SCOTUS To Review Law Forcing Pro-Life Centers To Promote Abortion
In 2015, California passed a law forcing privately funded pro-life pregnancy centers to promote taxpayer-funded abortions, threatening crippling fines for noncompliance. That edict is now under review by the Supreme Court.
The Monday announcement that SCOTUS will hear pro-lifers’ challenge to the so-called “Reproductive FACT Act” comes just two weeks after a California superior court judge granted an injunction against the law on grounds that it violates the state’s Declaration of Rights.
Now, a long-fought battle to keep the Golden State from forcing its pro-life citizens to choose between obeying conscience or the law of the land is on its way to Washington DC for a final decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra .
“By God’s grace, we now have an opportunity to secure a win for free speech and freedom of conscience at the Supreme Court,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing NIFLA in the case, wrote in an email alert Monday morning. “And a victory could protect pro-life pregnancy centers nationwide from becoming forced mouthpieces for Big Abortion’s message of death.”
Refer Customers to Your Moral Enemy
The law, which was pushed through on a strictly party-line vote from state Democrats and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, withstood the scrutiny of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last October. The Ninth Circuit, however, has a reputation as the nation’s most-reversed court, with as many as 86 percent of its cases overturned by the Supreme Court in a single year.
While it has only been enforced in one jurisdiction— the City of Los Angeles —the law has since served as a template for a 2017 mandate in Hawaii , which would likely be affected by the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision. In July, a judge in Illinois placed a statewide preliminary injunction on a 2016 law that would have forced medical professionals—including pro-life doctors, nurses, and pregnancy center personnel—to refer patients to abortion businesses.
“California’s threat to pro-life pregnancy care centers and medical clinics counts among the most flagrant violations of constitutional religious and free speech rights in the nation,” Thomas Glessner, J.D., president of NIFLA, said in a statement Monday. “The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will reverberate nationwide, to similar unconstitutional laws in Illinois and Hawaii.”
Targeting more than 100 state-licensed medical facilities that offer free ultrasounds—none of which receive any government funding—California’s law orders the pro-life organizations to prominently post and distribute this notice: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”
The penalty for noncompliance is $1,000 for a first-time offense, and $500 for subsequent offenses. Meanwhile, pregnancy centers that do not offer free medical services such as ultrasounds must post the following disclaimer “conspicuously at the entrance to the facility” “in no less than 48-point type”: “This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”
Yeah, It’s a Politically Motivated Gag Order
Originally introduced by state Assemblyman David Chiu—a Democrat who targeted pregnancy centers in San Francisco before moving to the statehouse—the law pro-lifers have tagged as a “Bully Bill” was backed by abortion activist group NARAL Pro-Choice California, whose director has stated openly that she would ban pro-lifers’ free speech directly if given the chance.
Similar laws forcing pregnancy centers to post signage denigrating their own services have been struck down in New York City and Baltimore , as well as Austin (TX) and Montgomery County (MD), which eventually was ordered to pay pregnancy centers $330,000 in attorney’s fees .
“It’s time our nation and its leaders stop carrying the water for Big Abortion,” said Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, which serves nearly 100 affiliated local pregnancy centers in California and 2,400 overall. “We’re praying this will be a turning point in our struggle to make sure every woman has the chance to choose life for her child. No woman should ever feel so alone or coerced—either by a person, circumstance or an unjust law such as this—that she resorts to abortion.”
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/15/scotus-review-law-forcing-pro-life-centers-promote-abortion/
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
"A long-fought battle to keep the Golden State from forcing its pro-life citizens to choose between obeying conscience or the law of the land is on its way to Washington DC for a final decision.
How is anyone's conscience being threatened? If someone doesn't like abortion, they are free to not have one. No one is forcing them to have an abortion. It seems it's the pro-life citizens that like to push their "conscience" onto others though.
So, it would be fair to post a sign in a "Planned Parenthood" center saying think it over - get an ultra sound - and leaving a phone number?
Sure, why not? It's called an informed decision. Ultimately, it's the woman's choice and she should be free to make that choice without coercion or biased influence.
Good, I'll wait for the legislation from the CA legislature
You go right ahead and do that.
How is it forcing anyone to go against their conscience? It doesn't force these clinics to perform abortions. All it does is require them to post the facts.
“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”
The state of CA has no right (as you will soon see) to impose its ideology on abortion on private self funding institutions, which seek to promote "life" as the choice.
You know who has no right? Those pro-life health centers that LIE and don't give complete HEALTH information to women in crisis! If they can't give HONEST COMPLETE INFORMATION, go do something else. Nobody should have the right to screw up a woman's life by passing along false information!
Obey the LAW or are pro-lifers above the law? Women should know ALL their options. Look what happened with the illegal girl in Texas, stall, stall and stall some more.
They must either inform women of all of their reproductive options, including abortion, or they must publicly admit that they are a religious group with a conservative agenda to force the women to carry the child to term. These facilities cannot receive any government funding because of the separation of church and state.
Agreed.
Actually, conservatives have a lock on coercive speech. 12 states run by the GOP require doctors to LIE to their female patients.
Your statement is illogical. How do you coerce the speech of others when we have free speech rights? We also privacy rights to make our own medical decisions without state or religious interference.
I'll care about a man's view on abortion when they get pregnant and not a minute before.
Those shacks of shite tell several State mandated lies to women seeking medical advise.
.
More about the lies and ongoing war on women in the linked article.
Did you miss the part that this law applies to privately funded organizations??
Like I said before, are they passing themselves off as a private religious organization or are they trying to pass themselves off as a public service org or a medical clinic?
We don't give two shits if its private or public, you should not be able to lie and give false and incomplete HEALTH information to a woman in crisis.
So basically pro lifers want people ignorant of their right to choose?! Way to keep it classy conservatives!
This bill would enact the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act, which would require a licensed covered facility, as defined, to disseminate a notice to all clients, as specified, stating, among other things, that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women.
Ignorance is a mainstay of the conservative political-social platform. You cannot exercise your individual rights if you don't know what they are or how the government is meant to function.
You think its ok for a self proclaimed 'health center' to lie and give out false and incomplete information to women trying to get help? Hell no!
There are too many women, especially in red states, that actually believe in some of these made up consequences (i.e. breast cancer).
Let me ask a question to all you pro Abortionists out there, I do not say pro-choicers I mean pro Abortionists....
I am Pro-Choice.
And I find this law an absolute imposition on women right not to choose if that is her choice...
Quote from the article;
In July, a judge in Illinois placed a statewide preliminary injunction on a 2016 law that would have forced medical professionals—including pro-life doctors, nurses, and pregnancy center personnel— to refer patients to abortion businesses.
What right do you pro abortionists have to force a woman to an abortion clinic? Shouldn't one assume that a woman makes a choice when she chooses her doctor? Besides I've yet to find a woman that doesn't know that abortions are legal in this country for now, and that all she has to do is ask if that is something she wished to consider.
You don't want women to undergo forced vaginal inspections, yet you are willing to force her to re-make a choice she has already made in a place that pushes abortion....
What happens to individual choice?
If your going to have a baby you need to undergo forced government counseling?
Talk about Fascism! Talk about not having any right to choice!
That is why I call you pro abortionists, it's all about the abortion, not the choice.
I'd say that if you're going to pretend to be a healthcare provider than you need to let the patient know about all her options.
I agree, but forcing her to go to an abortion clinic for such information under the force of law? (that is what Illinois is trying to do)
Bit harsh don't you think?
I'm 70+ and I've still yet to find a female that didn't know about the abortion option. Or that it is her choice and it's legal.
Why the need for a law to force what she already knows? and any Doctor worth his salt (if he really cared for his patient) would gladly explain or refer on for....
My understanding is that it's just a referral if she decides she wants it. A real medical practice makes such referrals all the time.
So it's really more of a question of false advertising and that's been a continuing problem with these anti-abortion cult fronts, as well as with Catholic-owned hospitals.
Note that the nutty anti-abortion site you cited didn't list the name of the bill or provide the text, which made it easier for them to misrepresent what the bill does. It's Illinois SB 1564. Here's an example of why the bill was necessary:
.
Note that a woman in Ireland died not long ago from a similar Catholic-based failure to treat.
Two things here, I would find a new religion, and then a new doctor....
The problem is that in many parts of the country the only real option is a Catholic-owned hospital.
I don't think there are any "pro-abortionists" here or anywhere else for that matter. No person who is pro-choice is advocating that anyone who doesn't want an abortion should be forced to get one. All this law does is require a notice posted, it doesn't require anyone to take advantage of the offer or force any clinic to perform abortions. It just requires the following to be posted:
“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”
Nothing after that deserves an answer.
Calling someone a "pro-abortionist" is not only disingenuous, its also an ad hom attack. Specify who is "pro-abortion" exactly!
Wrong! Providing information about where abortions are performed is just that, the provision of information. That allows one to make an informed decision. But some proliferation groups seem to want to limit that decision through the withholding of information.
