Judge Rules California Can’t Require Pregnancy Centers to Provide Information on Govt Abortion Programs

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A superior court judge in California has ruled that a state law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to provide information about government abortion programs runs afoul of the California Constitution.

“Here, the State commands clinics to post specific directions for whom to contact to obtain an abortion. It forces the clinic to point the way to the abortion clinic and can leave patients with the belief they were referred to an abortion provider by that clinic. … In Scharpen’s case that would be inaccurate, profoundly inaccurate,” wrote Judge Gloria Trask.

She said that there are other ways for the government to get its message out besides forcing those who are opposed to abortion to provide the information.

“Compelled speech must be subject to reasonable limitation,” Trask said. “The statute compels the clinic to speak words with which it profoundly disagrees when the state has numerous alternative methods of publishing its message. … In this case, however virtuous the State’s ends, they do not justify its means.”

As previously reported, in 2014, Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Reproductive FACT Act into law, a measure that has been dubbed the “bully bill” by pro-life groups in the state. The bill had been authored by Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu, who outlined in the law that he takes issue with pregnancy centers that don’t provide abortion referrals to women.

“The author contends that, unfortunately, there are nearly 200 licensed and unlicensed clinics known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in California whose goal is to interfere with women’s ability to be fully informed and exercise their reproductive rights, and that CPCs pose as full-service women’s health clinics, but aim to discourage and prevent women from seeking abortions,” it reads.

The legislation therefore requires that licensed pregnancy care centers provide the following message to clients in print: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at (telephone number).”

  • Connect with Christian News

But Scott Scharpen, pastor at Rock Valley Christian Church in Murietta and founder of Go Mobile for Life, said that he could not comply with the requirement and therefore went to court to challenge the law. Go Mobile for Life operates a mobile pregnancy center that provides free ultrasounds to women.

“I will not post that notice in our clinic. I would rather close the clinic than post that notice,” he said in a statement released by his attorneys with Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “Now, by law, we are required to provide referral information to a woman for services that we find morally and ethically objectionable, namely abortion.”

“If the California state government gets away with telling pregnancy clinics what to say and even how to say it, then ALL faith-based businesses are at risk of being bullied into delivering the government’s mandated speech,” Scharpen stated. “We must stand up and fight this unconstitutional law for the benefit of all people!”

On Monday, Judge Trask ruled in favor of Scharpen, declaring that “[t]he legislature may not use the wall of the physician’s office as a billboard to advertise the availability of low cost abortions.” She declared the Reproductive FACT Act to be in violation of Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution, which reads, “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.”

Scharpen applauded the ruling, which he characterized as a “huge victory for free speech.”

“The whole notion of being compelled to share information with our patients about abortion availability, which is contrary to our mission and purpose, is fundamentally wrong. Lives will be saved because of this ruling,” he said.

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • bowie1

    The judge sounds reasonable. I’m sure women looking for an abortion are quite capable of finding a provider.

    • meamsane

      A reasonable judge? A rarity, to be sure.

      • NCOriolesFan

        Don’t worry, President Trump has more Conservative judges in the confirmation pipeline. Of course the Democrats oppose them all.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Abortion is murder ….. abortion is racism ………. abortion is a lie that it is not a child …… the body inside a womans body ….. IS NOT HER BODY ………. and of course they do not have to provide such services ….. as these TRUTHS need to be covered up ………..

    • NCOriolesFan

      Of course we common sense, logical, rational people already know that.

  • NCOriolesFan

    DUH! This was already a foregone conclusion from previous lawsuits around the country. Stupid California liberals thought they could get away with their stupidity. Haha, WRONG as usual.

  • Robin Egg

    This is astonishing coming out of California.

  • james blue

    I see the requirement as no different to requiring an abortionist to read a government written pro life statement. If one is constitutional so is the other, if one is unconstitutional so is the other.