After California passed the Reproductive FACT Act in 2015, a number of anti-abortion pregnancy clinics filed lawsuits. The Supreme Court says it will consider the law in its upcoming session. One of the clinics was the East County Pregnancy Care Clinic in El Cajon, Calif., seen here in a file photo.
Becky Sullivan/NPR

Does a California law violate the Constitution by requiring anti-abortion pregnancy centers to inform clients about free or low-cost abortion and contraception services? That’s the question the Supreme Court is taking on in a new case it accepted on Monday.

California’s Reproductive FACT Act became law in October of 2015. It requires licensed and covered facilities to give all their clients notice that the state “has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women.”

The law also gives the attorney general and other prosecutors the power “to bring an action to impose a specified civil penalty against covered facilities that fail to comply with these requirements.”

Anti-abortion group NIFLA — the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates — filed a legal challenge to the Reproductive FACT Act, saying that it forces clinics to promote or advertise abortion services.

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.”

The California law generated lawsuits almost immediately, with several pregnancy centers suing the state and asking for the law to be struck down, as NPR’s Kelly McEvers reported in the fall of 2015.

One of those suing was the Pacific Justice Institute, whose Brad Dacus spoke to Kelly about his reasoning.

“It’s like telling the Alcoholics Anonymous group that they have to have a large sign saying where people can get alcohol and booze for free,” Dacus said. “It’s like telling a Jewish synagogue that they can have their service, and do their thing, but they have to have a large sign where people can go to pray to receive Jesus.”

Click here to continue reading.

SOURCE: NPR – Bill Chappell