MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Supreme Court to Weigh Rules for Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers in California

Crisis pregnancy centers in California say the state's "Reproductive FACT Act" violates their First Amendment rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving California's regulations for "crisis pregnancy centers." These generally religious, always anti-abortion centers have come under fire in the past for misrepresenting themselves as comprehensive reproductive health clinics while providing little in the way of medical services. But in trying to stop some centers from fraudulent advertising, the state of California passed legislation that may violate their First Amendment rights.

According to NARAL ProChoice America, California has around 170 crisis pregnancy centers, with around 40 percent licensed as medical clinics.

Under a law that took effect in January 2016, California pregnancy centers are required to disclose whether they are licensed medical providers or merely offer ancillary services (such as counseling or a clothing bank) to pregnant women. That part isn't controversial. But the law also requires crisis pregnancy centers that are licensed health clinics to notify patients about state programs that can help low-income women pay for prenatal care, contraception...and abortions. Clinics that fail to post the required state notice face civil penalties.

Naturally, the anti-abortion crowd running most of California's crisis pregnancy centers doesn't want to be forced to provide pregnant women with this information. In October 2015, two centers—A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic of Marysville, California, and the Crisis Pregnancy Center of Northern California—filed a suit challenging the law.

The groups, represented by the Pacific Justice Institute, claim the law "unconstitutionally compels [crisis pregnancy centers] to speak messages that they have not chosen, with which they do not agree, and that distract, and detract from, the messages they have chosen to speak." In addition, "disseminating the mandated state message...is inconsistent with plaintiffs' religious convictions." The suit says the regulations violate both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Since then, several other groups have brought lawsuits challenging the same law. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear one of these cases (National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra).

The Supreme Court's review will focus on whether "the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." Previously, both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided against the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates pregnancy center.

Photo Credit: Kevin Sullivan/KRT/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

  • Brandybuck||

    Why can't these religious people just follow the government orders? They can still keep worshiping their god, so long as they genuflect to government now and then. We would all be better off if people would just do what they are told.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yeah, compelled speech sucks!

    At the logical extreme, churches will still be allowed to say, "We love God".

    But then they'll have to post a poster or ten or seventy, about the premises, that say, "But here's where you can go if you want to love Satan instead".

  • Domestic Dissident||

    The new "libertarianism" according to today's Reasonoids: taxpayer-funded abortion on demand with no questions asked, you should be required to call mentally ill men "women" if they insist on it, and American football should be banned from the top of the elite food chain (Harvard and Yale University) down, "for the good of the children".

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    The initiation of force is allowed only to avoid paying child support.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Are you responding to the article? Because I don't see much opinion at all in this article, merely stating of facts.

    You can tweet ENB and ask her her opinion on taxpayer-funded abortion if you want though.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    There's no need to, because she outed herself as an obvious pink pussy leftard a long time ago.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That's not how having stances work, you don't get to say someone has every stance you disagree with just because you dislike them.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That is how you do it Skippy. By citing them taking a stance. If you think that's a rebuttal to my point then you missed my point. Otherwise, good post.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Actually I think you missed the point. He claimed that she revealed her preference previously, which I showed to be true. You assumed that he did it because he disliked her. So far the evidence is in his favor. Now citation may be nice, but it's not required every time you make a statement.

    As to the whole football banning thing, ya got me.

  • John Galt is back||

    The new "libertarianism" according to today's Reasonoids: taxpayer-funded abortion on demand with no questions asked,

    Why are you people such pathological liars?
    First ind Jesus. T
    Then seek psychiatric help.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So, if the State can force a non abortion clinic to ppst information about where to get abortions, can s srste also force abortion providers to give information on the state of the child's development and what an abortion would actually do to the child?

  • Hail Rataxes||

    can s srste also force abortion providers to give information on the state of the child's development and what an abortion would actually do to the child?

    Yes, and many do.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Also a VERY popular obstacle that states like to put in your way, to get an abortion, is to mandate that you get ritually raped by the "shaming wand" first.

    So for you pre-abortion ladies having to get ceremonially raped by the "shaming wand", read on...

    Scienfoology has a religious-freedom-based way to escape such mandated rituals! For details, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/sonograms/

  • Mickey Rat||

    So the pro-aborts are giving up on having those declarwd unconstitutional?

  • SQRLSY One||

    No, I don't think so...

    Some states (to include Texas) are constantly passing new laws... As soon as an older silly law is found to be unconstitutional, they just pass another raft load of them. Example: All fetal remains must be given a respectful burial at a licensed funeral-home-type facility. WTF does THAT have to do with protecting the health of ANYONE?!?!?

