Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 44

18 

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

strongly  hold  these  different  points  of  view.  That  is  one 
reason  why  it  is  particularly  important  to  interpret  the 
First  Amendment  so  that  it  applies  evenhandedly  as
between  those  who  disagree  so  strongly.  For  this  reason 
too a Constitution that allows States to insist that medical 
providers  tell  women  about  the  possibility  of  adoption
should  also  allow  States  similarly  to  insist  that  medical
providers tell women about the possibility of abortion. 

D 
It is particularly unfortunate that the majority, through
application of so broad and obscure a standard, see supra, 
at  2–7,  declines  to  reach  remaining  arguments  that  the
Act  discriminates  on  the  basis  of  viewpoint.    Ante,  at  6, 
n. 2.  The  petitioners  argue  that  it  unconstitutionally 
discriminates on the basis of viewpoint because it primar- 
ily  covers  facilities  with  supporters,  organizers,  and  em-
ployees who are likely to hold strong pro-life views.  They
contend  that  the  statute  does  not  cover  facilities  likely  to 
hold neutral or pro-choice views, because it exempts facili-
ties that enroll patients in publicly funded programs that
include abortion.  In doing so, they say, the statute unnec-
essarily imposes a disproportionate burden upon facilities
with  pro-life  views,  the  very  facilities  most  likely  to  find
the  statute’s  references  to  abortion  morally  abhorrent.
Brief for Petitioners 31–37. 

The  problem  with  this  argument  lies  in  the  record. 
Numerous amicus briefs advance the argument.  See, e.g., 
Brief for Scharpen Foundation, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 
6–10; Brief for American Center for Law & Justice et al. as 
Amici Curiae 7–13.  Some add that women who use facili-
ties  that  are  exempt  from  the  statute’s  requirements
(because  they  enroll  patients  in  two  California  state-run 
medical  programs  that  provide  abortions)  may  still  need
the information provided by the disclosure, Brief for CATO
Institute as Amicus Curiae 15, a point the majority adopts