YIKES: Can govt require "compelled speech" in clinics regarding abortion

[emilynghiem]

Just got this email from Pacific Justice Institute:
========================================
Sacramento, CA—A federal judge is scheduled to hear oral arguments Friday on California’s controversial effort to mandate that pro-life pregnancy clinics promote abortion.

Pacific Justice Institute represents three pro-life clinics challenging AB 775. PJI attorney, Kevin Snider, will present oral arguments beginning at 1:30 p.m. Friday afternoon in Sacramento before Judge Kimberly Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. PJI is asking the court to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on January 1, 2016. Similar attempts in New York City and Baltimore to compel pro-life clinics to utter pro-abortion messages were found to be unconstitutional by the Second and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal, respectively.

In an attempt to avoid application of the First Amendment, the State is taking the position that the mandated signs are “conduct” and not “speech.” The State is also arguing that ObamaCare prompted the new mandates on pro-life pregnancy clinics by making more women eligible for Medi-Cal. Under AB 775, pro-life pregnancy clinics would be required to tell women that free or low-cost (taxpayer-subsidized) abortions and contraceptives are available by contacting the County.

Brad Dacus, president of PJI, commented, “The government message mandated by AB 775 is an especially egregious form of compelled speech. If the government can get away with this, they can order anyone to say anything. This case poses serious questions for the future of the First Amendment.”
================

I can see both sides. I guess I would recommend that any literature on other options INCLUDE all the public services available in that area; but if the workers and staff want to talk about that in the negative, they are free to do so but should still offer the literature if it is a public option. So they can say something like "I'm required by law to offer you these other options on this page that are open to the public, but personally, I do not recommend or believe in some of these because of the harm and risk of harm that either outweigh the reasons behind it and/or cause worse problems than they solve."

 

[Grandma]

Patients have the legal right to ALL information relating to their case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The law makes no mention of 'pro-life' medical providers:

AB 775 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis

The required notice provides information consistent with Constitutional law:

"California has public programs that provide immediate free or
low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services
(including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal
care, and abortion, for eligible women. To determine whether
you qualify, contact the county social services office at
[insert the telephone number]. "

That those hostile to privacy rights and settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence might 'object' to the notice is not 'justification' for opposing the state's lawful and appropriate notification of citizens' rights.

 

[OKTexas]

The law makes no mention of 'pro-life' medical providers:

AB 775 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis

The required notice provides information consistent with Constitutional law:

"California has public programs that provide immediate free or
low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services
(including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal
care, and abortion, for eligible women. To determine whether
you qualify, contact the county social services office at
[insert the telephone number]. "

That those hostile to privacy rights and settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence might 'object' to the notice is not 'justification' for opposing the state's lawful and appropriate notification of citizens' rights.

They can provide it just like the drug companies do, in a 20 page document, with print so fine you need a 50 power magnifying glass to read it and in language no one except a law professor can understand.

 

[emilynghiem]

Patients have the legal right to ALL information relating to their case.

Hmmmmm Grandma
And what about choices before pushing medical marijuana as the only alternative?
Spiritual healing that has cured addiction also has been used to cure cancer, not just placate symptoms
or stimulate appetite lost to chemotherapy. So would the spiritual healing advocates have to push
this option through govt to legalize it, before it becomes required to offer as an alternative?
What if spiritual healing is free? What if govt is supposed to stay out of spiritual therapy?
So these can never be offered as equal choices? Not unless govt mandates them first?

 

[Programmer]

Patients have the legal right to ALL information relating to their case.

*Outrage* Oh, Babies are cases now? */Outrage*

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Actually, every time I buy a gun I am compelled to speak and answer questions.

 

[emilynghiem]

Patients have the legal right to ALL information relating to their case.

*Outrage* Oh, Babies are cases now? */Outrage*

I think cases refers to cases of pregnancy. Programmer

I get that you are trying to humanize and not dehumanize the baby as a human being.
but even Dr. Marcello Colbert, of the Respect for Life Office of the Catholic Diocese,
when she addressed a liberal prochoice feminist group
did not refer to either "fetus" or "baby" but used the neutral term "individual"
because it can be proven that from conception that "individual" has unique DNA.

She recommended this term to prevent from derailing the discussion over the terms fetus/baby. She made the point very clear that abortion was NOT good for women and it was pushed in ways that prevented men from taking responsibility. She was well received and did not get interrupted or trigger the group in any way by using language otherwise seen as loaded or biased propaganda.

Do you see her wisdom in this? She was careful to choose words that still establish recognition for the individual, so it doesn't diminish that fact, but doesn't cause a fight as the other terms do. So even opponents could hear her points.

 

[Programmer]

Patients have the legal right to ALL information relating to their case.

*Outrage* Oh, Babies are cases now? */Outrage*

I think cases refers to cases of pregnancy. Programmer

I get that you are trying to humanize and not dehumanize the baby as a human being.
but even Dr. Marcello Colbert, of the Respect for Life Office of the Catholic Diocese,
when she addressed a liberal prochoice feminist group
did not refer to either "fetus" or "baby" but used the neutral term "individual"
because it can be proven that from conception that "individual" has unique DNA.

She recommended this term to prevent from derailing the discussion over the terms fetus/baby. She made the point very clear that abortion was NOT good for women and it was pushed in ways that prevented men from taking responsibility. She was well received and did not get interrupted or trigger the group in any way by using language otherwise seen as loaded or biased propaganda.

Do you see her wisdom in this? She was careful to choose words that still establish recognition for the individual, so it doesn't diminish that fact, but doesn't cause a fight as the other terms do. So even opponents could hear her points.

Thanks for that. The semantics aren't as key as I made them out to seem.