Religious fanatics go to the Supreme Court for the First Amendment right to trick women into bearing unwanted children


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2017/11/27/prince-of-lies.html


#2

Chief Justice Kennedy?


#3

#4

Well, they resemble their leader:


#5

In the sense that he’s the Justice that everyone feels they have to appeal to as the ‘swing vote’ on the court, I suspect it’s an ironic title. Left-wing commentator Thom Hartmann is fond of referring to him as an unelected monarch in the same vein.


#6

Cue the counter-suit for false advertising.


#7

If the anti-choice movement’s moral crusade relies in part on a “big store” confidence game, they really ought to consider whether the adjective “moral” still applies.

Regarding the SCOTUS, it’s not only Kennedy and Gorsuch. Thomas can always be counted on to rule the wrong way, Alito might want to honour Scalia, and I can easily see Roberts allowing NIFLA’s argument on the basis of also preserving his beloved corporations’ “right” to make dubious advertising claims.


#8

3cf288f492a1263d87bd5ae76a7312fd


#9

I suggest viewing HBO’s 12th and Delaware documentary. The fake clinic folks use incredible pretzel logic to convince themselves they’re not lying.

I escorted at a clinic next door to one of these fakes. For a while the women who staffed it (why is it always women who staff these places?) wore the same color vests as the escorts because patients were told to look for the people wearing that color. Their duplicity never fails to amaze me.


#10

Volokh says the Supreme Court has made clear that “requiring people to speak” poses a First Amendment problem…

When I sell certain kinds of insurance, I’m required to read out a big ol’ page of disclosures. (True ones.) How is this different?


#11

And those TV pharma ads read out all the nasty side effects.


#12

Thank you for doing this.

I’m sure you have some interesting stories to tell from this experience.


#13

That’s true, unless the government is telling you what you can and cannot or, indeed, must say – in which case the First Amendment is being wielded pricelessly as intended.


#14

Even then it’s still true.


#15

I’m sure that there are principled reasons why this behavior is totally different from straightforward fraud of the sort that has basically never been said to enjoy constitutional protection just because you commit it, in part, by means of mouth noises.

Obviously I this is For Jesus; but it’s hard to imagine a defense of this practice that wouldn’t also allow at least some variants of basically all the standard commercial scams. It isn’t the salient aspect; but in their capacity as healthcare customers the targets of these schemes ought to have protection enough to forbid them; never mind what the specifics of the case deserve.


#16

Maybe organize an antiabortion protest and picket them as if they really are what they claim to be. They’d have to come clean?


#17

Yup. This suit is going down in flames thanks to him. If the plaintiff’s were a for profit corporation, then I would worry. He is a bit goofy on that front.


#18

Hoo, boy! Tons of stories!


#19

Well, unless it’s the government telling you not to offer someone money to commit a crime, or impersonate a law enforcement officer, or express words that are deemed to belong to another person under a copyright. The first amendment only goes so far.

I think objecting to “You can’t lie about your medical credentials while offering medical advice” on First Amendment grounds is pretty obviously grotesque. I’m half-surprised there isn’t a more general law against misrepresenting medical credentials.


#20

This may be something that the pro-life contingent may regret pursuing. If they win this case it would serve as a precedent to strike down state laws that require doctors to tell pregnant women complete fabrications about abortion.