On the recordMarch 14, 2018
Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday, March 20, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the case NIFLA v. Becerra. At issue is a California law that requires medically licensed pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for and to promote the abortion industry by posting notices alerting clients that the State of California provides free or low-cost abortions. This law blatantly violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The government may never compel anyone, including pregnancy centers, to make statements with which they disagree. This is clearly and blatantly unconstitutional, and courts across the Nation agree. When abortionists sought to compel the speech of pregnancy centers in other jurisdictions, their laws were not allowed to stand. In fact, in 2009, in my home State of Maryland, a Baltimore city ordinance required pregnancy centers to post signs in their waiting rooms stating that they do not refer for abortions. This January, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that this law is unconstitutional. Judge Wilkinson said that the ordinance compels ``a politically and religiously motivated group to convey a message fundamentally at odds with its core belief and its mission.'' Similar laws have been tried in Austin, Texas; Montgomery County, Maryland; and New York City. These laws, too, have been partially or fully invalidated. Even the California law in question has already been found to violate freedom of speech.…





