Pro-family Californians won a stunning victory this morning, as an ominous bill that would classify many communications of Biblical sexuality as “consumer fraud” was scuttled on the last day of the California legislative session.

For months, Family Policy Alliance has been alerting our friends in California and working with our allies at California Family Council to oppose Assembly Bill 2943. The response from Californians has been phenomenal, with nearly 40,000 messages to lawmakers sent through the Family Policy Alliance Action Center alone. One state legislator reported receiving more than 2,500 phone calls opposing the bill.

The accomplishment of pro-family Californians in defeating this bill (for now) is remarkable, as it was the priority bill of the LGBT lobby, which holds a virtual headlock on the state legislature.

“The realistic goal was never to win a vote in the California legislature,” said John Paulton, who oversees mobilization for Family Policy Alliance. “It was to make it so controversial that leadership would recognize that passing it wasn’t worth the political uprising that they would have to face.”

Making AB 2943 controversial wasn’t difficult. It practically wrote the headlines on its own.

What made it so dangerous? It slapped the crime of consumer fraud on nearly any communication that 1) encourages someone away from homosexuality or transgenderism, and 2) involves a financial transaction.

This spring, many pointed out that AB 2943 could ban the sale of a Bible, which clearly calls people out of homosexuality. For example, addressing homosexuality and other sins, I Corinthians 6:11 says “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ… .”

That led lawmakers to exempt the sale of books. But they did nothing to exempt other forms of communication, such as counseling, conferences, retreats, classroom teaching at Christian colleges, etc. As a result, as others have observed, the state of California was on the verge of declaring the Gospel to be a fraud.

But the outpouring of opposition from California believers – many of whom had never gotten involved in public policy issues before – was overwhelming and made today possible.

While the celebration is sweet, Californians will need to be braced for another round. Although the bill was pulled for this year, the sponsor promised it would be back next year.

The implications of the ongoing battle run nationwide. For one, it’s a signal where the LGBT lobby is headed in other states. The ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors began in California in 2012 and has now spread to more than a dozen states. But as damaging as those bans are, they are just the beginning. AB 2943 reveals with crystal clarity the real goal of the LGBT movement throughout the country.

But on this great day, Family Policy Alliance thanks and congratulates the Californians who spoke up and made this happen – particularly the strong focus and leadership provided by our allies Jonathan Keller and Greg Burt at California Family Council.

“What a powerful affirmation this is that when people decide to get engaged, they can truly make a difference, even against incredible odds,” adds Paulton.

By Stephanie Curry, an attorney and policy manager for Family Policy Alliance

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear its first abortion-related case since the appointment of Neil Gorsuch. The case, NIFLA v. Becerra, will have enormous implications for the nation and the pro-life movement. As we discussed in the article “Should Pregnancy Centers Be Forced to Become Abortion Advertisers?,” the major question Supreme Court Justices will be addressing is whether the state of California can force pro-life, crisis pregnancy centers to advertise state-sponsored abortion clinics.

There are well over 3,000 crisis pregnancy centers throughout the U.S. that provide free resources to women who are facing an unplanned pregnancy. These centers support the life of the mother and child by providing free resources like ultrasounds, maternity clothing, baby clothes, parenting classes and much more.

One service most pregnancy centers provide, which has been the subject of this recent controversy, are referrals. Pregnancy centers offer referrals for housing, career development, counseling or adoption.

But one referral you won’t find at most pregnancy centers is a referral for an abortion. The mission of most pregnancy resource centers is to provide encouragement, love, and support to a woman who is experiencing anxiety or fear because of an unplanned pregnancy. These centers fill in a gap offering prenatal care and real family planning services to help women that might feel their only alternative is an abortion.

Yet, in October 2015, California’s “Reproductive FACT Act” was enacted, requiring that life-supporting pregnancy centers provide women and families a referral to state-sponsored abortion clinics. Pro-life pregnancy centers would also be required to post large signs on their walls offering “free or low-cost access” to abortions. If the pregnancy centers refuse to post a sign, they could be fined and sued by the State of California. Many pregnancy centers are faith-based, and their very mission is to protect the life of the baby by providing referrals for alternatives to abortion, like adoption.

