Supreme Court Strikes Down California Law Forcing Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortion

"...a government that tells you what you must say—under threat of severe punishment—is alarming.”

By Steven Ertelt
Life News

The Supreme Court has struck down a California law forcing pregnancy centers to promote abortions. The high court decision is a massive victory for pro-life advocates and pregnancy centers that want to provide pro-life options for pregnant women considering abortion without being forced to promote abortions.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this year in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a lawsuit brought by pregnancy centers that don’t want to be compelled to advertise abortions.They say the California Reproductive FACT Act violates the free speech clause in the First Amendment.

Today, the nation’s highest court struck down the law, saying it “likely violates the First Amendment.” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Alito and Gorsuch joined. The four abortion advocates, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan ruled that pregnancy centers can be forced to promote abortions.

“The licensed notice is a content-based regulation. By compelling petitioners to speak a particular message, it “alters the content of [their] speech,'” the Supreme Court added.

Thomas wrote that “the people lose when the government is the one deciding which ideas should prevail…. This Court’s precedents are deeply skeptical of laws that ‘distinguis[h] among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.’”

Tuesday’s ruling from the Supreme Court could impact similar pro-abortion anti-free-speech laws enacted in other states, including Hawaii and Illinois.

Alliance Defending Freedom President, CEO, and General Counsel MichaelFarris told LifeNews he was delighted by the decision.

“No one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion,” said Farris. “In this case, the government used its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for abortion. The Supreme Court said that the government can’t do that, and that it must respect pro-life beliefs.”

“Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a diverse society like ours,” Farris added. “They enable us to coexist peacefully with one another. If we want to have freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to others.”

NIFPA president Thomas Glessner also was happy about today’s ruling.

“The right of free speech protected in the First Amendment not only includes the right to speak, but also the right to not be compelled by government to speak a message with which one disagrees and which violates one’s conscience,” said Glessner in comments to LifeNews.

“The court correctly found that the California law clearly offends this principle. We are very pleased with the court’s decision and for what it means for the many pro-life centers that serve and empower women in California and throughout the country.”

Farris argued in court on behalf of the pregnancy centers.

“Today, before the United States Supreme Court justices, I argued on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates that the California law forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for abortions is unlawful government-compelled expression,” he told LifeNews after the oral arguments.

 “A government that tells you what you can’t say is dangerous, but a government that tells you what you must say—under threat of severe punishment—is alarming.”

Life News article continues here 

The Abortion Pill Has Killed 22 Women, One State is Fighting Planned Parenthood to Protect Others

By Elizabeth Slattery
Life News

This week, the Supreme Court declined to take up Planned Parenthood’s challenge to a 2015 Arkansas law intended to protect women experiencing complications after a medication abortion.

The commonsense reform would require clinics that provide abortion-inducing drugs to have an arrangement with a doctor at a nearby hospital. In the case of an emergency, that doctor could then treat the woman at the hospital—something the Arkansas Legislature determined is necessary in light of the myriad complications that can result from a drug-induced abortion.

In a 2017 report, the Food and Drug Administration indicated there have been 22 reported deaths caused by medication abortions since the drug was approved in 2000.

Before Arkansas’ law could go into effect, Planned Parenthood got a district judge in Little Rock to stay its implementation. The abortion giant argued that it has been unable to find a doctor with admitting privileges who is willing to enter into an agreement with its two clinics in Arkansas. Since these locations do not provide surgical abortions, Planned Parenthood says it may have to shut down its operations in Arkansas, leaving only one remaining abortion clinic in the state.

Under Supreme Court precedent, states may enact abortion regulations so long as they do not have the purpose or effect of imposing an undue burden on women seeking an abortion before viability. Planned Parenthood brought a facial challenge, claiming the law is unconstitutional in every application, rather than as applied to its locations in Arkansas.

The Supreme Court has explained that the standard for a facial challenge to an abortion regulation is whether “in a large fraction of the cases in which [the law] is relevant, it will operate as a substantial obstacle … ”

Last July, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court. Writing for the court, Judge Raymond Gruender (who is on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court short list) explained that the district court needed to conduct more detailed fact-finding in order to halt the law.

The district court had determined that the law was an “undue burden” by focusing on women from Fayetteville who would be required to travel 380 miles to the remaining clinic in Little Rock. 

