U.S. Supreme Court building. Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider a conservative challenge to a controversial California law that requires pregnancy “crisis centers” to post information about state-provided abortion and contraception options.

While granting certiorari in the case National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court narrowed the issues it will consider. The conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which is backing the “pro-life” pregnancy center in the case, asked the court to decide whether the law violated either the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

But the justices said in an order issued Monday that they would only consider the free speech clause issue, setting the stage for a significant ruling on compelled speech: to what extent can the government require people to convey speech with which they disagree.

“Forcing anyone to provide free advertising for the abortion industry is unthinkable—especially when it's the government doing the forcing. This is even more true when it comes to pregnancy care centers, which exist specifically to care for women who want to have their babies,” the alliance's senior counsel Kevin Theriot said in a statement Monday. “The state should protect freedom of speech and freedom from coerced speech. Information about abortion is just about everywhere, so the government doesn't need to punish pro-life centers for declining to advertise for the very act they can't promote.”

California is defending the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act, passed in 2015. Its brief cited the words of the legislature calling the law “the most effective way to ensure that women quickly obtain the information and services they need” about pregnancy options from health facilities that are not connected to state programs.

The U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the law, noting that the Supreme Court in the 1992 Casey decision had upheld state requirements that physicians provide patients with state-compelled notices.

“The notice that licensed facilities must give under the FACT Act falls well within the First Amendment's tolerance for the regulation of the practice-related speech of licensed professionals,” the California brief asserts.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom is before the high court in another high-profile First Amendment case challenging compelled speech this term: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, brought by a Colorado baker who argues that the state cannot, under anti-discrimination laws, compel him to create a wedding cake for same-sex couples.