Justices support pregnancy centers that oppose abortion, in the case of freedom of expression

WASHINGTON – A state law requiring "pregnancy crisis centers" to provide women with information about abortion is likely violating the first amendment, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday to block the law.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the most conservative judges of the court in the majority.

The case, National Institute of Family and Defenders of Life c. Becerra, # 16-1140, was about a California law that requires centers operated by abortion opponents to provide women with information about the availability of the procedure. The centers seek to persuade women to choose parenting or adoption.

The state requires the centers to publish notices that low-income women have access to free or low-cost abortion, contraceptive and antenatal care services through public programs and to provide the phone number for more information.

The centers argued that the law violated their right to freedom of expression by forcing them to convey messages inconsistent with their beliefs. Advocates have said that opinions fight incomplete or misleading information provided by clinics.

The California Legislature has found that the approximately 200 state centers used deliberately misleading advertising and counseling practices that often disorient, misinform and even intimidate women for making decisions. enlightened and quick on essential health care.

A separate part of the law applies to unlicensed clinics. They are not required to post notices about the availability of abortion, but are required to disclose that they are not licensed by the state.

A panel of three unanimous US Court of Appeals judges for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco confirmed both parts of the law.

"California has a substantial interest in the health of its citizens, including ensuring that its citizens have access to constitutionally protected medical services such as abortion," said Judge Dorothy W. Nelson. an opinion on abortion.

"The notice informs the reader only of the existence of publicly funded family planning services," wrote Judge Nelson. "It does not contain more speeches than necessary, nor does it encourage, suggest or imply that women should use these services funded by the state."

Other federal appeal courts have abolished similar laws, saying the government could find other ways to inform women about their options.

The ninth circuit also confirmed the requirement that unlicensed clinics disclose that they are not licensed.

"California has a compelling interest in informing pregnant women when they use the medical services of an institution that has not met the state's established licensing standards," wrote Judge Nelson.

"And given the findings of the legislature regarding the existence of" centers ", which often present misleading information to women about reproductive medical services, California's interest in presenting accurate information on the the status of the different clinics is particularly convincing. "