Secular Pro-Life Submits Brief to Supreme Court
In 2000, the Supreme Court decided Hill v. Colorado, upholding a “buffer zone” of censorship outside abortion facility entrances. Hill has been roundly condemned as a First Amendment failure, even by scholars who support abortion. And in Dobbs, the majority of Justices acknowledged that Hill was suspect. But until the Supreme Court explicitly overrules Hill, the abortion industry and its legislative allies will continue using it to muzzle our voices and discourage mothers from choosing life.
Today, in a brief authored by our founder and board president Kelsey Hazzard,1 Secular Pro-Life asks the Court to take up a case that could finally end Hill once and for all.
The Court only accepts a tiny fraction of petitions. But this case has a number of advantages that give it better odds. Chief among them? The fact that this case isn’t about abortion.
The petitioner, Georgia Association of Club Executives, is a trade association for strip clubs. It is challenging a special state tax imposed on adult entertainment venues. The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the tax, using the same authorities and reasoning from Hill. The First Amendment issues are nearly identical. An attorney for the petitioner immediately recognized the implications this could have for pro-life speech, and after seeing that Secular Pro-Life had signed onto an earlier brief in support of Georgia’s heartbeat law, he notified us of the situation. You might not expect strip club proprietors and anti-abortion activists to have common interests, but the law has a way of making strange bedfellows!
Faith-based pro-life organizations, and those relying heavily on church funding, understandably declined to take on this project due to the sexually explicit nature of petitioner’s business. Luckily, Secular Pro-Life has no such obstacles. At SPL, we actively build coalitions, find common ground, and make progress wherever possible in the fight against abortion. Our single-issue focus and diverse community support allowed us to seize this opportunity where other pro-life groups were less comfortable. We hope it will ultimately benefit the entire movement and save many lives from abortion.
To be clear, we aren’t arguing whether or not strip clubs are good for society, and this case has nothing to do with dancers’ working conditions. This is about the government’s ability to target speech it doesn’t like. As the brief puts it: “The question presented here has significant implications for the free exchange of ideas concerning abortion and the right to life. Both Petitioner and amici deserve the same First Amendment guarantees enjoyed by uncontroversial speakers.” We are pleased to be joined by our friends at Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, as well as several law professors.
You can read the full legal argument below. And if you like what you read, please consider donating to help us cover the printing and filing fees.
1 Kelsey is a licensed attorney, but she is not a member of the Supreme Court bar, so Thomas C. Arthur of Emory University School of Law graciously stepped forward to serve as counsel of record. Thank you, Professor Arthur!
If you appreciate our work and would like to help, one of the most effective ways to do so is to become a monthly donor. You can also give a one time donation here or volunteer with us here.
