Supreme Court supports anti-abortion centers in free speech case

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a California law that required anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to offer women information on abortion services, ruling that the measure violates the First Amendment by compelling speech.

In a 5-to-4 decision issued June 26, the majority justices wrote that California cannot force the anti-abortion centers to post notices about obtaining abortions, comparing the requirement to a “government-drafted script” that forces the centers to give information about the very service they oppose. The justices sent the case back to the lower court for another assessment in light of their ruling.

The ruling protects people from being forced to express a message that violates their beliefs, said Michael Farris, president for Alliance Defending Freedom and counsel for the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), the lead plaintiff.

“In this case, the government used its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for abortion,” Mr. Farris said in a statement. “The Supreme Court said that the government can’t do that and that it must respect pro-life beliefs. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a diverse society like ours. They enable us to coexist peacefully with one another. If we want to have freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to others.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s decision, saying the opinion complicates the state’s efforts to empower women with information about their health care.

“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women – regardless of their economic background or zip code – deserve access to critical and nonbiased information to make their own informed decisions,” Mr. Becerra said in a statement. The “ruling is unfortunate, but our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their health care options will continue.”

The legal challenge began after California passed its 2016 Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act, which requires that pregnancy centers – many of which are anti-abortion – post notices about where patients can find free or low-cost abortion services. Another part of the law requires unlicensed pregnancy centers to disclose to women that they are not a licensed medical facility and have no medical professionals on staff.

The plaintiffs, led by the nonprofit NIFLA, argued that the law violated the First Amendment by requiring speech and because the measure unfairly targets centers that discourage abortions. California officials contended that the law was needed to address concerns that nonprofit organizations, often religious, were misrepresenting themselves as full-service reproductive health clinics and misleading women about their options.

However, in the court’s majority opinion, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that California can inform women about abortion services through other means, such as advertising, rather than burdening the plaintiffs with compelled speech.

“California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it,” he wrote. The “First Amendment does not permit the state to sacrifice speech for efficiency.”

 

In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the California law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression.

“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the high court’s majority stance contradicts a previous decision in which justices required physicians who performed abortions to give information about adoption services.

“If a state can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive health care about childbirth and abortion services?” he asked. “As the question suggests, there is no convincing reason to distinguish between information about adoption and information about abortion in this context.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has broad implications in the health care setting and other sectors that physicians and other professionals should celebrate, said Robert McNamara, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va. The professional-speech doctrine that the Supreme Court rejected in the case posed a serious danger to the free-speech rights of health providers, Mr. McNamara said in an interview.  

“[The doctrine has] been used in Florida to try to prevent doctors from asking their patients whether they owned guns,” Mr. McNamara. “It had been used in Texas to stop a veterinarian from emailing people pet-care advice. After yesterday’s decision, it is clear that doctors did not sacrifice their free-speech rights when they went to medical school, and that should be cause for celebration regardless of whether one agrees with the worldview of the pregnancy centers who brought the NIFLA case.”

However, Heather Shumaker, senior counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, said the ruling is detrimental to patients’ health care and chills their access to truthful, accurate medical information.

“Throughout the country, anti-abortion counseling centers provide false, misleading, or incomplete information, and frighten and coerce women to make certain decisions about their health care options,” Ms. Shumaker said in an interview. “This deception endangers women’s health and future fertility, and particularly burdens women of color and women struggling to make ends meet. It is devastating that [the] decision will make access to full reproductive health care more difficult.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) also expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“Pregnant women who seek medical guidance must be able to trust that information being provided to them is truthful, medically accurate, and enables them to make informed decisions about their care,” ACOG President Lisa Hollier, MD, said in a statement. “Inaccurate and untruthful information can delay care and increase risk of medical complications.”

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a California law that required anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to offer women information on abortion services, ruling that the measure violates the First Amendment by compelling speech.

In a 5-to-4 decision issued June 26, the majority justices wrote that California cannot force the anti-abortion centers to post notices about obtaining abortions, comparing the requirement to a “government-drafted script” that forces the centers to give information about the very service they oppose. The justices sent the case back to the lower court for another assessment in light of their ruling.

The ruling protects people from being forced to express a message that violates their beliefs, said Michael Farris, president for Alliance Defending Freedom and counsel for the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), the lead plaintiff.

“In this case, the government used its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for abortion,” Mr. Farris said in a statement. “The Supreme Court said that the government can’t do that and that it must respect pro-life beliefs. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a diverse society like ours. They enable us to coexist peacefully with one another. If we want to have freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to others.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s decision, saying the opinion complicates the state’s efforts to empower women with information about their health care.

“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women – regardless of their economic background or zip code – deserve access to critical and nonbiased information to make their own informed decisions,” Mr. Becerra said in a statement. The “ruling is unfortunate, but our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their health care options will continue.”

The legal challenge began after California passed its 2016 Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act, which requires that pregnancy centers – many of which are anti-abortion – post notices about where patients can find free or low-cost abortion services. Another part of the law requires unlicensed pregnancy centers to disclose to women that they are not a licensed medical facility and have no medical professionals on staff.

The plaintiffs, led by the nonprofit NIFLA, argued that the law violated the First Amendment by requiring speech and because the measure unfairly targets centers that discourage abortions. California officials contended that the law was needed to address concerns that nonprofit organizations, often religious, were misrepresenting themselves as full-service reproductive health clinics and misleading women about their options.

However, in the court’s majority opinion, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that California can inform women about abortion services through other means, such as advertising, rather than burdening the plaintiffs with compelled speech.

