Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) are antiabortion organizations that seek to “intercept” people with unintended pregnancies to convince them to forego abortion. It is well documented that CPCs intentionally present themselves as medical professionals even when they lack licensure, while also providing medically inaccurate information on abortion. To combat the blatant deception committed by CPCs, California passed the Reproductive FACT Act in 2015. The Act required CPCs to post notices that disclosed their licensure status and informed potential clients that the state provided subsidized abortion and contraceptives. Soon after, CPCs brought First Amendment challenges to these disclosure requirements, claiming that the state could not compel them to speak a message against their will. In 2018, the Supreme Court decided National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra and constitutionalized CPCs’ efforts to evade regulation from state-mandated compelled disclosures—disclosures not dissimilar to those regularly imposed on other businesses and medical professionals.Although CPCs use the guise of professionalism to increase their credibility, they are not held to the same standards as actual medical professionals. States can force abortion providers to violate ethical codes by requiring them to give patients medically inaccurate information as “informed consent,” yet CPCs cannot be compelled to say anything because they are not real professionals. This Note argues that while there are striking parallels between abortion-related informed consent laws and compelled informational disclosures like the CPC disclosures at issue in NIFLA, the Court has refused to treat pro-choice speech in a manner similar to antiabortion speech. Moreover, though NIFLA has drastically limited the types of CPC regulations that pro-choice governments can implement, there are still ways in which these states can and should curb CPCs’ deceptive practices.

中文翻译：

---

在国家家庭与生活倡导者诉贝塞拉案之后，重新获得生殖保健的真相

危机怀孕中心 (CPC) 是反堕胎组织，旨在“拦截”意外怀孕的人，以说服他们放弃堕胎。有据可查的是，即使没有执照，CPC 也会故意将自己展示为医疗专业人员，同时还提供有关堕胎的医学上不准确的信息。为了打击 CPC 的公然欺骗行为，加利福尼亚州于 2015 年通过了《生殖事实法案》。该法案要求 CPC 发布通知，披露其许可状态，并告知潜在客户该州提供补贴的堕胎和避孕药具。不久之后，CPC 对这些披露要求提出了第一修正案的挑战，声称国家不能强迫他们违背自己的意愿发表信息。2018年，最高法院裁定国家家庭和生命倡导者协会 (NIFLA) 诉 Becerra 案，并将 CPC 规避国家强制披露监管的努力宪法化——这些披露与经常强加给其他企业和医疗专业人员的披露没有什么不同。尽管 CPC 使用他们打着专业的幌子来增加他们的可信度，但他们并不遵守与实际医疗专业人员相同的标准。国家可以通过要求堕胎提供者向患者提供医学上不准确的信息作为“知情同意”来强迫堕胎提供者违反道德规范，但不能强迫 CPC 说任何话，因为他们不是真正的专业人士。本说明认为，虽然与堕胎相关的知情同意法与强制信息披露（如 NIFLA 中争议的 CPC 披露）之间存在惊人的相似之处，但法院拒绝以类似于反堕胎言论的方式对待支持选择的言论。此外，尽管 NIFLA 极大地限制了支持选择的政府可以实施的 CPC 法规类型，但这些州仍然可以并且应该通过一些方法来遏制 CPC 的欺骗行为。