BREAKING NEWS : Shooting at Ossian manufacturing company leaves at least 1 injured Full Story

Justices skeptical of California abortion notification law

Several justices at the Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed skeptical of the free speech implications of a California law...

Posted: Mar 21, 2018 6:38 AM
Updated: Mar 21, 2018 6:38 AM

Several justices at the Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed skeptical of the free speech implications of a California law that requires licensed pregnancy centers to inform their clients about the availability of state-subsidized family planning services, including abortion.

Religiously affiliated pregnancy clinics who are opposed to abortion say the law is an unconstitutional violation of their free speech rights and that the government cannot compel them to convey a message that goes against their core convictions.

On the conservative side of the bench, Justice Neil Gorsuch, hearing his first abortion-related case since taking the high court, wondered if the state could find different way to advertise its low-cost services without impinging on the speech of anti-abortion rights clinics.

"Why shouldn't this court take cognizance of the state's other available means to provide messages?" Gorsuch asked. "If it's about just ensuring that everyone has full information about their options, why should the state free-ride on a limited number of clinics to provide that information?"

Justice Anthony Kennedy also expressed concern that the law only targets clinics with one particular viewpoint, which would make it much harder to pass the court's muster.

Justice Samuel Alito seemed to agree and pointed out that the California law exempts many clinics that offer abortion.

"It turns out that just about the only clinics that are covered by this are pro-life clinics," he said.

And although the liberals on the bench suggested some support for the intent of the law, some of them also expressed concern. Justice Elena Kagan asked if it might have been rigged in a way that would have targeted pro-life groups. "There's at least a question as to whether this statute has been gerrymandered," she said and added "that's a serious issue."

And Justice Steven Breyer, on a couple of occasions suggested that the court should send the case back down to the lower courts to develop a more robust record. "Don't we need a trial on this?" he said at one point.

Based on oral arguments Tuesday, that might be California's only lifeline to the law staying intact.

The case pits free speech rights against access to abortion and it drew protesters from each side to the Court's plaza. It is one of several First Amendment cases the justices are considering this term. The court has already heard challenges from a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage and a Minnesota man blocked from wearing a tea party shirt to his polling place. How the court rules could also determine the fate of so-called "informed consent" laws, where states direct doctors to tell patients about potential ramifications of an abortion.

In court, a lawyer for California said the law is a neutral regulation aimed at informing women of their health care options, but a lawyer for religiously affiliated pregnancy centers said it forces them to deliver a message that is both detrimental to their cause and in direct conflict with their mission to encourage childbirth.

'Reasonable licensing' or government interference?

The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act requires licensed clinics, which provide services like ultrasounds, to disseminate a notice stating that California has programs providing "immediate, free or low-cost access" to comprehensive family planning services.

The religiously affiliated centers lost their challenge to the law before a California-based federal appeals court.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said the state has a substantial interest in "ensuring that its citizens have access to and adequate information about constitutionally protected medical services like abortion."

It ruled the California law amounted to "reasonable licensing" by the state.

The clinics, represented by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, say the court used too lax a standard when reviewing the law. The Alliance Defending Freedom is the same group behind the Supreme Court challenge brought by the Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for the marriage of a same-sex couple.

Michael P. Farris, the group's attorney, told the justices Tuesday that the government can't force the clinics to deliver a message that goes against their core convictions. They say the law discriminates based on their anti-abortion viewpoint.

"California took aim at pro-life pregnancy centers by compelling licensed centers to point the way to an abortion," Farris said.

The law also requires unlicensed clinics -- those that provide resources such as vitamins and diapers but have no medical providers on site -- to disseminate a notice that they are not licensed by the state. Violators are liable for a civil penalty of up to $500.

On the other side, Joshua A. Klein, California's deputy solicitor general, argued that about 700,000 women in the state become pregnant each year and about half of the pregnancies are unintended. The law, Klein argued, shouldn't trigger heightened scrutiny from the courts because it doesn't require anyone to refer a client for an abortion but simply ensures that women will have the information they need when they are confronted with their pregnancy.

The law "is targeted at women who seek free care for pregnancy, not any particular viewpoint," he said."

"The First Amendment does not bar states," from such a "carefully neutral" notice, Klein added.

Supporters of the law -- including groups such as the Center for Reproductive Rights, NARAL and Planned Parenthood -- say it was necessary because some clinics tried to disguise the fact that they oppose abortion.

"The clinics were masquerading as full service reproductive health clinics and deceiving women into thinking they could get bona fide reproductive health care," said Amy Myrick, a staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. "In fact, the clinics don't make abortions and contraceptive coverage available."

The Trump administration has taken a middle ground in the case. Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall told the justices that the law , as applied to the licensed centers, violates the First Amendment and the state has "multiple alternative" ways to pursue its objectives -- including advertising its services itself.

But he argued that the justices can uphold the provision aimed at unlicensed centers because they constitute a requirement to simply provide "accurate, uncontroversial" facts about their services.

Impact on 'informed consent' laws

How the court rules could impact other laws across the country. Supporters of abortion access say that if the court strikes down the California law, there could be a silver lining to the loss.

They believe such a ruling could negatively impact a different type of regulation, "informed consent laws." They are opposed by supporters of abortion rights, who feel the laws are misleading and are meant to deliver information about potential dangers of the procedures in an effort to dissuade women from electing to go through with an abortion.

"Several states have laws on books that require providers to give women misleading or untruthful information about discredited links between breast cancer and abortion or mental health harms and abortion," said Myrick. "If the Court strikes down the California law as a free speech violation those laws should clearly be found to be unconstitutional."

A decision is expected by July.

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 1005797

Reported Deaths: 16449
CountyCasesDeaths
Marion1353572119
Lake663011164
Allen57820801
Hamilton46296464
St. Joseph44311613
Elkhart35888509
Vanderburgh32214480
Tippecanoe27898258
Johnson25056445
Hendricks23854359
Porter22890365
Madison18724409
Clark18540252
Vigo17449303
Monroe15242199
LaPorte15124250
Delaware15043261
Howard14719289
Kosciusko12285147
Hancock11709175
Bartholomew11602180
Warrick11287189
Floyd11082215
Wayne10965253
Grant10051220
Morgan9457176
Boone8913116
Dubois8263131
Dearborn820893
Henry8200152
Noble8017106
Marshall7916135
Cass7528121
Lawrence7447171
Shelby7176119
Jackson697289
Gibson6584115
Harrison647591
Knox6418106
Huntington6385100
DeKalb630699
Montgomery6252110
Miami592298
Putnam580078
Clinton574971
Whitley564255
Steuben560676
Wabash5324104
Jasper529879
Jefferson510297
Ripley499886
Adams481576
Daviess4670114
Scott438574
Greene424496
Wells423088
Clay422060
White418164
Decatur4164102
Fayette406187
Jennings386661
Posey376644
LaGrange357678
Washington357651
Randolph344499
Spencer339543
Fountain334760
Sullivan328652
Starke316470
Owen314170
Fulton309467
Orange293564
Jay284145
Franklin265443
Perry265352
Rush261332
Carroll261133
Vermillion257754
Parke231126
Pike228843
Tipton227559
Blackford192642
Pulaski183457
Crawford159223
Newton157848
Benton150217
Brown146147
Martin138219
Switzerland134911
Warren121016
Union107016
Ohio84513
Unassigned0540

Ohio Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 1511760

Reported Deaths: 23616
CountyCasesDeaths
Franklin1636861666
Cuyahoga1457252442
Hamilton1050421416
Montgomery737101254
Summit614971105
Lucas56058912
Butler51383711
Stark464421056
Lorain35443584
Warren32687373
Mahoning30598675
Clermont28106326
Lake26907443
Delaware24114162
Licking23820287
Trumbull22742556
Fairfield22309246
Greene22212320
Medina21941311
Clark19757351
Richland18500285
Portage17857250
Wood17394221
Allen15905269
Miami15487299
Muskingum14737185
Columbiana13940269
Wayne13722265
Tuscarawas12643304
Marion11906175
Scioto11432161
Pickaway11346141
Erie10811181
Ross10532198
Lawrence9725153
Ashtabula9658200
Hancock9649150
Belmont9262206
Geauga8906157
Jefferson8531197
Huron8338141
Union816557
Washington8066138
Sandusky7790148
Athens773676
Knox7679141
Darke7618155
Seneca7306144
Ashland6917126
Auglaize678097
Shelby6493113
Brown633387
Crawford6245130
Defiance6162103
Mercer612893
Fulton599296
Highland596899
Madison592176
Guernsey583468
Logan582795
Clinton581191
Preble5692122
Putnam5301108
Williams526185
Perry516563
Champaign510372
Jackson506571
Ottawa484086
Coshocton478783
Morrow456656
Pike432763
Fayette427461
Hardin416678
Gallia416266
Adams415392
Van Wert369579
Henry362571
Holmes3619123
Hocking355579
Wyandot322261
Carroll300659
Paulding279147
Meigs263350
Monroe214854
Noble198946
Morgan193232
Harrison180143
Vinton165125
Unassigned05
Fort Wayne
Cloudy
48° wxIcon
Hi: 51° Lo: 41°
Feels Like: 46°
Angola
Partly Cloudy
48° wxIcon
Hi: 53° Lo: 35°
Feels Like: 48°
Huntington
Cloudy
48° wxIcon
Hi: 50° Lo: 45°
Feels Like: 46°
Decatur
Cloudy
48° wxIcon
Hi: 51° Lo: 43°
Feels Like: 46°
Van Wert
Cloudy
46° wxIcon
Hi: 53° Lo: 43°
Feels Like: 44°
It's a chilly end to the work week with highs struggling to warm into the middle 50s.
WFFT Radar
WFFT Temperatures
WFFT National

Community Events