  • BYODB||

    A fair point. I live in Texas, and I am generally pro-life with the caveat that abortion should be legal, and I have to wonder what the actual hell our Congress is thinking with that type of thing.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    I have nothing against Jews, but I'm ok with the Holocaust.

  • SQRLSY One||

    I have nothing against people who think or act differently than I do, but if they are complicit in the killing of a fertilized egg cell, they need to be severely punished by Government Almighty... In a "big tent" way, of course. The likes of ye should be jailed or "capitally punished", yes, but in the meantime, PLEASE feel free to vote for me and for my political party!

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    I can't help but notice that all the commenters have already been born.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I can't help but notice that all the commenters have already been born.

    Ohhh, witty.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    You would deny to others all the rights you enjoy.

  • BYODB||

    I, too, believe that women should not be allowed to undertake risky behavior while pregnant 'for their own good'. After conception, women should be locked in a padded room. If she still somehow manages to beat her stomach against the wall hard enough to miscarry, she will be jailed for murder. This is because women do not have individual autonomy while pregnant. All rights she might have are subservient to the rights of her unborn child by default. All of them.

    /sarc

  • SQRLSY One||

    OK, I can rectumfry this short-cumming here, I haz been well trained in "channelling the vibes" by Shirley McLain Incorporated (and Shirley McLain ethereal as well). So here is what the unborn are saying:

    "We fertilized eggs ***AND*** unfertilized eggs alike, ALL demand to be fartilized (if not fartilized already), and brought to term. If that means enslaving all women as incubators, and over-populating the planet to boot, we are all on board with that."

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Isn't it great to be alive?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, it is mostly great to be alive, for me, and I hope for you, too.

    It is NOT so great to be alive in over-populated nations where they starve to death!

    If some global dictator decided that ALL unfertilized egg cells have souls, and all women are incubator-slaves, and that as many egg cells as possible (no holds barred) must be brought to term, I would venture to say that the only people left, who'd think that it is great to be alive, would be the dictator and his minions... The rest would be starving.

    It's a finite world... There's room for only so many of us, and so many freedoms, for so many organisms. I know it's messy, but we have to compromise. What if a large number of ideological idiots decided that disease bacteria have souls, too, and must be defended? If a fertilized egg cell has a soul, I can't see why a disease bacteria (or better yet, a parasitical worm) has NO soul!

  • EscherEnigma||

    I have to wonder what the actual hell our Congress is thinking with that type of thing.
    Then you haven't been paying attention. They are trying to undermine abortion and it's access in any way possible. The actual laws and their rational basis is secondary to that objective.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    So that others can enjoy life. Same as you.

  • John||

    And not a single one of them has survived court challenge.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Slavery was legal here for 300 years. Your point?

  • John Galt is back||

    So, if the State can force a non abortion clinic to ppst information about where to get abortions,

    Has anyone defended such a thing?

    can s srste also force abortion providers to give information on the state of the child's development and what an abortion would actually do to the child?

    Ummm,l what does that have to do with he woman's UNALIENABLE right to Liberty ... which is precisely equally to the fetal child's UNALIENABLE right to Life?
    Arer you really so totally clueless on the meaning of unalienable rights??
    God-given rights (the woman's) are TEMPORARY? Only to a Satan worshipper.

    The fetus had full human rights at conception. But ... SO DID THE WOMAN! Duh.
    To you Brainwashed Bible-Thumpers, rights are God-given ... unless your fascist agenda is inconvenienced by Will of Almighty God. Then, one must DEFY the Will of God, in the name of God, which is taking His name in vain.

    You're a disgrace to God and to all REAL Christians.

  • Rich||

    "If you're, um, interested in abortion there's some literature in that rack."

  • SQRLSY One||

    Or how about this: Put up a poster or a few of them...

    "Posted here are complete directions to your local public library, where there is free access to computers hooked to the internet. There, you can freely research ALL that you might like to know about abortions, to include the location of your nearest abortion provider."

    A LOT of power piggishness about information and access is WAY overdone, in the era of internet access! I am also thinking of prescription drugs and medical devices... WHY do I have to get a doctor's permission to pop a pill or scratch my ass, these days, when I can learn all I need to know about pills and ass-scratching on the internet? And make my own GD decisions, fully informed?

  • BYODB||


    But the law also requires crisis pregnancy centers that are licensed health clinics to notify patients about state programs that can help low-income women pay for prenatal care, contraception...and abortions.


    So...state funding for abortions? Interesting.

  • BYODB||

    Almost as interesting as making sure that those 'poors' can volunteer to cleanse their poor gene's from this world.

