What’s going on?
A case about whether or not state laws can require pro-life clinics to advertise abortion options on their walls is making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Give me the important details:
NIFLA v. Becerra, which will be considered by the court this term, pits the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates against the state of California.
State law requires crisis pregnancy centers to feature prominent materials about low-cost or free abortions for women who qualify along with a phone number to connect them with abortion clinics.
Professionals working to help women with crisis pregnancies are being forced to advertise abortion options, but the requirement doesn’t go the other way. Abortion clinics aren’t ordered to put prominent notices on their walls to direct clients to pro-life pregnancy centers.
How will this case affect my life?
Free speech is a fundamental right. If the Supreme Court decides that a state can dictate a private organization’s speech, the case could dangerously undermine the First Amendment and set a precedent for more infringement on free speech.
Free speech is on trial again, and “the stakes couldn’t be higher,” Glenn said on today’s show.
“Imagine all of the other insane positions that the government could force us to start endorsing” if the Supreme Court rules against NIFLA, Glenn pointed out. As an analogy, he compared California’s forced speech for pro-life clinics to churches being forced to have advertisements for atheism.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors.
GLENN: Free speech is on trial again at the Supreme Court. This time it’s related to abortion and the stakes could not be higher.
The case is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates vs. Becerra (Becerra is California’s attorney general). It’s about a new California law that requires pro-life pregnancy centers to post signs, in prominent places, to inform women that California offers low-cost, or in some cases free, abortions. The signs must include a phone number for abortion clinics.
California could do all the abortion clinic advertising it wants of course, but it is forcing those who are firmly against abortion to promote the abortion industry. Not only is California clearly violating free speech, it is aggressively endorsing the murder of unborn children over efforts to protect them. What have we become?
It’s kind of like forcing marriage counselors to post advertisements for hitmen, you know, that way their clients always have the option of just having their spouse murdered instead of working on the marriage.
If you crack open this legal door, imagine all the other insane positions that government could force us to start endorsing. This is the Fairness Doctrine on steroids. Imagine mandatory signs inside your church promoting atheism, except that atheist gatherings would not be required to promote your religion.
Two hundred twenty-six years after passage of the First Amendment, you’d think our freedom of speech would be secure. But apparently, the Freedom of Speech part still isn’t clear to the state of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They’re only interested in protecting speech they approve. And not only protecting it, forcing people who disagree with their position to endorse it! It is absolute tyranny.
The people who run these non-profit, pro-life pregnancy centers are humble, loving, caring, genuine, hard-working people. Their mission is helping women and saving lives. They’re unsung heroes on the frontlines of the American holocaust – 21st-century Paulinas – saving people from being murdered.
Apparently, these pro-life pregnancy centers are a little too good at saving lives, because their government is going out of its way to persecute their crazy notion that the baby growing inside you is an actual human life, with inherent value, that deserves protection.
This decision should be a no-brainer for the Supreme Court. Pray that they do the right thing.