In National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, the Court held that the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act, which required licensed clinics to notify patients that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortion, and give them a phone number to call and required unlicensed clinics to notify patients that they are not licensed to provide medical services was not sufficiently tailored because the state could achieve its purpose of informing low-income women about available services without burdening the plaintiff’s expression. Sonia Suter’s rewritten opinion reasons that the disclosure requirements do not raise such concerns because the FACT Act fits squarely within the goals of informed consent. Brietta Clark’s commentary contextualizes the case by discussing the asserted goals and service model of crisis pregnancy centers and the troubling practices of some centers, which delay patients’ access to abortions and provide false information about the risks of abortion. Clark emphasizes how the original NIFLA decision exceptionalizes abortion and how the feminist judgment corrects that mistake.