�Թϲ�����

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday tackles a dispute over whether a California law requiring Christian-based facilities that counsel pregnant women against abortion to post signs disclosing the availability of state-subsidized abortions and birth control violates their right to free speech. The nine justices are set to hear an hour of arguments in an appeal by a group of non-profit facilities called crisis pregnancy centers of a lower court ruling upholding the Democratic-backed 2015 law. (Chung, 3/20)

The state of California and abortion rights supporters counter that the law in question — the Reproductive FACT Act — is straightforward and doesn’t trample anyone’s rights. It simply requires the centers to display a written notice about abortion access. They don’t have to discuss or counsel women about it. They just have to post it. Unlike other landmark abortion rights cases that have come before the court, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (or NIFLA) v. Becerra, doesn’t address when, where or under what circumstances a woman can terminate a pregnancy. (Colliver, 3/19)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will wade into a charged debate on abortion that will test the limits of the First Amendment. Anti-abortion clinics are challenging a California law that requires them to post notices informing women how to contact the state for information about obtaining a state-funded procedure.  (Wheeler, 3/19)

On one side are self-identified "crisis pregnancy centers" that seek to prevent abortions, and on the other side is the state of California, which enacted a law to ensure that these centers do not intentionally or unintentionally mislead the women who walk through their doors. Supporters of the California law call the state's effort nothing more than seeking "truth in advertising." But anti-abortion pregnancy centers see the law as unconstitutional, compelling speech that turns them into mouthpieces for a government message they disagree with. (Totenberg, 3/20)