Free Speech and the Regulation of Reproductive Health

Primrose S. , “The Attack on Planned Parenthood: A Historical Analysis,” University of California Los Angeles Women's Law Journal 19, no. 2 (2012): 165–212, at 179–81.

Id., at 180.

421 U.S. 809 (1975).

134 S.Ct. 2518 (2014).

In his analysis of the subject, Robert Post aptly noted that we should be “wary” of any First Amendment theory that would render ordinary informed consent law unconstitutional. Post R. , “Informed Consent to Abortion: A First Amendment Analysis of Compelled Physician Speech,” University of Illinois Law Review 2007, no. 3 (2007): 939–990, at 973.

E.g., Wollschlaeger v. Governor, State of Florida, 760 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2014);

Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570, 576 (5th Cir. 2012) (stating that speech that is not ideological but is truthful relates to the regulation of medicine and does not trigger strict scrutiny).

Wollschlaeger v. Governor, State of Florida, 760 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2014).

Pickup v. Brown, 740 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2014);

Doe v. Christie, 33 F.Supp 3d 518 (D. N.J. 2014) (upholding law barring gay conversion therapy). In an earlier case, the Ninth Circuit upheld a California law barring a physician from recommending marijuana.

Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002).

U.S. v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149 (2d. Cir. 2012).

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, 696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012)(striking down FDA regulation mandating graphic cigarette warning labels),

overruled in part by American Meat Inst. V. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 760 F.3d 18, 2014 WL 3732697 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

But see Discount Tobacco City & Lottery Co. v. U.S., 674 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2012)(upholding requirement in Tobacco Control Act for graphic warning labels).