On Dec. 5, the justices will hear the case of the Colorado baker who refuses to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage and was charged with violating the state's civil rights law.
However, some state legislatures, including California's have imposed that they utilize illusive advertising and bemuse and even scare women who contemplate that they are going to collect more unbiased abortion encouragement.
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear a challenge to a California law requiring pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to post information about state-funded abortions.
A separate provision of the FACT Act requires crisis pregnancy centers that do not have a state medical license or access to medical professionals to post a second disclaimer, advising patients as to where they might receive medically supervised care.
"Based on religious convictions, these clinics strongly object to being compelled to speak the messages required by the Act's disclosure", Kevin T. Snider, lawyer for A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic and Alternative Women's Center, argued in court papers. But by ruling on this case, the Supreme Court may also lay a foundation for advocates of reproductive rights to challenge the anti-choice restrictions on abortion providers' speech in other states.
The law, called the Reproductive FACT Act, requires crisis pregnancy clinics to post a bulletin informing patients that the state offers subsidized abortion access. The law requires centers "whose primary objective is providing family planning or pregnancy-related services" to post a notice, which reads: "California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-priced access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women".
Similar laws adopted in NY and Maryland were struck down by the 2nd and 4th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, though the 9th Circuit upheld California's law in 2016. One of the lawyers behind the challenged, Jay Sekulow, was a personal lawyer for Donald Trump.
The law, signed by Gov. He believes the law is a justifiable regulation of medical practice. The Supreme Court today granted certiorari to only review the plaintiffs' Free Speech Clause argument. "But what we would hope for is a ruling that does protect and ensure that women should be able to get the full range of reproductive health services, and that crisis pregnancy centers aren't in a position of being able to lie to them".
Do you think pregnancy centers should be required to provide information on abortion?