Standard Newswire is a cost-effective and efficient newswire service for public policy groups, government agencies, PR firms, think-tanks, watchdog groups, advocacy groups, coalitions, foundations, colleges, universities, activists, politicians, and candidates to distribute their press releases to journalists who truly want to hear from them.
Do not settle for an email blasting service or a newswire overloaded with financial statements. Standard Newswire gets your news into the hands of working journalists, broadcast hosts, and news producers.
Find out how you can start using Standard Newswire to
Do not settle for an email blasting service or a newswire overloaded with financial statements. Standard Newswire gets your news into the hands of working journalists, broadcast hosts, and news producers.
Find out how you can start using Standard Newswire to
Sign Up to Receive Press Releases:
Standard Newswire™ LLC
209 W. 29th Street, Suite 6202
New York, NY 10001, USA.
(212) 290-1585
Federal Court to Hear Argument on Mandated Promotion of Abortion
Contact: Brad Dacus, Pacific Justice Institute, 949-422-0395
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec. 18, 2015 /Standard Newswire/ -- A federal judge is scheduled to hear oral arguments today on California's controversial effort to mandate that pro-life pregnancy clinics promote abortion.
Pacific Justice Institute represents three pro-life clinics challenging AB 775. PJI attorney, Kevin Snider, will present oral arguments beginning at 1:30 p.m. this afternoon in Sacramento before Judge Kimberly Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. PJI is asking the court to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on January 1, 2016. Similar attempts in New York City and Baltimore to compel pro-life clinics to utter pro-abortion messages were found to be unconstitutional by the Second and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal, respectively.
In an attempt to avoid application of the First Amendment, the State is taking the position that the mandated signs are "conduct" and not "speech." The State is also arguing that ObamaCare prompted the new mandates on pro-life pregnancy clinics by making more women eligible for Medi-Cal. Under AB 775, pro-life pregnancy clinics would be required to tell women that free or low-cost (taxpayer-subsidized) abortions and contraceptives are available by contacting the County.
Brad Dacus, president of PJI, commented, "The government message mandated by AB 775 is an especially egregious form of compelled speech. If the government can get away with this, they can order anyone to say anything. This case poses serious questions for the future of the First Amendment."
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec. 18, 2015 /Standard Newswire/ -- A federal judge is scheduled to hear oral arguments today on California's controversial effort to mandate that pro-life pregnancy clinics promote abortion.
Pacific Justice Institute represents three pro-life clinics challenging AB 775. PJI attorney, Kevin Snider, will present oral arguments beginning at 1:30 p.m. this afternoon in Sacramento before Judge Kimberly Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. PJI is asking the court to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on January 1, 2016. Similar attempts in New York City and Baltimore to compel pro-life clinics to utter pro-abortion messages were found to be unconstitutional by the Second and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal, respectively.
In an attempt to avoid application of the First Amendment, the State is taking the position that the mandated signs are "conduct" and not "speech." The State is also arguing that ObamaCare prompted the new mandates on pro-life pregnancy clinics by making more women eligible for Medi-Cal. Under AB 775, pro-life pregnancy clinics would be required to tell women that free or low-cost (taxpayer-subsidized) abortions and contraceptives are available by contacting the County.
Brad Dacus, president of PJI, commented, "The government message mandated by AB 775 is an especially egregious form of compelled speech. If the government can get away with this, they can order anyone to say anything. This case poses serious questions for the future of the First Amendment."
