» Articles » PMID: 30676798

Abortion Disclosure Laws and the First Amendment: The Broader Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court's Becerra Decision

Overview
Specialty Public Health
Date 2019 Jan 25
PMID 30676798
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In 2018, the US Supreme Court analyzed a California state requirement that clinics serving pregnant women must provide government notices-1 for licensed clinics about the availability of state health services including abortion and 1 for unlicensed clinics, notifying potential clients that the clinics are not licensed medical facilities and have no licensed medical professionals on-site. The Supreme Court found that both notices violated the First Amendment rights of the clinics. The Supreme Court's opinion elicits new uncertainties about the government's ability to require the disclosure of factual information in the context of reproductive health services and more broadly in the commercial context. However, the Supreme Court's silence on 1 of the state's purposes for the unlicensed clinic notice, which was to address deceptive speech by the clinics, highlights a potential avenue for future regulation. Policymakers can require the disclosure of factual information in the commercial context specifically to prevent consumer deception consistent with the First Amendment. Public health researchers can generate evidence to support such disclosure requirements intended to protect health and safety.

Citing Articles

Effects of a front-of-package disclosure on accuracy in assessing children's drink ingredients: two randomised controlled experiments with US caregivers of young children.

Fleming-Milici F, Gershman H, Pomeranz J, Harris J Public Health Nutr. 2023; 26(12):2790-2801.

PMID: 37908052 PMC: 10755381. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980023001969.


Breastmilk or infant formula? Content analysis of infant feeding advice on breastmilk substitute manufacturer websites.

Pomeranz J, Chu X, Groza O, Cohodes M, Harris J Public Health Nutr. 2021; 26(5):934-942.

PMID: 34517933 PMC: 10346044. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980021003451.


Mandating Front-of-Package Food Labels in the U.S. - What are the First Amendment Obstacles?.

Pomeranz J, Wilde P, Mozaffarian D, Micha R Food Policy. 2020; 86.

PMID: 32831455 PMC: 7441739. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.05.005.


Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment.

Wilde P, Pomeranz J, Lizewski L, Zhang F Public Health Nutr. 2020; 23(18):3324-3331.

PMID: 32773004 PMC: 8555857. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980020001688.


Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Policies in the Broader Legal Context: Health and Safety Warning Laws and the First Amendment.

Pomeranz J, Mozaffarian D, Micha R Am J Prev Med. 2020; 58(6):783-788.

PMID: 32273133 PMC: 7246175. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.01.006.

References
1.
Tushnet R . COOL Story: Country of Origin Labeling and the First Amendment. Food Drug Law J. 2015; 70(1):25-37. View

2.
Pomeranz J . Outstanding Questions In First Amendment Law Related To Food Labeling Disclosure Requirements For Health. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015; 34(11):1986-92. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0616. View

3.
Pomeranz J, Mozaffarian D, Micha R . Can the Government Require Health Warnings on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Advertisements?. JAMA. 2018; 319(3):227-228. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.19209. View

4.
Parmet W, Berman M, Smith J . The Supreme Court's Crisis Pregnancy Center Case - Implications for Health Law. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(16):1489-1491. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1809488. View