A Closer Look at the Supreme Court's Decision for Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers; and What Justice Kennedy Warned California Has Become

Josh Shepherd : Jun 28, 2018
Stream.org

Governments "must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties." -Justice Anthony Kennedy

[Stream.org] On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a significant win for free speech and the First Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the court in NIFLA v. Becerra ruled the Reproductive FACT Act to be unconstitutional. The California law required pregnancy centers advertise abortion services. (Photo: On June 26, Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, and colleagues stand outside the Supreme Court reviewing the NIFLA v. Becerra decision/via Stream.org)

"It's a very broad, strong ruling," said Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). ADF represented the National Institute for Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA). The majority of the Court accepted all their arguments, she said.

Roland Warren, president of CareNet, quickly released a video message discussing what the decision means in layman's terms. Carenet is the nation's largest network of pregnancy centers.

The centers "will no longer be forced to advertise for the abortion industry by posting signs in their premises," said Warren. The law required notices be printed in "48-point type ... in 13 languages."

"This ruling makes it more difficult for other states to pass laws that will impose similar requirements on pregnancy centers," he concluded. More than 2,700 centers serve women nationwide.

The Bedrock Right of Free Speech

In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas found no reason nonprofit pregnancy centers should be compelled to advertise abortion services. "Neither California nor the Ninth Circuit has identified a persuasive reason for treating professional speech as a unique category that is exempt from ordinary First Amendment principles," he wrote.

Waggoner argued the case before the court. "The First Amendment provides broad protection for speech..."

Click here to continue reading.