National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

To book an interview, click on the "Book an Interview" button on any page at
Tuesday, December 04, 2018

Description:  California’s Reproductive FACT Act, AB 775, forced pro-life pregnancy care centers to provide free advertising for the abortion industry. The law required licensed medical centers that offer free, pro-life help to pregnant women to post a disclosure saying that California provides free or low-cost abortion and contraception services. The disclosure had to include a phone number for a county office that refers women to Planned Parenthood and other abortionists. The law also forced unlicensed pregnancy centers to add large disclosures about their non-medical status in all advertisements, even if they provide no medical services.

Permanent end to Calif. law that forced pro-life centers to advertise for abortion

Friday, October 26, 2018

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom President, CEO, and General Counsel Michael Farris regarding a federal district court’s order Friday that permanently ends enforcement of California AB 775, a law forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in June in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra:

“The government has no business forcing anyone to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion. California disregarded that truth when it passed its law forcing pro-life centers to advertise for the abortion industry. The district court’s order puts a permanent end to that law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June, which rightly found that ‘the people lose when the government is the one deciding which ideas should prevail.’ The outcome of this case affirms the freedom that all Americans have to speak—or not to speak—in accordance with their conscience.”

Farris argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of NIFLA and two of its pro-life pregnancy centers.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
# # # | Ref. 52123

Additional resources: National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

Scroll down to view additional resources pertaining to this case and its surrounding issue.
Tuesday, December 04, 2018

Previous news releases:

  • 2018-06-26: US Supreme Court: Govt can’t force Americans to express messages they disagree with
  • 2018-06-26: US Supreme Court: Govt can’t force people to express messages they disagree with
  • 2018-03-20: Michael Farris’s remarks following Supreme Court oral arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra
  • 2018-03-19: ADF to take stand for free speech at US Supreme Court Tuesday
  • 2018-03-14: House honors selfless work of pregnancy centers for women, their babies
  • 2018-03-14: ADF responds to California: Govt shouldn’t force pro-life centers to advertise for abortion
  • 2018-03-12: California, coerced speech, and the Court: A panel discussion on NIFLA v. Becerra
  • 2018-02-21: California AG defends forcing pro-life centers to advertise for abortion
  • 2018-01-17: Broad support against forcing pro-life centers to advertise for abortion
  • 2018-01-08: Pro-life centers to Supreme Court: Don’t allow govt to force us to advertise for abortion
  • 2017-11-13: US Supreme Court agrees to weigh in on California law that forces pro-life centers to promote abortion
  • 2017-03-20: ADF asks US Supreme Court to halt California law forcing pro-life centers to promote abortion
  • 2016-10-28: ADF asks 9th Circuit to preserve freedom for pro-life pregnancy centers
  • 2016-10-14: 9th Circuit upholds California law forcing pro-life centers to promote abortion
  • 2016-06-13: ADF to 9th Circuit: Halt California law forcing pro-life centers to promote abortion
  • 2015-10-13: Calif. law forces pro-life centers to promote abortion, ADF files suit


  • Heidi Matzke: California’s law targeting pregnancy centers was meant for harm—but God used it for good (Pregnancy Help News, 2018-12-04)
  • Jim Campbell: Compelled speech in Masterpiece Cakeshop: What the Supreme Court’s June 2018 decisions tell us about the unresolved questions (Federalist Society Review, 2018-09-24)
  • Denise Harle: NIFLA decision affirms First Amendment’s purpose: Protect minority viewpoints (JURIST, 2018-07-15)
  • Jay Hobbs: SCOTUS NIFLA decision gives women the help they need and the hope they deserve (CNS News, 2018-07-02)
  • Jessica Prol Smith: Why all Americans can celebrate the Supreme Court ruling on forced abortion advertising (The Federalist, 2018-06-28)
  • Kevin Theriot: Supreme Court: People lose when the government decides which ideas prevail (National Review, 2018-06-27)
  • Elissa Graves: Supreme Court’s NIFLA decision: Our government can’t force you to share a message you don’t agree with (Fox News, 2018-06-27)
  • Michael Farris: We should all celebrate the Supreme Court ruling on compelled speech, regardless of our views on abortion (Los Angeles Times, 2018-06-27)
  • Denise Burke: Supreme Court ruling means it’s still legal to be pro-life and help expectant mothers (Washington Examiner, 2018-06-26)
  • Jay Hobbs: Think the Supreme Court is done with free speech post-Masterpiece? Think again. (Daily Wire, 2018-06-21)
  • Denise Harle: Government should not force private pregnancy centers to be at odds with their mission (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2018-04-12)
  • Jim Campbell: Justice Kennedy’s views on pro-life speech tested this term (National Review, 2018-03-23)
  • Kristen Waggoner: Thwarting pro-life pregnancy centers (Washington Times, 2018-03-20)
  • James Gottry: Supreme Court must act to protect free speech on subject of abortion (The Hill, 2018-03-20)
  • Michael Farris: Pro-life pregnancy centers shouldn't be forced to promote abortion (Kentucky Today, 2018-03-20)
  • Maggie Amos: Pregnancy centers shouldn’t have to advertise for abortions. I’m glad mine didn’t. (USA Today, 2018-03-20)
  • Thomas Glessner: Pro-life pregnancy centers should not have to advertise abortion (National Review, 2018-03-20)
  • Michael Farris: Supreme Court should not allow California to force pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion (Fox News, 2018-03-20)
  • James Gottry: Pro-life centers have speech, too (Wall Street Journal, 2018-03-19)
  • Elissa Graves: Supreme Court should uphold free speech of pro-life pregnancy centers (Sacramento Bee, 2018-03-13)
  • Sarah Kramer: Should this pregnancy clinic be forced to advertise abortion? (Christian Post, 2018-02-22)
  • Anne O’Connor: The greedy abortion industry vilifies pro-life centers (The Hill, 2018-02-15)
  • Kevin Theriot: Upcoming Supreme Court case reveals California’s slapshot at pro-life speech rights (Washington Examiner, 2018-01-26)
  • James Gottry: What if March for Life participants were forced to advertise for Planned Parenthood? (The Hill, 2018-01-18)
  • James Gottry: Supreme Court to decide if FACT Act hacks away at First Amendment (National Review, 2017-11-16)
  • Kevin Theriot: Supreme Court should strike down California’s forced-advertising law (National Review, 2017-04-03)

Legal documents, related news, and other related resources available in the right panel when this page is viewed at