The case before the courts today: First Resort Inc., v. Herrera, involves a Medical clinic in San Francisco, Support Circle. Support Circle provides medical care to pregnant women such as ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, counseling and various other services, but does not offer abortions. Support Circle is a “non-profit clinic and counseling center dedicated to providing support for women facing unplanned pregnancies.” Support Circle is a pro-life clinic that believes “that abortion is harmful both to women and their unborn children.” In 2011, San Francisco passed an ordinance that restricts limited service pregnancy centers, such as Support Circle, “from making false or misleading statements about the services they offer.” Support Circle is classified as a “limited service pregnancy center” because it does not provide abortions. In addition, the ordinance also states “that if search engines like Google display their website when the terms ‘San Francisco’ and ‘abortion’ are entered into the search engine together”, Support Circle would be violating the City ordinance. In 2012, Support Circle sued the city of San Francisco, citing their freedom of speech was being violated. Support Circle is arguing that their freedom of speech is being violated because of their belief of abortion. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city of San Francisco. Support Circle appealed to the Supreme Court but they denied hearing the case in 2018.
The central issue before the court concerns a private organizations first amendment right to freedom of speech. Support Circle claims that they are being denied their right to freedom of speech because of their religious and moral beliefs on abortion. Although they do not perform abortions, they want to make sure that women have access to all their options when considering the choices of an unplanned pregnancy. On the other hand, the city of San Francisco argues that this ordinance protects women from clinics that “misleadingly target women in search of abortion services through false advertising-and then employ manipulative and fear-mongering tactics on their visitors to dissuade them from obtaining abortions.” The city attorney for San Francisco stated, “These groups are entitled to be advocates, but they're not entitled to break the law. False and misleading advertising by these clinics is a deceitful practice that preys on women when they least suspect it."
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals argued that the San Francisco law is “facially valid” because the speech being regulated is “unprotected false or misleading commercial speech” which is not protected by the First Amendment. This is quite the slippery slope. In this case, the court is arguing that the speech from Pro-life pregnancy clinics is false or misleading, when in reality, the speech from clinics like Support Circle is tied to their religious and moral beliefs. Do the courts have the right to decide what is or is not the “truth” when it comes to religious beliefs? In Cantwell v. State of Connecticut (1940), the Supreme Court held that the Cantwell’s were allowed to solicit for religious purposes and that by preventing them from doing so, they infringed on their First Amendment. Justice Roberts wrote, “such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth” (Munoz, 28).While this case is a bit different from First Resort v. Herrera, I find that the regulation of solicitation and the regulation of what is or is not “unprotected false or misleading commercial speech” are quite similar.
I disagree with the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I understand the city of San Francisco’s argument about preventing pro-life clinics from “manipulating” pregnant women, however, the law clearly targets pro-life clinics in San Francisco. By claiming to protect a woman’s right to choose, the state of San Francisco is taking away the choice of having access to pro-life options and support like Support Circle, which is making a choice and not letting her choose. On Support Circle’s website, they share their beliefs on abortion as well as options for women considering abortion and their other services, they also state that while they do not prescribe emergency contraceptives or perform abortions, they share information about them both and note that they support a woman’s right to choose. I would be curious to hear how the Supreme Court would rule on this issue. Although they declined to hear the case, they ruled on another case concerning the rights of pro-life pregnancy clinics and the legality of forcing them to advertise abortion options within the state. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the pregnancy clinic. The restriction of free speech, and the regulation of what does or does not count as “truth,” cannot be seen as constitutional. For this reason, I side with Support Circle.
12 comments:
I agree with your decision on this case. I don't see how Support Circle is providing "false advertising" because nowhere does it seem to state that they offer abortions. It would be one thing if they said they did but they actually didn't, however Support Circle clearly states that they are against abortions for religious reasons. I also agree with the point you made about previous cases supporting your opinion. I think Masterpiece Cakeshop would support Support Circle's stance as well; in both cases there is someone peacefully refusing to provide service due to their religious beliefs.
There's clearly a lot of nuance to this case. I tentatively disagree with the author here, while simultaneously recognizing that the law may not actually be neutral. It could be argued that the very act of distinguishing pregnancy clinics that provide abortions from those that don't may tacitly discriminate religiously.
The author's argument for the slippery slope is somewhat compelling, but what changes my perspective is the previously established compelling interest in industry regulation so that consumers get the services they require. For instance, the government has a compelling interest in ensuring that smoke detectors are not marketed as musical instruments to evade import tariffs.
No one ever posed the argument that Support Circle must provide abortion services; instead, it was argued that if clinics choose not to do so (for any reason), they cannot advertise themselves in the same way as clinics that do. Ultimately, in my opinion, the government could have a compelling interest in distinguishing clinics that provide fundamentally different services, with different purposes.
This is fundamentally a concerning issue, and as stated above, the implementation of the law could have unequal consequences for those involved. Ultimately, however, I still see that interest in distinguishing differing businesses as compelling enough to support this law.
Though I agree with the author's statements as they are made, I only do so if the clinic is truly not providing false advertisement. However, if the clinic has been proven to falsely advertise - such as structuring their search engine marketing so that their clinic comes up when individuals search for abortion clinics - I believe the city has a responsibility to limit these actions in order to prevent religious coercion of pregnant individuals. Additionally, it seems as though, while the clinic does not provide abortion services, it does provide information on abortions. I believe this information on abortions would need to be completely unbiased by religion. If this clinic intentionally advertises itself towards people that are searching for abortions, or is non-specific regarding the information provided regarding abortions, I would argue that this clinic is attempting to lure pregnant individuals into their clinic under false pretenses and aim to religiously coerce them to change their views, therefore potentially violating the first amendment rights of individuals who may go to the clinic. While this clinic certainly has a right to practice the way they do, they should be prevented from manipulating and coercing other individuals into feeling the same way. However, as another commenter has asserted, if they truly are not employing false advertising, I do not believe the state has the right to unfairly target and limit their operations.
