Red flags should be raised whenever anyone seeking health care guidance and medical service of any sort is denied accurate, comprehensive and unbiased information in a confidential setting. Something is wrong.
Something is wrong, then, with this week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively puts an end to a California law that requires anti-
abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. A Hawaii law — modeled after California’s Reproductive FACT Act — could now also be deemed unconstitutional.
Enacted last year, Hawaii’s law says all women seeking help at faith-based pregnancy counseling centers should be made aware of services available to them for free or at low cost through state programs.
The law requires posting of an informational notice in waiting rooms or providing women with a copy of the notice during check-in. The notice must provide the basics on how to apply for Medicaid coverage, and state that only ultrasounds performed by qualified health care professionals and read by licensed clinicians should be considered medically accurate.
In the interest of sufficiently informing women sorting out time-sensitive health matters, these centers — storefront ministries, essentially — should be providing the notice via both means. However, while awaiting the high court’s decision in the California case, Hawaii has not enforced the statute.
In a 5-4 ruling cheered by abortion opponents, the court found that the 2016 California statute violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Opponents of both state laws have claimed the statutes stifle both free speech and religious freedom rights by forcing them to advertise abortion services.
In an opinion for the court’s conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the state cannot co-opt centers to “deliver its message for it.”
The ruling defends an argument that state views should not be imposed on private citizens — but it leaves hanging a valid and at least equally compelling argument that the law is protecting residents from deception. And states do have a right to shield consumers against deceptive advertising. In both states, that concern rightly prompted legislation.
In testimony submitted at Hawaii’s Capitol, Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii said in some cases, such centers are offering “biased, misleading, and even false pregnancy and health care information and denying women needed referrals for reproductive health services, and all the while failing to disclose that they are not actually licensed health care providers.”
Each year, several thousand women in Hawaii contend with unintended pregnancy, which can carry enormous social and economic costs to individuals, families and the state.
Should Hawaii’s new law get scrapped, state leaders should find another way to counter abortion disinformation. The effort could start with ramping up of a different sort of distribution of public notice pertaining to guidance and medical care that’s legally available for reproductive health.
Last July, shortly after Gov. David Ige signed Hawaii’s law into effect, a national anti-abortion religious organization sued to block it. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates — the same organization that was party to the Supreme Court ruling — represents at least five pregnancy centers in Hawaii affiliated with pro-life churches and religious groups.
In response to the ruling, Jim Hochberg, the local attorney for NIFA, said: “There are differing opinions in a diverse society and free speech requires tolerance and respect for different opinions.” That’s true. And to some degree, faith-based centers are offering support to pregnant women.
However, if they truly value tolerance, they should be upfront about the scope of care available under the law and disclose information about state-funded services, even those they object to.
