|
 The Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, and while the broader
issue of abortion rights was not at issue in the case, the 5-4
ruling represented a significant victory for abortion opponents who
operate these kinds of clinics - called crisis pregnancy centers -
around the country.
The court's five conservative justices were in the majority in the
ruling authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, with the four liberals
dissenting.
The justices endorsed the argument advanced by the clinics that the
Democratic-backed law in the most populous U.S. state ran afoul of
the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech by
forcing them to advertise for abortion in violation of their
beliefs.
"California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its
message for it," Thomas wrote.
Crisis pregnancy centers have said they offer legitimate health
services but that their mission is to steer women with unplanned
pregnancies away from abortion. California officials have said some
of the centers mislead women by presenting themselves as
full-service reproductive healthcare facilities, going so far as to
resemble medical clinics, down to lab coats worn by staff.
President Donald Trump's administration hailed the decision as a
victory for free speech. "Speakers should not be forced by their
government to promote a message with which they disagree, and
pro-life pregnancy centers in California should not be forced to
advertise abortion and undermine the very reason they exist," U.S.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said.
U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called
the ruling a "grave step backwards" for women's rights, adding that
California should be able to protect people from "fake women's
health centers" that provide biased information.
Ilyse Hogue, president of abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice
America, said that Roe v. Wade, the high court's landmark 1973
decision establishing a woman's constitutional right to abortion, is
more at risk than ever.
"One vote made all the difference today, and it could also be the
only thing between upholding Roe or outlawing legal abortion in
America," Hogue said.
The Alliance Defending Freedom conservative Christian legal group,
which represented the anti-abortion centers, said the ruling dooms
similar laws in other states and cities.
There are roughly 2,700 crisis pregnancy centers in the United
States, including around 200 in California, according to abortion
rights advocates, vastly outnumbering abortion clinics.
[to top of second column] |
The law does not require abortion referral or prevent the centers
from voicing their anti-abortion views, but rather helps ensure that
clients are made aware of abortion and family planning services
available elsewhere, California argued.
The justices reversed a 2016 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that refused to block the law.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer announced his dissent from the bench,
saying the court previously upheld another law forcing doctors to
tell women seeking abortion about adoption services.
If a state can do that, Breyer asked, "why should it not be able to
require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care
about childbirth and abortion services?"
Breyer said Tuesday's ruling could have wider implications, calling
into question all manner of government disclosure requirements
including securities or consumer-protection regulations.
California's Reproductive FACT Act, passed by a Democratic-led
legislature and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown in 2015,
required centers licensed by the state as family planning facilities
to post or distribute notices that the state has programs offering
free or low-cost birth control, prenatal care and abortion services.
The law also mandated unlicensed centers that may have no medical
provider on staff to disclose that fact.
The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, an umbrella
group for the non-profit facilities, as well as two such facilities
in San Diego County, challenged the California law, saying it was
crafted to target them for their anti-abortion views.
"Pro-life centers are now free from government harassment," Thomas
Glessner, the institute's president, said after the ruling.
There is a strong religious element to the facilities involved in
the case. For example, one called itself a "front line ministry" and
said on its website that once women who come to the center "have
accepted Christ we begin a discipleship program with them and
contact a partner church to hand them off to."
(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |
