A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Harris
Decision Date | 18 December 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 2:15–cv–02122–KJM–AC,2:15–cv–02122–KJM–AC |
Citation | 153 F.Supp.3d 1168 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Parties | A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic, Crisis Pregnancy Center of Northern California, Alternatives Women's Center, Plaintiffs, v. Kamala Harris, Attorney General of the State of California, In Her Official Capacity, Defendant. |
Kevin Trent Snider, Matthew Brown McReynolds, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Noreen Patricia Skelly, Marc A. LeForestier, Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant.
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER
Crisis pregnancy centers devoted to providing alternatives to abortion and discouraging abortion, also known as CPCs, have been operating in this country for several decades at least. Recently, the practices of some CPCs have prompted several state and municipal legislative bodies to adopt regulations governing the information provided to women seeking reproductive care. The changing landscape effected by implementation of the federal Affordable Care Act also has provided a backdrop to state and local legislative action. In the last year, the California Legislature adopted a provision known as the FACT Act, AB 775, which governs all clinics providing family planning or pregnancy-related services, including CPCs. In passing AB 775, the Legislature articulated its intent to supplement its own prior efforts to advise women of the state's reproductive health programs. As applicable here, the new law, scheduled to take effect January 1, 2016, requires licensed facilities that meet certain criteria to provide a notice to clients regarding the availability of free or low-cost public family planning services. Three CPCs operating in this judicial district challenge AB 775 as unconstitutional, in violation of their First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise rights. In the pending motion for preliminary injunction they seek to block the new law's taking effect pending full litigation of this action. Having carefully considered the parties' briefs, the parties' arguments at a specially set hearing, and the applicable law, the court DENIES plaintiffs' motion for the reasons set forth below.
Plaintiffs filed this action in this court on October 10, 2015. Compl., ECF No. 1. Before the State answered, plaintiffs amended the complaint. First Am. Compl. (FAC), ECF No. 4. The amended complaint alleges the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (the Act) is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied. FAC ¶ 4. It includes two claims: (1) the Act is unconstitutional because it violates plaintiffs' rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, id . ¶¶ 44–47; and (2) the Act is unconstitutional because it violates plaintiffs' rights to free exercise of religion under the same Amendment, id . ¶¶ 48–51. Plaintiffs request declaratory judgment that the Act is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting enforcement of the Act, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate relief.
The State answered on November 9, 2015. ECF No. 7. It denies the Act is unconstitutional, Answer ¶¶ 44–51, and it advances one affirmative defense: It asserts the action is barred because the claims are not ripe for review, id . at 9.
Plaintiffs filed this motion for a preliminary injunction on November 13, 2015, Mot. Prelim. Injunction, ECF No. 8; Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 9. At hearing, plaintiffs clarified their motion is based on an as-applied challenge only. The State opposed the motion on December 4, 2015, ECF No. 16, and plaintiffs replied on December 11, 2015, ECF No. 17. The court held a hearing on December 18, 2015. Kevin Snider and Matthew McReynolds appeared for plaintiffs, and Noreen Skelly and Marc LaForestier appeared on behalf of the State.
, or prenatal care to pregnant women.
(2) The facility provides, or offers counseling about, contraception or contraceptive methods.
(3) The facility offers pregnancy testing or pregnancy diagnosis.
(4) The facility advertises or solicits patrons with offers to provide prenatal sonography , pregnancy tests, or pregnancy options counseling.
(5) The facility offers abortion services.
(6) The facility has staff or volunteers who collect health information from clients.
Id . § 123471. A facility covered by the Act is required to disseminate a notice to clients:
Id . § 123472.
The law imposes civil penalties for failure to comply with the notice requirements:
Id . § 123473.
The Act exempts two types of facilities from the new regulation:
Id . § 123471.
Federal health care policy provides a backdrop to the state law at issue here. In 2010, Congress passed the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), a law which made millions of Californians, 53 percent of them women, newly eligible for Medi-Cal. Hearing on AB 775 Before the Assembly Comm. on Health , 2015–2016 Sess. 2 (Cal. 2015), ECF No. 11-2 (Pls.' Ex. 2). The ACA allowed California to establish or expand several programs that provide reproductive health care and counseling to low-income women. AB 775 § 1.
In California, more than 700,000 women become pregnant every year. AB 775 § 1. Of those pregnancies, approximately one-half are unintended. Id . In 2010, 64.3 percent of unplanned births in California were publicly funded. Id . By 2012, more than 2.6 million California women were in need of publicly funded family planning services. Id . At the moment they learn they are pregnant, thousands of women remain unaware of the California programs available that provide them with contraception, health education and counseling, family planning, prenatal care, abortion, or delivery. Id .
In order to ensure California residents can make their personal reproductive health care decisions in an informed manner, the California Legislature passed the Act. As noted above, the Act requires licensed clinics that give family planning or pregnancy-related services to provide a notice to consumers regarding their reproductive rights and the availability of such services in California.3 Id. But the state Legislature identified a need to supplement its own efforts to advise women of the state's reproductive health programs, particularly because pregnancy decisions are time sensitive. AB 775 § 1. The Act was seen as the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chung v. Wash. Interscholastic Activities Ass'n
...future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." Id. (quoting A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Harris , 153 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1188 (E.D. Cal. 2015) ) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, WIAA argues that Plaintiff J.N.C. previously claimed......
-
April in Paris v. Becerra
...Amendment sovereign immunity bars a financial recovery, monetary injury may be irreparable. A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Harris , 153 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1215 (E.D. Cal. 2015). In addition, the economic harm alleged is not confined to a single plaintiff; the harms alleged are......
-
Chiafalo v. Inslee
...due to [the State's] Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity do constitute irreparable injury." A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic v. Harris, 153 F.Supp.3d 1168, 1215 (E.D. Cal. 2015). However, Plaintiffs have not yet cast their electoral ballots, the State has not determined whether to i......
-
A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Becerra
...favor and that the injunction, on free speech grounds, would not be in the public interest. A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic v. Harris , 153 F.Supp.3d 1168, 1209–10, 1215–17 (E.D. Cal. 2015). The district court engaged in this alternative analysis based on its now-erroneous conclusion......