Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

16 

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

religion,  or  other  matters  of  opinion  or  force  citizens  to
confess  by  word  or  act  their  faith  therein,’ ”  it  does  not 
warrant  heightened  scrutiny.    Id.,  at  651  (quoting  West 
Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943)). 
In  Zauderer,  the  Court  emphasized  the  reason  that  the
First  Amendment  protects  commercial  speech  at  all:  “the
value  to  consumers  of  the  information  such  speech  pro-
vides.”  471 U. S., at 651.  For that reason, a professional’s
“constitutionally  protected  interest  in  not  providing  any
particular  factual  information  in  his  advertising  is  mini-
mal.”  Ibid.  But  this  rationale  is  not  in  any  way  tied  to
advertisements  about  a  professional’s  own  services.    For 
instance, it applies equally to a law that requires doctors, 
when  discharging  a  child  under  eight  years  of  age,  to
“provide  to  and  discuss  with  the  parents  . . .  information 
on  the  current  law  requiring  child  passenger  restraint 
systems, safety belts, and the transportation of children in
rear  seats.”  Cal.  Veh.  Code  Ann.  §27363.5(a).    Even 
though  child  seat  belt  laws  do  not  directly  relate  to  the 
doctor’s own services, telling parents about such laws does 
nothing  to  undermine  the  flow  of  factual  information.
Whether  the  context  is  advertising  the  professional’s  own
services  or  other  commercial  speech,  a  doctor’s  First
Amendment  interest  in  not  providing  factual  information 
to patients is the same: minimal, because his professional 
speech  is  protected  precisely  because  of  its  informational
value to patients.  There is no reason to subject such laws 
to heightened scrutiny.

Accordingly,  the  majority’s  reliance  on  cases  that  pro-
hibit rather than require speech is misplaced.  Ante, at 12– 
14.  I  agree  that  “ ‘in  the  fields  of  medicine  and  public 
heath,  . . .  information  can  save  lives,’ ”  but  the  licensed 
disclosure  serves  that  informational  interest  by  requiring 
clinics  to  notify  patients  of  the  availability  of  state  re-
sources  for  family  planning  services,  prenatal  care,  and 
abortion, which—unlike the majority’s examples of norma-