* AP…
The Supreme Court effectively put an end Tuesday to a California law that forces anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion.
The 5-4 ruling also casts doubts on similar laws in Hawaii and Illinois.
* Press release…
State Sen. Dale Righter (R-Mattoon) issued the following statement in response the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against a California state law that would have required crisis pregnancy centers to provide women with information about state-provided abortion. Similar legislation was signed into law in 2016 in Illinois.
“This is a victory for the unborn, and I would want to thank for the U.S. Supreme Court for recognizing what is right and the faith based rights of those who wish to not to contribute to abortions. With today’s ruling, Illinois’ similar law, which requires crisis pregnancy centers to provide information on abortion, will be now be unenforceable.”
* I sent Righter’s release to the ACLU for comment. This is from Lorie Chaiten, director of the Women’s and Reproductive Rights Project of the ACLU of Illinois…
Today’s decision involved a very different law than the one NIFLA is challenging in Illinois. Illinois’ law simply ensures that when patients go to the doctor, they can expect to be given the information they need to understand their medical circumstances and treatment options. These are protections that apply across the board, requiring all medical professionals to comply with their ethical obligation to provide standard of care information to patients.
We are confident that the judges hearing the Illinois cases will understand these distinctions and will conclude that the patient protections as issue in Illinois are in full accord with state and federal law
* From a July, 2017 story about the lawsuit against Illinois’ statute…
The lawsuit, filed against state officials including Gov. Bruce Rauner, claims their constitutional free-speech rights are violated by the changes to the law because they have to offer advice they find morally wrong. The clinics also allege the new law violates federal laws banning discrimination against doctors and other health care workers who do not provide or refer patients for abortions.
Supporters of the law say the changes only require health care providers to inform patients of all their options — a standard practice of care in the medical field.
The law was originally passed — after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion — to shield physicians opposed to performing the procedure. Modifications to that law, designed to protect patients who didn’t know all their options, were signed into law by Rauner last year after an emotional Illinois Senate subcommittee hearing that drew testimony from patients.
* From National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra…
The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act) was enacted to regulate crisis pregnancy centers—pro-life centers that offer pregnancy-related services. The FACT Act requires clinics that primarily serve pregnant women to provide certain notices. Clinics that are licensed must notify women that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and give them a phone number to call. Its stated purpose is to make sure that state residents know their rights and what health care services are available to them. Unlicensed clinics must notify women that California has not licensed the clinics to provide medical services. Its stated purpose is to ensure that pregnant women know when they are receiving health care from licensed professionals. Petitioners—two crisis pregnancy centers, one licensed and one unlicensed, and an organization of crisis pregnancy centers— filed suit. They alleged that both the licensed and the unlicensed notices abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The District Court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Holding that petitioners could not show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court concluded that the licensed notice survived a lower level of scrutiny applicable to regulations of “professional speech,” and that the unlicensed notice satisfied any level of scrutiny.
Held:
1. The licensed notice likely violates the First Amendment.
(a) Content-based laws “target speech based on its communicative content” and “are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S. ___, ___. The licensed notice is a content-based regulation. By compelling petitioners to speak a particular message, it “alters the content of [their] speech.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 795. For example, one of the state- sponsored services that the licensed notice requires petitioners to advertise is abortion—the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing.
(b) Although the licensed notice is content-based, the Ninth Circuit did not apply strict scrutiny because it concluded that the notice regulates “professional speech.” But this Court has never recognized “professional speech” as a separate category of speech subject to different rules. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals. The Court has afforded less protection for professional speech in two circumstances—where a law requires professionals to disclose factual, noncontroversial information in their “commercial speech,”
…Adding… Sen. Kwame Raoul…
The NIFLA decision, which sides with entities seeking to mislead women, is part of a troubling erosion of a woman’s freedom to make personal decisions about her life, body and family. Protecting a woman’s right to choose means protecting her access to affordable healthcare and accurate information. Illinois recognizes this by requiring medical professionals who object to abortions to provide information about where and how patients can access the care they choose. As attorney general, I will defend this law and all aspects of women’s rights.
*** UPDATE 1 *** From the attorney general’s spokesperson…
The Illinois law is different in a significant way from the California law at issue in today’s Supreme Court decision. As a result, it’s speculation to declare how the courts will ultimately rule on the Illinois law. The cases concerning the Illinois law will continue and the courts will judge the impact of today’s decision on those cases.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Excerpt from the Thomas More Society’s press release…
Unlike California pregnancy centers, those in Illinois have been under court protection from the law that forces them to make referrals for abortion, even if they have sincerely held religious convictions against doing so. The preliminary injunction order was issued in July 2017 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Rauner.
“The Illinois district court’s injunction is based on the Supreme Court’s well-established Free Speech principles, which were largely disregarded in the California case” added Olp. “We are pleased that the high court has chosen to protect pro-life medical professionals from California’s Reproductive FACT Act. This unconstitutional and unethical mandate to promote the so called ‘benefits’ of abortion and to refer women to abortion vendors has been a clear violation of the right of conscience of pro-life doctors, nurses and pregnancy help centers.”
Nonprofit pro-life pregnancy centers are established to support and assist women by providing life-affirming alternatives to abortion and the Thomas More Society brief argued that a woman has a right to choose life for her unborn child.
“Under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment these centers cannot be required to agree with or be compelled to promote any state’s message concerning abortion,” said Olp. “They have the right to offer charitable services and proclaim an exclusively pro-life message to those in need. The Supreme Court has now shut down laws like California’s Reproductive FACT Act and the amended Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act that deny women their ability to receive free pregnancy support and their right to choose life for their child.”
*** UPDATE 3 *** From Jennifer Welch, President and CEO Planned Parenthood of Illinois…
With today’s decision, the Supreme Court has made it legal to withhold vital healthcare information from women. Fake women’s health centers are deceptive and harmful. Patients seeking health care or counseling during pregnancy require and deserve accurate information. Fake women’s health centers are lying to women, withholding medical information, and cutting off access to care. Planned Parenthood of Illinois will continue to fight for every person’s right to access high-quality care and accurate information, despite this disappointing decision.
