The abortion industry’s unrelenting campaign of contempt against the life-affirming mission of pro-life pregnancy centers may be the best evidence of the positive and growing impact of these much-needed ministries.
This gratuitous and self-serving crusade suffered a major blow yesterday when the Supreme Court struck down a California law that would have compelled pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for the abortion industry.
“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in his concurring opinion in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. “Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”
NIFLA, a national organization of pregnancy centers, along with other independent pregnancy centers, challenged the constitutionality of a law enacted in 2015 that required pro-life pregnancy centers to tell women how they could obtain an abortion from the state, and provide a phone number for a county office that refers callers to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
Such requirements are clearly antithetical to the mission of pro-life pregnancy centers. They provide free assistance to mothers who want to choose life for their unborn children and they oppose abortion for reasons of faith and conscience. The California law sought not only to force pregnancy centers to advertise the availability of state-subsidized abortions but also to compel them to essentially endorse the view of the state of California that abortion is morally permissible.
Not surprisingly, the discredited California law was championed by Planned Parenthood, which faces a potential financial loss with every mother who, supported by the volunteers and staff of a neighborhood pregnancy center, chooses life for her unborn child.
Abortion advocates got behind the California compelled speech law and others like it in Baltimore, New York City, and Austin, Texas. They tried to support their argument with defamatory accusations that pregnancy centers deceive women. But after years of litigation in multiple courts, abortion advocates have failed to produce any credible evidence to support this unfounded accusation.
That’s because their claims are ideologically driven, not truth-based. Despite their rhetoric of “choice,” abortion advocates believe in and advocate only one choice for women. A clear objective of the abortion industry’s campaign against pregnancy centers is to shutter the competition and protect the abortion industry’s lucrative bottom line.
The abortion industry is unlikely to abandon its specious and ideological attacks against pregnancy centers. It is, therefore, important to set the record straight about what really happens when a woman seeks counsel and assistance at a pregnancy center.
The observations of women who have actually visited a pregnancy center are our best evidence. For example, an amicus brief was filed in this case detailing the experiences of women from across the country who have received individualized care and compassionate assistance at pregnancy centers.
Contrary to abortion advocates’ claims that pregnancy centers do not provide medically accurate information about every option available to a pregnant woman, individual women reported the exact opposite. Among the more telling comments are: The pro-life center “helped me go over all my options, and they really listened to my needs. I didn’t feel judged; I just felt cared for;” and “I was able to honestly express my fears and concerns. My peer counselor walked me through all of my options…. [The pregnancy center] became my source of strength as well as information.”
The positive impact of pregnancy centers on the women, families, and the communities they serve is considerable. More than 2,750 centers operate across the country, serving women with compassion and integrity. In 2010, pregnancy centers served over 2.3 million people. The free services provided by these centers saved communities across the nation over $100 million, according to conservative estimates. Further, 71,000 center volunteers performed an estimated 5,705,000 uncompensated hours of work.
The California law impermissibly targeted the speech of pro-life pregnancy centers. Much like it did when ruling in favor of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court has again taken a stand in defense of First Amendment freedoms, recognizing that no one should be forced to speak or convey a message that he or she believes to be fundamentally wrong.
Denise M. Burke is senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates.
