By Dwight G. Duncan

The following article originally appeared in the Spring 2018 issue of the MCFL News magazine, a perk of membership mailed out quarterly to all members.

One of the biggest cases in this year’s Supreme Court term is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California. Petitioners, a group of pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Centers in California, are challenging on First Amendment free speech grounds the California law which requires them to provide information on whom to contact in order to obtain an abortion. 

The lower federal courts in California, including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has the distinction of being the Court overturned most often by the U.S. Supreme Court, held that the unprecedented California law was constitutionally consistent with the First Amendment. 

Petitioners’ brief was filed on January 8, and amicus briefs supporting petitioners’ First Amendment argument were filed by January 15. The government’s brief is due February 8, with amicus briefs in support thereof due a week later. Oral argument is set for March 20. Along with the Masterpiece Cake case out of Colorado, which challenges on First Amendment grounds Colorado’s fining a bakery for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, these cases both raise the issue of freedom not to speak—one in the abortion context, the other in the same-sex marriage context. Decisions are expected by the end of the Supreme Court term around June 30.

By Anne Fox, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments about California forcing Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs) to advertise abortions.

As you know, MCFL filed an amicus curiae brief. All advocates of free speech should be very concerned, but we are especially interested because it would have some of the same arguments as the MAssachusetts Buffer Zone case and because the pro-abortion advocates in the state have gone to the Attorney General and are having marches claiming that some of the PRCs in the state are "fake clinics"

I was lucky enough to sit in on a Federalist Society call after the testimony. Sure enough, the fact that was important in the Buffer Zone case — that only one type of speech had been targeted — came up. Even Justices Kagan and Sotomayor expressed concern. Justice Breyer had the only problem questions: if a liberal state cannot make PRCs post information, then why should a conservative state be able to require that the mother be able to look at the ultrasound, etc. The lawyers felt that was answered effectively.

The consensus seems to be that the case will be decided on fairly narrow grounds and that we should do well. It is very interesting. If you would like to read more, Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com has a good analysis.

By Helen Cross, Editor of MCFL Magazine

With its leather chairs, dark wooden table curving into an impressive arc, and the podium proclaiming "United States Senate," the Caucus Room in the Dirksen Senate Building is an imposing venue. On a bright sunny, windless, and mild day in Washington, D.C. Prof. Michael Pakaluk of Catholic University of America began the MCFL Caucus by tracing the continuum from contraception and abortion using Supreme Court decisions in Griswold, Roe, and Casey. Contraception severs the unitive and procreative aspects of conjugal union. "If there is a 'right to contraception' then abortion is the sole solution when an unwanted child is conceived," Pakaluk said. (The complete text of Prof. Pakaluk’s text is available.)

By Anne Fox, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life

I want to share some exciting news! 

When the US Supreme Court announced it would hear the challenge by the Pregnancy Resource Centers in California against that state’s "Reproductive FACT Act,” which requires them to advertise abortions, it seemed the perfect case for us to file an amicus curiae brief.

The Trump Justice Department is once again trying to block a taxpayer-funded abortion for a teenage illegal alien who had been raped in her country. Justice Department lawyers argued that it would only beget more violence.

The courts recently forced the government to facilitate an abortion on a teenage illegal immigrant who was in government custody. At the time concerns were expressed that pregnant women would enter the country simply to procure abortions. Of course, the media assured us this would never happen.

In the current case, will see the Justice Department makes some excellent pro-life points.

By Anne Fox, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life

In the past month I have had five calls from college students from across the country who are doing papers on the McCullen v Coakley buffer zone Supreme Court decision. Their approach tells a lot about the scholarship of their professors. One of the things they want to know is what impact the decision had. Of course, it caused a new, less onerous law to be passed in Massachusetts. In the short run, some municipalities wanted to pass buffer zone laws in defiance of the decision. In the long run, probably fewer new laws have been passed, but, on the surface, it hasn't had a huge impact. Those wonderful sidewalk counselors get their work done consistently, lovingly, and effectively under all circumstances.

By Anne Fox, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life

The current legislation seeking to legalize doctor-prescribed suicide probably wouldn't have passed the Massachusetts legislature this session except that the pro-death lobby, Compassion and Choices, has a diabolical new plan. They already have the case in court trying to say that doctor-prescribed suicide is legal in Massachusetts. They have the money to put the issue on the ballot in 2020.  Now they have another clever attempt, which has a good chance.

They are going to towns in the state to get the city council, town meeting, whatever is the governing body, to pass resolutions supporting DPS.

They can pick the towns where they did the best in 2012. When they get enough towns, they can go to the legislature and present the results to prove the people of the state want DPS and force the legislature to pass it.

They have already gotten the resolution passed in Provincetown and Cambridge. Now they are working in Amherst and Northampton.

If Question 2 won big in your town or city in 2012, please start monitoring things closely so we can nip the next move in the bud. You know how effective this doctor team can be.

Evil is endlessly persistent.

Photo: Sage Rose/Wikimedia Commons. CC-BY-SA-3.0.

We are continuing our review of the presentations given at 2017 Convention in April. You may also find these presentations in our quarterly member publication, MCFL News.

“Roe v. Wade was an unprincipled decision that cannot be reconciled with our history, legal traditions, and practices which form the touchstone for determining whether or not an unenumerated liberty interest will be recognized by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment,” said Paul Benjamin Linton, author of Abortion Under State Constitutions and Constitutional Law expert, at the MCFL 2017 Annual Convention at Boston College on April 8. Linton explained this as the reasoning for framing the discussion in terms of when Roe is overruled, not if it is overruled.