The Supreme Court ruling in NIFLA should have been applied to the Masterpiece decision.

In recent weeks the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings that have elated free-speech and religious freedom advocates. LGBTQ and abortion advocates have been less enthused with the rulings.

In NIFLA, the court ruled correctly that the government cannot coerce or compel speech. The ruling struck down a 2015 California law that mandated all care pregnancy centers read a notice to each patient reminding them that abortion is an available option in California. This clearly violates the free-speech, and moral consciences of the people operating the centers by compelling speech that is against the convictions of those reading it.

After the SCOTUS ruling, Michael Farris, CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, just one of the groups that argued before the Supreme Court in this case, commented:

“No one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion. In this case, the government used its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for abortion. The Supreme Court said that the government can’t do that, and that it must respect pro-life beliefs. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a diverse society like ours. They enable us to coexist peacefully with one another. If we want to have freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to others.”

Abortion advocates, no doubt feeling the crunch as states enact pro-life laws and the federal government removes funding, are desperate. There is a pro-life sentiment sweeping the nation as younger generations realize the atrocity of abortion and refuse to be complicit with murdering the unborn.

But no amount of desperation can justify compelling anyone to speak a message that violates his or her deeply held convictions. The California law that sparked the NIFLA ruling did just that. California improperly assumed the state had a right to compel professionals in the state to communicate a specific message regardless of whether the professional agreed with the message or not.

Retiring SCOTUS justice Anthony Kennedy reminded us that compelling speech is not lawful:

“This law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression. For here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions. This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these. And the history of the Act’s passage and its underinclusive application suggest a real possibility that these individuals were targeted because of their beliefs.”

Anyone valuing free-speech must conclude that forcing anyone to speak a message of any kind is a violation of our God-given inalienable rights. I would go so far as to affirm forcing people to speak a message they agree with is equally wrong. And if it’s wrong to force someone to speak a message they agree with, it is far more wrong to force someone to speak a message they disagree with.

This precedent, established by The Supreme Court of the United States, will have a rippling effect far and wide. The necessary reminder that the government has no business compelling anyone to speak will be heard loud and clear. Lifenews.com has been following this case closely. The pro-life news website noted that similar laws have been struck down in Austin, TX, Baltimore and Montgomery County, MD, and New York City.

Frankly, I wish the court would have come to the same conclusion in the Masterpiece cake shop decision. In that decision, the court ruled that the Colorado Human Rights Commission violated Jack phillips religious freedom by accusing him of discrimination based on sincerely held religious convictions. This sounds nice, but it’s a narrow ruling that may not have the impact needed.

It would have been far better for the court to uphold Jack’s right to free speech and the fact that government cannot compel him to “speak” by making a cake with a message that he finds offensive and wrong. Or, as I argue in my article, the court could have upheld Jack’s property and human productivity rights; which would have set a tremendous precedent for all people (including non-religious people).

The narrow ruling in the Masterpiece decision is still better than nothing.

The ruling in the NIFLA case is a great win for all free-speech loving Americans.

We owe a debt of gratitude to those willing to stand up and oppose the oppression so often faced by pro-life advocates. California is hostile towards the pro-life position. But that doesn’t stop people from defending the unborn. For that we should all be grateful.

Abortion is a losing cause that is slowly losing supporters. This SCOTUS ruling is just another nail in their blood-soaked coffin.