Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

20 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND 
LIFE ADVOCATES v. BECERRA
 
BREYER, J., dissenting 

II 
The second statutory provision covers pregnancy-related
facilities  that  provide  women  with  certain  medical-type 
services  (such  as  obstetric  ultrasounds  or  sonograms,
pregnancy diagnosis, counseling about pregnancy options,
or prenatal care), are  not licensed as medical facilities by 
the State, and do not have a licensed medical provider on
site.  Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §123471(b)(1).  The 
statute says that such a facility must disclose that it is not 
“licensed as a medical facility.”  §123472(b).  And it must 
make this disclosure in a posted notice and in advertising. 
Ibid. 

The majority does not question that the State’s interest 
(ensuring that “pregnant women in California know when
they are getting medical care from licensed professionals”) 
is the type of informational interest that Zauderer encom-
passes.  Ante,  at  5,  17.    Nor  could  it.    In  Riley,  487  U. S. 
781,  the  Court  noted  that  the  First  Amendment  would 
permit  a  requirement  for  “professional  fundraisers  to
disclose their professional status”—nearly identical to the
unlicensed disclosure at issue here.  Id., at 799 and n. 11; 
see  also  id.,  at  804  (Scalia,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and 
concurring in judgment) (noting that this requirement was
not  aimed  at  combating  deception).    Such  informational 
interests  have  long  justified  regulations  in  the  medical 
context.  See, e.g., Dent, 129 U. S., at 122 (upholding medi-
cal  licensing  requirements  that  “tend  to  secure  [a  State’s
citizens]  against  the  consequences  of  ignorance  and  inca-
pacity,  as  well  as  of  deception  and  fraud”);  Semler,  294 
U. S.,  at  611  (upholding  state  dentistry  regulation  that 
“afford[ed]  protection  against  ignorance,  incapacity  and 
imposition”). 

Nevertheless,  the  majority  concludes  that  the  State’s 
interest is “purely hypothetical” because unlicensed clinics
provide  innocuous  services  that  do  not  require  a  medical
license.  Ante,  at  17–18.  To  do  so,  it  applies  a  searching