The appeals court panel estimated that, based on the record in the case, fewer than 6 percent of women seeking medication abortions would be negatively affected by the new law, expressing skepticism about whether that would qualify as a “large fraction.” But the panel gave the district court a second chance at making the necessary findings to support its injunction.

Instead of going back to the district court, however, Planned Parenthood asked the Supreme Court to intervene, seeking a summary reversal of the 8th Circuit’s ruling. Planned Parenthood claims that this case is nearly identical to a 2016 decision striking down Texas’ admitting privileges law, so the court could avoid rehashing the same arguments and simply reverse the lower court.

But the Supreme Court, unsurprisingly, declined to do that.

Life News article continues here

Supreme Court Blocks Release of More Videos Exposing Planned Parenthood Aborted Baby Part Sales

“Prior restraints are ‘the most serious and least tolerable infringement of First Amendment Rights’” 

By Steven Ertelt
Life News

The United States Supreme Court has blocked the release of more videos exposing Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of aborted babies.

Ever since the Center for Medical Progress released a series of videos showing the nation’s biggest abortion business and the abortion industry selling the body parts of aborted children, abortion advocates have sued to stop the release of additional footage exposing it further. Courts have considered multiple lawsuits where abortion activists have attempted to thwart the First Amendment free speech rights of Center for Medical Progress and its board members.

The Supreme Court considered a case involving one of the board members of the organization and refused to consider a lower Court ruling that was anti-free Speech in nature.

Troy Newman, president of the pro-life group Operation Rescue, and a former CMP board member, was sued by the National Abortion Federation for publicly releasing secret recordings of its meetings where the undercover footage was filmed exposing the abotion industry selling aborted baby parts. NAF doesn’t want additional footage release making public it snefarious dealings.
A lower court sided with NAF and the high court denied review without comment.

Previously, a three-member panel of the liberally activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that additional footage obtained through the CMP’s undercover investigations – even those recordings that contain evidence of criminal conduct committed by Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials – cannot be released to law enforcement personnel. A requested review by the full Ninth Circuit was denied.

Through his attorney, Jay Sekulow, and his legal team from the American Center for Law and Justice, Newman argued that the gag order prohibited the release of incriminating videos to law enforcement agencies around the nation who sought the evidence in their own investigations. At least twenty state attorney generals had joined in the appeal.

“While appealing the gag order before the entire Supreme Court would have been preferable, we continue to fight the two oppressive lawsuits brought by the NAF and Planned Parenthood, which aim to silence us and conceal the truth about their involvement in the grisly illegal sale of aborted baby tissues and organs for profit,” said Newman. “We pray that one day the full truth will come out, and those who have committed crimes will be held accountable in a court of law.”

Judge William Orrick based his decision to seal the videos, which gagged CMP members — including Newman — on his erroneous belief that the undercover videos contained no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of the NAF or Planned Parenthood.

However, Orrick’s faulty determination was debunked by two Congressional investigations found probably cause to believe that crimes had been committed by Planned Parenthood and others, and criminal referrals were made to the Department of Justice.

The ruling is related to a federal lawsuit, National Abortion Federation v. CMP, et al, that was filed in 2015 after the CMP released several videos showing Planned Parenthood executives haggling over top dollar to illegally sell aborted baby organs and tissue. The NAF sought to block the further release of possibly incriminating videos.

The motion requesting Supreme Court review stated that the lower court wrongly upheld a “prior restraint” on CMP’s First Amendment speech, which had captured great public interest. The undercover videos were also the subject of investigations by House and Senate panels that later referred Planned Parenthood organizations to the U.S. Department of Justice and state Attorneys General for further criminal investigation and prosecution.

“Prior restraints are ‘the most serious and least tolerable infringement of First Amendment Rights,’” stated the motion to stay.

Life News report continues here

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether David Daleiden Can Release More Videos Exposing Planned Parenthood

By Indya Rennie
Life News

The U.S. Supreme Court may take up undercover journalist David Daleiden’s case against the National Abortion Federation, his attorneys announced Thursday. In an email, the Thomas More Society said the high court plans to meet March 29 to discuss whether to review Daleiden’s appeal of the 9th Circuit Court gag order.

“This is HUGE news,” the attorneys said.

Daleiden was sued by the National Abortion Federation for releasing undercover videos that exposed Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of fetal body parts. Judge William Orrick and the 9th Circuit Court issued a gag order prohibiting Daleiden and his organization, the Center for Medical Progress, from releasing additional footage, Life News previously reported.

