JUSTICES WEARY OF CA ABORTION LAW | SCOTUS Stays Out Of Pennsylvania Map Dispute…Again
March 20, 2018
TODAY AT SCOTUS
|This morning at the Supreme Court the justices heard a case that pits the “right to know against the right of free speech.” Nina Totenberg’s words — not mine. Today justices consider a case from California in which crisis pregnancy centers are challenging a state law that requires these centers don’t mislead their patients and communicate about all options available to pregnant women. These centers strongly oppose abortion and say that the law compels them to support the procedure. But lawyers from California argue the mandatory disclosures about the procedure are routine and that the government has broad authority to protect patients and ensure they are fully informed of their options for care. Today marks the third time in the past few months in which justices have considered a conservative group’s claim that a liberal state law amounts to unconstitutional “compelled speech.”
THE BURDEN OF TRUTH
|Justices across the ideological spectrum seemed weary of the California law this morning, expressing concern that it singled out the pregnancy centers and placed an undue burden on them. Some of the more liberal justices also noted that the requirement is similar to Supreme Court-sanctioned laws that require doctors performing abortions to advise women about alternatives. JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER noted, “There are pro-choice states, and there are pro-life states. If a pro-life state can tell a doctor you have to tell people about adoption, why can’t a pro-choice state tell a doctor, a facility, whatever it is, you have to tell people about abortion?”
SORRY I AIN'T SORRY
|For the second time, the Supreme Court yesterday refused to stop new congressional maps in Pennsylvania from being enacted ahead of the 2018 midterms. This was the last-ditch effort of Pennsylvania Republicans to stop the non-gerrymandered maps from going into effect. SCOTUS weighed in without comment or dissent. Now, it looks as if Democrats are going to have a much easier time being successful in that state come November.
GOOD NEWS ON TOP OF GOOD NEWS
|CNN’s Chris Cillizza explains that yesterday’s Supreme Court decision not to intervene in the Pennsylvania map dispute gives Democrats a major, major victory. He says the new map gives Democrats a good chance at taking three seats in the southeastern portion of the state and several more improved opportunities in places like Allentown and southwestern Pennsylvania.
SCOTUS VIEWS
The Abortion Case That's Really About The First Amendment
The New York Times“We filed our brief because focusing on the abortion debate means missing out on the fact that a decision siding with the State of California could upend decades of First Amendment doctrine and threaten everything from the right to have conversations in a doctor’s office to the right to use math to criticize government officials. (Really.) That’s because the Becerra case raises one of the most important unanswered questions in First Amendment law: Do speakers check their First Amendment rights at the office door?”
n NILFA v. Becerra, The Supreme Court Takes On Both Abortion And First Amendment Rights
NBC News“In addition, the First Amendment protects both the right to speak (or not speak) and the right to listen. While pregnancy crisis centers are decrying what they claim is forced speech, we are largely ignoring a woman’s right to hear available information about their healthcare. The state is not forcing these nonprofit centers to advertise on its behalf, but merely making sure women are given enough information to make the best choice when it comes to their health.”
Pro-Life Centers Have Free Speech Too
The Wall Street Journal“Abortion is a life-and-death issue, but it’s not the issue before the Supreme Court Tuesday. When the parties appear before the court, California and its abortion-friendly legislation will stand on one side, Nifla and other pro-life pregnancy centers on the other—and free speech in the dock.”