A federal appeals court has upheld a California law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to post and verbally share information with patients on how to obtain an abortion, a ruling that abortion foes call an infringement on free speech and freedom of religion.
On Friday, The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld AB 775, also known as the Reproductive FACT Act, which requires all pregnancy centers to “advise each patient at the time of her visit of the various publicly funded family planning and pregnancy-related resources available in California, and the manner in which to directly and efficiently access those resources.”
In other words, even pro-life pregnancy centers must give patients information on how and where to obtain an abortion, complete with a phone number for those services. The information must also be posted in such facilities.
The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, rejected efforts to overturn the law on free speech grounds or even impose a preliminary injunction, saying the case by pro-life groups did not have strong odds of succeeding even though such laws have been ruled unconstitutional multiple times in the past.
The pro-life community is outraged.
“It’s forcing these centers, whose whole existence is to help protect women from the dangers of abortion, it’s forcing them to promote abortion in their own facilities,” said Arina Grossu, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council.
“This is a complete disruption and break of first amendment rights, first of all free speech, second of all to freedom of religion and the right to moral objection since this involves the killing of human beings,” she added.
Grossu says the law is officially designed to inform all California women of their “right to an abortion” but she says the real goal is to put these pregnancy centers out of business.
“It’s trying to drive out pregnancy care centers from California, because if a pregnancy care center is going to have to promote abortion, a lot of them may close their doors. This is a tragedy for women in California, who are looking for help, who are looking for answers, who are looking for the truth.” said Grossu.
“Here’s where it’s getting to: either you do what the state of California tells you or we’re going to force you to close your doors,” said Grossu.
She says this policy will add confusion to the women facing an unplanned pregnancy and visit a pregnancy center because they want to keep their baby, only to hear the opposite message.
“If she’s going to a pregnancy care center, she’s going there because she wants to find solutions for keeping a baby. And then seeing these signs is very confusing. But I think what it does for the workers in these centers is that it forces them to participate in the very thing that they’re fighting,” said Grossu.
Grossu likens the state law to forcing a vegan store owner to inform customers where they can go buy meats or other animal products. She is also quick to point out that the law does not force abortion providers to deliver messages contrary to their mission.
“I would ask this court, would you require the same of Planned Parenthood facilities to say, ‘If you would like to keep your child, please send them to this pregnancy care center?'” said Grossu.
Not only are Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers not forced to deliver that message, Grossu says former Planned Partenthood employee Abby Johnson says Planned Parenthood is known to refuse to let women change their minds about abortion.
“She talked about how women, once they’re in the Planned Parenthood room about to get the abortion, if a woman changes her mind, Planned Parenthood trains their staff on how to keep her in the room. How is that choice?” asked Grossu.
While those previous court cases give Grossu and her allies hope this decision will be struck down, Grossu notes that other recent laws infringing on religious liberty are being upheld, most notably the example of the Washington state pharmacy that refused to sell abortion-inducing drugs. Even though 30 other pharmacies existed within a five-mile radius, the courts rejected the challenge and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Grossu says Americans must wake up to our freedoms being under attack.
“We’re going to be asked to stand up for our religious freedom in a time of persecution and civil and criminal prosecution, although we’re not there yet,” said Grossu. “We need to respect the rights of religious freedom and moral objection. If not, we’re going to see a completely different country.”
