About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (July 26, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govbaor0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional ______ *Research Service Facing the FACT Act: Abortion and Free Speech (Part I) Updated July 26, 2019 Update: For a discussion of the Supreme Court's June 26, 2018 decision in NIFLA v. Becerra holding that the FACTAct likely violated the First Amendment, see CRS Report R45316, Supreme Court October Term 2017: A Review of Selected Major Rulings, coordinated by Andrew Nolan. On October 26, 2018, the parties in NIFLA stipulated to an injunction and dismissal of the case, and the district court permanently enjoined the state and local defendants from enforcing the FACTAct. No. 3:15-cv-02277 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2018), ECFNo. 76. The original post from January 10, 2018 is below. On November 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted a petition to review National Institute ofFamily and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, a case that implicates several distinct and complex First Amendment doctrines. Specifically, the Court will consider whether a California law providing information that certain pregnancy centers must disseminate to clients violates the Free Speech Clause. The Ninth Circuit previously upheld the California law, deepening a circuit split that raises questions beyond the highly charged context of family planning and pregnancy-related services. Part I of this two-part Sidebar provides an overview of the challenged law, followed by an analysis of how the Supreme Court might categorize the speech at issue. Part II discusses the potential implications of any Supreme Court decision in NIFLA for First Amendment jurisprudence and legislatures seeking to regulate in this area. Background. NIFLA involves a challenge by an anti-abortion, nonprofit organization and two of its member pregnancy centers (the NIFLA challengers) to California's Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act. The FACT Act imposes two requirements on certain providers of family planning or pregnancy-related services. First, covered state- licensed facilities-generally, outpatient clinics-must notify clients on site that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women, along with the telephone number of the county social services office. Second, unlicensed covered facilities-generally, those without a state license or a licensed medical provider supervising their operations-must provide a notice on site and in any advertising materials that the facility is not licensed as a medical facility and has no licensed medical provider rendering or supervising its services. The Act exempts federal clinics and certain providers that are enrolled in the State's Family Planning, Access, Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10055 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most