Decision time for pro-life clinics in Calif.

Monday, December 28, 2015
 | 
Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)

CaliforniaAttorneys for some pro-life pregnancy centers in California are mulling over options to keep the state from violating their constitutional rights.

The government of California passed a law (AB775) requiring faith-based pro-life centers to post signs telling potential clients where they obtain an abortion at low cost or possibly for free. In contrast, abortion clinics aren't required by the law to post notices of any kind.

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute filed suit asking for a temporary injunction blocking implementation of the law.

"U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller agreed with us that the law raised 'serious questions' about the potential First Amendment right to violations and would also cause irreparable harm to our clients," Dacus tells OneNewsNow. "Nonetheless, she denied our request for an injunction."

According to PJI, Mueller determined that the interests of the clinics in refusing to promote abortion were outweighed by the interests of the state to ensure women receive information about all their options.

Dacus, Brad (PJI)Dacus describes as "chilling" the notion that the government can compel religious non-profits to promote practices antithetical to their values.

"This logic makes about as much sense as requiring Alcoholics Anonymous to have to post a large sign as to where individuals can get more alcohol," he offers, "or for Playboy magazine to have to have an ad letting their readers know where they can get help for pornography addiction."

PJI is consulting with the pregnancy centers to determine whether to appeal because – as he points out – starting January 1 those centers will have to either refer women for abortions or close their doors, leaving women without the option to avoid abortions.

Comments

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWS BRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

FEATURED PODCAST

VOTE IN OUR POLL

What is your view of Oct. 12 confirmation hearings for Judge Barrett?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

  Angry opening: Trump, Biden lash, interrupt each other
  US Chamber of Commerce parts ways with top strategist
  California's wine country residents facing fire fatigue
  Azerbaijan and Armenia brush off suggestion of peace talks
  Disney to lay off 28,000 at its parks in California, Florida
Trump's court pick meets senators before confirmation fight
Federal appellate judges uphold Wisconsin ballot extension

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Presidential debate gets personal as Biden calls Trump a 'clown,' Trump tells Biden he's not 'smart'
Biden defends record: Violence should be prosecuted
Breaking: St. Louis officials will not prosecute nine BLM protesters charged with trespassing in McCloskey incident
Trump camp seeks extra debate rule: Third party inspectors to look for electronic devices in candidates' ears
University attacked for reporting hate crime because the victims were white

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day
NEXT STORY
It's a cross - so it's gotta go!

no crossAttorneys are confident a challenge to a Maryland memorial to military veterans will stand up to legal precedent on appeal.