The NIFLA case, however, is unquestionably about compelled speech. The state of California has enacted a law, the so-called FACT Act, that requires pro-life crisis-pregnancy centers to prominently place a notice informing clients that California offers low-cost and even free abortions to women who qualify and providing them a phone number that grants quick access to abortion clinics.<\/p>\n
In other words, California is requiring pro-life professionals \u2014 people who\u2019ve dedicated their lives to protecting the unborn by offering pregnant mothers alternatives to abortion \u2014 to advertise state-sponsored abortions. California is making this demand even though it has ample opportunity to advertise state services without forcing pro-life citizens to do so. The state can rent billboard space on the very streets where crisis-pregnancy centers are located. It can hand out leaflets on the sidewalk. It can advertise on television and the radio. It can advertise on the Internet or social media. But rather than using its own voice, it is co-opting the voices of its pro-life citizens, forcing them to join its pro-abortion crusade.<\/p>\n
And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FACT Act is constitutional. To validate California\u2019s oppressive act, its decision carved out a dangerous First Amendment exception for what it deemed \u201cprofessional speech\u201d \u2014 \u201cspeech that occurs between professionals and their clients in the context of their professional relationship\u201d \u2014 and ruled that the state had much greater leeway in regulating, for example, doctor\/patient communication.<\/p>\n