"Anti-choice" (not to be equated with pro-life) is a more valid and applicable term, as there are those who actively try to eliminate or significantly reduce a woman's right to choose, most notably through law. I don't see anyone going out and forcing or requiring women to have an abortion.
Birth control methods are great and should be encouraged, as well as comprehensive sex ed for kids. But as you said, it's not (unfortunately) 100% effective. And most women cite contraceptive failure as the reason for obtaining an abortion. Therefore abortion should always remain an option for a woman to choose, if she wishes. And utilizing abortion is taking responsibility. But the bottom line is, whatever ones stance on abortion, if you don't like abortion, then you are free to not have one. We do not and should not make that call for anyone else.
So if we oppose murder that should also be labeled anti-choice. the only difference is that thanks to the leftist SCOTUS, we have made abortion a legal form of murder
Murder is not a legal choice. Abortion is. And are you saying the SCOTUS bench of 1973, which legalized abortion, was liberal (not that it matters anyway)?
E.A As usual you seem to have NO clue, See assassination, and WAR!
I see you can't actually refute anything I said.
E.A A Vacuum is already Vacuous, Nothing to " remove "
The court of the early 70s was extremely liberal
I murder of any kind is a moral choice. Currently our corrupt Supreme Court has decided that abortion is a legal homicide.
There were only two conservatives on that court, White and Rehnquist.
I see you proved my point.
They're liberal because they didn't rule how you wanted, right. Oh well, too bad. Get over it. Abortion isn't murder no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise and it's a woman's legal right and totally none of your business! Deal with it!
they were liberal because they had a history of leftist opinions that departed from the Constitution.
Murder which is the taking of innocent life remains murder whether society recognizes it or not. Hitler justified murders and yet even you leftists acknowledged that what he did was murder even though legal in Germany
Of course it's my business. First as a citizen and secondly as a minister of God. As a citizen I like all citizens am responsible for the level of morality or immorality that we tolerate in our society
As a minister I am accountable to God for speaking out against immorality. Nothing that you say will ever silence me from my moral and civic obligations.
In other words, yes they were liberal because they ruled in a way you didn't like. Too bad for you. And no, abortion is not murder , no matter how often you say otherwise. And the law clearly contradicts you in this regard. And no, it is none of your business regardless and morality is subjective. So get off your sanctimonious high horse! You don't like abortion? Then you are free to not have one. But you don't get to tell others what they can do nor push your idea of morality or ignorance of actual law onto others!
Unfortunately, some ministers seem not want to live in a secular republic. The SCOTUS ruled as it did because it's not only the fetus that has rights, the mother has rights as well. When you have a conflict of two separate and equal rights, you need compromise, not a religious strongpoint. Roe v Wade is that compromise, and it has stood for over 40 yrs. You have a right to protest it, but lying by omission is still a lie. I would imagine that truly religious people would not purposely bear false witness, but evidently, I am wrong. Sad.
there is no Constitutional right to murder
I told no lie. why do you make that false accusation
Luckily, abortion is not murder. Nor did I say you were a liar, I said that religious, tax payer supported, anti-abortion clinics are lying by not informing patients of all their options.
But there is a constitutional right to an abortion. Therefore, abortion is not murder.
The SCOTUS has been conservative for the last 41 years.
Lets see, the supreme Court has been conservative for the last 41 years....
That means 1976.
Chief Justice: Warren Burger, swing conservative
Justice: Rehnquist, conservative
Justice: Powell, "swing" liberal
Justice: Stewart, "swing" conservative
Justice: Blackmun, "swing" liberal
Justice: White, liberal
Justice: Stevens, "swing" liberal
Justice: Marshall, liberal
Justice: Brennan, liberal
The 1976 Court was a liberal court and this continued with the retirement of Stewart in '77 and his replacement with O'Connor another "swing" liberal.
Tells me one of two things, you either haven't a clue about what your talking, or your view is so ideologically slanted that you consider White and Blackmun as conservatives.
Why are you lying??? You put this in as a quote, but you removed a very key part to the quote.
Basically the law states that if the patient asks about it, the doctors must answer truthfully and advise their patient where they can obtain more info.
Revoke the tax exempt status of religious organizations that support these sham businesses. Pit their greed against their warped version of morality. Don't forget to stop at the heap some guilt on the emotionally distressed booth on the way out.
Revoke the tax exempt status of all religions in the US. Other people should have to pay religion's share of taxes.
Who told you that lie?
If churches and other religious groups get tax exemptions then their share of taxes is passed on to others. Their share of the tax bill just doesn't disappear when they get an exemption.
