A free speech case for pro-life advocates is heading to the Supreme Court after Judge Gloria C. Trask of Riverside Country Superior Court ruled that “Go Mobile For Life” and other mobile medical clinics with an anti-abortion stance can’t be forced to promote abortions that are covered by the state.
“Go Mobile For Life” provides ultrasound services for women living in Riverside County in a mobile unit. As a company that is fundamentally pro-life, this goes against their mission for providing mobile medical services for pregnant women in need.
There are more than 200 privately funded centers that provide services to pregnant women throughout California that give women free care and provide alternatives to having an abortion.
In 2015, the Reproductive FACT Act was passed, and requires all pro-life medical centers to post signs that provide information about birth control and abortions that are available for free through Medi-Cal, a taxpayer-funded program.
The head administrator of “Go Mobile For Life”, is thrilled with the current ruling stating, “This is a huge victory for free speech.” As the leader of a pro-life mobile medical clinic, he believes that forcing their company to provide free information regarding abortions goes against the beliefs that are the foundation of the company. He further stated that “Lives will be saved because of this ruling.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom is one of the pro-life advocates directly involved in the case. The Supreme Court will hear arguments soon regarding a request for a statewide appeal of he law. Advocates are arguing that religious expression and free speech is at risk of being trampled on, and it’s time to repeal this law so that free medical clinics that are pro-life can provide high-quality care to women who are pregnant.
While appeals filed prior to the ruling of Judge Trask were continually denied, Judge Trask ruled that the Reproductive FACT Act does violate free speech protection, and that there are other ways to promote the free services for abortion and birth control provided by the Medi-Cal program.
However, the fight isn’t over yet. It is expected that California Attorney General Xavier Beccera will challenge the ruling.
While the law in California is pending a Supreme Court challenge, there are other laws in the United States that have been beaten in New York, Baltimore and Austin. While laws once existed that forced pregnancy centers in the three cities to post signs regarding abortion, the laws were eventually struck down, and the signs no longer had to include information about free abortion services or birth control.
In addition, the state of Illinois recently had an injunction placed in July, so that medical professionals no longer have to refer patients to abortion businesses. Pro-life doctors were being forced against their faith to refer patients to abortions.
Women in many areas are desperate for medical care. At a time when abortion may feel like the only way out, pro-life medical clinics are giving women options. Instead of terminating a pregnancy, women are given the care they need to protect their unborn child and remain healthy. Women who can’t afford quality medical care often turn to abortion as a last resort, and when solid medical treatment is provided they are able to make a different decision.
It’s easy to know where to go to get a free abortion, but it isn’t always easy to find help to keep the pregnancy. Pro-life advocates want to see this change.
While a woman may need to make the decision to have her child adopted, she can get quality medical care throughout her pregnancy for free. Women who don’t want to have an abortion have a choice, but that choice isn’t always obvious right away.
The emotional impact of having an abortion can be felt for a lifetime for many women, and giving women who have nowhere to turn options is a huge relief.
For businesses such as “Go Mobile For Life”, the care they provide for pregnant women is essential. It is full of faith in humanity, and it is following their strong pro-life convictions.
With free speech protected for now, it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on the case as it comes forward.
~ 1776 Christian
