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."
========================================
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."