California vs. Pro-Life Pregnancy Clinics

Three pro-life, faith-based nonprofit clinics in California are suing the state’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, for infringing on their First Amendment rights. These clinics — LivingWell Medical Clinic, Inc.; Pregnancy Care Center of the North Coast, Inc.; and Confidence Pregnancy Center, Inc. — offer free unplanned-pregnancy-related services to hundreds of women each year.

It would be against their deeply held beliefs to advocate abortion. But California law requires them to.

Since 2015, the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act has required certain pregnancy clinics to notify their patients that the state offers free and low-cost abortions — even if these clinics do not provide abortion services themselves.

By forcing these pregnancy centers to refer their clients to abortionists, California is compelling them to speak in a way that violates their religious beliefs. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the clinics, holding that the law was merely a regulation of “professional speech” — which, the court claims, triggers much less scrutiny than do other speech limitations.

So the clinics have appealed to the Supreme Court. It is unclear why California feels this is so important. Finding an abortion clinic on the West Coast is not exactly difficult.

According to Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), abortions are a constitutional right so long as they are performed before “viability” — or after, if the mother’s health is at risk. Regulations that cause “undue burden,” such as requiring spousal consent, are prohibited.

Legally speaking, though, the question boils down to whether the law regulates only “professional speech,” and if so whether that type of regulation should trigger less court scrutiny.

These are issues the Supreme Court has never clearly resolved, though various decisions (including Casey itself) do treat speech by licensed professionals in a unique way.

But this is a law that forces religious organizations to refer their clients for a procedure they find deeply immoral.

Like most other content-based speech regulations, it should be subject to “strict scrutiny” — meaning California should have to prove the law is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.

As of 2014, the state of California had more than 500 abortion facilities, so requiring religious clinics to provide abortion referrals can hardly be seen as the least restrictive way to inform pregnant women about their options.

Finding an abortion clinic on the West Coast is not exactly difficult. As the writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court states, “[This law] does not just compel Petitioners to speak in a way that may stigmatize their own services, but goes so far as to force them expressly to advertise the availability of free abortions, procedures which are contrary to Petitioners’ religious and moral beliefs.”

The writ is on solid ground. In 1977, the Supreme Court decided in Wooley v. Maynard that “The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority, and to refuse to foster . . . an idea they find morally objectionable.”

This precedent is obviously applicable to the current case. Alas, we can only wait and see whether the nation’s highest court will elect to defend what was once this nation’s most valued freedom, or if that freedom’s diminishment in the law will continue unabated.

"It would be against their deeply held beliefs to advocate abortion. But California law requires them to."

Noting that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the politically correct “right” to have an abortion, the fictitious constitutional “right” to have an abortion wrongly legislated from the bench with state powers that state sovereignty-ignoring Supreme Court justices stole from the states, this is a 14th Amendment issue imo.

”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So misduided, low-information, pro-abortion activist California state lawmakers are unthinkingly using constitutionally unprotected “right” to have an abortion to trump constitutionally enumerated rights, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech in this example, blatantly violating Section 1 of 14A by doing so imo.

The problem is if citizens have never been taught their 14th Amendment (14A) protections then it’s not going to help them.

And you cannot trust institutionally indoctrinated lawyers to know 14A, or to claim its protections for you if they do know it imo.

Patriots who value 1st Amendment-protected religious expression should note that Acts 22:25-29 indicates that Paul claimed his protections as a Roman citizen to save himself from being flogged.

Sadly, regardless that patriots quit sitting on their hands and cleaned up the Oval Office in the last election, 14A gives Congress the power to enforce 14A.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress continues to sit on its hands while the states violate 14A, just like it did during the lawless Obama Administration.

Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

Remember in November ’18 !

Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

~~Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.~~

While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.