Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

NIFLA v. Becerra

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NIFLA v. Becerra

    This it the case I helped write an amicus brief for. The Supreme Court released the opinion today, reversing the lower court's holding which upheld the stringent conditions of the FACT Act as applicable to pro-life pregnancy centers and remanding to the lower court for proceedings consistent with their ruling.



    (tl;dr we won, y'all)

    "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
    "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
    Katniss Everdeen


    Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.


  • #2
    Now, if somebody could put that in plain Enrish....
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #3
      I would but I'm at work right now and don't want to spend too much time reading and translating the opinion.

      "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
      "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
      Katniss Everdeen


      Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by thewriteranon View Post
        I would but I'm at work right now and don't want to spend too much time reading and translating the opinion.
        In due time, then! But, meanwhile - Congrats!!!!
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #5

          Supreme Court Sides With Free Speech Over Abortion Rights in NIFLA V. Becerra


          The Supreme Court sided with anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers on Tuesday morning, in a decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The case pitted free speech and reproductive rights against one another in the state of California.

          National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Xavier Becerra challenged a 2015 law that required crisis pregnancy centers to disclose all available medical options and services to pregnant women. The centers, which are nonprofit organizations often affiliated with Christian groups, immediately responded that the law violated their religious freedom and their first amendment right to free speech.

          Thomas, writing for a conservative 5-4 majority, found that requirements for licensed crisis pregnancy centers "likely" violate free speech claims, and that the requirement for unlicensed centers "unduly burdens protected speech."

          The court also noted that the law in question was too narrowly limited in scope and only attempted to impose this speech on crisis pregnancy centers opposed to abortion rather than any health center that offers services like birth control or family planning.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #6
            This is good news. Congrats Anon!

            Comment

            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
            Working...
            X