• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS upholds right of crisis pregnancy centers to LIE to women

Jack Hays said:

The Supreme Court said a Calif. law requiring the centers to notify women about the availability of state-offered services, including abortion, likely violates the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Then so does any law telling doctors what to say to their patients.
 
This thread actually has nothing to do with abortion. This is a free speech issue.

Justice Kennedy:

The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of “forward thinking.” App. 38–39. But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 715 (1977). It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.
Click to expand...

Any "progress" which progresses away from free speech isn't a "progress" that free people should want to be a part of.
 
Harshaw said:
This thread actually has nothing to do with abortion. This is a free speech issue.

Justice Kennedy:
The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of “forward thinking.” App. 38–39. But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 715 (1977). It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.
Click to expand...


Any "progress" which progresses away from free speech isn't a "progress" that free people should want to be a part of.
Click to expand...

How would right-wingers feel if Planned Parenthood was incorrectly telling women their babies couldn't be saved and that they needed an abortion? Would it violate "freedumb of speech" to prohibit that?
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
How would right-wingers feel if Planned Parenthood was incorrectly telling women their babies couldn't be saved and that they needed an abortion? Would it violate "freedumb of speech" to prohibit that?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't even be close to the same situation; that would just be straight-up medical fraud.

An actual analogy would be requiring Planned Parenthood to post signs stating the availability of families who want to adopt, or the availability of counseling against having an abortion, and such a requirement would indeed violate freedom of speech in the same way.

This juvenile "freedumb of speech" thing you do only drives home that you're an authoritarian, hostile to freedom. Anyone who cherishes freedom doesn't mock it. But you do.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/6064...th-california-anti-abortion-pregnancy-centers

So glad we have Gorsuch instead of Garland for this victory for freedumb of speech. :roll:
Click to expand...

1. They remanded it for further consideration in large part due to their decision that the 9th circuit applied the wrong level of scrutiny (among other things) due to its conclusion about how burdensome the law was.

2. One part of the law required places devoted to talking women out of abortion to provide a list of state-sponsored abortion services and a phone number to call. Are you sure that's a good thing objectively, or a good thing just because of your stance on abortion? Why do you want government to be able to require private entities to engage in speech contrary to the primary purpose of the speech they exist to engage in?

3. The other part of the law required places that weren't medically licensed to say that they are not medically licensed and that they are not providing medical services. That part I do agree with, as it doesn't undercut any part of their anti-abortion message. The only way that requirement could undercut their message is if their message involved an implication that they were providing such services when in fact they weren't. And even though they'd be walking into a whole lot of trouble anyway if they did that, I see no problem in requiring them to explicitly disclose that they are not licensed or providing said services. (It's more on par with requiring lawyers who send letters to recruit clients to mark those letters as "advertising", or, perhaps more attenuously, requiring restaurants to list calories on dishes).

However, the state apparently denied it was claiming any women did not know what kind of place they were entering, therefore, the Court was skeptical of its claim that such a notice was in fact for the purpose of ensuring that pregnant women know when they are and are not receiving medical care from licensed professionals. Though there isn't much reason to be miffed at that skepticism, because as I already conceded, if an unlicensed place provides medical services or implies it does, it's going to get in trouble already. (Note: They aren't just looking at reasons in a vacuum. They are looking at reasons in the context of the standard of review applicable to this specific type of restriction on speech. Go get the decision of their website and read all 50 pages of opinions).







But no, this isn't about some "right to lie". Not even close. And it isn't a final decision anyway. The 9th Circuit just has to redo the problem set and turn it in later.
 
Last edited:
Personally I find it pathetic that so many American women are this stupid as to fall for this ****. In general I'm disgusted that so many women get pregnant accidentally to begin with but I know that birth control isnt 100% so many were being responsible.

Good, let them have a kid and deal with it.

Many end up happy they do...and many dont. I believe that most just end up making the sacrifices and deciding that the trade-offs were worth it.

Getting pregnant has consequences, esp. for stupid women.

(There's no excuse for anyone who's been to American public school to be this ignorant.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom