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

A Prophetic Biblical Assembly to Take Place at the National Mall

Pray: Sally Turns Deadly with Record Rainfall Turning Roads to Rivers as It Bears Down on Deep South

'Flabbergasted': Minneapolis City Council Complains to Police Chief About Crime Spike after Vowing to Defund Police

'Stop the Car! Your Car is on Fire!': Connecticut Teen Pulls a Mom and 3 Kids from Their Burning Vehicle

Voters Brought Their Questions to Trump on COVID, Police Reform, Racial Justice: Here's What He Said

Kroger Fires Christian Employees Who Refused to Wear LGBT Rainbow, US Suit Says

Salvation Army Starts Red Kettle Program Early amid 'Tsunami of Human Need'

Girl Responds In Worship over Her 12-Year-Old Brother's Lifeless Body

'The Dawn of a New Middle East': Israel Signs Historic 'Abraham Accord' With UAE, Bahrain at White House

Boldly Defending Life': Trump Admin Expands Ban on International Funding of Abortion

CA or Sodom? Gov. Signs Law to Reduce Penalties for Sexual Relations with Minors

Is the Fear of GOD Driving Wheels of Justice in Northern Ohio?

Charles Stanley Stepping Down as Senior Pastor of First Baptist Atlanta

CA Church That Faced Fines Moves to Outdoor Services: 'I Do Not Want to See People Lost on My Watch'

Chick-fil-A Says Thanks, But No Thanks, after FAA Steps in to OK San Antonio Airport Location

Police Officer Receives Heartwarming Note in Tough Times: 'Praying God's Protection Over You'

'No Other Way to Put It, They're Amazing': Ambushed LA County Deputy's Heroic Actions Saving Her Partner after Being Shot, Caught on Video

'They're Basically a Collection of Liars': AG Barr Calls Out Mainstream Media over Riot Coverage

Federal Judge Rules Pennsylvania's Pandemic Restrictions Unconstitutional

Miraculous: Amid Wildfires that Consumed Talent, Oregon, This Church Building is 'Still Standing'; 'Pray for the Northwest!'



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