It seems like California protects everything but free speech. Next month, the Supreme Court is set to hear NIFLA v. Becerra, a case which will determine whether parts of the California Reproductive FACT Act — which requires pregnancy centers mention abortion — violates said pregnancy centers’ right to free speech.
Now Becket, a nonprofit organization that protects religious liberties, filed a petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of Support Circle, a pregnancy center in San Francisco. Support Circle is a nonprofit clinic and counseling center dedicated to providing support for women facing unplanned pregnancies at no cost to them. For decades, Support Circle has provided pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, medical care, emotional support, and a network of community services such as housing, job training, and financial counseling to women in the San Francisco Bay Area. Support Circle neither offers abortions nor refers women to abortion clinics.
In 2011, San Francisco introduced an ordinance that prohibits “limited services pregnancy centers” from making false or misleading statements to the public about the services they offer. Support Circle is considered a “limited service” pregnancy center because of its stance on abortion — despite the fact that abortion clinics that do not offer or refer for other services like ultrasounds or adoption are not considered “limited service” centers. Essentially, San Francisco is actively targeting pro-life pregnancy centers, restricting their free speech rights — while also promoting abortion.
In 2012, Support Circle sued the city, lost at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and has now appealed its case to the Supreme Court. San Francisco has tried to justify their obvious vilification of Support Circle by saying that Support Circle and other free pregnancy centers are engaged in “commercial speech,” which is easier for the government to regulate. Nonsense. Support Circle engages in “commercial speech” like Super Bowl advertisements demonstrate altruism.
The main rub here that shows how two-faced California has become is that the City of San Francisco’s ordinance tries to neatly classify places that don’t offer abortions as “limited services” but doesn’t apply that same logic to abortion centers that don’t offer sonograms or adoption. It’s a clear attempt to stifle the free speech of pregnancy centers and, in doing so, promote abortion.
When will California leave pregnancy clinics alone to do the good work they are doing? California likes to boast that they protect the entertainment industry and the environment — but when will they also protect free speech?
Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator’s Young Journalist Award.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
