The Supreme Court is set to decide whether a state should be allowed to specifically target pro-life centers.
The issue in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra is whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.
"In this case, the government is using its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for the abortion industry," says attorney Elissa Graves of Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization representing NIFLA. "They're forcing them to post pro-abortion signs in order to refer for abortions."
Similar laws have been enacted across the nation.
"We have one in Austin, Texas; Montgomery County, Maryland; Baltimore, Maryland; and New York City," reports Graves. "These have been invalidated or mostly invalidated. The California case is important because it will resolve the question of such laws once and for all."
Meanwhile, abortion providers in California are not required to refer visitors for prenatal care, nor are they required by state law to show ultrasounds to their patients.
"The state of California is specifically targeting only pro-life pregnancy centers and not regulating abortion facilities," Graves continues. "They want these pregnancy centers to advertise for abortions."
Oral argument is scheduled for Tuesday, March 20th.