Pro-life pregnancy care centers shouldn’t have to follow a California law forcing them to promote abortion while their lawsuit is still being considered, an attorney will tell a court today.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Matt Bowman is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to issue an injunction to block AB 775, The Reproductive FACT Act. The law, signed by California’s Catholic governor Jerry Brown last October, requires licensed medical clinics and pro-life centers to post or distribute information on, and to tell women directly, where they can get abortions.

The document must say: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

ADF took the case on behalf of NIFLA, a national umbrella group for pro-life pregnancy care centers, as well as two centers. Pro-life centers are particularly targeted by the law. In addition to having to promote available abortion services, they must note in at least two prominent locations that “This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

A lower court refused to issue an injunction against the law, which was created as part of the abortion industry’s fight against pro-life centers. Abortion backers argue that women are misled by the groups, some of which appear similar to abortion clinics. Bowman told The Stream that “there is no evidence that our clients engage in any speech other than truthful, protected free speech, and the law punishes pro-life centers without requiring that they engage in any wrongful activity before being subject to the law.”

Abortion groups like NARAL often claim that informing women of the humanity of their unborn children is dishonest. A judge in Montgomery County, Maryland overturned a similar law two years ago, after  it was discovered that at least one official had colluded with NARAL to target life-affirming centers. Likewise, laws in Baltimore, New York City, Austin and elsewhere have mostly failed.

“Politicians in California have carried the water for Big Abortion long enough,” Heartbeat International president Jor-El Godsey told The Stream. “It is time for the courts to step in and put a stop to this assault on community-supported pregnancy help — as they have previously in Baltimore, New York, Texas and Washington State. No woman should ever feel so alone, coerced or hopeless that she feels abortion is her only legitimate choice. Instead of opposing community-supported pregnancy help on the taxpayer’s dime, lawmakers should do everything in their power to protect their citizens’ freedom to offer life-saving help.”

“California taxpayers already fund state-sponsored abortions through Medi-Cal,” continued Godsey, whose group isn’t part of the lawsuit but works as an umbrella group for pregnancy care centers. “It is unnecessary and unconscionable to deprive citizens of their liberty to promote life-affirming options and instead, to force them to promote abortions.”

Bowman said that California’s law is very different than pro-life laws that have shut down abortion clinics across the nation. “This law forces pro-life centers to promote abortion just because they want to share their pro-life message and support. Laws regulating abortion are medical limits on a specific surgery, not on a speaker’s particular viewpoint on abortion.”

In a press release issued yesterday, Bowman said that “political allies of the abortion industry are seeking to punish pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer real help and hope to women. Forcing them to promote abortion and recite the government’s messages is a clear violation of their constitutionally protected First Amendment freedoms.”

The hearing, which begins at noon Eastern today, should be viewable here.

Editor’s note: As a matter of full disclosure, NIFLA president and founder Tom Glessner is a client of this reporter. That relationship had no bearing on NIFLA’s inclusion in this article.