if Kamala Harris carries on the policies that Merrick Garland started, (or for that matter, that she enforced in the NIFLA vs. Becerra case, a case formerly known as NIFLA vs. Harris!) then it could well not be inaccurate to define it as such. (Biden / Harris or Harris /Walz regime)
https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/meet-the-prolife-family-merrick-garland-tried-to-rip-apart
(From a Christian pro-life perspective)^
Mike Lee is a Republican, with Libertarian leanings, here's what he had to say about it: https://ijr.com/lee-garland-disparity-charging-pro-life-pro-choice-activists/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/sep/19/editorial-merrick-garland-destroyer-of-liberty/
And, finally the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States) Ruled Against Becerra, but what is not so well known is that this case is the case formerly known as NIFLA vs. Harris! https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/16-55249/16-55249-2016-10-14.html
Then, when it arrived at the Supreme Court, it became NIFLA vs. Becerra: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-institute-family-life-advocates-v-becerra/
January 16, 2018 - From Downsize DC (a Libertarian advocacy group) Can you defeat the Ministry of Truth in NIFLA v Becerra?
Can The State make you say things contrary to your values?
Quote of the Day: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing about Voltaire’s views)
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear NIFLA v. Becerra. We want to file an amicus brief in this case. Here’s the question we’re eager to address…
Is society better off with many competing sources of information or a Ministry of Truth that imposes one viewpoint on everyone?
NIFLA v. Becerra involves a landmine issue that Downsize DC has never touched before — abortion. And we’re still not touching it!
This is a First Amendment case.
The State of California has determined that abortion is beyond all debate. The state has targeted CPCs (crisis pregnancy centers). These organizations counsel against abortion and offer pre-birth services to help women bring their babies to term. California requires these centers to give clients a list of taxpayer-funded abortion sites. This “Ministry of Truth” law is called the “Reproductive FACT Act” (hereafter, FACT).
FACT compels CPCs to promote the practice they were formed to prevent.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has justified FACT with the suggestion that CPCs are essentially factories of error designed to mislead women.
But the First Amendment not only gives you a right to dissenting speech, it gives everyone the right to say nothing at all. Think about it…
How is it even remotely possible that an organization can be compelled to speak in favor of that which it opposes?
Let’s be clear: Abortion and the right to an abortion will not be changed by this case. The Supreme Court has requested briefs that only deal with free speech. Here’s our central argument…
More speech is good for society.
We believe that debate is healthy. Arguments are refined by competition. The best ideas tend to prevail! By contrast, a Ministry of Truth approach yields weak arguments, stifles innovation, and ultimately harms society.
That’s basically the Madisonian view of free expression. In Federalist No. 10, the “father of the Constitution,” dealt with the trouble of errant gangs of people (partisans). He called them “factions.” In the American view, the solution to faction was liberty. Permit still other factions the liberty to organize and express themselves. In other words…
More information, not less!
You do NOT need to agree with CPCs. You do NOT need to be anti-abortion. But if you value free speech, please help us sponsor this brief. There’s one more thing you should know before you contribute. We work on these briefs in coalitions. These coalitions always include groups from across the spectrum, Left, Right, and libertarian. So this particular brief will include pro-life language and arguments. But, once again, that’s not the focus…
Our attorneys tell us that the way the First Amendment has been interpreted over the years is so clear, that the only way we can lose on the issue of “compelled speech” is if the Supreme Court views this as an abortion case, and not a Free Speech case. So our brief will argue based on the First Amendment, and not on the merits or demerits of abortion.
We don’t think a few pro-life words in the brief should deter any libertarian from joining us because the core argument seeks to prevent compelled speech — a value you share, and a goal you should support. After all…
The First Amendment is about protecting unpopular speech, including speech that is unpopular with us and/or you.
Please also remember our recent strategy message showing how the libertarian view can become the majority position when we make common cause with those who agree with us on the Left or the right. We’ve worked in single-issue alliances countless times, on many issues, in both “factional” directions. We believe coalition work is a strategic imperative.
But you have First Amendment rights too. You don’t need to associate with any project we undertake if you don’t like it. You can even be stupid and unsubscribe because you would never side with pro-lifers about anything, even the First Amendment.
