WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, the Supreme Court voted to nullify the California state law requiring anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to notify women of their full range of options, including telling them of nearby abortion centers with services paid for by the state.
In the case of the state of California against the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, the NIFLA claimed the law unfairly required the abortion opponents of these crisis pregnancy centers to promote options with which they were uncomfortable, violating the organizations’ free speech rights.
Although the Supreme Court ruled abortion legal in 1973, the nullification of the California statute proved to be a large step forward for pro-life advocates. The 5-4 ruling was backed by the majority support of the Supreme Court’s five conservative justices, led by Justice Clarence Thomas. The remaining liberal justices disagreed, but the conservative majority vote overthrew their dissent.
Christian-based crisis pregnancy centers expand nationwide, with 2700 locations, including over 200 in California alone. These centers far outnumber the amount of abortion clinics across the country, according to abortion rights activists.
They aim to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies to turn away from abortion, although they claim to offer legitimate healthcare services as well.
Yet, crisis pregnancy centers have been known to mislead their clients, sometimes having their specialists wear lab coats to feign full-service status of their healthcare services.
The California FACT Act, enacted in 2015 by Democratic state legislature, was purposed to equalize the abortion debate for poor women potentially unable to care for their unborn child.
The state of California sought to support these women and respect their decisions, therefore, requiring crisis pregnancy centers to inform their clients of state-funded alternatives like free or low-cost contraception, prenatal care and abortion services.
The law also required crisis pregnancy centers without a licensed medical provider on-site to post a sign that said so to notify clients.
In the past, the court passed laws requiring doctors to inform women seeking abortions of the availability of adoption services. Dissenting liberal Supreme Court judge, Justice Stephen Breyer reiterated this point against the conservative majority.
“After all, the law must be evenhanded,” Breyer said.
