NIFLA v. Becerra (and a little Masterpiece Cakeshop)

California law required (primarlity) pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to provide certain "government-drafted" notices.

Licensed clinics (primarily those that provide free pregnancy testing or ultrasounds) were compelled by law to provide all clients with information about how they could obtain free or low-cost abortions and other reproductive services from state programs. So, pro-life crisis pregnancy centers were compelled by the State of California to inform clients how they could obtain  an abortion.

Unlicensed clinics were required to notify women that "California has not licensed the clinic to provide medical services." This "notice must be provided on site and in all advertising materials" in multiple languages.

Are these compelled notices content-neutral, content-based, or viewpoint-based? What about the requirement in Masterpiece Cakeshop that Jack Phillips must create a custom wedding cake celebrating same-sex marriage? In other words, if he is willing to bake a cake celebrating a tradition marriage between one man and one woman, he is compelled by law to bake a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. Is this an example of compelled speech? If so, is it content-based or viewpoint-based?

Do not let me move on without talking about Justice Kennedy's remarkable concurring opinion in NIFLA!