    It wasn't that long ago that they would have been forcefully sterilized by the state, but I guess this works too.

    /sarc

  • Domestic Dissident||

    So...state funding for abortions? Interesting.

    Isn't it? Gillespie and Brown both really get worked up into an irate frenzy when it looks like that might be in jeopardy.

  • John Galt is back||

    So...state funding for abortions? Interesting.

    Isn't it?

    Only to the brainwashed goobers who BELEEB there is such a thing!
    Do you also still beleeb the earth is flat?
    .

  • Hail Rataxes||

    You may be interested to hear the state also funds births.

  • BYODB||

    Also a problem, but I think many would agree that funding life is often better than funding death.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I think...many would agree...is often better than

    Strong statement.

  • BYODB||

    I learned it from reading Reason.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Look, we have to fund abortions because they're cheaper than births and we NEED that money to pay for needle exchanges and drug trearment centers.

    Do try to keep up.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Actually, I'm relatively neutral on that one. I just take general issue with state funding of it. Not the least because I know many people who do take great issue with it, and it's not unreasonable for them to demand that their taxes aren't used to fund acts they consider to be morally reprehensible.

  • John Galt is back||

    Their taxes do not.pay for abortions. Despite the psychotic lies of Faux Christians.

  • damikesc||

    You may be interested to hear the state also funds births.

    Given the death spiral their finances are in, they'd best subsidize them. They need bodies to pay taxes to support their unsupportable social welfare programs.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    I'm perfectly OK with getting the state out health care entirely. Are you?

    I know darn well that you aren't, but let's see how much you're willing to lie.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Fuck off, Tulpa.

  • damikesc||

    These generally religious, always anti-abortion centers have come under fire in the past for misrepresenting themselves as comprehensive reproductive health clinics while providing little in the way of medical services

    So...they're identical to Planned Parenthood?

  • lap83||

    dammit!

  • Just Say'n||

    Two lower courts in other states have found the same law unconstitutional. This seems like a pretty clear cut issue from a libertarian perspective: government compelled speech is unconstitutional. I can see why this is a hard issue for cosmotarians, though

  • BYODB||

    I'm not sure why the line is drawn on government compelled speech when actions themselves are regulated and mandated by the government.

    A curious disconnect, one might say.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, the First Amendment is problematic

  • BYODB||

    I guess it's a situation where the government figures that they can mandate the populace to do anything, but taking away their right to complain about it is a bridge too far.

  • Just Say'n||

    Provide an example, because I'm pretty sure the people who would oppose government compelled speech would also oppose government compulsion of action.

  • BYODB||


    I'm pretty sure the people who would oppose government compelled speech would also oppose government compulsion of action.

    I had no idea that all those free speech advocates didn't believe in criminate statutes without a demonstrable harm. Oh, wait, they almost certainly do.

  • BYODB||

    Example: Someone believes the government should mandate pregnancy crisis centers read a government approved speech about how they can get an abortion if they want it (mandated speech), but also believes that people should be prosecuted for not helping if someone needs it (RE: Good Samaritan laws, mandated action).

    In fact, this is almost certainly the majority of humanity.

  • Just Say'n||

    Well, I agree that good Samaritan laws are nonsense. Have they been held to be constitutional?

  • BYODB||


    Well, I agree that good Samaritan laws are nonsense. Have they been held to be constitutional?

    I don't think any of them have made it to the Supreme Court but I can say if they have made it that far some states and/or cities still have them regardless. Yuck.

  • Just Say'n||

    Good non-example.

    You were suggesting that people who opposed compelled speech were hypocrites. I asked for an example and you responded with nonsense with a sprinkling of straw man.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, fair point. I skimmed your reply.

    That wasn't my point, though. I just find it curious that speech is somehow on a higher pedestal than actions for a lot of people. Probably not those that push hardest for free speech, but rather most people in general.

    A better example might be someone that believes heavily in gun rights (free action) yet also be for criminalizing flag burning (anti-free speech).

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes, and the answer if most people are not free-speech absolutists. Even those advocating for free-speech will often have many limits and things they are okay with being censured. Which is unfortunate.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Remember mandatory ultrasounds law, including the ones that require the doctors to describe the baby (often with specific text chosen by legislators)? Supported by the same people opposing this.

    For them it's not a Free Speech issue, it's just an abortion issue. The First Amendment is only useful insofar as it supports that goal, and is safely ignored when it undermines that goal.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's a stupid straw man argument here, but usual for you. The people who should be upset about compelled speech should be 'libertarians'. To suggest that the only people who are upset are people that are pro-life is beyond stupid. I suppose the only people upset about Richard Spencer being censored by the government are Nazis.

