Trask found it violated free speech laws and put government in the middle of private medical decision.

In her blistering ruling, Trask wrote, in part:

The State is requiring more than informed consent. The statute requires the clinic to give information to a woman at the start of her relationship with the clinic. Women who come to the clinic and are found not to be pregnant must be told of the availability of abortion. Women who find out they are pregnant and are thrilled to be so must be told about abortion. Women with unplanned, but not unwanted pregnancies must also be told. The State inserts itself into the private and sensitive relationship between a woman and her physician…

…[The State] may enact law that support abortion access and tax its citizens to make abortion available. It can require informed consent for all medical procedures. But its ability to impress free citizens into State service in this political dispute cannot be absolute; it must be limited. . . .

The statute compels the clinic to speak words with which it profoundly disagrees when the State has numerous alternative methods of publishing its message.

 

With abortion rates declining nationwide, the abortion industry proposed the law as a way of forcing pro-life activists to advertise their services.

Source

–00–

So in the eyes of this Riverside County Superior Court Judge, efforts to force medical providers to post Pro-Abortion information prominently is against the First Amendment because the STATE has determined it will autocratically dictate to medical providers what they must do by inserting itself into the private and sensitive relationship between a woman and her physician. Thank you Judge. I am so glad to see that there are rational and constitutional based judges again. As the judge pointed out there are alternative methods of publishing its message without forcing compliance.

OOhhh I do like the word “impress” it adds such vivid images of a ruler standing over a group of “slaves” demanding they do as told.  This is exactly how I see we have been manipulated for eight long years and how Jerry Brown has run his mostly communist agenda since he returned to office.  Thank goodness this term is ending and he can no longer run for governor.

–Uriel–

 

About Uriel

Retired educator and constitutionalist
Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Finally, Little by Little Pro-Abortion Rants Are Losing Ground Even In California

  1. Shar says:

    The dims use of social issues has passed. People are voting with their pocket book.
    No jobs, health care taking all their earnings, etc. Frankly people are sick of this whole useless Congress. Time to replace them and move on with the Trump agenda.

  2. Uriel says:

    Let’s hope they keep on voting without listening to all the political garbage. I agree we are all tired of the stupidity.

  3. whitetop says:

    It is bad enough we have these programs like abortion on demand, food stamps, etc. But when our tax dollars are spent advertising for clients it really pisses me off.

  4. vonMesser says:

    Maybe if we only abort liberals and Democrats?

Don't be bashful leave a comment and let us know what you think - Please note our Comment Policy (Please keep all comments on topic and relevant to the discussion. Thank You. )