Chiles v. Salazar · ¶140

Even though these kinds of regulations are inherently viewpoint based, in the context of medical care, a State can certainly require the medical professionals it licenses to stand on one side of an issue. See Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 297–298 (1912) (recognizing the “right of the State to adopt a policy even upon medical matters concerning which there is difference of opinion and dispute”). Though these proscriptions certainly promote a viewpoint, in this context, that alone does not suffce to establish a presumptive First Amendment violation. Instead, under the “speech incident to conduct” doctrine, the challenged laws must also operate as speech-suppression tools, designed to vanquish free expression.

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