US SUPREME COURT – You’d assume the last place that should have to advertise abortions would be those pro-life health centers created specifically to help pregnant women not abort their babies. However, pro-choice legislators in California passed a law in 2015 demanding those centers post those advertisements in their facilities and online. That was enough of an attack on the First Amendment free speech right to get the US Supreme Court Tuesday to hear whether that law […]
In November, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on whether a California law passed in 2015, which requires anti-abortion pregnancy centers to inform clients about free or low-cost abortion services, is a violation of free speech. Since oral arguments officially began on Tuesday, March 20, here’s what you need to know about National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a highly anticipated case that combines two often controversial topics: the First Amendment and abortion. The question before the justices today was whether a California law that directs “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide their patients with specific kinds of information – including, for some, the availability of low-cost or free abortions – violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. […]
The heart and soul of the First Amendment is at risk in a case before the Supreme Court. In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, which is being argued today, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the future of the free-speech rights of nearly 3,000 pro-life pregnancy centers nationwide. Its ruling will have ramifications far beyond the walls of pro-life pregnancy centers.
On March 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra. MRC Culture interviewed Thomas Glessner, the founder and president of NIFLA, about the case at the 2018 March for Life in Washington, D.C. According to Glessner, the case was pushed by a “pro-abortion effort” and centers on Americans’ freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.