Pro-lifers are likening forcing clinics to advertise abortion to making vegetarians advertise all the health benefits of eating meat, a direct contradiction to their mission.
“Consider the outrage if vegetarian nutritionists were forced to extoll the health benefits of beef or if breast-feeding advocates in the La Leche League had to recommend baby formula or if anti-war protestors had to mention Army recruitment,” Students For Life (SFL) President Kristan Hawkins wrote in an op-ed for Fox News. “That kind of government interference in free speech would be seen as ridiculous if applied to such passions. But people opposed to abortion face such pressure now in California.”
The comparison coincides with the U.S. Supreme Court’s hearing of oral arguments Tuesday regarding “NIFLA v. Becerra,” a case that will determine whether the government can compel certain kinds of speech. The case comes after California passed the Reproductive Fact Act in 2015, which mandates that licensed clinics providing ultrasounds, pregnancy tests and other services must also provide information about abortion.
A slew of crisis pregnancy centers sued in response, charging that being forced to advertise abortions violates their free speech rights.
“Since 2016, pro-life clinics in California have been unconstitutionally compelled to make statements that violate their beliefs, such as posting advertisements for state-funded abortions in their care centers and including notices designed by the state to delegitimize the services these clinics offer to pregnant women,” Hawkins said in a Tuesday press release.
A grey area exists around the limits of speech regulation by states. States can compel doctors to provide information regarding the risks of certain procedures and make sure patients are aware of all their options. Arizona lawmakers, for example, approved a bill in late February mandating abortion providers and physicians request information from women undergoing abortions about their reasons to abort and provide them with comprehensive information about the risks of abortion. Other states compel doctors to inform women seeking to abort that they can view the heartbeat and ultrasound of their unborn child if they wish to do so.
Pro-lifers worry that California’s law represents a slippery slope that, pending the Supreme Court’s ruling, could easily result in the infringement upon the free speech rights of other groups.
“If the government can successfully force pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion, which organizations will be targeted next?” National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) Vice President of Legal Affairs Anne O’Connor asked, according to SFL’s Tuesday press release.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case shortly after oral arguments desist.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