    I can't believe that supposed 'libertarians' are totes cool with compelled speech.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Well actually, all folks "should" be upset about compelled speech.

    That said, how is it a strawman?

    You said:

    Provide an example, because I'm pretty sure the people who would oppose government compelled speech would also oppose government compulsion of action.


    To which I provided a clear example of folks that are opposing "government compelled speech", who are simultaneously also okay with "government compulsion of action" and "government compelled speech".

    Fact is, the vast majority of folks are entirely fine with being hypocrites.

  • Just Say'n||

    Ok, I'm not going to deny that the majority of people are fine with being hypocrites. I guess, I meant a specific example rather than a generalization. But, your point is well taken

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Fact is, the vast majority of folks are entirely fine with being hypocrites.

    Also, being entirely logically consistent is an almost or fully impossible task. Especially considering our axioms that underlie our belief systems are chosen emotionally, and can contradict one another.

  • Robert||

    There are various reasons for this dichotomy. One is that people view speech as valuable to the speaker yet harmless & usually ineffectual on & to listeners, so they're against both most restrictions on speech & compulsion to speak. Freedom of speech gets support because it's seen as unimportant. As the World Power Foundation put it, freedom of speech is less important than freedom of action.

    Plus, freedom of speech (both freedom to & freedom from) is traditional. It's been widespread for a good while, so people have come to accept it.

    OTOH, freedom of action & compulsion to act are each considered effectual, so important enough to legislate about. You make someobdy do something, it gets done, & if it's something you want done, great. Similarly re things you want to not happen.

    So jails exist, but they don't gag people in jails or cut their vocal cords. Complain all you want, won't hurt anybody.

    I don't find this state of affairs at all hard to fathom.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    I can see why this is a hard issue for cosmotarians, though

    I love when people get incredibly butthurt about straight reporting

  • Just Say'n||

    Did I mention the reporting at all? I'm just saying that cosmotarians like yourself don't want less government if the government is promoting the 'right agenda'.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Sure, I believe that you were referring to me and not Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

  • Just Say'n||

    No, you inferred that I was talking about ENB. And then outed yourself as a hypocrite

  • Tony||

    If you're not saying abortion is the holocaust that makes Jesus cry, you are a terrorist liberal.

  • John Galt is back||

    Such saire is well beyond their thinking ability..

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I can see why this is a hard issue for cosmotarians, though

    Can you share or is it super secret cosmotarian knowledge? Because I think I'm missing something.

  • John||

    The fact that this is the one case involving the first amendment reason doesn't seem to have a position on is rather interesting don't you think? Why did reason feel the need to take a strong position in every case but this one?

    If that isn't because they are not comfortable supporting the plaintiffs in this case but don't have the courage to say so, then why? I would be curious to hear an alternative explanation.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    reason doesn't seem to have a position on is rather interesting don't you think?

    Seems to me that the position is that this is against the first amendment and that's bad. But that may just be due to my reading ability.

    Why did reason feel the need to take a strong position in every case but this one?

    I can't speak for those who have decided to manufacture outrage here.

  • John||

    Okay, what part of this article leads you to conclude that that is reason's position? Maybe I missed the part where it said that. I wouldn't be the first time. But I don't see anywhere in the article where it says that. What language caused you to conclude that that is reason's position?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    No, if you're going to be a retard about it then fuck off. I'm not going to hold your hand for everything you're incapable of grasping.

  • Obviousness||

    "But that may just be due to my reading ability."

    Agreed.

  • John||

    Then enlighten me, and tell me what I am missing? What language in the article takes a position opposing this? I don't see where there is. You say there is. Provide the language or shut the fuck up and admit the point.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Lol, you can't even tell when Tulpa is white-knighting for you.

  • Obviousness||

    No, I was agreeing that he has poor reading skills.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    No, I was agreeing that he has poor reading skills.

    Yes. As I said, I don't possess the special outrage glasses that enable me to read this article the "right" way.

  • Just Say'n||

    You're right John, no position is stated. Reason is a pretty piss poor defender of free speech overall, though.

  • John Galt is back||

    The fact that this is the one case involving the first amendment reason doesn't seem to have a position on is rather interesting don't you think?

    Read it again, chump.
    You need to choose a different conspiracy theory, from your lengthy list of hysteria inducers..

  • lap83||

    These generally religious, always anti-abortion centers have come under fire in the past for misrepresenting themselves as comprehensive reproductive health clinics while providing little in the way of medical services.

    that sounds exactly like Planned Parenthood minus the "anti-abortion" part (and yeah, I'm leaving in the religious part)

  • CE||

    I still don't see where killing the baby is part of "comprehensive reproductive health".

