Chiles v. Salazar · ¶102

In Part II–A, I explain that this way of conceptualizing the question before us is not novel—we have long understood that States have the power to regulate medical professionals. And our precedents demonstrate that, when a healthcare provider's speech is incidentally restricted as part of a state- law scheme regulating the provision of medical treatments, the heightened scrutiny we refexively apply in other situations is not warranted. In Part II–B, I show that First Amendment principles are not offended when lesser scrutiny is applied to a state law regulating medical treatments in a manner that incidentally restricts a provider's professional medical speech.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.