Can Government Force You To Speak Contrary To Your Beliefs?

Forbes ^ | March 25, 2018 | George Leef

[reaganaut1]

The whole point of the First Amendment was to keep government out of crucial aspects of life –religion, speech, the press – that should be left entirely to voluntary action. It is supposed to shield people against governmental mandates and prohibitions. Government cannot keep you from practicing any religion and it cannot make you practice any; it cannot prevent you from speaking your mind and it cannot make you speak if you do not want to. That’s the concept, anyway.

A case that the Court recently heard, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, puts that concept in jeopardy. At issue is a California statute that compels pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise the state’s pro-abortion alternative, informing women who come in for help, “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to abortion for eligible women. To determine if you qualify, call [phone number].”

California is dominated to pro-abortion politicians who years ago won their battle against those who oppose government support for abortion. This law is intended to further beat down pro-life advocates. The legislative history of the bill makes it clear that its purpose was to impede those who try to discourage women from seeking abortions.

Law professor Michael Paulsen cites the bill’s legislative history in this piece, and comments on its obvious anti-pro-life animus: “California’s ‘proud legacy’ of ‘forward thinking’ in promoting ‘reproductive freedom’ – slight euphemisms there, to be sure – is ‘unfortunately’ impaired by the views held and expressed by crisis pregnancy centers, which ‘aim to discourage’ abortions. Such ‘intentionally deceptive’ messages (deceptive, apparently because they discourage abortion rather than encourage it) must therefore be counteracted. That is the purpose of requiring pro-life centers to promote the availability of subsidized abortion.”

[gunnyg]

booze can do all of these things, and more...and nobody thinx anything of it...so who cares?
@PlanetWTF?
+++++++++++++++

[MayflowerMadam]

Every single day.

[Jacquerie]

The Scotus regards abortion as a fundamental right.

No kidding.

A state that infringes on this fundamental right must explain why.

Freedom of religion, speech and press are mere “liberty interests” and not fundamental. A state may infringe on liberty interests if it can show a compelling interest.

No kidding.

[neverevergiveup]

I understand. I was just doing a poor job of pointing out the absurdity of how language is being used to push an ideology and political agenda.

[Secret Agent Man]

Freedom of Spech means being able to determine when and what to speak. Or to stay silent.

[YogicCowboy]

Favorite actor. Favorite series.

March 19th, 1928, as I recall. (He uses his own birth date for Number Two’s file.)

First choice for James Bond. Refused to glamorize a womanizer. He recommended Sean Connery. He turned it down again later, knowing by then it meant millions and superstardom. A true man of principle.

He did something like 35 Shakespeares in one year in the 50s (or so I once read). Expert at all British accents, though he was born in America.

I read recently that Orsen Welles once worked with him on a stage production before his TV career began. He said the young Patrick McGoohan intimidated him with his powerful presence and prowess.

Ice Station Zebra: He makes Rock Hudson look weak.

Braveheart: His portrayal of evil is chilling.

[YogicCowboy]

See Post 9 for Secret Agent Man John Drake as Number 6.

[P.O.E.]

Interesting info. My favorite, too.

[Elsie]

[Elsie]

This law is intended to further beat down pro-life advocates.

---

 

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died. 

 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

 

 

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans.  Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

 

 

I hear that by now, somewhere around 58 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

 

 

 

 

 

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens.  Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died. 

 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

 

 

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans.  Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

 

 

I hear that by now, somewhere around 58 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

 

 

 

 

 

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens.  Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GingisK]

No. But, you sometimes must be willing to suffer repercussions. Its that “Pick up your cross...” bullshit.

[Elsie]

At issue is a California statute that compels pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise the state’s pro-abortion alternative, informing women who come in for help, “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to abortion for eligible women. To determine if you qualify, call [phone number].”

Works for me; as long as they can add after the message...

You will be taken into a small room where your yet unborn child will be sucked from your body with a powerful vacuum; ripping it apart in the process.

See this picture?

This is what the "unwanted tissue", now living and growing in your body, will look like in the trash bucket it ends up in.

[imardmd1]

Well, you are on the right track, as all we "enlightened" people have come to realize. The issue is not capitalization. It has come to the point when one cannot even mention His Name in PC society, let alone writing it in anything but a privileged communication without being shunned, fired, or jailed. Certainly not in a high school book report or college theme paper if you want a passing grade.

Thanks for the Free Republic as a place where you can still have a stand that is not politically or socially correct anymore.

[fella]

Under duress government can force you to say and/or write anything but making you think it is an other story.

[Elsie]

Do it to Julia...

[redgolum]

Simply put, yes.

For the last 50 years or so, the State can compel you to act and speak outside of your personal beliefs.

[fella]

1984