Internet Explorer 11 is not supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

California Abortion Ruling Puts Other States' Laws in Doubt

Supreme Court justices on Tuesday sided with anti-abortion groups in a case over what information crisis pregnancy centers have to give patients.

Supreme Court
Anti-abortion and abortion rights advocates demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court this week.
(AP/J. Scott Applewhite)
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tuesday that a California law that requires crisis pregnancy centers -- which are often run by anti-abortion groups -- to inform women of their rights to an abortion is “presumptively unconstitutional.”  

California's Reproductive FACT Act, passed in 2015, mandated those centers to post signage in a “conspicuous location” alerting women that the state offers all women “public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access” to services for contraception, abortion and prenatal care. The Supreme Court struck down that part of the law. 

The case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates vs. Becerra, came about when religious liberty groups objected to the law. They argued that forcing these centers to advertise abortion services violated their freedom of speech and placed an undue burden on their operations.

Anti-abortion groups celebrated the ruling, saying it allows them to continue to do the work they want without violating their moral beliefs against abortion. 

"Today is a victory for more than just the dedicated volunteers who staff pregnancy care centers; it is also a victory for the thousands of women who go to the centers seeking life-affirming care and support,” said Catherine Glenn Foster, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, in a statement.

Reproductive rights advocates, however, say that the case didn’t deal with the heart of the issue: that many crisis pregnancy centers mislead women about their health-care options. 

“It’s been difficult to establish laws and rules on them so that unsuspecting patients don’t walk in the door expecting it to be a women’s health center. They look like health centers and have similar names, but many of them provide medically inaccurate information. It just delays the care they really need,” says Elizabeth Nash, a state policy expert for the Guttmacher Institute, which studies and advocates for reproductive health. 

The ruling throws similar laws in Hawaii and Illinois into doubt. Both states require crisis pregnancy centers to notify women that they have options for comprehensive health-care services beyond what they provide.

The ruling could also have the unintended consequence of bringing down laws typically backed by anti-abortion groups that require women seeking abortions to view ultrasounds or learn about the growth of their fetus.

At the local level, Austin and Baltimore both had similar ordinances struck down in recent years. King County, Wash., New York City and San Francisco still have laws regulating crisis pregnancy centers. It’s unclear if they will be challenged or abandoned.

Reproductive health experts say they will continue to work with communities to make sure women understand the difference between crisis pregnancy centers and full-service women’s health clinics. 

“We’re going to continue to develop strategies to let women know the sort of services these clinics do and don’t provide,” says Heather Shumaker, senior counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center. 

Mattie covers all things health for Governing.

Special Projects
Sponsored Stories
In this episode, Marianne Steger explains why health care for Pre-Medicare retirees and active employees just got easier.
Government organizations around the world are experiencing the consequences of plagiarism firsthand. A simple mistake can lead to loss of reputation, loss of trust and even lawsuits. It’s important to avoid plagiarism at all costs, and government organizations are held to a particularly high standard. Fortunately, technological solutions such as iThenticate allow government organizations to avoid instances of text plagiarism in an efficient manner.
Creating meaningful citizen experiences in a post-COVID world requires embracing digital initiatives like secure and ethical data sharing, artificial intelligence and more.
GHD identified four themes critical for municipalities to address to reach net-zero by 2050. Will you be ready?
As more state and local jurisdictions have placed a priority on creating sustainable and resilient communities, many have set strong targets to reduce the energy use and greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with commercial and residential buildings.
As more people get vaccinated and states begin to roll back some of the restrictions put in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic — schools, agencies and workplaces are working on a plan on how to safely return to normal.
The solutions will be a permanent part of government even after the pandemic is over.
See simple ways agencies can improve the citizen engagement experience and make online work environments safer without busting the budget.
Whether your agency is already a well-oiled DevOps machine, or whether you’re just in the beginning stages of adopting a new software development methodology, one thing is certain: The security of your product is a top-of-mind concern.