Abortion Disclosure Laws and the First Amendment: The Broader Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court's Becerra Decision
- PMID: 30676798
- PMCID: PMC6366505
- DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304871
Abortion Disclosure Laws and the First Amendment: The Broader Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court's Becerra Decision
Abstract
In 2018, the US Supreme Court analyzed a California state requirement that clinics serving pregnant women must provide government notices-1 for licensed clinics about the availability of state health services including abortion and 1 for unlicensed clinics, notifying potential clients that the clinics are not licensed medical facilities and have no licensed medical professionals on-site. The Supreme Court found that both notices violated the First Amendment rights of the clinics. The Supreme Court's opinion elicits new uncertainties about the government's ability to require the disclosure of factual information in the context of reproductive health services and more broadly in the commercial context. However, the Supreme Court's silence on 1 of the state's purposes for the unlicensed clinic notice, which was to address deceptive speech by the clinics, highlights a potential avenue for future regulation. Policymakers can require the disclosure of factual information in the commercial context specifically to prevent consumer deception consistent with the First Amendment. Public health researchers can generate evidence to support such disclosure requirements intended to protect health and safety.
Similar articles
-
State legislation on abortion after Roe v. Wade: selected constitutional issues.Am J Law Med. 1976 Summer;2(1):101-32. Am J Law Med. 1976. PMID: 973625
-
The Supreme Court's Crisis Pregnancy Center Case - Implications for Health Law.N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379(16):1489-1491. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1809488. Epub 2018 Aug 29. N Engl J Med. 2018. PMID: 30156965 No abstract available.
-
Medication Abortion Through Telemedicine: Implications of a Ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court.Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Feb;127(2):313-6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001251. Obstet Gynecol. 2016. PMID: 26942359 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A world without Roe: how different would it be?Hastings Cent Rep. 1989 Jul-Aug;19(4):30-1. Hastings Cent Rep. 1989. PMID: 2745061
-
Abortion counseling: to benefit maternal health.Am J Law Med. 1989;15(4):483-517. Am J Law Med. 1989. PMID: 2699161 Review.
Cited by
-
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Policies in the Broader Legal Context: Health and Safety Warning Laws and the First Amendment.Am J Prev Med. 2020 Jun;58(6):783-788. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.01.006. Epub 2020 Apr 6. Am J Prev Med. 2020. PMID: 32273133 Free PMC article.
-
Mandating Front-of-Package Food Labels in the U.S. - What are the First Amendment Obstacles?Food Policy. 2019 Jul;86:101722. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.05.005. Epub 2019 Jun 19. Food Policy. 2019. PMID: 32831455 Free PMC article.
-
Breastmilk or infant formula? Content analysis of infant feeding advice on breastmilk substitute manufacturer websites.Public Health Nutr. 2023 May;26(5):934-942. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021003451. Epub 2021 Sep 14. Public Health Nutr. 2023. PMID: 34517933 Free PMC article.
-
Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment.Public Health Nutr. 2020 Dec;23(18):3324-3331. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020001688. Epub 2020 Aug 10. Public Health Nutr. 2020. PMID: 32773004 Free PMC article.
-
Effects of a front-of-package disclosure on accuracy in assessing children's drink ingredients: two randomised controlled experiments with US caregivers of young children.Public Health Nutr. 2023 Dec;26(12):2790-2801. doi: 10.1017/S1368980023001969. Epub 2023 Nov 1. Public Health Nutr. 2023. PMID: 37908052 Free PMC article.
References
-
- National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra. Vol. 138. S. Ct; 2018. p. 2361.
-
- The Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act, Cal Health & Saf Code §§ 123470–123473 (effective January 1, 2016).
-
- Parmet WE, Berman ML, Smith JA. The Supreme Court’s Crisis Pregnancy Center case—implications for health law. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(16):1489–1491. - PubMed
-
- 2010:229. Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S.
-
- Post RC. Compelled commercial speech. W. Va. L. Rev. 2015;117(1):867–919.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical