Penna Dexter

The US Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether pro-life pregnancy centers will be forced to speak a message that promotes the very evil they exist to combat. NIFLA v. Becerra challenges the Reproductive FACT Act. This 2015 California law orders licensed crisis pregnancy centers to instruct women on how to obtain free or low-cost abortions through the state’s Medi-Cal program. The FACT Act levies draconian fines on centers that don’t comply. The law also forces non-medical pregnancy centers that provide resources, such as pregnancy test kits, baby clothes, and diapers, to post large and prominent disclosures stating they are not medical — chipping away at the confidence of an already-scared pregnant client. The plaintiff in the case is the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. NIFLA provides legal counsel and training to pregnancy centers nationwide. In a brief supporting the pregnancy centers, CATO Institute's Ilya Shapiro points out that California does not require abortion providers to post ads for adoption agencies or other alternatives to abortion. The real issue here is compelled speech. The Washington Post's George Will asks in a column, "Suppose a pro-life state government were to require all publicly and privately funded abortion providers to advertise on their premises the locations and services of crisis pregnancy centers." Or what if they were required to post on their premises, websites, and advertisements accurate information about fetal development. What if they had to say that the unborn baby's brain begins to form eighteen days after conception and that, by week nine, the baby can suck his or her thumb and that during weeks 10 to 13, bones harden and fingerprints and fingernails begin to form? This would be a free speech violation. NIFLA's founder and President, Thomas Glessner says the FACT law "mandates under the law that the pro-life centers are advertising for abortion." The Supreme Court should strike it down.