When a pregnant person walks into a clinic, should that clinic be forced to reveal whether they are a licensed reproductive health care provider or an unlicensed fake clinic? In the latest episode of Boom! Lawyered, Rewire.News legal eagles Imani Gandy and Jessica Mason Pieklo break down National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the U.S. Supreme Court case that’s about to answer that question, and what its outcomes could mean for thousands of fake clinics—and millions of pregnant people—nationwide.

An edited excerpt:

Imani: The whole point of the FACT Act is to make sure that the potential CPC [crisis pregnancy center] clients aren’t deceived. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is trying to make this a case about free speech rights and about religious liberty. But what it’s really about is consumer protection. It’s about truth in advertising. It’s about being required to be honest about the services that you’re providing to people.

Jess: Okay. Let’s just give ADF [the benefit of the doubt] for a minute. What kind of draconian, state-mandated, pro-abortion speech does the California FACT Act require?

Imani: It’s really quite alarming, Jessica. Just listen to these things that California is trying to force.

Jess: I’m girding my loins.

Imani: If you’re not licensed, California is going to force you to post a sign in your clinic saying that you’re not licensed.

Jess: Not a sign.

Imani: A sign. Can you imagine a sign, Jessica?

Transcript (PDF)