Is Abortion a Speech Requirement in California? NIFLA at SCOTUS

Free speech in California pregnancy resource centers was on the line at the Supreme Court of the United States today.  The Washington Post sets out the first amendment issues well, emphasizing how the State of California is coercing pro-abortion speech in pro-life centers.  But see below how Bloomberg Law’s United States Law Week observed uneasiness with the state law from the most liberal Justices.  

United States Law Week     Justices Struggle with Abortion Disclosure Requirements Posted March 20, 2018, 11:45 A.M. ET By Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson The U.S. Supreme Court seemed likely to strike down California laws requiring pro-life centers to provide information about state funded family planning services, including abortion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor—considered one of the court’s more liberal-leaning justices—said that the law as broadly interpreted by the state was “burdensome” and “wrong” in some contexts. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—another liberal-leaning justice—raised concerns about the state’s requirement that the centers make disclosures in up to 13 languages. It is one thing to require a group to make factual disclosures, but it’s another to make it do so in so many languages. Justice Elena Kagan, who also often votes with the liberal bloc, was concerned that California was targeting pro-life centers while letting abortion facilities take a pass. If the law has been gerrymandered to apply only to pro-life centers, that’s a “serious issue,” Kagan said. But there’s no way to know if the law is appropriately targeted because there hasn’t been a trial in this case, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said. The case comes to the court as a challenge to the lower court’s preliminary determination that the law is likely to pass constitutional scrutiny and therefore shouldn’t be blocked from enforcing. Should the court remand the case for a trial to answer some questions left open at this point? Breyer asked rhetorically. The case is Nat. Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, U.S., No. 16-1140, argued 3/20/18.         Pro-life and pro-abortion positions generally do not get equal treatment in law school casebooks, but these Justices are genuinely concerned with coerced views in California. The appellant here is concerned with how abortion truly harms women, their children, and families.