Supreme Court of United States.
Justices skeptical of abortion speech law Posted Tue, March 20th, 4: Becerraa highly anticipated case that combines two often controversial topics: Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey B. The California legislature passed the law because it was worried that crisis pregnancy centers — nonprofit organizations, often affiliated with Christian groups, that are opposed to abortion — were posing as full-service reproductive health clinics and providing pregnant women with inaccurate or misleading information about their options.
The act requires nonprofits that are licensed to provide medical services such as pregnancy tests and ultrasound examinations to post notices to inform their patients that free or low-cost abortions are available, while centers without such licenses — which try to support pregnant women by supplying them with diapers and formula, for example — must include disclaimers in their advertisements to make clear, in up to 13 languages, that their services do not include medical help.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to agree. She asked, in a seemingly rhetorical question, whether states can also require agencies or groups that provide information on immigration to tell the recipients of their services that they are not lawyers.
Farris and Jeffrey Wall, the deputy U. Farris for petitioners Art Lien But Sotomayor was skeptical, telling Wall that the clinics sometimes provide ultrasounds and pregnancy tests. Kagan then asked Klein to identify the impetus for the statute.
Was the statute intended to address the problem of pregnant women generally not getting enough information about their options or, instead, was it enacted out of a belief that crisis pregnancy centers were misleading women about their options?
Klein responded that the statute fell into the first category, but that response got him into trouble with Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Anthony Kennedy also expressed doubts about the law. Farris responded that the billboard would indeed have to disclose that the nonprofit does not provide medical services — a point with which Klein seemed to agree.
Unfortunately for Breyer, his colleagues seemed less enthusiastic about the prospect. The justices could ultimately decide to strike down part or all of the Reproductive FACT Act, while leaving open the possibility that a more generally applicable law might pass constitutional muster.LINMARK ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.
v. TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO ET AL.
No. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 2, Decided May 2, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
Hauch, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Thomas L. Earp. Feb 20, · When President Trump created the “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity” last spring — and put notorious vote suppressor Kris Kobach at the helm — voting rights advocates had decades of good reasons to be concerned.
May 23, · in Civil Rights, Economy, General Assembly, Legislation, Political Theory - Analysis Legislation ostensibly to ensure “equal pay” between men and women is actually an ideological power grab that changes the nature of government and puts every RI business at risk.
Striking workers, civil rights advocates, anti-war demonstrators and Ku Klux Klan marchers have all taken to the streets and sidewalks in protest or in support of their causes. Sometimes these efforts have galvanized public support or changed public perceptions.
"John F. Kennedy and Civil Rights: Fifty Years After" was the topic of discussion among three key Civil Rights advocates who, during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, played a pivotal role in ending racial segregation and securing civil rights for African Americans, at p.m.
on Wednesday, March 2, , in Dodds Auditorium. The Civil Rights Movement: The Civil Rights movement, perhaps the greatest demonstration of black rage in American history, produces an explosion of rage A.
In the struggle for civil rights, the rhetoric of revolution dominates as one major theme of black rage.