Life Legal Defense Foundation appealed, and petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit Court decision.

In November 2017, the Supreme Court expressed interest in the case when it asked for additional information from the National Abortion Federation. Now, it has confirmed its interest by scheduling its conference meeting for March 29 to decide whether to review the case.

The Thomas More Society, which represented Daleiden in a similar lawsuit against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, described their urgent need to prepare.

“We have two short weeks to make sure our attorneys are ready to go if the justices give the green light,” Thomas More Society President and Chief Council Tom Brejcha wrote in an email.

The gag order that the 9th Circuit placed on the Center for Medical Progress is unconstitutional based on past Supreme Court decisions, according to Daleiden’s attorneys. The Supreme Court previously decided that such gag orders and other forms of prior restraint are “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” It also ruled that prior restraint is particularly harmful “when the prior restraint falls upon the communication of news and commentary on current events.”

Judge William Orrick, however, ruled that because Daleiden signed a required non-disclosure agreement with the National Abortion Federation, he relinquished his First Amendment free speech rights. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

This action was unprecedented; Katie Short, Life Legal’s Vice President of Legal Affairs, pointed out that this is the first time a federal appeals court maintained a gag order, even if it is agreed to by the parties involved, if the exposure of the information in question is in the public’s interest.

Life News article continues here

5 Religious Liberty and Right to Life Issues to Watch in 2018

      Visitors stand in line outside the Supreme Court 

in Washington, U.S., November 27, 2017

By Brandon Showalter
Christian Post

From big cases before the Supreme Court centering on free speech and religious liberty claims of a Christian baker to the ongoing investigations into transactions between abortion providers and biotech firms over fetal body parts harvested during abortion procedures, 2018 is already shaping up to be a significant year for religiously observant Americans and the unborn.

Here are five legal matters carrying significant implications that are expected to develop even more this year.

Decision to Be Handed Down in the Case of Christian Baker Jack Phillips at the Supreme Court

Expand | Collapse

(PHOTO: REUTERS/AARON P. BERNSTEIN) 

Baker Jack Phillips speaks with the media following oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., December 5, 2017.

In what is considered a landmark religious liberty case before the High Court this year, in December the Court's nine justices heard arguments in the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips whom the Colorado Civil Rights Commission sued for declining to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2012.

Phillips maintains that his rights were violated to conduct his business according to the dictates of his faith and that to be forced to lend his creative abilities to an event with which he disagrees is state-coerced expression, also known as compelled speech. This, his lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom say, violates his free speech and religious freedom rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

As it has in years past when it comes to touchy cases — such as Hobby Lobby v. Burwell in 2014 — the Court is likely to hand down this decision on the last day of the session in late June.

The current Supreme Court bench is comprised of four conservatives, four liberals, and Anthony Kennedy, long regarded as the "swing vote" on controversial cases. Reports indicated that Kennedy appeared to favor Phillips' position during oral arguments, suggesting during questioning that the state showed disrespect for Phillips' faith and that true tolerance is a two-way street.

US Ambassador for Religious Freedom Nomination of Sam Brownback Nomination Stalled; Will He Be Renominated?

Expand | Collapse

PHOTO: REUTERS/MARK KAUZLARICH

Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback speaks to supporters after winning re-election in the U.S. midterm elections in Topeka, Kansas, on November 4, 2014.

President Donald Trump nominated Kansas Governor Sam Brownback in July to be the U.S. ambassador for Religious Freedom, a move that delighted religious freedom activists and social conservatives.

His appointment, however, has been delayed and has not yet been installed because Senate Democrats have blocked a confirmation vote due to concerns about Brownback's rescinding of a state executive pertaining to discrimination and LGBT government employees.

Because his nomination never got to the floor for a vote, Trump will have to either resubmit it in the new year or nominate someone else and it is at present unknown what will happen. CBN reported that unless Brownback is reappointed and confirmed before Jan. 9 the Kansas governor will have to give the State address to the Kansas state legislature despite having delivered a farewell address last month in anticipation of being confirmed to his ambassadorship. Congress returns to work on Jan. 3.

The particular ambassadorship for which Brownback was nominated is a critical post within the Department of State that focuses mainly on promoting religious freedom around the world, and calling out oppressive governments and non-state entities that oppress and persecute people on the basis of their faith.

