California's war with free speech extended to pro life pregnancy centers

Washington Examiner Op-ed:
...
... the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a case that posits “pro-choice” government officials as a growing threat to Americans who would choose for themselves what messages they want to communicate.

This breathtaking hypocrisy is at the heart of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, in which the high court will determine if California officials are violating constitutional rights by requiring pro-life pregnancy care centers to provide free advertising for the state’s abortion industry.

Two years ago, California passed AB 775. The law compels all licensed medical centers that offer free, pro-life help to pregnant women to prominently post a sign saying the state provides free or low-cost abortion and contraception services. The sign must include a phone number for a county office that refers women to Planned Parenthood and other abortionists. The law also requires signs and ads in unlicensed pregnancy centers that are designed to deter women from seeking their help, by requiring accentuation of their non-medical status, in up to 13 languages, obscuring any pro-life message they are trying to convey.

This is incredibly like requiring nutritionists to hang a sign on the office door telling patients where to get free fast food. Or forcing Alcoholics Anonymous to begin each meeting by handing out the phone number of saloons giving away Jim Beam and Coors.
...
The pro-abortion lobby is determined to use those who oppose them to get their message out, despite the fact that they control the media already.   Would those same people approve of a requirement to have an anti-abortion message in Planned Parenthood?   I hope someone on the court asks that question.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Two-thirds of uninsured uncertain about buying insurance

Dr. Ford symptoms of paranoia and the second front door