Why are blue states harassing faith-based pregnancy centers for trying to save unborn babies?
Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday after censoring faith-based pregnancy centers that share abortion reversal information with pregnant women who want to save their babies after taking the drug mifepristone. Taking progesterone could reverse the process.
New Jersey AG Targets Pregnancy Centers
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a similar case out of New Jersey. Matthew Platkin, the state attorney general, demanded that First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a group of five pregnancy centers, turn over data in an investigation that involves possible violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Possible violations, with no accusation of wrongdoing. Platkin has demanded all of First Choice’s religious communications, policies, guidance documents, statement of faith, donor information, and other items. And Planned Parenthood helped him.
The pregnancy centers face contempt and other penalties if they refuse to comply.
New Jersey Pregnancy Centers Fight Back
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit on First Choice’s behalf in 2023 to stop the subpoena. Lower courts ruled that the case must be heard in state courts first, but the pregnancy centers contend that they must preserve First Amendment claims in federal court. They are being harassed by a hostile state official.
The pregnancy centers urged the Supreme Court to allow their case to be heard in federal court. First Choice calls Platkin’s efforts a fishing expedition that will overwhelm them and impede the important work they do.
“The government can’t harass those who support pro-life ministries just because it disagrees with their message and their mission,” said Aimee Huber, executive director of First Choice.
What We Know
The Supreme Court heard arguments at 10 AM. David Bereit, executive director of the Life Leadership Conference, said in a statement via email that multiple justices questioned the state’s motives for targeting pregnancy centers.
The justices also wanted to know why the attorney general is demanding donor identities while admitting that there is no complaint against First Choice.
Bereit added that justices on both sides of the aisle asked how an ordinary donor would react to “receiving a subpoena tied to a government ‘strike force,’ suggesting that the chill on First Amendment association is not abstract—it’s common sense.”
Do you think the Supreme Court will protect First Choice’s constitutional rights?
