�Թϲ�����

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear two cases on the limits of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. One asks whether California may require “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide information about abortion. The other is a challenge to a Minnesota law that forbids wearing political buttons, badges and other insignia at polling places. The California case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140, concerns a state law that requires centers operated by opponents of abortion to provide women with information about the availability of the procedure. The centers seek to persuade women to choose parenting or adoption. (Liptak, 11/13)

The justices said Monday they will review the centers’ complaint that the new law, pushed by an abortion-rights group, forces them to provide information about abortion and other services. Lower courts had allowed the law to take effect. Unlicensed centers also must inform clients of their status. (Sherman, 11/13)

“Forcing anyone to provide free advertising for the abortion industry is unthinkable — especially when it’s the government doing the forcing,” said Kevin Theriot, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious conservative group representing the clinics. (Egelko, 11/13)

In taking the case on, the Supreme Court justices limited their participation to one question: “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 Fourteenth Amendment.” (Chappell, 11/13)

California’s Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed the abortion-clinic measure in 2015 and it took effect last year. The law, the Reproductive FACT Act, requires certain licensed pregnancy-related centers to post notices and include disclaimers in their literature advising patients that Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, covers abortions for eligible low-income residents. It also requires unlicensed facilities to disclose that they don’t have a license. The Legislature said the law was necessary because the targeted facilities, in their efforts to discourage abortions, “often confuse [and] misinform women” about their rights and available benefits. Lawmakers said the dissemination of accurate information was hindered by so-called crisis pregnancy centers that offered women some services but discourage abortion. (Kendall and Bravin, 11/13)

The case presents a clash between the state's power to regulate the medical profession and the Constitution's protection for the freedom of speech. Historically, states have had broad authority to regulate physicians and medical providers to protect patients from fraud and sub-standard care. But in recent years, doctors have sued and won claims that state lawmakers had gone too far and were wrongly interfering with the doctor-patient relationship. (Savage, 11/13)