Seven years after a coalition of pregnancy help centers prevailed in a landmark case at the U.S. Supreme Court with implications for their being able to operate in accord with their pro-life values, another federal case is unfolding with pregnacy centers fighting for their constitutional protections.
The newest case involves a Delaware law, SB 300, that requires pregnancy help centers without a licensed medical provider to post disclaimers near the entrance stating such. The lawsuit, NIFLA v. Jennings, was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) and one of its affiliates, A Door of Hope Pregnancy Center.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of pregnancy help centers in NIFLA v. Becerra in the centers’ challenge to a California law that, among other things, required those not licensed by the state to post a sign stating they have no licensed medical provider.
“Delaware’s law runs afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in NIFLA v. Becerra that struck down compelled statements in advertising," ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said in a statement.
The new Delaware law imposing government-compelled speech was signed by Democrat Gov. John Carney and is scheduled to go into effect March 26.
“Delaware enacted almost the exact same law that the Supreme Court held was unconstitutional,” the lawsuit states, citing NIFLA v. Becerra.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
The 2018 Supreme Court NIFLA v. Becerra decision striking down California’s Reproductive FACT Act was a defining moment for pregnancy help organizations and vastly expanded their constitutional rights within the federal courts. Until the win at the high court -- a 5-4 split -- pregnancy help centers had lost twice in lower courts.
Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, expressed hope that the Delaware law will be struck down. Heartbeat International, the largest network of pregnancy help organizations in the U.S. and the world, had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in NIFLA v. Becerra opposing the California law.
“Rather than serving the women and citizens of Delaware, the State Assembly members voted to serve the abortion industry,” Godsey said. “Instead of looking to protect women with common sense regulations constraining the ease of dangerous chemical abortion pills, they are intent on wasting taxpayer dollars with viewpoint discrimination against life-affirming pregnancy centers.”
Pregnancy help centers offer critical services for Delaware women, Godsey said.
“Pregnancy centers are good for Delaware and vital for Delawareans in an unintended pregnancy not to feel forced into an abortion they do not want,” Godsey told Pregnancy Help News. “Public officials should work for the public, especially the most vulnerable among us, and not shill for powerful special interests like the abortion lobby.”
The text of the law requires pregnancy centers in Delaware to post a sign at the entrance stating, “This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the state of Delaware and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”
The sign must be at least 11 inches by 17 inches and the text at least 80-point font.
The ADF lawsuit argues that SB 300 violates the free speech and religious liberty rights of the centers.
Tweet This: Delaware’s law runs afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in NIFLA v. Becerra that struck down compelled statements in advertising.
“This case is a challenge by pro-life pregnancy care centers to a state law significantly burdening their ability to speak and even forcing them to speak messages at odds with their mission and the truth,” the complaint states.
The Delaware law “imposes government compelled speech upon the Plaintiff pregnancy care centers due to their support for pregnant women, and in ways that undermine the centers’ messages,” it says further.
“SB 300 is therefore unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” it states. “It is a classic example of compelled speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause. The law is expressly content-based both because it compels the content of speech and because it regulates only speakers who wish to discuss the subject of pregnancy from a pro-life perspective rather than any other health topic.”
Further, the Delaware law requires pregnancy help centers to make untrue and misleading statements, the suit contends. A Door of Hope, for example, is supervised by a volunteer medical doctor, a volunteer radiologist and several registered nurses -- and yet the law in question requires the center to state it “has no licensed medical provider.”
“Forcing Plaintiff Facilities to state that they have no licensed medical providers directly supervising services while employing registered nurses who are licensed by the Delaware Board of Nursing to provide medical services burdens the exercise of religious beliefs of Plaintiff Facilities, which prevent them from speaking dishonestly or misleadingly,” ADF’s lawsuit says.
The law in question “substantially burdens the exercise of religious beliefs” of the pregnancy centers, it says, “undermining their pro-life message and the way in which they promote that message in pursuit of their religious beliefs.”
Door of Hope’s Executive Director weighed in on SB 300 as well.
“Delaware’s law explicitly targets pro-life pregnancy centers like A Door of Hope, impeding our ability to continue serving women and men who are making decisions about pregnancies in a spirit of concern and compassion,” Rachel Metzger said. “Our mission is to empower women to make life-affirming and healthy decisions, particularly about sex, pregnancy, and relationships. It’s unlawful for the state to punish us for holding a pro-life viewpoint.”
ADF and affiliated attorneys filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Editor's note: Heartbeat International manages Pregnancy Help News.
