SACRAMENTO – After the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Xavier Becerra, which challenges the constitutionality of California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra today vowed to fight to uphold California’s law, this time before our nation's highest court.
The Reproductive FACT Act prohibits clinics from providing misleading information about the services they offer to women to deter them from using contraception or abortion services. State-licensed medical clinics in California must now inform women that they can obtain certain basic information about free and low-cost family planning, prenatal, and abortion care. Unlicensed clinics are now required to disclose to all clients that their facility is not a state-licensed medical facility.
“Information is power, and all women should have access to the information they need when making personal healthcare decisions,” said Attorney General Becerra. “The Reproductive FACT Act ensures that women in California receive accurate information about their healthcare options, including whether a facility is a licensed medical provider. The California Department of Justice will do everything necessary to protect women’s healthcare rights."
In the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Xavier Becerra case, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of the Reproductive FACT Act, claiming that it violated their First Amendment free speech rights by compelling them to utter a government message. The plaintiffs also claimed that the Act violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by discriminating against their religiously motivated anti-abortion activities. The federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals both rejected the plaintiffs' arguments and refused to grant the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court today granted certiorari to only review the plaintiffs’ Free Speech Clause argument.