California Gov. Jerry
Brown has signed a bill that orders faith-based organizations to refer women to
abortionists, even though the same idea was tried in New York and failed.
Brown’s signature on AB
775 already has triggered a series of lawsuits, because it forces religious
pregnancy clinics to tell women and girls that California has public programs
to provide immediate, free or low-cost abortions.
The
Pacific Justice Institute
announced Monday the filing of lawsuits in both Southern and Northern
California on behalf of clinics. The organizations provide free medical
services and counseling “as an alternative option to abortion to women facing
unwanted pregnancies,” the organization said.
“Forcing a religious
pro-life charity to proclaim a pro-abortion declaration is on its face an
egregious violation of both the free speech and free exercises clauses of the
First Amendment,” said Brad Dacus, president of the institute.
“We will not rest until
this government mandate is completely halted,” he said.
The complaint argues the
law forces Christian medical clinics to issue messages that violate their
beliefs.
“The content of the
government message memorialized in AB 775 directly contradicts the foundational
religious principles upon which A Woman’s Friend operates, as well as the message
it conveys to its clients regarding abortion,” the complaint explains. “As a
result, A Woman’s Friend is subject to imminent adverse enforcement action
against it by defendant.”
The law’s message is:
“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access
to comprehensive family planning services (including allocating FDA-approved
methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To
determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at
(insert the telephone number).”
It also requires that
the message not only be handed out but also posted on the walls of waiting
rooms on signs with specified dimensions.
The clinic, A Woman’s
Friend, “offers, and will continue to offer, to women and girls a variety of
services at its clinic.”
“Said services include
medical consultations, pregnancy testing, ultrasound examinations and medical
referrals. The plaintiff also provides education related to sexually
transmitted diseases and infections, information and abortion procedures,
prenatal education, nutrition information and fetal development education.
“They also provide
Bible-based post abortion emotional and spiritual healing and recovery courses,
and other practical support related to pregnancy,” he said. It does not, the
complaint explains, “counsel girls and women to obtain abortions.”
“A Woman’s Friend holds
the biblically based conviction that human life is a precious gift of
immeasurable value given by God and that the taking of innocent human life by
abortion is evil and a sin.”
The second organization
cited in the complaint is the Crisis Pregnancy Center of Northern California,
which offers services similar to A Woman’s Friend.
For both, the complaint
states: “The requirement that plaintiffs disseminate the state of California’s
message for which the clinic disagrees violates its rights under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the state
through the Fourteenth Amendment. The law mandates speech that plaintiffs would
not otherwise make.”
It continues, “At a
minimum, the act unconstitutionally compels plaintiffs to speak [a] message
that they have not chosen, with which they do not agree, and that distract, and
detract from, the messages they have chosen to speak.”
The lawsuit seeks a
judgment that the law is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.
“The context of
delivering this government message is the center of a public debate over the
morality and efficacy of abortion, for which these clinics provide
alternatives,” the lawsuit reads.
WND
reported the resolution to a
similar case in New York.
At the time,
constitutional attorney Herbert W. Titus of William
J. Olson, P.C. told WND that according
to the First Amendment, you “can’t be forced to carry someone else’s message.”
In
New York, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said the state could require crisis pregnancy centers to disclose
whether they have a licensed medical provider on staff but not whether the
center provides abortions or referrals, because that runs afoul of the First
Amendment.
The ruling was left
untouched by the Supreme Court.
Titus, who has taught
constitutional law, common law and other subjects for decades at several
universities, said it’s “not the government’s business to force anybody to
carry the message of anyone else.”
“That is certainly
what’s being done here.” Thomas Jefferson, he noted, described that very action
as “sinful and tyrannical.” “It’s fairly typical of California, [which is]
always on the cutting edge of making us more and more like a fascist country,
in which the state determines what we can say and what we can’t say,” Titus
told WND.
Titus also has served as
a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney with the Department of
Justice. He holds degrees from Harvard and the University of Oregon and for
several years had his own daily radio program. He has testified on
constitutional issues before Congress and state legislatures.
The California bill makes
no attempt at accommodation.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/california-forces-christians-to-disobey-own-beliefs/
No comments:
Post a Comment