It was overshadowed by the other huge 5-4 travel ban decision handed down by the Supreme Court, but Tuesday also saw the Court come through for conservatives in a case out of California. In the decision, the Court found that California did not have the right to require anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” to give women information about low-cost ways to terminate their pregnancies.
Ruling on free speech grounds, the majority ruled that the government was not authorized to enact a law that would require people to violate their own beliefs for the sake of advertising a separate service or product. Certainly, it does not have the right to force these pregnancy centers, which exist solely to discourage women from getting an abortion, to tell those same women all about the cheap abortions they can get with government aid. The very idea is, of course, insane on its face.
“Licensed clinics must provide a government-drafted script about the availability of state-sponsored services, as well as contact information for how to obtain them,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. “One of those services is abortion — the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing.”
In a particularly absurd dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the majority’s decision was in conflict with an earlier Supreme Court ruling from 1992, in which the Court decided that Pennsylvania had the right to require abortion doctors to provide information on adoptions to their patients.
“If a state can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive health care about childbirth and abortion services?” he asked. “As the question suggests, there is no convincing reason to distinguish between information about adoption and information about abortion in this context.”
This paragraph tells you all you need to know about pro-abortion leftists. Really? No difference between information about adoption and information about abortion? Breyer doesn’t see any reason to distinguish the two at all? In one case, Pennsylvania is trying to provide SOME kind of counseling that might convince a woman to save a life. In the other, California is doing everything it can to stop women from making the dreadful decision to go ahead and have their babies. Yes, the cases are similar in some respects, but you have to have a wildly immoral view of the world to fail to see the difference between the two.
But then, who is really surprised about that?