'Unthinkable' for gov't to force free advertising for abortuaries

Tuesday, November 14, 2017
 | 
Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)

gavel brown 620x300The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that a Christian legal group argues the Ninth Circuit got wrong.

In 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Reproductive FACT Act. That law forces pro-life pregnancy centers to post signs and include in advertising that they don't provide abortions – and then list available abortion clinics as well as those that terminate babies free or at a discount price.

Kevin Theriot is an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, which is handling the case. He tells OneNewsNow that it's certainly a matter of free speech guaranteed by the Constitution.

Theriot, Kevin (ADF)"Forcing anybody to provide free advertising for the abortion industry is just unthinkable. That's especially true when it's the government doing the forcing," says Theriot. "It's a big deal when it comes to pregnancy care centers, which exist specifically to care for women who want to have their babies."

ADF CEO Michael Farris contends the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals got it wrong when it upheld the California law. It's viewpoint discrimination, he says – and unconstitutional, according to longstanding Supreme Court doctrine.

"That's what made the decision [in the lower court] frankly so shocking," says Farris, "that the Ninth Circuit went out of its way, I think, to issue a decision that's out of sync with recognized law, both Supreme Court law and the law more focused kind of cases of other circuits." Three of those circuits have ruled similar laws unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear the case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.

Consider Supporting Us?

The staff at Onenewsnow.com strives daily to bring you news from a biblical perspective. If you benefit from this platform and want others to know about it please consider a generous gift today.

MAKE A DONATION

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 NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

Who would you prefer replace Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Barbara Bush was '1st lady of the greatest generation'
Israel's Lieberman blames Hamas over Gaza deaths
Iranian foreign minister wants respect from US
After Facebook scrutiny, is Google next?
India prescribes death penalty for rape of kids under 12
Hamas says man gunned down in Malaysia was important member
Americans told to toss romaine lettuce over E. coli fears

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Bernie Sanders: 'Trump agenda is dead' if Dems win majority in '18
At Sylvester Stallone's urging, Trump weighs 'full pardon' for boxer Jack Johnson
Trey Gowdy unloads on Comey, trashes his 'morality tour,' then exposes his blatant hypocrisy
After Texas governor slams NJ's high taxes, NJ governor responds
Trump blasts 'New York Times' reporter in tweetstorm

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day

REASON & COMPANY

NEXT STORY
Any bets on how SCOTUS will rule in NCAA case?

sports betting gamblingThe future of sports betting may be determined by an upcoming Supreme Court case, but there are many implications for states depending on how the high court rules.