Quantcast
Connect with us

US Supreme Court skeptical toward California law on anti-abortion centers

Published

on

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday signaled sympathy toward Christian-based facilities that argued that a California law requiring them to post signs disclosing the availability of state-subsidized abortions and birth control violates their right to free speech.

Several of the justices on a court that has a 5-4 conservative majority expressed concerns that the law was fashioned in order to specifically target the centers, which are staunchly opposed to abortion.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even some of the liberal justices voiced concern over parts of the law during an hour-long argument in an appeal by a group of non-profit facilities called crisis pregnancy centers of a lower court ruling upholding the Democratic-backed 2015 law.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said that even if the law is neutral on its face, it contains so many exemptions that it appears to target only those with anti-abortion views.

“Is it possible to infer intentional discrimination?” Alito asked California deputy solicitor general Joshua Klein.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan pressed Klein on the same concerns, wondering whether the law was applied only to “speakers whose speech we don’t much like.”

Klein told the justices that the law was applied where it would be most useful to pregnant women.

ADVERTISEMENT

 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. The Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, and the wider issue of abortion rights is not at issue in the case.
Crisis pregnancy centers say they offer legitimate health services but that it is their mission to steer women with unplanned pregnancies away from abortion. They accuse California of forcing them to advertise for abortion even though they oppose it.

California says some crisis pregnancy centers mislead women by presenting themselves as full-service reproductive healthcare facilities and the law helps ensure these clients are made aware of abortion services available elsewhere.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law in 2016 after it was challenged by some of these facilities, finding the statute did not discriminate based on viewpoint.

ADVERTISEMENT

FACT ACT
California’s Reproductive FACT Act, passed by a Democratic-led legislature and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, requires centers licensed as family planning facilities to post or distribute notices that the state has programs offering free or low-cost birth control and abortion services. The law requires unlicensed facilities with no medical provider on staff to disclose that fact.

Some justices said the law’s application to unlicensed facilities could be unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes joins his liberal colleagues in important cases, suggested that if the statute required unlicensed centers to add that disclosure to a billboard that simply stated “Choose Life” – a slogan for people who oppose abortion – it would violate the First Amendment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed that such an advertising requirement would be wrong.

Abortion rights advocates say the roughly 2,700 U.S. anti-abortion pregnancy centers, including around 200 in California, far outnumber facilities providing abortions.

Demonstrators on both sides of the dispute rallied outside the courthouse on a rainy morning.

ADVERTISEMENT

The California challengers are the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, an umbrella group for crisis pregnancy centers, and two such facilities in San Diego County. The plaintiffs had told the lower courts that they would not comply with the law.

 
A win for them could make it harder for Democratic-governed states to impose rules on crisis pregnancy centers, but also could help abortion rights advocates challenge laws in Republican-governed states that impose certain requirements on abortion clinics.

California said its law does not force crisis pregnancy centers to refer women for abortions, nor does it prevent them from voicing their views on abortion. The state told the justices in legal papers that some centers use incomplete or false medical advice to try to prevent women from having an abortion. Some resemble medical clinics, down to lab coats worn by staff, to try to confuse women into thinking they are at a center offering all options, the state added.

The facilities deny using deceptive tactics.

ADVERTISEMENT

A ruling is due by the end of June.

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

2020 Election

Trump advisors futilely trying to get him to stop ranting about statues as his re-election prospects collapse: report

Published

on

According to a report focusing on Donald Trump's rally at Mt. Rushmore on the evening before the 4th of July, advisors to the president ate attempting to get him to start focusing on bread and butter issues that will get him re-elected instead of harping on statues being pulled down by protesters across the country.

As the Daily Beast report illustrates, their efforts appear to be futile based upon his Friday night speech.

With the president trying to fire up the crowd by insisting, “Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders. They think the American people are weak, and soft, and submissive,” the Beast reported that Trump, "decided to focus heavily Friday evening on protesters and Black Lives Matter activists who want various American monuments, including those honoring Confederate, white-supremacist, and slave-owning figures of history, torn down and destroyed for good. "

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s a traitor — and the Russian bounty scandal is the final straw

Published

on

The first story of the rest of Donald Trump's life was published last Friday in the New York Times, revealing that the Russian intelligence agency known as the GRU has been paying bonuses to Taliban fighters to kill Americans, and that this intelligence had been reported to Trump and had been known at least since March. The story was subsequently confirmed by the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the AP.

This article first appeared in Salon.

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

GOP scrambling to pay for Jacksonville convention after Trump yanked it from North Carolina: report

Published

on

According to a report from the New York Times, Republican officials are having difficulties getting donors to pay for the Republican National Convention to be held in Jacksonville, Florida after Donald Trump yanked the gathering out of Charlotte, North Carolina in a fit of pique over COVID-19 health restrictions.

At issue, the report notes, is that millions of dollars were spent in North Carolina where a smaller event will now be held, and now the party is, in essence, forced to pay for a second convention.

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image