In what activists saw as a setback to California’s efforts to ensure a woman’s right to choose, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled the Golden State cannot force pro-life pregnancy clinics to inform women about low-cost abortion options available elsewhere.
Abortion opponents celebrated the 5-4 ruling supported by the court’s conservative majority. The justices found California law violated the First Amendment rights of “crisis pregnancy centers” that refused on religious grounds to notify women about alternatives to end their pregnancies.
“We’re not forcing anyone to think our way and we want to enjoy the same freedom of speech of every other American citizen,” said Valerie Hills, CEO of RealOptions, a faith-based clinic in San Jose’s Rose Garden, strategically located two doors from a Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions and other services.
The tension over Tuesday’s ruling plays out every day on this block where the pro-life clinic tries — with advertisements plastered in the bus shelter in front of Planned Parenthood — to divert women to its “life-affirming” options. While Hills acknowledged Planned Parenthood sometimes refers pregnant women considering adoption to RealOptions, her clinic does not return the favor.
The narrow Supreme Court vote — tipped in favor of pro-life advocates by President Trump’s judicial appointee Neil Gorsuch — shook pro-choice activists across the state who fear the decision could be a harbinger of anti-abortion rulings to come.
“The decision is incredibly disappointing and sets a dangerous precedent,” said state Assemblymember David Chiu of San Francisco, who co-authored the legislation struck down by the Supreme Court. “It could be the difference between Roe and banning abortion in America. Too much is at stake. This decision had only strengthened my resolve to fight.”
Amy Everitt, state director of NARAL Pro-Choice California, which co-sponsored Chiu’s bill, was equally alarmed.
“Roe is at greater risk than ever before,” Everitt said Tuesday. “Fake women’s health centers and the rest of the anti-choice movement have been working for one goal in mind, and that is banning abortion.”
The law, which took effect in 2016, targeted faith-based “crisis pregnancy clinics” that pro-choice advocates say are deceiving and misleading women seeking abortions. At a news conference in Sacramento on Tuesday, Chiu waved pamphlets from these clinics that included giving false information about breast cancer, suicide risks or inability to conceive, and encouraged women to “take their time” in making a decision.
Along with RealOptions, some of the Bay Area pregnancy clinics include Pregnancy Choices Clinic, Options for Women of California, Birthright and Support Circle. Their advertisements pop up on Google searches, as well as billboards and the sides of city buses.
At Birthright San Jose, volunteer Russ Burdick praised the court’s decision.
“Why should we have to advertise other people’s convictions or way of doing things? We’re strictly pro-life,” said Burdick, 88.
Although the state law was in effect for two years, it was legally challenged immediately, and Burdick said his clinic never posted anything about abortion options. Birthright offers services to pregnant women, including maternity and baby clothes, and refers them to other agencies for help. Most women who call are young.
“They ask if we do abortions,” Burdick said. “Our first response is not to answer yes or no but to talk to them a little bit and understand the situation.”
Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, a network of Christian pregnancy centers, including 77 in California, downplayed any suggestion that Tuesday’s ruling could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
“This ruling has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade,” he said. “It’s simply affirming the free speech of like-minded individuals to not be forced by the state to speak of a pro-abortion message.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, in a concurring opinion, that the First Amendment protects people from being compelled to betray their beliefs.
“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions,” he wrote. “Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”
Justices John G. Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy and Gorsuch in the majority. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out the Supreme Court has previously upheld state laws that require abortion providers to advise women about other alternatives.
“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.
Planned Parenthood officials say crisis pregnancy clinics have opened near several Planned Parenthood offices, not just on The Alameda. More distressing, however, is a deceitful bait-and-switch practice of these clinics to game Google by appearing near the top when someone searches for abortion services, said Maggy Krell, chief legal counsel for Planned Parenthood California.
Santa Clara University Law Professor Margaret Russell says the court ruling could have clear future implications for the right to abortion.
“It shows the court has gone to the right certainly, and it’s probably a court that could very well either overturn Roe or death by 5,000 cuts.” Russell said. “Just chip away at it so much that it really means nothing.”
