Supreme Court rules California can't force antiabortion clinics to disclose options

SAN FRANCISCO -- California violates the freedom of speech of antiabortion clinics called ``crisis pregnancy centers'' by requiring them to notify their patients that the state makes abortions available at little or no cost, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In striking down a 2016 state law, Justice Clarence Thomas said the regulations force the clinics to provide a ``government-drafted script'' about state-sponsored services that includes the availability of ``abortion -- the very practice that (the clinics) are devoted to opposing,''

``Throughout history, governments have manipulated the content of doctor-patient discourse to increase state power and suppress minorities,'' Thomas said in an opinion for a 5-4 conservative majority. He quoted a study that cited government interference in medical care in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

``States cannot choose the (degree of) protection that speech receives under the First Amendment,'' Thomas said. ``California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it.''

The court has upheld laws in other states requiring doctors to tell women about the supposed dangers of abortion. But Thomas said the California law was different because it does not inform patients about the medical procedure they are about to undergo, and instead requires a select group of facilities -- not all medical clinics, just private clinics providing pregnancy-related care -- to pass along a message about services offered by the state.

Dissenting Justice Stephen Breyer said states that can require doctors to tell pregnant women about the possibility of adoption should also be allowed to require clinics to advise them about the availability of abortion. He said the ruling could endanger laws requiring businesses to advise the public about the need to wear seat belts and the location of exit stairways, and lead to future decisions ``striking down disclosure laws that judges may disfavor.''

Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, sponsor of the California law, said the court ``gave in to extreme, anti-choice groups that have spent millions of dollars to control the lives of women.''

But attorney Michael Farris of Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian organization representing the clinics, said the ruling recognized that ``no one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their conviction.''

The case was a test of the authority of states like California, where political majorities support abortion rights, over medical facilities run by abortion opponents. States such as California contend they are protecting their residents from deception, while the clinics argue that the states are imposing their views on private citizens.

Crisis pregnancy centers, many of them sponsored by religious organizations, advertise themselves as offering a range of pregnancy-related services, including ultrasound tests and prenatal care. They do not provide abortions, and they advise their clients not to terminate their pregnancies.

As of 2015, about 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers existed nationwide and at least 228 were in California, according to a legislative analysis of the state law challenged in court. Similar laws are in effect in Hawaii and Illinois.

The law, which took effect in 2016, requires the clinics to inform their clients that California makes reproductive services, including abortion, available at little or no charge. It also requires clinics that have no doctor on their staff to inform clients that they are unlicensed by the state, a provision the court likewise found unconstitutional.

The lawsuit by a group of clinics contended California was requiring them to advertise abortion, a procedure they oppose on moral and religious grounds.

The Trump administration's Justice Department supported the lawsuit, telling the court that the state could communicate its own message to the public rather than requiring opponents of abortion to display it.

Lawyers for the state countered that the court has allowed other states to require health care providers to give their patients state-sponsored warnings about the supposedly dire health effects of abortions.

But Thomas, in Tuesday's ruling, said California could post the same notices on its own property near the clinics, and thereby ``inform low-income women about services without burdening a speaker with unwanted speech.''

A federal appeals court had upheld the California law, saying that the state had a legitimate interest in giving patients accurate information about ``constitutionally protected medical services like abortion,'' and was not forcing the clinics to promote abortion.

In a series of recent rulings, the Supreme Court has upheld restrictions on government funding of abortion, and allowed some employers to withhold birth control coverage from their employees for religious reasons. Last year, the court struck down a Texas law that had forced many of that state's abortion clinics out of business by imposing stiff medical requirements.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the key vote in that ruling, joined Thomas' majority opinion Tuesday and wrote his own opinion saying California was requiring the antiabortion clinics to ``express a message contrary to their deepest convictions.''

Abortion-rights groups say the clinics are designed to mislead women into thinking they offer a full range of pregnancy services. They said Tuesday's ruling shouldn't stop states from regulating them.

``We are confident that local law enforcement and the (state) attorney general will continue to vigorously protect the rights of patients from deceptive practices,'' said Maggy Krell, Planned Parenthood's chief lawyer in California.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose office defended the law in court, said he was disappointed by the ruling but would work to make sure ``Californians receive accurate information about their health care options.'' His Republican opponent in November, Steven Bailey, criticized state lawmakers and Becerra and praised the ruling.

``It is a victory for the freedom of speech and the fundamental rights of all Americans against the whims of legislators and bureaucrats,'' Bailey said.

The case is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates vs. Becerra, 16-1140.