Trump is considered to be one of the more friendly Republican presidents regarding LGBT issues. An early version of a federal executive order last year outlining religious liberty protections was reportedly scuttled because of the influence of Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner, a White House adviser, due to their concerns over LGBT rights. Trump ultimately signed a revised religious liberty executive order that was met with mixed reception on May 4.

Last month, the Trump administration renominated Chai Feldblum, a lesbian activist who joined the agency in 2010 under President Obama, to her post at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The move shocked and displeased social conservatives who have consistently supported the president.

Department of Justice Investigates Planned Parenthood

Expand | Collapse

(PHOTO: REUTERS)

In December, the Justice Department opened an investigation into the largest abortion provider in the United States, Planned Parenthood, as a result of findings from a Congressional investigation into its financial dealings with biotech firms over fetal body parts procured during abortion procedures.

Despite undercover videos from a 2015 investigation by the Center for Medical Progress suggesting otherwise, Planned Parenthood insisted that it followed the law and made no money from fetal tissue donated during abortions and that any financial reimbursements it received were for transport expenses and handling costs.

Pro-life advocacy groups have long contended that the abortion giant, which receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants each year, be defunded. The closest Congress ever came to doing so was as part of a provision in the attempted repeal of Obamacare last summer, an effort which ultimately failed due to the Senate's failure to secure sufficient Republican votes.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley said in December 2016 that enough evidence was discovered showing how abortion providers had transferred the fetal body parts from aborted fetuses for research by charging amounts higher than they actually cost, according to Fox News.

"The report documents the failure of the Department of Justice, across multiple administrations, to enforce the law that bans the buying and selling of human fetal tissue," Grassley wrote in a letter, arguing the Justice Department and FBI should investigate.

"It also documents substantial evidence suggesting that the specific entities involved in the recent controversy, and/or individuals employed by those entities, may have violated that law."

David Daleiden Continues With Lawsuit Against Him in California; Biotech Tech Companies Settling Out of Court

Expand | Collapse

(PHOTO: REUTERS/RUTHY MUNOZ)

Anti-abortion activist David Daleiden speaks at a news conference outside a court in Houston, Texas on Feb. 4, 2016.

Developments continue to emerge regarding the man behind the 2015 exposé of fetal body parts transactions between Planned Parenthood and biotech companies.

Although the federal government is now investigating the abortion giant and the biotech firms in question, David Daleiden is facing charges at the state level. The attorney general of California has filed a lawsuit against him and his colleague, Sandra Merritt, alleging criminal wrongdoing. Yet the judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who is presiding over the case, Judge William Orrick III, has extrajudicial connections to the abortion group and Daleiden's attorneys recently filed a motion to disqualify him, arguing that he cannot be trusted to hear the case impartially.

Whether Judge Orrick will be removed from the case remains to be seen but the momentum does appear to be shifting away from Planned Parenthood and the biotechnology companies that did business with them in procuring fetal body parts for research purposes.

In a Dec. 14 editorial in The Hill, Daleiden recounted how an Orange County district attorney recently settled with two Southern California sister companies, DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, in which they were ordered to close down operations, banned from ever doing business in the state, and forced to admit liability for violating state and federal laws.

"For over two years, Planned Parenthood has breathlessly asserted to anyone who would listen that their programs to allegedly sell aborted fetal organs and tissues were completely above reproach, arguing that they only receive legal reimbursements and follow all patient consent rules," he wrote.

"But the guilty plea by the DaVinci companies, which worked with a major Planned Parenthood abortion center in southern California, blows Planned Parenthood's dubious assertions of innocence completely out of the water."

Little Sisters of the Poor Face Court Battles in States Despite Favor in Federal Government

Expand | Collapse

(PHOTO: REUTERS/CARLOS BARRIA)

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with a nun of the Little Sisters of The Poor during a National Day of Prayer event at the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington D.C., U.S., May 4, 2017.

The Denver-based Roman Catholic nuns called the Little Sisters of the Poor that the Obama administration sued over their moral objections to offering contraception as part of their insurance plans as was required through Obamacare have had some recent victories at the federal level. But they continue to face challenges in Democratic-leaning states.

In early October, the Trump administration issued a rule broadening the religious exemption for them and other groups but a Pennsylvania judge blocked it, arguing that the rule would do "serious and irreparable harm" to the state were it to be left in place. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro sued the nuns, attempting to remove the exemption. Such has also been the approach and posture of Attorney General Xavier Becerra in the state of California, who took the Sisters to court on Dec. 12.