^ I can't edit this comment but instead of saying that I believe the clinic must be completely unbiased in their speech regarding religion, I meant that the clinic must explicitly specify in advertising exactly how they discuss abortion within their clinic if they are to advertise that they do provide information on abortion. If they are vague with their wording, merely stating they discuss the option of abortion, I believe they could lure unsuspecting individuals into the clinic and coerce them into a certain faith or religious mindset
I have found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with the argument made in the post as well as the comments that have followed. I agree with the comment Nick made about how the clinic should not be advertised in the same way clinics that provide abortions do, as it does not provide every way to treat an unwanted pregnancy. I believe the city does have a compelling interest in this case to intervene. However, I would agree with the author that it can be speculated that religious animus, as seen in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, has a role to play in the city’s treatment of the clinic and how its First Amendment rights translate into its practices.
I agree with my classmates responses above, where I cannot come to a decision on whether I 100% agree or disagree with the ruling of this case. I believe that if an organization is providing falsified information on the internet regarding options for unplanned pregnancies, that the city of San Fransisco does have the power and the right to restrict the use of this type of organization. However, if the information that this organization is providing is telling the truth and only wants to provide women with all possible options they have when it comes to unplanned pregnancy, then I think the city of San Francisco is targeting Pro-Life organizations by preventing their practice and association with the city. I believe that women should have the option to be educated and made aware of all possible options they can take when they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, in this case I would argue that the Freedom of Speech was violated under this organization due to their controversial religious beliefs.
Based on the information that the author has provided I agree with the Court's ruling in siding in favor of San Fransisco. I do not think that the ordinance is targeting pro-life clinics and taking away pro-life options to women who want them rather I interpret the law to mean that pro-life clinics, like Support Circle must not advertise themselves in the same way to the public. Support Circle and clinics like them must use wording and create ads that would not give the impression to a reasonable individual that they are a clinic that offers abortions and other pregnancy related services. Also since they are a pro-life clinic I do not believe they should be providing information on abortions because they would obviously use sources that align with their beliefs which could negatively impact a women who is considering getting an abortion. As Nick points out in his comment, the State has a compelling interest in making sure that clinics with different beliefs are distinguishable.
Although I do see where my classmates are coming from, if I did have to choose a side I would also say I agree with the Courts ruling about being in favor of San Francisco. Although I do see how strong arguments can be made on both sides of this issue. Personally I do think women should have the ability to easily be informed of all possible options that are at their disposal when facing an unwanted pregnancy. There could be a situation where a women at first wants an abortion, then sees other options that are provided by businesses like Support Circle and choose that she wants to go another route and keep the child. The chances that a women does this when you eliminate the ability for places like Support Circle to appear on google when searching about abortions are much lower. On the other side of the argument, if San Francisco did pass a law stating you can not falsely advertise, I do think it is well in their right to not associate Support Circle with the word abortion. Support Circle does not offer abortions so therefore they should not be paired with that procedure. This is a very difficult case that I could see going either way.
I agree with the author that San Francisco is violating Support Circle's First Amendment rights. San Francisco's law against false advertising does seem facially neutral and I am sure that there is a valid secular purpose for laws that protect health care consumers. However, I agree with Amanda's previous comment. Based on the information in this blog, I do not believe Support Circle is violating the law. They are not trying to trick pregnant women into coming into their offices. They are clearly and admittedly a pro-life organization. Censoring them on google prevents them from advertising their family planning services that are an attractive alternative to abortion for women. Taking away their ability to advertise on the internet does not protect pregnant women from some sort of trick but instead limits their access to information. The San Francisco law certainly violates their free exercise and their free speech. This law is detrimental to health as well as religion.
I agree with the author that Support Circle has the right to provide care within their beliefs and advertise their services, and that the information they provide does not qualify as false information. I agree with Sofia's comment about the abuse of power in search engine marketing. While it may be difficult to monitor, it seems manipulative to allow pro-life clinics to pop up when an individual is seeking abortion services. I believe there is a compelling state interest in limiting false information publication and manipulation of pregnant women, therefore, I do not believe the law is unconstitutional. It does not seem as though Support Circle has violated the policy.
I agree with the author that the law directly targets pro-life clinics. Support Circle is not misleading their potential patients because they are not falsely claiming they perform abortions just to "trap" patients. It is very clear that they are a pro-life organization and any women looking for an abortion would see that if they visited their website. It is within their religious rights to not perform abortions but still advertise as a pregnancy center. Just because they do not offer all the services that other pregnancy centers offer does not mean they are falsely advertising. This is why I do believe the law is unconstitutional.
I am a bit confused as to how Support Circle may be violating the city ordinance if Google's search engine provides their website with the search abortion and San Francisco. This consequence seems like it would be one to burden Google with, but not Support Circle since they cannot affect the results of a search engine. Furthermore, when someone is seeking to get an abortion, I believe they would often read about the site or organization they are going to and it seems that the Support Circle is very clear in their denial to provide abortions.
Post a Comment