On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled Saturday in Right to Life of Central California v. Bonta that a state law wrongfully restricted the Right to Life’s free speech rights.

Life News reports:

The court determined that SB 742, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in October, likely unlawfully discriminates against Right to Life’s peaceful outreach to women, and thus granted the pro-life group’s request for a temporary restraining order to halt enforcement of discriminatory parts of the law against any speaker while the lawsuit moves forward.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Right to Life of Central California argued before the federal district court Thursday after filing a lawsuit that challenged the state of California’s attempt to unconstitutionally restrict speech based on viewpoint and content by creating 100-foot censorship zones outside of any facility that provides any type of vaccine. State law SB 742 bans certain free-speech activities when a speaker is within 30 feet of another person and that other person is “in a public way or on a sidewalk area” and “within 100 feet of the entrance or exit of a vaccination site and is seeking to enter or exit a vaccination site.” This law restricts Right to Life’s ability to peaceably offer charitable services to women in need on the public sidewalk and street outside its own building—and even its own parking lot—because Right to Life is located next to a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic that administers the HPV vaccine.

“Free speech won the day not just for our client, Right to Life, but for every other speaker in California. We applaud the court’s decision to protect the First Amendment rights of every Californian, regardless of their viewpoint, and halt enforcement of this unconstitutional state law,” said ADF Senior Counsel Denise Harle. “The court rightly acknowledged SB 742’s double standard in restricting pro-life outreach while permitting other types of speech, such as picketing about a labor dispute. We are thankful Right to Life’s staff and volunteers can continue their critical mission of serving vulnerable women in the central California region with their free, life-giving services.”

“The court concludes that [Right to Life of Central California] is likely to show that SB 742 is not narrowly tailored to serve the state’s interest of ensuring access to vaccination sites. Thus, [Right to Life] has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment freedom of speech claim,” the court order stated. “In addition, the court is persuaded by [Right to Life’s] argument that the irreparable harm caused to it by SB 742 is particularly acute because ‘SB 742 came into effect in the middle of Right to Life’s participation in the biannual 40 Days for Life campaign,’… and [Right to Life] ‘will never get back the opportunity to reach each woman who enters Planned Parenthood Fulton during this time without hearing Right to Life’s message.’”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
charles A wilkins
charles A wilkins
27 days ago

More Democrat fraud uncovered in the swing State Wisconsin.
The media called Donald Trump a liar for claiming there was fraud in the 2020 election. Now the corporate press will have to eat some crow. And that’s because a bombshell criminal voter fraud investigation exploded in this key swing state Schmaling said WEC commissioners and staff who prohibited legally-required special voting deputies from entering nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic and instead told nursing home staff members to assist residents in voting committed a Class I felony, which is punishable by a maximum sentence of three years, six months in prison and $10,000 in fines. Wisconsin Statute 6.875 explicitly provides that special voting deputies are the only people authorized to assist in voting in nursing homes and that “no individual who is employed or retained, or within the two years preceding appointment has been employed or retained, at a qualified retirement home or residential care facility in the municipality, or any member of the individual’s immediate family…may be appointed to serve as a deputy.” On March 10, 2020, WEC requested that Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers suspend the requirement that special voting deputies be deployed to nursing homes. The Governor’s Office informed WEC that the Governor does not have the power to suspend voting laws, even during a public health emergency. Racine County law enforcement found Ridgewood Care Facility experienced a suspiciou Racine County law enforcement found Ridgewood Care Facility experienced a suspicious surge in voting during the 2020 election where relatives of 8 residents claimed the family member in the nursing home did not have the cognitive capability to vote. Sheriff Schmaling expects this problem to reveal itself in other nursing homes across the county – and possibly the state.

Dinkus
Dinkus
27 days ago

Unfortunately the media won’t acknowledge fraud, because they won’t report on it ON THEIR STATION. There is fake news, and there is no news. They pretend it doesn’t exist.
I recall Lester Holt going crazy on the TV when there were accusations of fraud.
Fraud in all the blue and purple states for Congressman, Senator and President.

Fred
Fred
27 days ago

Pro life, anti NEWSOM. NEWSOM does not deserve life.

Jeffery bagwell
Jeffery bagwell
27 days ago
Reply to  Fred

Amen to that. The arrogant, tyrannical Satanist Newsom is an abomination to all Americans and Californians.

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
27 days ago

Today’s win is tomorrow’s loss. In my opinion, this is not the business of government. Clearly, this is a private matter between obstetrician and patient. It should be a battle between doctors — not the AMA or any other massive association. At worst, it could become a discussion topic for ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists).

But clearly, such associations should not have the authority to punish anyone. And just as clearly, these conclusions obviously would deny taxpayer money to the government or especially, any private organization. That too is a private matter for those who approve and contribute as well as those who disapprove and refuse to contribute.

Brad
Brad
20 days ago
Reply to  Gene Ralno

If the taking of life is involved, it is more than a private matter.