How Much Should Information Should Faith-Based Pregnancy Clinics Have to Provide?

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

This past year, Baltimore’s spending board voted to cover a Christian pregnancy center’s legal fees when a federal court ruled that a city law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns sued the city of Baltimore nearly a decade ago when a law was passed in 2009 requiring pregnancy clinics to disclose if they will not provide abortions. This law was intended to protect women from deceptive advertising. The Center for Pregnancy Concerns argued that this law violated their freedom of speech, and the federal appeals court ruled in favor of the pregnancy center in January of 2018.

This case resurfaced in June 2018 when the Supreme Court did not enforce a California State law (Reproductive FACT Act) requiring faith-based crisis pregnancy centers to make patients aware of state-offered subsidized medical care, which includes abortions. Centers were also required to disclose whether or not they had a medical professional on staff. This law was passed in California three years prior due to the state’s concern for “deceptive advertising and [using] counseling practices to confuse or intimidate women.”

Over two-hundred of these faith-based pregnancy centers exist in the state of California. Originally, the 9^th Circuit Court and a federal judge refused to suspend the disclosure law, but this decision was overruled and reversed by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy believes these faith-based institutions were “targeted because of their beliefs.” Justice Breyer disagreed; he stated that if medical professionals are required by law to tell women seeking abortions about adoption services, then these pregnancy centers should be forced to make patients aware that they may be eligible for funding if they choose to pursue an abortion. Lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom in Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court as well, stating that the disclosure law violated Free Speech and Free Exercise.

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ultimately decided that “the disclosure act likely amounts to compelled speech that violates the 1^st Amendment”. In this case, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Exercise are entangled. Staff working in these faith-based pregnancy centers are not making patients aware of government funding because it is against what the institution represents.

I am conflicted with this case: Women seeking professional medical advice need to be presented with their options.

A medical professional making them aware of their options is not coercing women into having abortions. I agree that patients need to be aware of their options, and that there is a difference between a medical professional disclosing a patient’s options to them, and forcing a medical professional to endorse a belief that does not align with their religion. It is true that women entering these clinics seeking guidance know that they are entering a faith-based environment and could instead go to a secular clinic. If a staff member is asked about abortion eligibility, it is their responsibility to make the patient aware of aid they may be eligible for. However, it would be unconstitutional to ask that staff member to speak on the subject any further.

The following question must be asked: Does silence (of a staff member at one of these clinics regarding abortion) in this particular instance promote religion? I argue that it neither advances nor inhibits religion. This case particularly reminds me of Engel v. Vitale in which the NY State Board of Regents endorsed the Regents Prayer in schools; children could be exempt from saying the prayer, although a formal process was required. The case in question is similar to Engel v. Vitale in that both are concerned with Free Speech as well as Free Exercise. However, the cases differ drastically; it is ultimately a healthcare provider’s duty to provide information to their patients, even if they are not considered “medical care professionals”. If inquired about, it should be mandatory that they divulge a course of options, without being forced to expound upon the process of acquiring the services. In this way, the statute would not be favoring religion, nonreligion, or irreligion.