Posted on by Californiacontrarian

The Air or the Water?

Is it the air or is it the water that causes California politicians to lose all sense of logic once they get to Sacramento? There are multiple examples of California Democrat “non compos mentis,” but a recent dingbat law appears to take the cake. This is the law that the Democrats in Sacramento passed a few years ago concerning “disclosure” at pregnancy centers across the Golden State. This law is unconstitutional on so many levels that one wonders what could have possibly caused the altered state of mind of those legislators who passed it. Could the cause be either the water or the air in Sacramento?
The National Institute for Family and Life Advocates argued the case for 110 pregnancy centers in California that are strongly opposed to abortion, but their argument centered, not on religion, but rather that the law was in contra-distinction to the First Amendment in that it mandated speech. They also argued that it unfairly targeted faith based centers as M.D.s and for profit clinics were exempt.
This disclosure law required that pregnancy centers-including those that are faith based-notify women that the state of California offers subsidies for abortion. These non-profit centers had to post a prominent notice that there was no medical provider available and they had to notify clients that the state offered “free or low cost abortion.” These two sentence notices had to be posted in eighteen languages!
This three year old law worked itself through the courts and this week was argued in front of the Supreme Court. What is equally “looney tunes” is that the 9th Circuit of Mistaken Ideals sided with California and Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra. They decided that “the disclosure was professional speech subject to regulation by the state.” This absurd judgement by the 9th Circuit hints that the cause of this lunacy is the air as the water is not the same in San Francisco as it is in Sacramento.
It was interesting that at the Supreme Court, judges on both the right and the left took potshots at this law during the hearing. Ginsberg said that the two sentences in eighteen languages was “burdensome.” Kennedy said that the required notice sounded like “mandating speech.” Alito said that the law set a very strange pattern, and it appeared that the only clinics that were covered were pro-life clinics. Kagan questioned whether or not the law was gerrymandered and said that would be a serious issue. Gorsuch said that it was pretty unusual to force a private speaker to give the states message.
From what the justices said, it sounds like both the air and the water are fine in Washington, D.C. although I will have to withhold judgement until the final verdict which will probably be in June. My prediction is that this law is unconstitutional on so many levels that this decision will not be 5-4, but probably 7-2. (If it is 7-2, it will be interesting to see which of the four lefty Supreme Court Judges make up the dissenting 2, and whether these two have recently breathed Sacramento air or drank Sacramento water!)
If the final decision were to be 7-2 or even 6-3, it should be a slap in the face to the 9th Circuit of Mistaken Ideals and to the California Legislature schmiels, but because of the air or the water in Sacramento, they won’t get that they are being laughed at by those who drink normal water and breathe normal air!

126 Replies to “The Air or the Water?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.