Many Christians have celebrated Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of baker Jack Phillips  as a victory for religious freedom. But the decision also bodes well for California’s pro-life pregnancy resource centers. They are suing the state to overturn a requirement that they refer women for abortions.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide the centers’ case this month. Since two of the four liberal justices on the Court joined four conservatives and “swing vote” Justice Anthony Kennedy in backing Phillips, the centers should receive a similarly one-sided majority decision.

NIFLA’s Case

In 2015, California passed the Reproductive FACT Act. It forces pro-life pregnancy resource centers to refer clients for abortion. Centers must post abortion information signs in large font in their reception areas. The signs must have a phone number so clients can get a state-funded abortion.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) challenged the law. The Supreme Court heard the case in March.

NIFLA’s lawsuit may be the biggest abortion case of 2018. It affects all Americans. To quote NIFLA President Thomas Glessner:

What if the government passed a law that forced the American Lung Association to promote cigarettes? What if the government mandated that Alcoholics Anonymous post a sign in their facilities advising their clients on the location of the closest liquor store? That wouldn’t be right, and neither is California’s law.

Cakes Versus Abortion

The key portion of the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece ruling is that the state’s Commission on Civil Rights mistreated Phillips due to his religion. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, Phillips should have been given “a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims… .” Instead, “the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case … showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection.”

Kennedy wrote that some “commissioners at the Commission’s” official hearings “endorsed the view that religious beliefs” have no place in “the public sphere or commercial domain.” These officials “disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical,” and compared Phillips’ beliefs “to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

For these and other reasons, officials “cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s” actions on Phillips’ case. Therefore, “the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty … not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.” U.S. governments also “cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes” how legitimate a person’s religious belief or practice is.

Comparing the Two Cases

Let’s compare this to NIFLA’s case:

1. Religious beliefs form the basis for pro-life centers’ opposition to abortion. A similar law in Hawaii affects a church-based center. That law would be overturned if NIFLA wins.

So, religious speech is targeted in both cases. Check.

2. California officials unfairly favor abortion supporters over pro-life advocates. For just two examples:

NARAL’s California chapter “sponsored” the FACT Act. This chapter did an “investigation” into pro-life centers. They found “no audio or visual recordings” to prove claims that centers lied to women. Still, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra supports the FACT Act and its violation of First Amendment rights. Conversely, Becerra has not prosecuted Planned Parenthood’s partners in baby parts sales, leaving that up to a District Attorney. And Becerra has found the time to prosecute undercover investigator David Daleiden for exposing the illegal actions of Planned Parenthood and its for-profit partners.

California Assemblyman David Chiu introduced the FACT Act. He wrote on March 20 that pro-life centers are “fake health clinics” which provide “deception and lies” because “women’s health and lives” are at risk. In other words, according to Chiu, women’s lives are ended because of the work of pro-life centers.

Like Becerra, Chiu has no problem ignoring the abortion industry’s actual lies and premeditated murders. He touts endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, which have a vested financial stake in seeing public officials target pro-life centers.

The fact that Chiu’s bill, which Becerra is defending, only applies to pro-life centers is the icing on the cake of unequal treatment. Some of the Court’s liberal justices jumped on the question of fair enforcement when NIFLA’s case was heard. Check.

3. California’s NARAL chapter is part of a national effort to convince lawmakers to target the content of pro-life centers’ speech. An investigation I conducted in 2015 proved that NARAL advised Montgomery County, Maryland officials to target pro-life centers with a law much like California’s. In one e-mail, Jodi Finkelstein — then the head of NARAL’s Maryland chapter — said the presence of doctors and “state-of-the-art [medical] equipment” didn’t matter. Finkelstein wrote that pro-life centers “are still manipulating women with lies and misleading information.”

Why does the Maryland law matter? Because a judge overruled it. There was no evidence of pro-life deception. Likewise, Kennedy wrote that there is no proof Phillips did not serve people due to their sexuality. Phillips “told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding” because of his beliefs. At the same time, Phillips did say “he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes.”

In both Masterpiece and NIFLA, only lawful actions took place. That’s three-for-three. The Justices should see the NIFLA case as a checkmate for freedom.

*Disclosure: This author is a consultant for a company which handles NIFLA’s public relations. This piece was written independent of NIFLA’s case.