Support NeoGAF

[ResurrectedContrarian]

Amidst the other Supreme Court threads, I didn't see this particular case decided this week, which for many of us is far more consequential and important than the ruling on travel bans:

Full decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf

General summary: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/o...nancy-centers-in-challenge-to-california-law/

The case was a challenge to California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act – also known as the Reproductive FACT Act. The law, passed in 2015, imposes two different sets of requirements on [pregnancy crisis] centers, depending on whether they are licensed to provide medical services. The centers that have licenses must post notices that inform their patients that they may obtain free or low-cost abortions and that include the number of the state agency that can connect the women with abortion providers. The centers that are not licensed must include disclaimers in their advertisements – in up to 13 languages – to make clear that their services do not include medical help.

The centers argued that both requirements violate the First Amendment. First, they alleged, requiring licensed centers to post notices about the availability of free or low-cost abortions conflicts with the anti-abortion message that they would like to convey. They also argued that the law singles out anti-abortion groups to publicize the availability of abortions. Second, the centers asserted, requiring unlicensed centers to include extensive disclosures in their advertisements makes it almost impossible for the centers to spread their own anti-abortion messages.

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the pregnancy centers, and rather strongly rebuked the notion that California can compel them to speak in favor of abortion options in any way whatsoever. This is a big win for protecting fundamental moral dissent from being compelled by the State to communicate messages it considers abhorrent. It will likely form a precedent for future cases by groups that have met State punishments for openly dissenting from the current administrative powers on various sexual or reproductive views.

 

[ic3cait]

It feels good to reinforce the basic tenets of our society. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of association. They also ruled in favor of Janus.

Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers raises similar First Amendment concerns. As Jefferson famously put it, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhor is sinful and tyrannical.” We have therefore recognized that a “ ‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights’” occurs when public employees are required to provide financial support for a union that “takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences.” - Alito