Report on the SCOTUS NIFLA Hearings
To read other articles from this issue of WSR: Click here

In 2015, Planned Parenthood in California wrote a bill (AB 775) that the state legislature passed and the governor signed into law.

AB 775 reflects the fact that pregnancy resource centers are extremely effective in getting pregnant women the help they need so that they can choose not to kill their children. This law—generally known as the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act or just the Reproductive FACT Act—effectively turns every pregnancy resource center in the state into an abortion referral agency.

The key parts of the law require each pro-life pregnancy resource center to display the following notice in large print in their facilities: “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].”

A PRC that does not provide medical services but that simply offers help and compassion to pregnant women must post a different sign, which states: “This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

These notices must be posted prominently and must be in English and “in the primary threshold languages for Medi-Cal beneficiaries as determined by the State Department of Health Care Services for the county in which the facility is located.” In California, this could require many languages.

On Tuesday of this week, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral arguments in the case National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. The case by NIFLA maintains that the California law, written by Planned Parenthood, is unconstitutional because it violates the free speech provisions of the US Constitution.

Reports from those at the Supreme Court on Tuesday were that most of the justices seemed to think this law is, in fact, unconstitutional.

Reportedly, Justice Kennedy asked if the entire wording of the required statement would have to be in the advertisement if an entity covered by the law created an advertisement that simply said “LIFE COUNTS.” The answer from both the state attorney and the NIFLA lawyer was YES. Not only would the whole statement need to be there, but, according to the law, it would have to be the same type size as the LIFE COUNTS words, and it would also have to be in all the required languages. In answer to a follow-up question from Justice Alito, the state attorney confirmed that, if the LIFE COUNTS ad were on a billboard in Los Angeles, it would have to include the required statement in 13 different languages!

The Catholic News Agency reported that pro-lifers were elated after the hearing and included the following reactions in its story:

“We hit a home run today in the court,” said NIFLA President Thomas Glessner. “In fact, [Alliance Defending Freedom CEO] Michael Farris hit a grand slam home run.”

Glessner added that he was “very optimistic” that the court would rule against California.

According to Farris, multiple justices—including members of the court’s more liberal wing—were concerned that that this law was too far-reaching.

Following the oral arguments, the justices will deliberate on the case and are expected to announce their decision before the end of the court session in June.

Let us pray that the justices will hand Planned Parenthood a major defeat and strike down this pro-abortion law.