Becket, the religious liberty firm that represent the sisters, have said that the attorneys general are trying to score political points.

"These men may think their campaign donors want them to sue nuns, but our guess is most taxpayers disagree," said Mark Rienzi, Becket's senior counsel, the Kaplan Herald reported Sunday.

"No one needs nuns in order to get contraceptives, and no one needs these guys reigniting the last administration's divisive and unnecessary culture war."

Website: Christian Post

Supreme Court Will Decide Jan. 5 Whether to Take Case of Pregnant Undocumented Teenagers’ “Right” to Abortion

By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life

Veteran Supreme Court reporter Lyle Denniston reported today that the Supreme has decided to “move ahead on the dispute over teen abortions.” He is referring to the case of three undocumented pregnant girls whom the ACLU has so far successfully argued ought to be allowed to abort.

Denniston begins

The Supreme Court plans to take up at its first private conference in the new year the intense, ongoing fight over an unsettled constitutional question – do undocumented immigrant teenagers who are pregnant have a right to an abortion? That question remains open even though three of those young women have had abortions or are now free to have the procedure.

The Justices are now scheduled to discuss on January 5 the Trump Administration’s appeal, seeking a clear-cut ruling that government officials have no legal duty to do anything to help secure abortions for teenagers being held in custody after they entered the country illegally.

The justices will juggle a multiplicity of issues and arguments. The ACLU’s position is clear. Their lawsuit seeks the right to abort “of all detained teenagers who are or might become pregnant.”

Thus far, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has agreed that all three teenagers must be allowed to abort and so ordered. In response to the latest cases of “Jane Doe” and “Jane Poe,” the government said

“We are deeply disappointed in the decision [by Judge Chutkan] to grant a temporary restraining order that will compel HHS to facilitate abortions for minors when they are not medically necessary,” spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told POLITICO. 

“A pregnant minor who has entered the country illegally has the option to voluntarily depart to her home country or identify a suitable sponsor. HHS-funded facilities that provide temporary shelter and care for unaccompanied alien minors should not become way stations for these children to get taxpayer-facilitated abortions.”

That has been the Trump administration’s position from the beginning: the government is not obliged to “facilitate” these abortions. (As Denniston noted, “Since the Supreme Court has ruled that women in general have a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, and that government may not impose an ‘undue burden’ on that right, the Trump legal team takes the view that failing to facilitate an abortion does not impose any such burden.”)

The Department of Justice argues that these pregnant teenagers may either go back to their home country of origin or “identify a suitable sponsor” but not simply be released on their own recognizance.

National Right to Life article continues here

Roe v. Wade Will Eventually Fall and Unborn Babies Will be Protected From Abortion

By Maria Gallagher, PA Pro-Life Federation
Life News

“Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!”—The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., April 3, 1968, Memphis, Tennessee

In working to celebrate and honor the dignity of innocent human life, I have found this quotation from civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. coming to my mind again and again. I hope with all my heart that I will see the day when the tragic U.S. Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade is overturned. To me, metaphorically speaking, enabling states to protect preborn children from the moment of conception is the “Promised Land” that I am longing to see. I pray that this happens during my lifetime.

It saddens me that my daughter has had to grow up in a world in which the taking of unborn children’s lives is so prevalent. In the U.S. alone, the unborn death toll from abortion stands at close to 60 million since the 1973 Supreme Court decision. That figure does not include mothers who have died directly as a result of abortion, mothers who have died from drug or alcohol overdoses following abortion, or of post-abortion suicides.

That death toll also does not take into account the collateral damage caused by abortion—the severed relationships, the emotional and psychological trauma, the physical complications, the subsequent premature births.

What could be called the culture of abortion is prevalent in our political system, entertainment, and the media. Thus, the effort to restore a culture of life is played out on multiple fronts—not only in courtrooms and Capitol buildings, but also on television and movie screens and over Internet connections.

To counter the abortion lobby is a vast undertaking. But there is certainly hope born in every chapter and affiliate of National Right to Life. Research shows that the Millennial generation of young adults is more pro-life than young people of generations past.

When I learn that a baby’s life is saved and a mother is spared the harm of abortion, I am transported to the mountaintop. I still hope I will survive to see the promised land of an abortion-free America. But if I do not, I am confident that my daughter or another descendent will.

