The decision on NIFLA v. Becerra could reach past abortion

[lunasun]

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1JN36V

The court’s decision in NIFLA v. Becerra is instructive in that it could have wide-ranging implications for reasonable regulations passed by state and local governments trying to provide important information to patients, consumers and workers on issues beyond abortion.
On another level, it could also mark the start of more aggressive litigation by abortion opponents hoping to get cases to be heard by a post-Kennedy Supreme Court.

The NIFLA decision concerns a California law passed in response to “crisis pregnancy centers” that could be mistaken for licensed medical clinics. If they are not licensed medical clinics, the statute requires them to make this clear in multiple languages in advertisements for the clinic. If the centers are licensed medical clinics, they are required to post the information that “free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women” might be available. The centers challenged both provisions as violating their First Amendment rights to free speech.

These holdings may seem plausible on their face, but are problematic in context. As Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent argues, the opinion is likely to produce a flood of litigation. Virtually all requirements to disclose information potentially alter the speech of professionals or businesses in some way. The court’s new test, as Breyer observes, “invites courts around the Nation to apply an unpredictable First Amendment to ordinary social and economic regulation” without setting clear standards.

...I am a man or I can't get pregnant thinkers.......know this ruling can alter more than antiabortion storefronts set up to look like clinics