uncons utional to make 'crisis pregnancy centers' admit their unlicensed

[boutons_deux]

SCOTUS says it's likely uncons utional to make 'crisis pregnancy centers' admit they're unlicensed

California passed an act requiring licensed crisis pregnancy centers to list resources and unlicensed centers

to post a notice stating that they’re unlicensed.

An anti-choice coalition—a licensed center, an unlicensed center, and a crisis pregnancy center organization—challenged the law in federal district court in California,

claiming it violates their First Amendment freedom of speech, and

asked the court for a preliminary injunction to block its implementation.

The district court found it unlikely that the challenge to the law would succeed and so denied the request;

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court. But now the Supreme Court’s reversed in

a 5-4 decision written by right-wing stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas.
There’s a lot that’s frightening about this ruling.

Including the fact that even Thomas’s summary of the legislation in question makes it seem reasonable or even benign, although, obviously,

the majority decided it’s not just unreasonable but likely uncons utional.

The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act) requires clinics that primarily serve pregnant women to provide certain notices.

Licensed clinics must notify women that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and give them a phone number to call.

Unlicensed clinics must notify women that California has not licensed the clinics to provide medical services.

The question in this case is whether these notice requirements violate the First Amendment.

The majority decides the notice requirements likely do violate the First Amendment.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/26/1775500/-SCOTUS-says-it-s-likely-uncons utional-to-make-crisis-pregnancy-centers-admit-they-re-unlicensed?detail=emaildkbn

the politicians-in-robes oligarchy's SCOTUS5 approves deception, fraudulent medical practice, and risking women's health (typical conservative misogyny)

WEAPONIZED 1st Amendment

[boutons_deux]

So what about govt COMPELLING businesses to display their business licenses, their health licenses, etc, etc?

There's all kinds of govt-COMPELLED speech that doesn't bother SCOTUS5

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Court holds that abortion providers have less First Amendment rights than abortion opponents

The system is rigged.

One of the centerpieces of the Supreme Court’s First Amendment decisions is that

the Cons ution does not permit “viewpoint discrimination.”

The government may, in certain limited cases, enact laws that place restrictions on speech — but

discriminating between two opposing sides of a debate is a big no-no.
On Tuesday, the

Supreme Court created an “except when we do it” carve-out to this rule.

When you boil down the opinion’s rhetoric, the holding of National Ins ute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra is that

abortion opponents enjoy the full force of a robust First Amendment,

while abortion providers must accept a watered-down right to free speech.

https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-co...-66fd67637adf/

[boutons_deux]

correction in le, duh:


uncons utional to make 'crisis pregnancy centers' admit they are unlicensed

[boutons_deux]

yet another example of the SCOTUS5 weaponizing the 1st Amendment