5-4

NIFLA v. Becerra

Feb 18, 2025

Dive into the Supreme Court's controversial ruling favoring crisis pregnancy centers that spread misinformation about healthcare. Explore the clash between reproductive rights and free speech, as well as the implications for informed consent in abortion services. The discussion also critiques the legal inconsistency between abortion providers and these centers. Hear lighthearted speculation about future court cases and the ever-evolving judicial landscape surrounding reproductive rights.

42:53

Creator website

AI Summary

AI Chapters

Episode notes

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

The Supreme Court's ruling in NIFLA v. Becerra allows unlicensed crisis pregnancy centers to provide misleading healthcare information under First Amendment protections.

Justice Breyer's dissent warns that unregulated operations of these centers threaten consumer safety and complicate informed consent in medical contexts.

Deep dives

Overview of the NIFLA v. Becerra Case

The case of NIFLA v. Becerra revolves around the legal battle involving the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, which challenges a California law designed to regulate crisis pregnancy centers. These centers, often operated without medical licenses, provide misleading information to pregnant individuals to dissuade them from obtaining abortions. California's law mandated that these centers provide factual information regarding available abortion services and disclose their licensing status. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the crisis pregnancy centers, striking down the California law based on First Amendment free speech protections.

Intro

2min

Legal Battles Over Crisis Pregnancy Centers

23min

Dissecting Employment Rights and Judicial Dissent

3min

Abortion Laws and Informed Consent: A Legal Dilemma

12min

Legal Maneuvering and the Impact on Reproductive Rights

2min

Speculations and Upcoming Cases in the Judiciary

3min

Crisis pregnancy centers can provide misinformation about healthcare and perform medical procedures without requiring a licensed doctor. Yes, all of that is legal, thanks to the Supreme Court.

If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To hear this and other Premium-only episodes, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.

5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. This episode was produced by Dustin DeSoto. Leon Neyfakh provides editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.

Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On BlueSky, find Peter @notalawyer.bsky.social, Michael @fleerultra.bsky.social, and Rhiannon @aywarhiannon.bsky.social.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Get the Snipd
podcast app

Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.

AI-powered
podcast player

Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features

Discover
highlights

Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode

Save any
moment

Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways

Share
& Export

Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more

AI-powered
podcast player

Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features

Discover
highlights

Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode

5-4

NIFLA v. Becerra