SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH FREE SPEECH OVER ABORTION RIGHTS

[aGameOfThrones]

The Supreme Court sided with anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers on Tuesday morning, in a decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The case pitted free speech and reproductive rights against one another in the state of California.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Xavier Becerra challenged a 2015 law that required crisis pregnancy centers to disclose all available medical options and services to pregnant women. The centers, which are nonprofit organizations often affiliated with Christian groups, immediately responded that the law violated their religious freedom and their First Amendment right to free speech.

Thomas, writing for a conservative 5-4 majority, found that requirements for licensed crisis pregnancy centers "likely" violate free speech claims, and that the requirement for unlicensed centers "unduly burdens protected speech."

The court also noted that the law in question was too narrowly limited in scope and only attempted to impose this speech on crisis pregnancy centers opposed to abortion rather than any health center that offers services like birth control or family planning.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/reproductive-rights-free-speech-supreme-court-california-977103%3famp=1

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17505768/supreme-court-california-abortion-decision


There is one interesting byproduct of the Court’s decision, though. Republican-led states have increasingly set strict requirements for what doctors must tell a woman before they perform an abortion. Those state laws have been challenged but upheld over the question of whether they restrict a woman’s right to abortion.

Now, however, it is possible that those laws could be challenged on a First Amendment basis, arguing that such requirements violate the doctors’ free speech rights. As Eric Citron, a Harvard Law School lecturer who has clerked for two Supreme Court justices, wrote on SCOTUSblog after the ruling:


One interesting dynamic in this case is that many states have laws telling abortion providers what they need to say to women seeking abortions. Those laws have been challenged as undue burdens on the right to obtain an abortion — and, as Breyer points out, have been upheld since Casey. But they haven’t been challenged under the kind of First Amendment theory developed here. In the long run, the ruling here may limit states’ ability to force doctors to provide certain kinds of information.

[jkr]

but we CAN make you buy insurance...

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17505768/supreme-court-california-abortion-decision
I'll take that risk, freedom is always better, however it can be argued that medical professionals have a responsibility to disclose the dangers of an abortion.