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
Supreme Court: Pregnancy Center Forced Speech Law is Unduly Burdensome
Contact: Alexandra Snyder, Executive Director, Life Legal Defense Foundation, 707-224-6675
WASHINGTON, June 26, 2018 /Standard Newswire/ -- The Supreme Court handed down its decision in NIFLA v. Becerra today, involving a California law that forces draconian speech mandates on pregnancy resource centers. The grossly misnamed "Reproductive FACT" Act has two distinct parts: one forcing medically-licensed centers to tell women how to obtain state-funded abortions, and the other requiring non-medical centers to display large signs stating that they are not medical centers. These disclaimers must also be posted on the center's website and on all print and digital advertising in as many as 13 "threshold" languages.
The Court held that the provision applying to medical centers "likely violates the First Amendment," as it is a content-based regulation that compels medical centers to "speak a certain message," thus altering the content of their speech.
Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, emphasized the importance of free speech in the context of the relationship between medically-licensed centers and their patients: "Throughout history, governments have 'manipulat[ed] the content of doctor-patient discourse' to increase state power and suppress minorities."
Justice Kennedy wrote a blistering concurring opinion addressing the Act's inherent viewpoint discrimination. Kennedy found that the Act "imperils" constitutional liberties and went on to school the California legislature in First Amendment jurisprudence, pointing out "how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech."
Regarding the unlicensed provision, the Court found the Act's requirement to post a 29-word disclaimer in as many as 13 different languages to "unduly burden protected speech."
Life Legal filed a "friend of the court," or amicus, brief in March on behalf of Priests for Life and the Justice Foundation, representing women who work for pregnancy resource centers. We addressed the Act's unlicensed provisions, arguing that the State has no legitimate interest in forcing non-medical pregnancy centers to post the disclaimer, as the centers do not provide services that require them to be licensed in the first place. Indeed, the brief argued, women confronting an unplanned pregnancy may be better served by conversations with "unlicensed" post-abortive volunteer counselors than "licensed" abortionists trying to reach a quota.
The Court echoed our arguments, holding that "California has not demonstrated any justification" for the "government-scripted" disclaimer.
"Pregnancy centers were targeted by the abortion industry and its legislative lackeys precisely because they effectively communicate the inherent value and dignity of all human life, including life in the womb," said Life Legal Executive Director Alexandra Snyder. "We are pleased with today's opinion vindicating the First Amendment right of pregnancy centers to continue to impart a wholly pro-life message."
Justice Breyer wrote a lengthy dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Link to Life Legal brief.
WASHINGTON, June 26, 2018 /Standard Newswire/ -- The Supreme Court handed down its decision in NIFLA v. Becerra today, involving a California law that forces draconian speech mandates on pregnancy resource centers. The grossly misnamed "Reproductive FACT" Act has two distinct parts: one forcing medically-licensed centers to tell women how to obtain state-funded abortions, and the other requiring non-medical centers to display large signs stating that they are not medical centers. These disclaimers must also be posted on the center's website and on all print and digital advertising in as many as 13 "threshold" languages.
The Court held that the provision applying to medical centers "likely violates the First Amendment," as it is a content-based regulation that compels medical centers to "speak a certain message," thus altering the content of their speech.
Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, emphasized the importance of free speech in the context of the relationship between medically-licensed centers and their patients: "Throughout history, governments have 'manipulat[ed] the content of doctor-patient discourse' to increase state power and suppress minorities."
Justice Kennedy wrote a blistering concurring opinion addressing the Act's inherent viewpoint discrimination. Kennedy found that the Act "imperils" constitutional liberties and went on to school the California legislature in First Amendment jurisprudence, pointing out "how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech."
Regarding the unlicensed provision, the Court found the Act's requirement to post a 29-word disclaimer in as many as 13 different languages to "unduly burden protected speech."
Life Legal filed a "friend of the court," or amicus, brief in March on behalf of Priests for Life and the Justice Foundation, representing women who work for pregnancy resource centers. We addressed the Act's unlicensed provisions, arguing that the State has no legitimate interest in forcing non-medical pregnancy centers to post the disclaimer, as the centers do not provide services that require them to be licensed in the first place. Indeed, the brief argued, women confronting an unplanned pregnancy may be better served by conversations with "unlicensed" post-abortive volunteer counselors than "licensed" abortionists trying to reach a quota.
The Court echoed our arguments, holding that "California has not demonstrated any justification" for the "government-scripted" disclaimer.
"Pregnancy centers were targeted by the abortion industry and its legislative lackeys precisely because they effectively communicate the inherent value and dignity of all human life, including life in the womb," said Life Legal Executive Director Alexandra Snyder. "We are pleased with today's opinion vindicating the First Amendment right of pregnancy centers to continue to impart a wholly pro-life message."
Justice Breyer wrote a lengthy dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Link to Life Legal brief.