“California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it,” he wrote. The “First Amendment does not permit the state to sacrifice speech for efficiency.”

 

In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the California law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression.

“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the high court’s majority stance contradicts a previous decision in which justices required physicians who performed abortions to give information about adoption services.

“If a state can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive health care about childbirth and abortion services?” he asked. “As the question suggests, there is no convincing reason to distinguish between information about adoption and information about abortion in this context.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has broad implications in the health care setting and other sectors that physicians and other professionals should celebrate, said Robert McNamara, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va. The professional-speech doctrine that the Supreme Court rejected in the case posed a serious danger to the free-speech rights of health providers, Mr. McNamara said in an interview.  

“[The doctrine has] been used in Florida to try to prevent doctors from asking their patients whether they owned guns,” Mr. McNamara. “It had been used in Texas to stop a veterinarian from emailing people pet-care advice. After yesterday’s decision, it is clear that doctors did not sacrifice their free-speech rights when they went to medical school, and that should be cause for celebration regardless of whether one agrees with the worldview of the pregnancy centers who brought the NIFLA case.”

However, Heather Shumaker, senior counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, said the ruling is detrimental to patients’ health care and chills their access to truthful, accurate medical information.

“Throughout the country, anti-abortion counseling centers provide false, misleading, or incomplete information, and frighten and coerce women to make certain decisions about their health care options,” Ms. Shumaker said in an interview. “This deception endangers women’s health and future fertility, and particularly burdens women of color and women struggling to make ends meet. It is devastating that [the] decision will make access to full reproductive health care more difficult.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) also expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“Pregnant women who seek medical guidance must be able to trust that information being provided to them is truthful, medically accurate, and enables them to make informed decisions about their care,” ACOG President Lisa Hollier, MD, said in a statement. “Inaccurate and untruthful information can delay care and increase risk of medical complications.”

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a California law that required anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to offer women information on abortion services, ruling that the measure violates the First Amendment by compelling speech.

In a 5-to-4 decision issued June 26, the majority justices wrote that California cannot force the anti-abortion centers to post notices about obtaining abortions, comparing the requirement to a “government-drafted script” that forces the centers to give information about the very service they oppose. The justices sent the case back to the lower court for another assessment in light of their ruling.

The ruling protects people from being forced to express a message that violates their beliefs, said Michael Farris, president for Alliance Defending Freedom and counsel for the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), the lead plaintiff.

“In this case, the government used its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for abortion,” Mr. Farris said in a statement. “The Supreme Court said that the government can’t do that and that it must respect pro-life beliefs. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a diverse society like ours. They enable us to coexist peacefully with one another. If we want to have freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to others.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s decision, saying the opinion complicates the state’s efforts to empower women with information about their health care.

“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women – regardless of their economic background or zip code – deserve access to critical and nonbiased information to make their own informed decisions,” Mr. Becerra said in a statement. The “ruling is unfortunate, but our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their health care options will continue.”

The legal challenge began after California passed its 2016 Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act, which requires that pregnancy centers – many of which are anti-abortion – post notices about where patients can find free or low-cost abortion services. Another part of the law requires unlicensed pregnancy centers to disclose to women that they are not a licensed medical facility and have no medical professionals on staff.

The plaintiffs, led by the nonprofit NIFLA, argued that the law violated the First Amendment by requiring speech and because the measure unfairly targets centers that discourage abortions. California officials contended that the law was needed to address concerns that nonprofit organizations, often religious, were misrepresenting themselves as full-service reproductive health clinics and misleading women about their options.

However, in the court’s majority opinion, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that California can inform women about abortion services through other means, such as advertising, rather than burdening the plaintiffs with compelled speech.

“California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it,” he wrote. The “First Amendment does not permit the state to sacrifice speech for efficiency.”

 

In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the California law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression.

“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the high court’s majority stance contradicts a previous decision in which justices required physicians who performed abortions to give information about adoption services.

“If a state can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive health care about childbirth and abortion services?” he asked. “As the question suggests, there is no convincing reason to distinguish between information about adoption and information about abortion in this context.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has broad implications in the health care setting and other sectors that physicians and other professionals should celebrate, said Robert McNamara, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va. The professional-speech doctrine that the Supreme Court rejected in the case posed a serious danger to the free-speech rights of health providers, Mr. McNamara said in an interview.  

“[The doctrine has] been used in Florida to try to prevent doctors from asking their patients whether they owned guns,” Mr. McNamara. “It had been used in Texas to stop a veterinarian from emailing people pet-care advice. After yesterday’s decision, it is clear that doctors did not sacrifice their free-speech rights when they went to medical school, and that should be cause for celebration regardless of whether one agrees with the worldview of the pregnancy centers who brought the NIFLA case.”

However, Heather Shumaker, senior counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, said the ruling is detrimental to patients’ health care and chills their access to truthful, accurate medical information.

“Throughout the country, anti-abortion counseling centers provide false, misleading, or incomplete information, and frighten and coerce women to make certain decisions about their health care options,” Ms. Shumaker said in an interview. “This deception endangers women’s health and future fertility, and particularly burdens women of color and women struggling to make ends meet. It is devastating that [the] decision will make access to full reproductive health care more difficult.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) also expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“Pregnant women who seek medical guidance must be able to trust that information being provided to them is truthful, medically accurate, and enables them to make informed decisions about their care,” ACOG President Lisa Hollier, MD, said in a statement. “Inaccurate and untruthful information can delay care and increase risk of medical complications.”