Churches have no tax liability because of their exemption, unlike other landowners who do pay property taxes. Churches should also be forced to pay income taxes.
Being forced to pay property taxes is not a violation of your freedom of religion because the government is not obligated to pay for or subsidize a place for you to pray. The government subsidizing your taxes is a violation of the separation of church and state because non-members are forced to pay the churches share of property taxes. If you want a church then you pay the taxes assessed to the land where the church sits.
That is exactly what James Madison argued against in Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.
The SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, or the 16th Amendment would have been repealed long ago.
The Bible tells believers to give to Ceasar what is Caesars. Jesus wasn't a fan of money or wealth, but you should already know that.
The irony here is that many churches are extremely wealthy. Not exactly Christ-like, but that is the reality. In addition, we do subsidize churches. When they pay no property taxes, someone must make up the loss. Snowplows don't raise their blades in front of the church, fire depts respond when churches need them, etc. We pay for that, churches do not, therefore, your religion is subsidized, and without such subsidies, many churches would close.
Not even close to the same thing. PP pays no taxes AND is directly subsidized by collected tax dollars. So it's a double tap with PP.
your argument holds no water and if you think it does, you are arguing against PP since by your own definition it is subsidized much greater than than churches are since NO church I am aware of gets direct funding from the fed like PP
Wrong. Planned parenthood pays property taxes, in fact, the State of Ohio is going after one of the clinics that is delinquent in paying.
www.operationrescue.org/archives/ohio-planned-parenthoods-property-tax-not-paid-in-5-years-as-cond…
Wrong .... do they pay federal income tax? No? So that's a double tap and churches still receive no direct federal tax funding like PP does. They are 100% self funded by their membership.
PP? Not so much.
Planned Parenthood is a 501c organization, so it does not pay income tax, but they do pay property taxes. Since churches pay neither, they are receiving a double tap as well. Furthermore, states and the federal government gives churches money for tuition, textbooks and busing of students to religious schools.
I really fail to see your point unless your point is basically based on a bigotry towards religion/churches. If you think the tax exempt status for churches is bad then sound logic would dictate that you would think it's bad for PP as well.
They both provide a service and do good works for the people they serve so there's really no difference there. I really don't understand why you apparently feel subsidizing one is okay and the other is not. I see no unbiased, rational reason one would feel that way.
I agree. Either both should receive funding or not. They should not be treated differently. My point is that, if these religious clinics receive taxpayer monies, then they should be expected to tell the whole truth, which is what this is about after all.
From a funding standpoint i prefer that organizations like churches AND PP are fully self funded by the people they serve and/or folks who believe in their mission. Then the populous doesn't get into pissing matches like now with one side bitching about the other getting this break or that tax.
There is no reason PP couldn't be self funded like churches are. Give them all the same tax breaks if appropriate, let them self fund and no one has a reason to bitch. They probably still will bitch but there you go.
As I pointed out, churches do get federal and state help. I am sure those churches would bitch as well if they lost it. I would prefer to see the government support organizations dedicated to doing good, like PP and churches. What most people are arguing about is the definition of good.
That's chicken feed compared to the break PP is getting in direct federal funding.
So how is achieving a consensus on that working out so far? Nah, the best answer is to let all people make their own choice on what to donate their money to. Not a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy, festering with special interest money, favors and lies.
I can go along with that, but you know it will never happen. People have their favorites, and politicians love to bribe them.
Yeah and honestly, i think some people just like to hear themselves bitch.
This place is a great example of that.
You want to hear bitching, you should listen to my female schnauzer!
Why is it considered so coercive to ask a place calling itself a clinic to give complete and truthful information? If you have to lie, and yes, you can lie by omission, then how valuable is your service?
What you and the other pro-abortion people have failed is that the law applies to "privately" funded pro-life clinics and centers, and is unconstitutional
"In 2015, California passed a law forcing privately funded pro-life pregnancy centers to promote taxpayer-funded abortions, threatening crippling fines for noncompliance. That edict is now under review by the Supreme Court."
They still have Planned Parenthood, which gets a large amount of Federal funding.
Why can't you tell the truth?
Telling women all of their medical options is not promoting abortion. Trying to convince a woman to have an abortion, which is illegal, is promoting abortion.
But, when those "privately funded" clinics and, centers try to pass themselves off as publicly funded places doesn't that bring into question one of the "commandments" that they, as religious centers are suppose to follow? Or, are the commandments of the Bible only suggestions now?
Who is "pro abortion " exactly? That's a disingenuous term.
Are you implying that private clinics don't need to obey the law? Why would you go to one?
What does federal funding of PP have to do with anything?
