The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear a cases brought by three California faith-based pregnancy counseling organizations that are challenging a California law that require every licensed pregnancy center in the state to inform its clients of publicly funded abortion and contraception services.
The organizations claim that the law violates their freedom of speech by requiring them to make statements that they oppose on moral and religious grounds.
The petitions for certiorari are being brought by Mountain Right to Life, Inc., Livingwell Medical Clinic, Inc., A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Resource Center, and National Institute of Family and Life Advocates.
The question presented by Mountain Right to Life, Inc., is fairly comprehensive and is as follows:
Issues: (1) Whether a law compelling faith-based nonprofit crisis pregnancy centers to advertise free or low-cost abortions available from the state, a message in direct contradiction to the organizations’ sincerely held religious beliefs, is a content-based restriction of speech subject to strict scrutiny under Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona; (2) whether a law compelling faith-based nonprofit crisis pregnancy centers to advertise free or low-cost abortions available from the state, a message in direct contradiction to the organizations’ sincerely held religious beliefs, conflicts with Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, Inc., and other precedents of the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal; and (3) whether a law compelling faith-based nonprofit crisis pregnancy centers to advertise free or low-cost abortions available from the state, a message in direct contradiction to the organizations’ sincerely held religious beliefs, conflicts with Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, and other precedents of the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear the cases within the next few weeks.
Holding: Religious organizations cannot be excluded from generally available public benefits solely because of their religious status.
Holding: The Supreme Court considered whether a town ordinance restricting church sign size, quantity, and duration while allowing different restrictions on political signs violates the First Amendment.