Life News article continues

Supreme Court to Decide Soon Whether to Hear Pro-Life Challenge to Compelled Pro-Abortion Speech

By Dave Andrusko

National Right to Life

David Savage, a veteran reporter, “has covered the Supreme Court and legal issues for the Los Angeles Times in the Washington bureau since 1986.” While I often disagree with him, nonetheless he is well respected and has very good contacts.

Savage ran a fascinating piece that appeared this morning that is of intense interest to pregnancy help centers in particular, defenders of the First Amendment in general.

As NRL News Today readers recall, Jay Hobbs of Pregnancy Help News has written story after story tracing the judicial arc of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a “challenge to a 2015 California state law that forces locally funded pro-life medical clinics to advertise taxpayer-funded abortions.”

Savage writes that as early as Monday the justices could decide whether they will hear the case. “The justices have considered the appeals for more than three weeks in their weekly conferences, suggesting at least several of them are inclined to hear the cases,” he wrote.

The lawsuit is against California’s so-called Reproductive FACT Act. Ostensibly it is a law (as Savage wrote) passed because the legislature was “concerned that the more than 200 pregnancy centers in California sometimes provided ‘intentionally deceptive advertising and counseling practices that often confuse, misinform and even intimidate women from making fully informed decisions’ about their medical care.”

That no such behavior has occurred and that this is blatantly coerced speech did not bother a panel of the frequently reversed 9th Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. “In a 3-0 ruling, the judges said the state has ample authority to regulate professional speech’ to protect the welfare of patients,” Savage explained.

Hobbs explained how elaborate and detailed are the requirements mandated under the so-called Reproductive FACT Act.

The notice, which the law specifies must either be posted as a public notice in “22-point type,” “distributed to all clients in no less than 14-point font” or distributed digitally “at the time of check-in or arrival,” applies to all pregnancy help medical clinics licensed by the state.

“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].”

National Right to Life article continues

David Daleiden Fights Judge’s Order Stopping Release of More Videos Exposing Planned Parenthood

By Tom Ciesielka
Life News

Attorneys from the Thomas More Society joined their co-defense counsel in filing an appeal with the United States Supreme Court asking the Court to hear the case of David Daleiden, the 28-year old undercover journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the commercial trafficking of aborted babies’ body parts and to overturn a court imposed gag order that barred Daleiden from releasing hundreds of hours of still more videos; videos whose contents were both politically embarrassing and incriminating for Planned Parenthood and other abortionists.

The National Abortion Federation had filed suit in July, 2015, to bar Daleiden from releasing his undercover videos taken at National Abortion Federation 2014 and 2015 annual conventions. Judge William Orrick granted an “emergency” gag order suppressing the videotapes, and later he entered a preliminary injunction extending the gag order indefinitely, through trial of the case – an injunction that the Ninth Circuit U.S. 

Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed, although one judge on the three-judge panel dissented from that part of the lower court’s order that forbade Daleiden from releasing the videos to law enforcement without first getting the federal court’s permission to do so after first consulting with National Abortion Federation.

Thomas More Society attorneys Tom Brejcha, Peter Breen, Matt Heffron, and Sarah Pitlyk helped to craft the appeal, along with co-defense counsel, and they have been representing Daleiden in both the National Abortion Federation civil suit, filed under the Federal Racketeering Law, another Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations suit filed by Planned Parenthood and various affiliates, and in criminal felony prosecutions filed both in Houston, Texas, (finally dismissed a year ago) and in San Francisco Criminal Court.

The opinion issued by the lower court, which entered the gag order, had conceded that: 

“There is no doubt that members of the public have a serious and passionate interest in the debate over abortion rights and the right to life, and thus in the contents of defendants’ recordings”. 

“I fully recognize that there is strong public interest on the issue of abortion on both sides of that debate, and that members of the public therefore have an interest in accessing the National Abortion Federation materials. I also recognize that this case impinges on defendants’ rights to speech and the public’s equally important interest in hearing that speech.” 

Nonetheless, U.S. District Judge Orrick issued a gag order, ruling that release of the videos would risk violent retaliation against abortion providers – despite a total lack of evidence that Daleiden ever advocated, let alone perpetrated violence. Indeed, David’s pro-life activism arises from his deep aversion to the infliction of physical violence against any human beings.