It is not only outrageous, but also unthinkable – based on our First Amendment – that pro-life organizations can be forced by the state to promote values that directly oppose their very reason for being.

That’s why Family Policy Alliance and dozens of our state allies joined in producing and presenting a powerful legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in advance of this case being heard. That effort was led by California Family Council, our allied organization in the Golden State.

As our legal brief states: “It is hard to imagine a greater imposition on individual conscience. It is hard to imagine a more repugnant form of forced speech” than one that forces life-giving organizations to give referrals to abortion clinics.

We stand with our state allies to fight for religious freedom and the rights of organizations like NIFLA to be free to practice their First Amendment rights. We especially stand for the right to life and the ability of pregnancy centers to strengthen families. For many years, Family Policy Alliance and our state allies have fought in state legislatures to protect and honor the work of pro-life pregnancy centers—and with your help, we won’t stop advocating for these amazing ministries.

What You Can Do: Please pray for the Supreme Court hearing today. Pray that a majority of the justices will rule based on the weight of the legal arguments in the Alliance’s brief and in the oral presentation by our ally, attorney Michael Farris with Alliance Defending Freedom. Please also continue to partner with Family Policy Alliance as we work to protect prolife organizations in your state and every state.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case with enormous implications for California and the nation.  At issue is whether California pro-life pregnancy centers can be forced to promote abortion.

There are well over 150 pregnancy centers in California that provide free resources to women who are facing an unplanned pregnancy. These centers support the life of the mother and child by providing free resources like ultrasounds, maternity clothing, baby clothes, parenting classes and much more.

One service most pregnancy centers provide, which has been the subject of much controversy, are referrals. Referrals might be offered for housing, career development, counseling or adoption.

But one referral you won’t find at pregnancy centers is a referral for an abortion. The mission of most pregnancy resource centers is to provide encouragement, love, and support to a woman who is experiencing anxiety or fear because of an unplanned pregnancy. These centers fill in a gap offering prenatal care and real family planning services to help women that might feel their only alternative is an abortion.

Yet, in October 2015, California’s “Reproductive FACT Act” was enacted, requiring that life-supporting pregnancy centers provide women and families a referral to state-sponsored abortion clinics. Pro-life pregnancy centers would be required to post large signs on their walls offering “free or low-cost access” to county-sponsored abortion clinics. If the pregnancy centers refuse to post a sign, they could be fined and sued by the State of California.  Many pregnancy centers are faith-based, and their very mission is to protect the life of the baby by providing referrals for alternatives to abortion, like adoption.

It is not only outrageous – but also unthinkable based on our First Amendment – that pro-life organizations would be forced by the state to promote values that directly oppose their very reason for being.

That’s why Family Policy Alliance and dozens of our state allies joined in producing and presenting a powerful legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in advance of this case being heard. That effort was led by California Family Council, our allied organization in the Golden State.

California Family Council, which opposed the legislation in Sacramento, has engaged the full force of our alliance to sign onto an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting the constitutional right of pro-life organizations not to be compelled to engage in speech that violates their conscience, religious beliefs and mission statements. As the amicus states: “It is hard to imagine a greater imposition on individual conscience. It is hard to imagine a more repugnant form of forced speech” than one that forces life-giving organizations to give referrals for abortion clinics. Family Policy Alliance signed on to this legal brief, alongside 39 other state family councils.

Jonathan Keller, President of California Family, stated: “Let’s hope and pray the U.S. Supreme Court justices follow the California court’s lead and strike AB 775 [FACT Act] down as a violation of free speech rights.”

What You Can Do: Please pray for the Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday.  Pray that a majority of the justices will rule based on the weight of the legal arguments in the Alliance’s brief and in the oral presentation by our ally, attorney Michael Farris with Alliance Defending Freedom. Please also continue to partner with Family Policy Alliance as we work to protect prolife organizations in your state and every state.

