Free Speech & Pregnancy Clinics

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.