Life News continues

Harvard Law Journal Concludes Unborn Babies Have Constitutional Rights

By Cortney O'Brien

Town Hall

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, declares that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A debate that has been raging in courtrooms for years is whether the “life” part includes unborn persons.

Harvard Law student Joshua Craddock did some constitutional soul searching to answer that question in a new report for the Harvard Law Journal, concluding that unborn babies do fall under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections.

One might look to dictionaries of legal and common usage, the context of the English common law tradition, and cases that attempted to construe the meaning of the text in a manner consistent with original meaning. Using this methodology, it is reasonable to construe the Fourteenth Amendment to include prenatal life. 

The structure of the argument is simple: The Fourteenth Amendment’s use of the word “person” guarantees due process and equal protection to all members of the human species. 

The preborn are members of the human species from the moment of fertilization. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the preborn. If one concedes the minor premise (that preborn humans are members of the human species), all that must be demonstrated is that the term “person,” in its original public meaning at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, applied to all members of the human species.

In addition to using language to prove his point, Craddock puts his conclusions in context, noting that at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was written, several states called the unborn person a “child” in their anti-abortion laws. Moreover, The Stream notes, in 1859, the American Medical Association mandated that the government must protect the “independent and actual existence of the child before birth.”

Using this logic, Craddock notes, the Supreme Court justices were flawed in their 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which granted the right to abortion. When he wrote the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun failed to properly assess the word “person” as it was applied in 1868, Craddock argues.

Will the Supreme Court consider the Fourteenth Amendment in future cases dealing with abortion?

Website: Townhall.com

Supreme Court Will Decide if States Can Force Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions

By Micaiah Bilger
Life News

Lawyers representing a group of California pregnancy centers recently announced plans to appeal an onerous state law to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The California law, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in October, forces pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortions.

PJ Media reports Tom Glessner, president and CEO of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, said they are appealing the case to the high court, arguing that the law violates both free speech and religious freedom.

“In essence, the law mandates that pro-life centers become abortion referral agencies, totally against their convictions, against their foundational beliefs, compelling speech,” Glessner told the news outlet during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

“The government cannot compel you or me or a church to present a message that it wants you to present and you disagree with,” he continued. “It just can’t do that. That is an absolute violation of your First Amendment rights.”

Named “The Reproductive FACT Act” by its pro-abortion authors and passed through both houses of the California State Legislature on a party-line vote, the law is the subject of multiple lawsuits. The law forces about 150 pregnancy help non-profits, including the 74 state-licensed free ultrasound facilities, to give each of its clients the following disclaimer, which includes the phone number of a county social services office where a client could obtain an abortion covered by taxpayer-funded Medi-Cal.

Life News article continues

Pro-life Film 'Voiceless' to Get Advance Screening in Front of the U.S. Supreme Court

"Voiceless" Executive Producer Jason Jones said, "I served as executive producer on 'Voiceless' and founded Movie to Movement to use art to overturn laws that deny legal protection to the child in the womb.

Rev. Patrick Mahoney

Christian News Wire

After initially denying Church on the Hill and Movie to Movement's request to preview the groundbreaking new film "Voiceless" in front of the Supreme Court on October 2, Court officials have granted permission.

After two weeks of communications and meetings with Court officials, in which the screening request was denied three separate times, and less than 48 hours away from filing a lawsuit to assert Church on the Hill and Rev. Patrick Mahoney's First Amendment rights, the Court reversed course and settled on a plan to screen "Voiceless" in front of the Court.

According to organizers, this is the first time the Supreme Court has ever permitted a film to be shown in front of the Court. This is not only a historic victory for free speech and the First Amendment, but also a powerful opportunity to give a voice to the millions of innocent children who have no voice of their own.

The award-winning film "Voiceless" introduces viewers to a discharged soldier who discovers an abortion clinic operating across the street from his Philadelphia church. He struggles to motivate his church to get involved in protecting unborn babies, and eventually must decide whether to risk it all to fight for what is right.

Filmmakers say that "Voiceless" is the first pro-life film that powerfully addresses the reasons why most people don't engage the injustice of abortion. This film is brilliantly designed to inspire and motivate the church to action.

Article continues: christiannewswire.com

Blogger's comment:
Voices for Life urge all those who support the sanctity of life to see this film. Together, with God's help, we can make a difference in changing hearts and minds.

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, and Pinterest.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.