Click For Photo: http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/sites/305/2018/03/640px-Ussupremecourtinterior.jpeg
In the Supreme Court case we blogged about regarding the California law forcing pro-life clinics to promote abortion, the arguments and the justices’ reactions seemed to go in favor of the clinics. My former Patrick Henry College colleague Mike Farris conducted the oral arguments for the pro-life side, and some interesting issues emerged.
Here is an account of the proceedings by John McCormack:
Arguments - Tuesday - Case - NIFLA - VBecerra
At oral arguments Tuesday for the case NIFLA v.Becerra, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed skeptical about the constitutionality of a California law that requires pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise for “free or low-cost” government-funded abortions.
A key moment came when Justice Anthony Kennedy, frequently the swing vote on the court, asked how the disclosure requirement would affect a facility affected by the law that took out a two-word advertisement (“CHOOSE LIFE”). California deputy solicitor general Joshua Klein admitted that, yes, the ad would have to include the following disclosure in the same-sized font: “CALIFORNIA HAS PUBLIC PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE IMMEDIATE FREE OR LOW-COST ACCESS TO COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES (INCLUDING ALL FDA-APPROVED METHODS OF CONTRACEPTION), PRENATAL CARE, AND ABORTION FOR ELIGIBLE WOMEN. TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU QUALIFY, CONTACT THE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AT [PHONE NUMBER].”
Wake Up To Breaking News!