About this Case
Numerous petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court of the United States, asking it to review regulations requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post messages inside their facilities that are at odds with their pro-life messages. The National Legal Foundation has been involved in these cases for 5 years and have addressed our views to the Supreme Court of the United States in 3 of those cases (A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Becerra, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, and Livingwell Medical Clinic v. Becerra). Finally, the Supreme Court agreed to review one, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.
Summary of NLF's Brief
We filed two briefs on these cases. In the first brief we asked for review of the Ninth Circuit’s upholding of California’s law mandating pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise abortion services by the state. We argued that because uniformity of the rules of decision making is critical, not only to the rule of law, but also to the public perception of the evenhandedness of the judiciary in reviewing regulation concerning abortion. The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to set out the applicable standards. After the Supreme Court granted one of the petitions, together with the National Association of Evangelicals, Concerned Women for America, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Commission, and Samaritan’s Purse we argued that the Court should apply a “strict scrutiny” standard of review when deciding whether California’s requirements are permissible under the Constitution. Under a strict scrutiny standard, we argued that the California requirements violate the U.S. Constitution and that the lower court decisions should be reversed.