This Note analyzes the Court’s determination that the Licensed Notice did not fit into either exception. Part II of this Note provides a brief overview of CPCs and how the FACT Act was designed to curb CPCs’ interference with women’s reproductive autonomy. Part III discusses the litigation between NIFLA, the CPCs, and California, culminating in a controversial 5–4 decision in the Supreme Court. Next, Part IV argues that even if the Court wanted to limit the circumstances wherein professional speech received diminished scrutiny, it could have fit the Licensed Notice into its newly-delineated exceptions. This Note ultimately questions why the Court did not fit the Licensed Notice into these exceptions, when doing so would have yielded the fairest result for women’s reproductive autonomy.
Savannah R. Montanez,
Pregnant and Scared: How NIFLA v. Becerra Avoids Protecting Women’s Reproductive Autonomy,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol56/iss3/8