Leftists in power want women to think abortion pill reversal is deceptive at best and dangerous at worst.
For example Matthew Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general, is investigating the pro-life First Choice Women’s Resource Centers for possible violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
First Choice wants women to know that it is possible to save their unborn babies if they change their minds after taking mifepristone, an abortion drug that kills babies by starving them of nutrients. Taking progesterone could reverse the process.
Platkin demanded that First Choice turn over religious communications, policies, guidance documents, statement of faith, donor information, and other items. He asked for and received Planned Parenthood’s help.
First Choice considers the subpoena burdensome and a violation of donors’ privacy. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit on their clients’ behalf, asking the court to allow First Choice to challenge Platkin’s subpoena in federal court.
A lower court ruled against First Choice, which appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court heard arguments last December, and all nine justices ruled on Wednesday that First Choice has the right to sue the state in federal court.
“First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights sufficient to confer Article III standing,” the court contended (PDF).
In addressing the First Amendment issue of disclosing private donor information, the court wrote:
“This Court has long held that ‘compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association’ as more direct forms of suppression, NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 462, and thus has repeatedly subjected demands for private donor or member information to heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Throughout, the Court has recognized the critical role privacy plays in preserving protected association, and it has acknowledged that official demands for private donor information ‘inevitabl[y]’ carry with them a ‘deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights.'”
Erin Hawley, an ADF attorney who argued the case in court, said Platkin “targeted First Choice—a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community—simply because of its pro-life views. That is blatantly unconstitutional.”
The question remains whether New Jersey will continue to pursue private donor information in light of this decision.
“Should the Attorney General continue these efforts on remand, we look forward to presenting First Choice’s case in federal court,” Hawley said.
WATCH: A refresh on what the stakes were in First Choice v. Platkin.
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of First Choice this morning. pic.twitter.com/i4ywjspa6e
— Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) April 29, 2026
