Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to almostsanejoe@aol.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
A blog referencing the a recent lower court tobacco warning ruling noted:
In addition, reading the opinions shows how these compelled-speech
concerns tie back to both mandatory ultra-sound laws and regulations of
crisis pregnancy centers, so this case has much broader effect.
There is also the "risk to suicide" case. It also is notable that even when some justices supported broader
allowance of regulation of abortion, matters of this nature was said to
possibly have 1A implications:
This is not to say that the informed consent provisions may not
violate the First Amendment rights of the physician if the State
requires him or her to communicate its ideology.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey also did not do much to discuss this
issue, but did note:
If the information the State requires to be made
available to the woman is truthful and not misleading, the requirement
may be permissible.
If cigarette and liquor advertising warrants careful 1A scrutiny,
which seems to be the understanding of the USSC, this area even w/o the
separate liberty interests related to abortion choice deserves it as
well.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey also did not do much to discuss this issue, but did note:
If cigarette and liquor advertising warrants careful 1A scrutiny, which seems to be the understanding of the USSC, this area even w/o the separate liberty interests related to abortion choice deserves it as well.