UPDATE on ACTION ITEM! Pray for important pro-life SCOTUS case! Arguments on 20 March.

UPDATE 20 March:

Link to the transcript of the oral arguments for the good guys.  HERE


Originally Published on: Mar 19, 2018

Can the government force Christian pro-life centers to advertise taxpayer-funded abortions?  California says they can.

That’s the essential question the US Supreme Court will consider in its oral argument phase tomorrow – Tuesday 20 March – in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra.

There is more on this case at PregnancyHelpNews.com which is powered by the wonderful pro-life group Heartbeat International.

In a nutshell, California’s – isn’t it always California these days? – Reproductive FACT Act, AB 775, forces pro-life pregnancy care centers to provide free advertising for big-business abortion.  The law forces licensed medical centers that offer free, pro-life help to pregnant women to post a disclosure – a notice – saying that California provides free or low-cost abortion and contraception services.

Lot’s more details HERE.

The notice, which the law specifies must either be posted as a public notice in “22-point type,” “distributed to all clients in no less than 14-point font” or distributed digitally “at the time of check-in or arrival,” applies to all pregnancy help medical clinics licensed by the state.

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

Meanwhile, pregnancy help centers that do not offer medical services will be required to post the following signage in two “clear and conspicuous” places—“in the entrance of the facility and at least one additional area where clients wait to receive services,” as well as in “any print and digital advertising materials including Internet Web sites”.

The font required is to be “in no less than 48-point type” and will read as follows:

“This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

This seems to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

What you can do?

Before David went to meet Goliath, he said, “this battle is the Lord’s.” (1 Samuel 17:47).

  • Pray, especially using the Rosary.
  • Go to church in the morning and offer your petition to God for divine assistance to the defenders of life and to the justices.
  • Spend time in morning before the Blessed Sacrament

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ACTION ITEM!, Emanations from Penumbras and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. bobbird says:

    PLEASE NOTE: Thomas Woods would be an excellent consultant regarding the dangers of making a federal case out of these issues. The First Amendment, correctly applied and understood within the context of the Constitution, should apply only to the federal government. By going to federal courts, we agree with the false premise that the federal gov’t is the granter, definer and protector of our rights.What California does within the confines of its screwball logic, becomes applicable to all fifty states if … and most likely when … the federal courts agree with it. Thus east Texas Baptists, Philly Catholics, Utah Mormons and prolife Lutherans in NoDak [“fly-over” country] are force-fed the values of liberal coastalmania. Thus, we become an oligarchical empire rather than a federated union.

  2. tamranthor says:

    I would be willing to compromise with the state of California, were they to likewise post, in huge typeface, at every office of every doctor and abortionist in the state, that abortion murders children and irreparably harms women.

    Seems like that would level the playing field.

    If they need pro-lifers to refer every possible conception to them for destruction, it would seem just as fair that the destroyers should be open and honest about their “work” and its effects on survivors.

    But, of course, that’s not quite how the devil works, is it?

  3. JustaSinner says:

    Break the law, boo hoo, Cali does it all the time; sanctuary state anyone? I’m ready to enlist for a civil war in CA; love to break me some Cali stuff!

  4. Malta says:

    I’m utterly astonished that the Supreme Court would even consider this–though it’s better than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This stuff is going “beyond the pale.” (Beyond the Pale of course referring to that point in British history when there was just a ‘pale’ to be defended.) I think we are in the end of days, and it can only mean Our Lady’s words from Fatima and Akita are about to happen. Almost total destruction has to happen for the world to re-set itself.

  5. frjim4321 says:

    The rule came into existence, I think, because there has been a lack of transparency on the part of pro-birth organizations who quite intentionally hang out an “abortions here” shingle in order to attract patients seeking elective abortion hoping to convince them otherwise. I suspect they have good intentions, but the ends don’t justify the means. The honest way to do it is to post ads for “abortion alternatives,” which is also common, and which is probably more effective in curtailing the abortion rate, mainly because it is honest. This is a good thing in view of the fact that the lower abortion numbers that we saw during President Obama’s terms will probably begin to increase under the current classist, pro-poverty regime. Informed consent is required in all kinds of clinical and therapeutic settings, and there is really no conceivable reason why this would be any different here, nor why if would be concealed under a “freedom of speech” defense.


  6. frjim4321 says:


    Do you really think we’re going to protect life by supporting organizations that masquerade as medical clinics that are not? And by having ultrosound machines operated by people who are not trained to use them? Missing fetal anomalies and causing women who want to keep their babies to lose them?

    I’m all in favor of being truly and seamlessly pro-life, but tricking people isn’t going to advance the cause.

  7. bobbird says:

    Fr. Z, thanks for posting your comments in red. That allows us to see how 1) your site is being vetted by seemingly urbane trolls, or 2) how some Catholics are woefully misinformed about CPCs. Some are indeed neutrally titled, “Abortion Information” in the Yellow Pages. It is honest and helps save babes and their mothers. It would be interesting to find out who is out there who was convinced to choose life because of vague … but NOT misleading, CPC titles.
    Shingles at CPCs that say, “Abortion here”? Tell us of one, please.

  8. tamranthor says:

    Goodness, frjim 4321, I don’t know where you are from, but I have NEVER seen a women’s care center advertise “abortions here.” Every group I’ve worked with has been extremely clear that they are pro-life and do not provide the apparatus of death. Every one I’ve encountered is up front about providing ultrasounds and pregnancy testing, and offering everything from diapers and cribs to rent assistance to adoption services. I am unaware of and “regime,” pro-poverty or not, that is demanding that women give birth and remain poor because of it. I find it remarkable that you would slander a good organization this way, but I suppose if you are pro-death, just about any subterfuge will do.

    By comparison, I suppose you will tell me that Planned Parenthood is now offering baby clothes and prenatal care, since that would surely be a way of limiting the number of abortions. And tell me, what, exactly, did Mr. Obama do to reduce the abortion rate?

    Perhaps a good confession would help your point of view.

  9. Mike says:


    Eminently believable. Look at Providence College, where a student has been harassed and threatened with sodomite rape for openly defending marriage. The college’s president, a Dominican priest, refuses to condemn or even investigate these threats (although, thankfully, four chaplains of the college have risen to the student’s defense).

    Leftist haters hate because they know that, in this “pastoral” age after Vatican 2, they can do so with impunity. The level of pastoral vitriol spewed forth by frjim4321 would probably pass unnoticed in my diocese. If any pastor on the opposing side even came close to it, he’d likely find himself—at best—swiftly reassigned to be chaplain of a shoe hospital.

  10. robtbrown says:

    FrJim4321 says,

    This is a good thing in view of the fact that the lower abortion numbers that we saw during President Obama’s terms will probably begin to increase under the current classist, pro-poverty regime. Informed consent is required in all kinds of clinical and therapeutic settings, and there is really no conceivable reason why this would be any different here, nor why if would be concealed under a “freedom of speech” defense.

    Pro poverty regime? The tax cut has given relief to all middle class and below families.

  11. frjim4321 says:

    I’m not going to go down a rabbit hole on the “tax reform.”

Comments are closed.