Promote: verb -
Since when it telling the truth a liberal viewpoint? Planned Parenthood does not and cannot coerce women into having an abortion, so drop the emotional nonsense.
Are you suggesting that Planned Parenthood coerces women into having abortions? If you do, then you must positively prove that claim. Your belief isn't proof.
It seems more like they are requiring full information disclosure to women regarding their options. If that goes against someone's belief, then they need to find a different line of work that doesn't conflict with their beliefs.
Ask Cornhusher-for-Palin because he made the initial claim.
This is the problem with theistic religion and religious belief. Religious belief encourages and condones allowing people to intentionally confuse their beliefs with facts. Beliefs are subjective and emotionally driven. Facts are objective and empirical.
And, they try to shame them out of getting an abortion, if the woman wants to do that. They don't provide any kind of information on contraception, except "Don't have sex". Yet, they get mad enough to kill doctors who are trying to provide that kind of information.
That they lie to women to promote an agenda? Yes, it is unacceptable.
See my previous post!
That's nice. But see previous statement.
Why? It's called an informed decision. The choice rests with the woman. They're trying to limit that choice by proxy by omitting information about abortion.
.
These lying shacks of shite have been pulling this bait and switch crap on women since @ least the late 70's.
I was selling Yellow Page adds in Dallas from 74 to 80 and even back then the company was getting so many complaints from women who felt that they were being assaulted by clinics that would advertise that they offered abortion services but didn't.
The women going to those clinics, because of adds in our book, complained that they they were just getting bullied and mislead instead of receiving the help they were seeking.
Ma Bell had to come up with new headings that made very clear as to which services were being offered and the sales force got some extra training on how to spot the liars intent on misleading women and to make sure their adds went under the proper heading.
Your religious beliefs end when other people, especially people of other religions, become involved. Your religious beliefs do not negate the secular rights of others.
What medical treatment to these private religious clinics offer?
You're dating yourself.
Some things don't change I guess.
Why shouldn't they tell people where the clinics are, and how best to access them? I don't see anyone 'promoting abortion' like you do, but if they do, so fucking what? Abortion is LEGAL. Let me state that again: Abortion is LEGAL. One more time just for the thick skulled: Abortion is LEGAL. If you have a problem with that, then fight to get the law changed, simple. Contact your rep, write letters, make speeches about how abortion is murder, organize rallies, etc. We are a free country with freedom of speech and freedom to stand up and fight for what we believe in. Whining is not going to do a thing for your cause.
soul band-aids?
That's just plain stupid. An abortion is just a medical procedure. That's like saying if you perform an appendectomy, then your pro-appendectomy. No one is going around saying a woman should or must have an abortion.
If a woman asks about abortion as an option or how to arrange one, and a pro-life center withholds that information (or outright tries to dissuade her choice), then that is withholding information.
Too true Gordy.
Guess my whole carer with Ma Bell epitomizes the "left behind worker" of today's changing economy.
Spent 10 years in the construction side of the phone company, stringing and splicing cables for phones down in Dallas. "Land Lines" a dying industry.
Did another 25 or so in the Yellow Page side of the business and now I ask, 'When's the last time you looked in your local YP when you were ready to make a purchase?"
Dam good thing I left the work force when I did I guess. (smile)
HA! Very good BF.
Though I've been a widower for more than 20 years now your truism holds just a well for this old recluse.
Now, I know this guy
His name is Mick
Now, he don't care when he ain't got no chick
He do the shake
The rattlesnake shake
Your religious beliefs are fine, when they infringe on the law, or another persons civil rights, it's no longer legal. Your religious freedom ends where another persons rights begin. PERIOD.
So you know what every single woman knows and doesn't know? Really? LMAO!
Or, you could simply obey the law, sort of like "render unto Caesar what is Caesars." It's not that difficult to be honest.
Lots of agenda's here.... But I will say this. The religious right is on my porch at least once a week telling me I have to go to and donate to their church or else.. (Yea, I get the fire and brimstone types from time to time). But I have yet to have anyone, ever, come up to my door and tell me that I need to be pro-choice and give them money. So who has the agenda here? Exactly.
To Review Law Forcing Pro-Life Centers To Promote Abortion
These fake xtian pregnancy counseling services are nothing more than a clearing house for white babies, for sale by teavangelical churches to the highest bidder. Fortunately, most of the victims of this baby market are their ignorant members.
I would give my opinion on abortion, but I don't think my opinion, or that of any other man, should count for anything. We need to let the ladies decide this issue fellas.
I agree. No vagina = no vote. Self righteous males can go pound sand.