By Brittany Jones, Policy Manager

 Can the government force a private entity to speak when the thing they are being forced to promote goes directly against their core beliefs—and even their very reason for existence?

That is what the Supreme Court will be deciding this March in a major case called NIFLA v. Becerra. In California, crisis pregnancy centers are being targeted for their message that all life is precious. California’s government has demonstrated clear bias in favor of abortion and is now forcing these pregnancy centers to display advertising for abortion services.

In 2015, the Reproductive FACT Act was passed, requiring that private pregnancy centers advertise taxpayer-funded abortion to the women entering the facilities. Presumably, this Act applies to all facilities that provide care to pregnant women, but in reality the bill only affects crisis pregnancy centers. Ironically, the Act exempts all facilities that are California government insurance providers – which includes all abortion facilities.

Our ally, California Family Council, has been fighting this law since the beginning. Family Policy Alliance, together with over 40 of our state-based family policy allies, have joined forces to submit an amicus brief in this major Supreme Court case on behalf of the pregnancy centers.

The Supreme Court allows entities to file briefs in support of a party in a case. These briefs are known as amicus briefs and are intended to give justices a fuller understanding of the viewpoints on either side of the issue. These can be very important in the decision-making process for justices. In fact, our amicus brief in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, another major abortion-related case from 2016, was cited in Justice Alito’s dissent. These seemingly small documents can have a great effect on the outcome of important cases.

The brief argues that pregnancy centers should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs by conspicuously promoting something they believe is morally wrong and sinful – the killing of a preborn baby. It also argues that the state is compelling speech unconstitutionally. The speech of private entities ought to be protected and only compelled in certain instances. In this case, there is no justification to compel private speech, especially when it interferes a religious belief. The Act is forcing pro-life clinics to essentially become advertisers for the very thing they are fighting against.

We just concluded Sanctity of Human Life month in January, but that does not mean we should stop fighting for the right to life for every child! Please partner with Family Policy Alliance, and our ally in your state, as we advance these critical human rights—the right to life and the right to freely live according to your beliefs.

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill on Sunday that would otherwise have forced Christian organizations and institutions to face a devastating choice: Betray your faith or be prosecuted by the state.

Jonathan Keller, president of California Family Council, explains to Stuart Shepard in the Family Policy Briefing why AB 569 would have brought so much trouble to the state. Specifically, it aimed to criminalize any contracts or employee codes of conduct related to abortion and sex outside of marriage.

“Every organization that promotes a pro-life message must be able to require its employees to practice what they preach,” Keller said. “The right to freely exercise one’s religion is enshrined in our Constitution, and has always protected every American’s ability to freely associate around shared beliefs and practices.”

Your voice has been heard in California! An outcry in the state – and across the nation – has resulted in a reprieve for Christian colleges and universities.

SB 1146 would have seriously restricted the religious freedoms of Christian institutions. On Wednesday, the author removed a provision that would have allowed students to sue “private institutions if they are disciplined for violating church teachings,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

“I don’t want to just rush a bill that’s going to have unintended consequences,” said Sen. Ricardo Lara, “so I want to take a break to really study this issue further.”

Jonathan Keller with the California Family Council, one of Family Policy Alliance’s nearly 40 state-based groups, said he was pleased with the move.

“This is certainly a victory for both religious liberty and student choice,” he said. “We are exceedingly grateful to our many coalition partners from local, state, and national organizations who have worked tirelessly to educate Californians to the dangers of SB 1146.”

Left in the legislation is a requirement for private schools to report the names of students expelled for violating morality codes. Sen. Lara said that would give him all the information to determine whether schools are “discriminating.”

Keller says the bill is likely to come back in 2017 and that churches and Christians should be prepared to push back again.

“While we remain cautious of any additional amendments before of the August 31 deadline,” Keller explained, “the current language of SB 1146 seems to recognize the value of faith-based schools in educating California’s underserved minority populations.”