GREATER BALTIMORE CENTER FOR PREGNANCY CONCERNS v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wilkinson, Jan. 5, 2018,
First Amendment- Requirement that pregnancy services post a sign that they do not provide abortions if they do not do so unduly burdened 1A rights

There are only 5 Republican-appointed judges left in the 4th. 3 of them ended up on this panel 😛
The Health Code of Baltimore City requires that: A limited-service pregnancy center must provide its clients and potential clients with a disclaimer substantially to the effect that the center does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control services. That’s it. Something “substantially to the effect” of saying that they don’t offer abortions. 
And yet, the Court holds that this disclosure is a 1A violation to “compel a politically and religiously motivated group to convey a message fundamentally at odds with its core beliefs and mission”
How is “we don’t offer abortions” anything but an affirmation of their core beliefs and mission?
> Particularly troubling in this regard is (1) that the ordinance applies solely to speakers who talk about pregnancy related services but not to speakers on any other topic;
“Welcome to McDonald’s. We do not offer abortions.”
> To be sure, states must have room for reasonable regulation. But there is a limit to how much they can dictate core beliefs.
True… but what does that have to do with THIS case?

Facts:
A Baltimore City ordinance required pregnancy clinics that do not offer or refer for abortions to disclose that fact through signs posted in their waiting rooms.

The Health Code of Baltimore City requires that: A limited-service pregnancy center must provide its clients and potential clients with a disclaimer substantially to the effect that the center does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control services.

Commercial Speech:
(1) is the speech an advertisement;
(2) does the speech refer to a specific product or service; and
(3) does the speaker have an economic motivation for the speech.

From the Case – Free counseling for pregnancy services did not constitute commercial speech as there was no proposed commercial transaction.

Professional Speech- The State has a strong interest in supervising the ethics and competence of those professions to which it lends its imprimatur. Thus, there is a “sliding-scale review” that applies to “traditional occupations, such as medicine or accounting, which are subject to comprehensive state licensing, accreditation, or disciplinary schemes.”

From the Case – Pregnancy counseling is not licensed by the government, and therefore is not subject to “professional speech” regulations

From the Case – Because the commercial speech and professional speech doctrines are inapplicable in this case, the Baltimore ordinance’s compulsion “to utter or distribute speech bearing a particular message” receives heightened scrutiny.

From the Case – Because “the disclaimer portrays abortion as one among a menu of morally equivalent choices,” it compels speech by pregnancy centers forced to post a disclaimer that they do not offer these services. Because the statute is not narrowly tailored to mitigate the stated intent of avoiding false advertisement and “bait and switch” clinics that delay referrals until abortion is no longer an alternative, the panel held that it is unconstitutional.