To receive daily emails from Breaking Christian News to your inbox CLICK HERE


SHARE THIS ARTICLE Printer friendly version of this page

Victory in California State Court for Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

Geoffrey Surtees : Jul 13, 2017  ACLJ.org

The pro-life victory comes in that the Superior Court judge refused to dismiss the case in which the state of California is trying to force pro-life pregnancy centers to post information about free or low-cost abortions. Judge Gloria Trask noted in her decision that "This statute compels the clinic to speak words with which it profoundly disagrees when the State has numerous alternative methods of publishing its message. This statute places too heavy a burden upon the liberty of free thought." The ACLJ has asked the Supreme Court to take up the case.

[ACLJ.org] As discussed here, the State of California has attacked pro-life pregnancy centers by requiring them, under pain of financial penalties, to advertise free or low-cost abortions paid for by the State. Called the "Reproductive FACT Act," the law is a brazen attempt to coerce pro-life groups into supporting the very thing to which they religiously object and provide alternatives. (Photo: via LifeNews.com)

We have filed a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to reverse the erroneous decision of the Ninth Circuit that held that the FACT Act does not violate the First Amendment. That petition remains pending and we expect a decision from the Court on whether it will intervene in this case in the fall.
 
Not only are we seeking to vindicate the free speech rights of our clients in federal court, we are also serving as co-counsel with Advocates for Faith and Freedom in California state court, representing a pro-life pregnancy center, the Scharpen Foundation, challenging that very same law.
 
Recently, Judge Gloria Trask of the Riverside County Superior Court issued a ruling rejecting the State's attempt to dismiss that case. In so doing, the court found that many of the State's legal arguments in defense of the FACT Act did not comport with the Constitution, or even common-sense.
 
In response to the State's argument that the notice mandated by the State is simply a neutral statement of fact (an argument mistakenly accepted by the Ninth Circuit), Judge Trask held:
 
This compelled speech is not politically neutral. This speech is not merely the transmittal of neutral information, such as the calorie count of a Big Mac, or that smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol can be hazardous to health. It is not as benign as compelling a plum producer to contribute to a marketing campaign touting the benefits of plums. The State commands the clinics to post specific directions for whom to contact to obtain an abortion. It forces the clinic to point the way to the abortion clinic and can leave patients with the belief they were referred to an abortion provider by that clinic.
 
With respect to the State's argument that the compelled speech requirement was an efficient means of advising women of California's family planning programs (another argument mistakenly accepted by the Ninth Circuit), the court rejected that one too:
 
The burden placed on the compelled speaker must be subject to some reasonable limitation. This statute compels the clinic to speak words with which it profoundly disagrees when the State has numerous alternative methods of publishing its message. This statute places too heavy a burden upon the liberty of free thought. The State can deliver its message without infringing upon anyone's liberty. It may purchase television advertisements as it does to encourage Californians to sign up for Covered California or to conserve water. It may purchase billboard space and post its message directly in front of Scharpen Foundation's clinic ... It can do everything but compel a free citizen to deliver that message.
 
Finally, the court made it clear that the so-called "right" to abortion does not mean that all other rights, including the right to free speech, must take a back seat:
 
It is entirely proper for the State to take its position supporting access to abortion, a right protected by both State and federal Constitutions. It may enact laws that support abortion access and tax its citizens to make abortions 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.
 
Though the Scharpencase is still pending, with trial to begin in a number of weeks, the wisdom of Judge Trask in seeing through the specious arguments of the California Attorney General in defense of this outrageous law is most welcome. We trust that the U.S. Supreme Court will exercise that same wisdom in granting our petition and reversing the flawed decision of the Ninth Circuit.
 
This is an important victory for the ACLJ and for our co-counsel in this case—Advocates for Faith and Freedom. We will keep you posted as these important pro-life, free speech cases move forward on both the state and federal levels.







SHARE THIS ARTICLE Printer friendly version of this page

To receive daily emails from Breaking Christian News to your inbox CLICK HERE

Other Recent Articles from Breaking Christian News

Debate Recap: Trump Was in Command While Biden Told a Bunch of Whoppers

'Well beyond' Court Packing: Biden Proposes Commission to Transform Supreme Court

Over 30 Countries Sign Declaration Promoting Health of Women, Preborn Babies, and the Family

Polish Court Bans All Abortions, Protects Human Rights of Unborn Children

Beating the Odds: Mom and Her Preborn Twins Survive COVID-19

Dr. Corinne: Dealing With Stress Naturally; These Herbs Can Help

Revival or Bust, Baby!': Thousands of Christians to Descend on DC for 'Worship Protest' against COVID-19 Restrictions

Christian Ministry in Pakistan is Filling the Atmosphere with Young Voices Worshiping Jesus

Republicans Vote to Send Barrett Nomination to Final Phase as Democrat Boycott Fails

Intercessors For America: Presidential Debates; Prayer Points and Prophetic Word

Undercover Video: Google Managers Admit to Suppressing Conservative Voices

Capitol Hill Baptist Church Meets Again after Successful Lawsuit over COVID Restrictions

'Obvious Case of Discrimination': Oregon Threatens Christian, Private Schools with Jail, Fines but Lets Public Schools Meet, Suit Says

Report: Hunter Biden Business Partner Calls Email 'Genuine,' Says Hunter Sought Dad's Advice on Deals

Kamala Harris Failed to Prosecute This Illegal, MS-13 Gang Member Months before He Randomly Murdered 3 Members of a California Family

Robert Downey Jr. Defends Chris Pratt from Cancel Culture, Cites Jesus and Calls Pratt 'A Real #Christian'

This American Tradition Was Just Swallowed Up by Apple: 'Peanuts' Holiday Specials Won't Air on Network TV for First Time in Decades

'This Is a Monumental Case': Dept. of Justice Files Anti-trust Lawsuit against Google

President Trump Signs Veteran Suicide Prevention Measures Into Law

Rapper 50 Cent Endorses Trump after Seeing Biden's Tax Plan



Search the Articles Archives

Keyword:  
Author:  
Words Posted On:  
Day Month Year



BCN Plus

An BCN Paid Advertisement
An BCN Paid Advertisement
Follow BCN on Twitter
Are You Praying for Our Government Leaders?
BCN Staff

Steve Shultz
Steve Shultz, Managing Editor
Founder and Owner


Aimee Herd
Aimee Herd, Editor


BCN Plus
Are You Praying for President Trump?
 
 
BCN Contact Info

All articles on this site and emails from BCN are copyrighted property of Breaking Christian News. Permission is given to link to, or share a BCN story if proper attribution is given to both the original writer and summarizer of the story. Breaking Christian News 2005-2019. All Rights Reserved.


Breaking Christian News is a division of Elijah List Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Disclaimer: Articles and links, as well as the source articles linked to; do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Breaking Christian News.

editor@breakingchristiannews.com