In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the California law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression.
“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”
In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the high court’s majority stance contradicts a previous decision in which justices required physicians who performed abortions to give information about adoption services.
“If a state can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive health care about childbirth and abortion services?” he asked. “As the question suggests, there is no convincing reason to distinguish between information about adoption and information about abortion in this context.”
The Supreme Court’s decision has broad implications in the health care setting and other sectors that physicians and other professionals should celebrate, said Robert McNamara, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va. The professional-speech doctrine that the Supreme Court rejected in the case posed a serious danger to the free-speech rights of health providers, Mr. McNamara said in an interview.
Heather Shumaker
However, Heather Shumaker, senior counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, said the ruling is detrimental to patients’ health care and chills their access to truthful, accurate medical information.
“Throughout the country, anti-abortion counseling centers provide false, misleading, or incomplete information, and frighten and coerce women to make certain decisions about their health care options,” Ms. Shumaker said in an interview. “This deception endangers women’s health and future fertility, and particularly burdens women of color and women struggling to make ends meet. It is devastating that [the] decision will make access to full reproductive health care more difficult.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) also expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“Pregnant women who seek medical guidance must be able to trust that information being provided to them is truthful, medically accurate, and enables them to make informed decisions about their care,” ACOG President Lisa Hollier, MD, said in a statement. “Inaccurate and untruthful information can delay care and increase risk of medical complications.”