US top court to hear dispute over California pregnancy center law

Andrew Cummings
November 14, 2017

Additionally, the law also requires unlicensed pregnancy centers to disclose that they are not state-licensed medical facility.

In 2014, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, struck down a North Carolina law that required abortion providers to show and describe an ultrasound to the pregnant woman.

After California passed the Reproductive FACT Act in 2015, a number of anti-abortion pregnancy clinics filed lawsuits.

It marks the first time the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an abortion-related case during the Trump administration, and one lawyer behind the challenge, Jay Sekulow, also serves on Trump's legal team.

In taking the case on, the Supreme Court justices limited their participation to one question: "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment". "This is especially true of pregnancy care centers, which exist to care for women who want to have their babies".

The law requires licensed healthcare facilities to post a notice saying that the state has programs for "immediate free or low-priced access to comprehensive family planning services. prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women".

The pro-life centers asked the Supreme Court to hear their case after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them past year.

The California challengers included the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, an umbrella group for pregnancy crisis centers that said its members include 73 facilities in the state that are medically licensed and 38 that are not.

"It's like telling the Alcoholics Anonymous group that they have to have a large sign saying where people can get alcohol and booze for free", Dacus said.

"Critics of pregnancy centers claim that this is not enough", a 2016 Care Net report stated.

Kevin T. Snider, a lawyer for A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic and Alternative Women's Center, argued in court papers that his clients can not be compelled to post notifications in their centers against their religious convictions. The Supreme Court says it will consider the law in its upcoming session.

It is expected that the high court will hear arguments in the case NIFLA vs. Becerra next year and issues a ruling before the end of June. This unbelievable government mandate forces pregnancy help centers and staff to be puppets of the government and channel the state's abortion message.

If the court strikes down California's law on free speech grounds, it could make it harder for Democratic-leaning states to regulate anti-abortion pregnancy centers.

Other reports by iNewsToday