As explained in more detail here, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently, but only preliminarily, upheld a California law requiring faith-based, pro-life pregnancy centers to tell their clients upfront that might be able to have a free abortion elsewhere.
One doesn’t have to think long and hard to see this ruling as tragic setback for free speech rights.
The Supreme Court has long held that, as a general rule, the government may not require people to speak against their conscience -- just as it may not silence people against their will. Based on this firm First Amendment principle, the Supreme Court famously ruled that students do not have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, even if the state says they must. It held that New Hampshire couldn’t force a Jehovah’s Witness to display the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die,” on the license plate of his car. The Court declared unconstitutional a state statute requiring professional fundraisers to disclose certain financial information before making any donation requests.
In sum, governmental compulsion of speech, especially under pain of financial penalties, is highly disfavored under our Constitution. If the government wants to disseminate an ideological message of its own, the government has the wherewithal to speak for itself, without having to conscript citizens into speaking that message for it.
Despite all this, the Ninth Circuit has held (at least for now) that the State of California can compel crisis pregnancy centers to utter a message that wholly contradicts their mission and identity.
Today, we filed a petition with the court asking that the entire Ninth Circuit review the three judge panel decision from two weeks ago. Called a “petition for rehearing en banc,” today’s filing argues that the ruling conflicts squarely with decisions of the Supreme Court, other federal courts of appeal, and even prior decisions of the Ninth Circuit itself.
Given the decision’s impact on the free speech of our clients (as well as others not before the court), we believe that further judicial review is critical. Crisis pregnancy centers provide untold help to women in need. We must do everything we can to help them help others.
We’ll continue to keep you updated as this important case moves forward.
We’re engaged in a comprehensive legal strategy to defend pro-life pregnancy centers. Stand with us. Have your gift doubled today.
Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.If you are experiencing any issues with our donation form, please click here
Hours ago, President Donald Trump fulfilled his first promise to the pro-life community by signing an Executive order reinstating Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy, which prohibits the use of U.S. taxpayer money in foreign aid to fund or promote abortions outside of the United States. This is a...
No American should be forced to fund the abortion industry. Yet, that’s exactly what’s happening and it must end. It’s time for Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. First, let’s dispense with the absurd notion that Planned Parenthood is somehow not in the abortion business. Fact checkers have...
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. Next week, the 44th March for Life is taking place in Washington, D.C.The March for Life occurs annually around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade , and is a means of ensuring that the truth about...
There’s one great advantage to working closely with social media as the ACLJ’s Director of Social Media Advocacy: access to a large number of ideas and worldviews. Every day I sift through thousands of comments and as I read it doesn’t take long for a trend of ideas to emerge. As these trends start...