Posted on 03/25/2018 12:46:39 PM PDT by reaganaut1
The whole point of the First Amendment was to keep government out of crucial aspects of life –religion, speech, the press – that should be left entirely to voluntary action. It is supposed to shield people against governmental mandates and prohibitions. Government cannot keep you from practicing any religion and it cannot make you practice any; it cannot prevent you from speaking your mind and it cannot make you speak if you do not want to. That’s the concept, anyway.
A case that the Court recently heard, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, puts that concept in jeopardy. At issue is a California statute that compels pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise the state’s pro-abortion alternative, informing women who come in for help, “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to abortion for eligible women. To determine if you qualify, call [phone number].”
California is dominated to pro-abortion politicians who years ago won their battle against those who oppose government support for abortion. This law is intended to further beat down pro-life advocates. The legislative history of the bill makes it clear that its purpose was to impede those who try to discourage women from seeking abortions.
Law professor Michael Paulsen cites the bill’s legislative history in this piece, and comments on its obvious anti-pro-life animus: “California’s ‘proud legacy’ of ‘forward thinking’ in promoting ‘reproductive freedom’ – slight euphemisms there, to be sure – is ‘unfortunately’ impaired by the views held and expressed by crisis pregnancy centers, which ‘aim to discourage’ abortions. Such ‘intentionally deceptive’ messages (deceptive, apparently because they discourage abortion rather than encourage it) must therefore be counteracted. That is the purpose of requiring pro-life centers to promote the availability of subsidized abortion.”
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“California’s ‘proud legacy’ of ‘forward thinking’ in promoting ‘reproductive freedom”
Eugenics?
It has no right to, but it does, thus invalidating the First Amendment.
The Third Reich's 'proud legacy' of 'forward thinking' in promoting 'ethnic purity.'
Joseph Stalin's 'proud legacy' of 'forward thinking' in promoting 'the glorious revolution.'
Mao Tse-Tung's 'proud legacy' of 'forward thinking' in promoting 'the Great Leap.'
See? If you just coat it in noble-sounding rhetoric, it sounds a lot less like tyranny.
Communist governments did it — tow the line, or off to the prisoner labor camps.
No.
Can they?
YES!
Bingo.
Compulsory speech contrary to your beliefs is as easy as baking a cake.
Does work the other way around? Do pro abortion centers have to list/offer other options to pro life centers?
How long before it is declared that God can no longer be capitalized in writing?
I have a better question:
Can Government Force you to engage in a “Criminal Conspiracy” under the Threat of Criminal andor Civil charges??
If the answer is NO, then shouldn’t I be entitled to an Immediate and Permanent injunction from All Taxes on Income, Tips, Wages and Property, since they are Forcing me to Finance this Criminal Conspiracy to violate Federal Immigration Law???
If I refuse to participate in this Criminal Conspiracy they will Arrest me and Take my stuff. How is that Legal??
I know several leftists who now refuse to capitalize “God”. I’m okay with that. It’s a useful way to know who I need to remove from my life. If they demand that I follow their example, then we will have a problem.
There is no Constitutional basis for trying to force Right to Life people to promote abortion.
You can call it what you want, but I say the idiomatic phrase is “toe the line,” not “tow the line.” The ones who once having heard the phrase and assumed the homonym meant something else than “On your mark!” simply have no idea what they are talking about. This is not just a spelling error, it is a lack of breadth in the figurative aspects of the language.
Any time the word is not used as a proper and reverent noun referring to the central figure of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
In any case, changing the proper noun Deity to the common noun deity is not legislated, it is a matter of customary use, determined by the grammarians of the culture of the written language. Pretty obviously, when spoken, the word attains its nobility from the context. You can't capitalize a spoken word, or punctuate a spoken sentence.
Jordan Peterson
The Queen’s University Talk: The Rising Tide of Compelled Speech
https://youtu.be/MwdYpMS8s28
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.