|
NIFLA vs. Becerra | ||
An Easy Decision That Deserved a Wider Majority | ||
| ||
Based on oral arguments, yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was expected. But what was surprising, and a little disconcerting, was how close it was. * concert; causing one to feel unsettled. Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that a California law that would have required pregnancy care centers to promote abortion violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The case is called National Institute of Family and Life Advocates vs. Becerra, and it involved a California law /called the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act. The law required pregnancy
centers to disseminate a notice to women /coming to them for help that
California had programs that could provide them immediate free or
low-cost access to abortion. The law even stipulated the size of the
notice and the size of the font that must be used on the notice: 48
point type! (엄청 큰 글자 칫수) The law was blatantly discriminatory and obviously a violation of free speech. Nevertheless, it was the law in California, and it was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, and then appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court.
* California met a “skeptical reception.” Thus it was no surprise /when NIFLA and ADF prevailed at the Supreme Court yesterday. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas called the required notice a “content-based regulation of speech,” something the Constitution views with “great suspicion.”
Thomas rejected California’s argument //that the required notice was analogous to “informed consent” laws //that apply to abortion providers. He wrote that “The notice does not facilitate informed consent /to a medical procedure. In fact, it is not tied to a procedure at all.” * analogous. adjective. similar or corresponding in some respect * facilitate; to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.): 임신중절소에 해당하는 법률을 임신출산을 돕는 기관에 적용한다는게 어폐가 있다본다 Similarly, California’s professed goal “to educate low-income women about the services () it provides,” didn’t pass muster either. As Thomas put it, if that was really the goal, the required notice was “wildly under-inclusive.” * pass muster; be accepted as adequate or satisfactory. * muster; a formal gathering of troops, especially for inspection, display, or exercise. * underinclusive : not sufficiently inclusive. But still, I’m surprised () the conservative majority wasn’t joined by at least one or two of the more liberal justices. During oral arguments, Justice Kagan compared the law to “gerrymandering” and added () this “would be a serious First Amendment problem.” And yet, she joined the minority /in arguing that there was no constitutionally-meaningful difference between the California law and informed consent laws. * Gerrymandering
is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a
particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. 특정 정당이나
단체를 위한 지역구 조정하기 So, what’s next? The Supreme Court sent the case /back to the lower court /with instructions //that ensures [that the law will never take effect]. This ruling also resolves similar cases in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii and other states. So pregnancy care centers are free to continue their important work /without fear //that the government will force them, in Justice Thomas’ words, to “drown out” their message. And let me add my kudos to the Alliance Defending Freedom. The Southern Poverty Law Center may consider them to be a “hate group,” but after two straight victories at the Supreme Court, the correct designation would be “winner.” * The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in
civil rights and public interest litigation. 명목은 좋지만 실제로는 진보주의 변호사 단체로
윤리/도덕/양심법을 중시하는 기독인을 혐오단체로 본다 미국엔 표현의 자유가 헌법으로 보장되어 있지만 주정부가 각 개인의 표현의 자유를 제한하는 법을 만들어 복종하라고 강요하는데 주로 기독교인들의 신앙양심에 거슬리는 것들로 기독인들의 신앙과 양심을 무디게 만들어 세속화 시키려는 사탄의 앞잡이 노릇을 하고있다 마치 네로가 자기를 신으로 섬기라고 강요하듯 정부관료들도 자기네들 말/법을 하나님 말씀처럼복종하라 강요하고 않하면 중징계 벌금이나 구형 또는 영업장 폐쇄로 무자비하게 처벌한다 이로인해 법정으로 가는데 그 천문학적인 변호사비가 인생을 폐쇄하고 만다 다행히 상기건은 기부금을 통한 자선단체의 변호인이 맡아 승리로 이끌었지만 5:4 라는 아슬아슬한 판결이었다 |