Latest News

Supreme Court ruling ‘a victory for the free speech rights of pro-lifers’

Pro-life advocates gather near the US Supreme Court during the annual March for Life in Washington (CNS)

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday a California law placing requirements on crisis pregnancy centres that oppose abortion violated the First Amendment.

In its decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, the court found that the law changes the content of the clinic’s speech “by compelling petitioners to speak a particular message,” and that the law went further than being a mere “regulation of professional conduct that incidentally burdens speech”.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, chair of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, praised the ruling as “an important victory for the free speech rights of pro-life organisations”.

“The Supreme Court today has affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of all organisations to choose for themselves not only what to say, but what not to say,” he said in a statement.

“This includes allowing pro-life pregnancy care centres to continue providing life-affirming support to both mother and child without being forced by governments to provide free advertising for the violent act of abortion in direct violation of the centres’ pro-life convictions,” he said.

The USCCB and several other faith-based groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court supporting the pro-life pregnancy centres in the case.

The state law in question is the Reproductive FACT Act, which says pregnancy centres must post notices in their facilities about where low-cost abortion services are available and also must disclose if they have medical personnel on staff.

When the oral arguments took place in March, some of the justices expressed concerns that the law might be about specifically targeting crisis pregnancy centres instead of providing information about abortion, and the decision mentions that, if the goal of the law were merely providing information about abortion to the public, that goal could be accomplished in more effective ways that do not require speakers to deliver unwanted speech.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey, who is co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, said in a statement that “pregnancy centres want no part of a law requiring them to tell a woman where to go to kill her child. Thankfully, today the Supreme Court recognized their First Amendment right to free speech – and to refrain from speaking.”

“Crisis pregnancy centres like NIFLA serve women and children according to their religious mission, and California should respect that,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket, which is a non-profit religious liberty law firm. “This ruling proves that when it comes to important issues, the government doesn’t get to tell people what to believe, and it also doesn’t get to tell people what to say about it.”

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Kennedy filed a concurring opinion which Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch joined. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.