SHOCK: More Than Half of California Pregnancies Unintended

SHOCK: More Than Half of California Pregnancies Unintended

But some pregnancy centers, which are anti-abortion, argue that the law forces them to "speak the state's message in support of it".

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider a conservative challenge to a controversial California law that requires pregnancy "crisis centers" to post information about state-provided abortion and contraception options.

California argues that the reproductive fact act regulates the healthcare industry and helps women know the state has programs providing birth control and abortions.

Next month, the court will hear arguments in another First Amendment case.

The Reproductive FACT Act was passed in October 2015. "This punishment would harm these centers as well as the vulnerable pregnant women to whom these pro-life groups provide free counseling and care".

The 2015 law requires centers to post notices including contact information for local providers of free or low-priced abortions and contraception, which pro-life groups argue forces them to communicate a message that violates their beliefs.

Three US Navy Carriers Conduct Joint Exercises
Both operations focused on the capacity to quickly unite forces from three strike force groups because of national circumstances. Navy Carrier Strike Groups routinely deploy to the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean", according to a Navy statement.

The facilities had asked the high court to hear their appeal of a ruling past year by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the law.

Pro-life advocates who have opposed the law, including The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), praised the Supreme Court for deciding to hear what it called a "critical free speech case". "Instead, it should protect freedom of speech and freedom from coerced speech". "Although this court has permitted campaign-free zones that prohibit campaign materials and active solicitation, it has never endorsed a ban on all political speech".

"Critics of pregnancy centers claim that this is not enough", a 2016 Care Net report stated. Lawyers for the centers say that their clients, out of religious objections, do not refer patients for abortion and that they can not be compelled to post the notification. "We are hopeful this forced speech law will be overturned by the Supreme Court".

Glessner said that California pro-life centers should not be penalized for doing their job in suggesting to women alternatives to abortion.

Last month a California Superior Court Justice put a halt to the law with a permanent injunction, ruling that the state can not force pro-life pregnancy centers to post signage promoting state-covered abortions to their clients. Christian pregnancy centers that employ doctors have filed lawsuits against the state over the new law.

He and others challenged the law on free speech grounds, saying that the government may not bar apparel that merely conveyed a philosophy rather than an endorsement of a particular candidate, party or ballot measure.

Related Articles