  • John Galt is back||

    You're also totally ignorant of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights,
    You'll learn that all unalienable rights are precisely co-equal when you take US History, IF you make it to High School. Do we believe Jefferson and the Founders, or some wacko televangelist?

    Do you believe the fetus has full human rights at conception?
    Well ... SO DID THE WOMAN! duh

  • John||

    This is a good piece of straight reporting. Are we to believe that this is the one case ever to go before the court with free speech implications that Reason takes no position on? If reason does have a position on this case like it has on pretty much every other free speech case that has come before the court, why are they so hesitant to voice it?

    You can almost feel the angst ENB had writing this. On the one hand, from a Libertarian perspective, this is the easiest call there can be. I mean what could be easier than objecting to government-mandated speech? On the other hand, the plaintiffs' are so icky and being anti-abortion so uncool. What a dilemma.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    "This is a good piece of straight reporting. ...You can almost feel the angst ENB had writing this."

    Curious, how much angst do you have about living on stolen money?

  • John||

    I never notice it through the joy I get upon hearing your tears and lamentations.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    Zing!

  • John Galt is back||

    Are we to believe that this is the one case ever to go before the court with free speech implications that Reason takes no position on?

    Read it again. Your hysteria mongering is a TOTAL fail.

    In your limited range of thinking, you confuse Reason with an individual writer. But, here in the real world, very few suffer the absolute conformity you convey.

    Hard to believe for your type of obedient slugs, but we libertarians CELEBRATE individual thinking and differing viewpoints, You'd be happier at Bretibart, infowars, WND or any of a thousand or so breathless conspiracy blogs,

  • CE||

    the law also requires crisis pregnancy centers that are licensed health clinics to notify patients about state programs that can help low-income women pay for prenatal care, contraception...and abortions

    Do health clinics for the elderly have to notify patients about flu shots, the benefits of exercise, and hit men who will help your relatives collect on your life insurance?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Only if the latter promise to do a d&c.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The abortion angle aside, this makes me think of requirements to post EEOC statements, employee rights posters, health inspection ratings, safety information, hazardous materials warnings and so-on. And while I get that Libertarians are probably opposed to all of that, you lot should bear in mind that no judge is going to look at this case from a Libertarian perspective (some may use Libertarian principles to justify their decision, but don't kid yourselves).

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I do think that's an interesting observation. It's very true, and I think on generally libertarian grounds I would oppose it as well. My guess is there would be much less opposition from most companies to just post them without legal threat though.

  • Just Say'n||

    I think you just summarized what is wrong with supposed 'libertarians' such as yourself. All talk, but ultimately in favor of big government.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I think you just summarized what is wrong with supposed 'libertarians' such as yourself.
    That they don't identify as libertarians and reject the label because they're regularly disgusted by the folks that do call themselves libertarians?

    There's a reason I never use plural-inclusive pro-nouns when talking about Libertarians/libertarians.

  • Just Say'n||

    But, you can't argue because the government already has regulations we should be ok with an expansion of that regulation. By that logic, if the government already regulates taxis why should we be upset if they regulate Uber?

    It just seems like a way to justify deviating from principle. Expansion of government authority should always be opposed on face value. That goes for all types of compelled speech which is egregious

  • EscherEnigma||

    you can't argue because the government already has regulations we should be ok with an expansion of that regulation.
    Sure you can. That's how most regulations get started. Someone sees something they don't like, see that it's very similar to something already being regulated, and says "well, why not this as well?"

    By that logic, if the government already regulates taxis why should we be upset if they regulate Uber?
    Yes, that is how most people see it.

    It just seems like a way to justify deviating from principle
    Why should folks have to justify when they deviate from principles they don't claim to hold? Your problem, which my comment was kind of (okay, explicitly) about, was that while this is an easy case from a libertarian perspective, most folks aren't libertarian.

  • Robert||

    No, most folks are libertarian, just not radically so. They value individual liberty, but it doesn't trump all other values. Persons may be more, or less, libertarian, & practically everybody is somewhat libertarian. Most people are not radically anything, but they do have values that they balance vs. each other to decide in individual cases.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't know. I feel like libertarianism is not just appreciating personal liberty. That is a major defining feature, but I feel like there is a philosophical core about why freedom is valuable that has a lot to do with what makes a libertarian.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Most folks are libertarian? That's be news to them.

    You are, of course, free to call people liars and assign political ideals to them, even when they willfully reject them. But you shouldn't be surprised when the people you've labeled as "libertarians" don't act like it.

    Me? I think when folks tell me they're not libertarian, I'm inclined to believe them.

  • JSpey||

    Would

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online