Back to blog

Will the justices strike down California’s abortion notification law?

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.


I think the court may address the two signage requirements differently. The licensing disclosure is likely permissible, since it merely requires the establishment to post an advisory that it is not licensed to perform medical procedures and that abortions are not provided there (this is more akin to a truth-in-advertising law). The abortion referral signage is likely unconstitutional, however, since it is not really an "informed-consent" requirement (there is nothing being consented to, since no medical procedure is being authorized or performed). I have never seen an "informed consent" requirement for a person NOT seeking a medical procedure -- have you ever had a requirement that your doctor give you a mandatory note saying that you don't have to see them, but can instead stay at home sick? You don't have to go to the doctor if you don't want to, and you don't need anyone's permission for that. On the flip side, if a doctor is going to actually perform a medical procedure on you, you should be fully entitled to know the all the pros as well as the cons of having the procedure performed, so that you can make a fully informed decision. This is not what a non-medical provider is doing, so the attempt to draw parallels fails.

Rita Joseph

All human rights are equal, inherent, inalienable and inclusive. Human rights entitlement is not scaled according to size or seniority. Human rights belong equally to every member of the human family at every stage of life.

No court has any authority to deny legal representation and human rights protection to anyone.

Biology, embryology, fetal surgery, ultrasound technology, and examination of the human remains of an aborted child all tell us that a child selected for abortion is a human being, belonging to the human family.

To be eligible for human rights defense, one has only to be a human.

Tom Meadowcroft

California deserves to have this poorly drafted law shut down. It is a law clearly targeted to discomfit one particular group, rather than being in the general public interest. This has happened to a score of poorly drafted anti-abortion laws in the past; this law is just as bad. We need more legislators who have a clue how to legislate. It is possible to achieve their goals in a well written law, but this law isn't it.


Every facility that provides medical care is required to be licensed by a governing board of the state in which it is located.
The governing board lays down the details in the Standard of Care, as well as minimal educational and practice experience of the actual providers, from MD, to NP (Nurse Practitioner) to MA (Medical Assistant).
Additionally, a code of professional conduct known by the name Professional Ethics is spelled out for the profession. Continuing Education units - a part of professional licensing requirement - every year or every 2 years, are required to keep a practice license in good standing.
To my knowledge, neither religion nor political party affiliation is incorporated in the concerns that gave rise to licensing and ethical requirements in the licensing of a professional in the medical field.
There appears to be some confusion or confabulation between 2 different things in all the talks about abortion.
The confusion is this: Abortion is not Birth-Control. Abortion deals with the aftermath of an event known as "pregnancy". "Pregnancy" means a man and a woman have had coitus and the man's sperms have fertilized the woman’s egg. If no fertilization ever takes place, there is no pregnancy and therefore nothing to "abort". This is Biology 001.
If a baby is not wanted, or a copulating couple is not ready for a baby, use Birth Control. Abortion does not enter this picture. Birth Control Does. Birth Control prevents the meeting of sperms and egg, and therefore pregnancy, either through mechanical means (such as condom, IUD, or vasectomy*) or hormonal manipulation (the "pill).
Cases of Emergency abortion usually entails Rape, Statutory Rape, and Incest.
I think it is wrong to push abortion as a means of Birth Control, as a matter of life-style. If a religious faith forbids it, I can fully see why. Nor does it take a religious faith to see the wrong in pushing abortion as a means of Birth Control.
I also think it is the height of sanctimonious irresponsibility to forbid abortion in cases of Rape and Incest , where the "father" is no where to be found, or if found, denies the fact of rape and/or incest, and the one ending up with baby can hardly support herself, let alone another in addition. And foster-homes are not ideal places to grow up in.
Usually, from anecdotal evidence, perpetrators of this kind of sanctimonious irresponsibility, are above-average "religious" people who always tell you, whatever it is they do, “God” or “Jesus” told them to. One, a Politician, a fervent Anti-Abortion Pro-Life congressman (that's how he won his votes), finally was unseated because it was found out he had arranged for an abortion for his mistress in the adulterous affair he had with her.
What is so complicated about all this so the USSC has to be brought in to deliberate and re-deliberate and re-deliberate time and again 45 years after Roe-v. Wade?? Even Jennifer Lawrence has lost her Box Office appeal, as has Robert Downy, Jr. when “hot” finally gets “cold”. I think all possible arguments, legal, religious and moral, have become stale by now. But they do keep many people hired.
* Vasectomy is reversible