U.S. Supreme Court blocks California law on anti-abortion centres

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a California law requiring clinics that counsel women against abortion to notify clients of the availability of abortions paid for by the state, ruling it violated the free speech rights of these Christian-based facilities.

The Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973. While the broader issue of abortion rights was not at issue in this case, the 5-4 ruling represented a significant victory for abortion opponents who operate these kinds of clinics called crisis pregnancy centres around the country.

The court's five conservative justices were in the majorityin the ruling authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, with the fourliberals dissenting.

The justices endorsed the argument advanced by the clinicsthat the Democratic-backed law in the most populous U.S. stateran afoul of the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee offree speech by forcing them to advertise for abortion inviolation of their beliefs.

"California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliverits message for it," Thomas wrote in his opinion.

Crisis pregnancy centres have said they offer legitimatehealth services, but that it is their mission to steer women with unplanned pregnancies away from abortion.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, called the decision "unfortunate" but said "our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their health-care options will continue."

'Forced to advertise abortion'

U.S.Attorney General Jeff Sessions hailed the decision.

"We are pleasedthat today's decision protects Americans' freedom of speech.Speakers should not be forced by their government to promote amessage with which they disagree, and pro-life pregnancy centresin California should not be forced to advertise abortion andundermine the very reason they exist."

By siding with fake health-care centres, the court has made public health second to far-right political views.- Shilpa Phadke, Center for American Progress

U.S. House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosicalled the ruling a "grave step backwards" for women's rights,adding that California should be able to protect people from"fake women's health centres" that provide biased information.

"This ruling fails to recognize or respect a woman'sconstitutional right to comprehensive health care," Pelosi said.

The decision "weaponizes the First Amendment," said ShilpaPhadke, vice-president of the Women's Initiative at the Centerfor American Progress liberal advocacy group.

"By siding with fake health-care centres, the court has madepublic health second to far-right political views," Phadkesaid.

Wider implications

There are roughly 2,700 crisis pregnancy centres in the United States, including around 200 in California, according to abortion rights advocates, vastly outnumbering abortion clinics.

The law does not require abortion referral or prevent thecentres from voicing their anti-abortion views, but rather helps ensure that clients are made aware of abortion and familyplanning services available elsewhere, California argued.

The justices reversed a 2016 ruling by the SanFrancisco-based NinthCircuit Court of Appeals that refused to block the law because it likely did not violate free speechrights.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer announced his dissent fromthe bench, saying the court previously upheld a law forcing doctors to tell women seeking abortion about adoption services.

If a state can do that, Breyer asked, "why should it not beable to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care about childbirth and abortion services?"

Breyersaid Tuesday's ruling could have wider implications, calling into question all manner of government disclosure requirements,such as in securities or consumer-protection regulations.

California's Reproductive FACT Act, passed by aDemocratic-led legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown in 2015, required centres licensed by the state asfamily planning facilities to post or distribute notices that the state has programs offering free or low-cost birth control,prenatal care and abortion services.

The law also mandated unlicensed centres that may have no medical provider on staff to disclose that fact.