[ad_1]
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that pregnancy centers set up to persuade women to continue their pregnancies do not have to inform their clients of the availability of services offered by the state, including the government. ;abortion.
Conservatives of the court said that a California law probably violates the first amendment. They needed what are called pregnancy centers in crisis – they promise prenatal care and help with the birth of the child – to post notices or inform clients of the State service.
Clarence Thomas J. wrote the 5 to 4 decision.
He said that the "script drafted by the government" specifically mentions abortion – "the very practice that petitioners are doomed to oppose".
"By asking petitioners to inform women about how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions, the petitioners are trying at the same time to deter women from choosing this option." petitioners' speech, "wrote Thomas.
He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Judges Anthony M. Kennedy, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch.
Judge Stephen G. Breyer wrote the dissent for the court liberals and read excerpts from it.
[Does California abortion law protect women or force clinics to deliver message they abhor? Supreme Court to decide.]
He said that the court has repeatedly upheld state laws that provide a script for doctors when they advise women seeking abortion.
"If a state can legally require that a doctor ask a woman to abort on adoption services, why could not he, as here, require that a medical advisor say" to a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive health care about childbirth and abortion? services? "Breyer wrote.
"As the question suggests, there is no compelling reason to distinguish between information on adoption and information on abortion in this context", wrote Breyer.
He was joined by Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The California legislature has said some centers mislead women into believing that they provide contraceptive services, including abortion, and sometimes delay a woman until they get pregnant. it is too late to plan an abortion.
But the centers said the law violates their constitutional rights by forcing them to deliver a message that is antithetical to their mission of encouraging women to continue their pregnancies rather than ending them.
California law requires that centers offering certain medical services, such as ultrasound exams, meet specific requirements and are licensed. They must also post or transmit to a woman the message of the state:
"California has public programs that provide free or low-cost immediate access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care and abortion for women." To find out if you qualify, contact the County Social Services Office. "
A clinic that does not offer medical services is required to post a poster and include in advertisements that it's not allowed as a facility by the State of California and does not have an authorized medical provider that directly provides or supervises the provision of services. "
[Supreme Court questions California law requiring antiabortion centers to disclose that the state provides abortion services]
California has stated that its messages do not take position on abortion. It makes sense to require that the centers tell patients the services offered by the state because it is there that women need it most, says the state.
In their submission to the Supreme Court, the centers stated that "to force a pro-life group to advertise abortion must be unconstitutional".
They said the law violates two "cardinal principles of the First Amendment: it targets disadvantaged speakers and forces them to deliver the message of the state.And it does so in the context of a speech on a subject. where there is a deep moral and ideological disagreement. "
The Trump administration had adopted the position that the provision regarding the display of accredited centers was unconstitutional. But he said restrictions on unlicensed centers should be confirmed.
While similar notification laws in Baltimore and other jurisdictions have been overturned, a unanimous panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has upheld California's act .
The case is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates c. Becerra.
[ad_2]
Source link
