Chiles v. Salazar · ¶106

To further explain the contours of this presumptively permissible speech restriction, NIFLA cited Planned Parent hood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). In Casey, the Court assessed “an asserted First Amendment right of a physician not to provide information about the risks of abortion, and childbirth, in a manner mandated by the State.” Id., at 884 (joint opinion of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.). More specifically, Casey involved a challenge to a Pennsylvania law requiring that “a doctor give a woman certain information as part of obtaining her consent to an abortion.” Ibid.We held that Pennsylvania's informed-consent mandate did not violate the First Amendment. “To be sure, the physician's First Amendment rights not to speak [were] implicated” by Pennsylvania's law. Ibid. But we emphasized that those rights were implicated “only as part of the practice of…

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