Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Silence Pro-Life Donors

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin — a case that could change the landscape of pro-life ministry in America. New Jersey is demanding that pregnancy centers hand over confidential donor information. If the state gets its way, pro-life donors could have their name, address, and personal details exposed to hostile government officials.

Life Legal filed an amicus brief on behalf of six pregnancy centers, some of which were subject to invasive subpoenas by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. We warned the court that under the current court ruling, pregnancy centers must go through a long and invasive state investigation before they are allowed to ask a federal court to protect their rights. In other words, they and their supporters have to be harmed first — and only then can they seek help. 

The justices pushed back on the idea that nonprofits should be forced to open their files to the government just to defend their freedoms. Chief Justice Roberts asked: “You don’t think it might have an effect on future potential donors to the organization to know that their name, phone number, address, etcetera could be disclosed as a result of the subpoena?”

Exactly. This is nothing less than an unvarnished attempt by pro-abortion states to frighten pro-life supporters into silence.

Life Legal is fighting so that never happens. No one should have to risk being exposed or harassed for upholding the sanctity of human life.

P.S. Your gift today sends a clear and unmistakable message: pro-lifers will not be silenced or intimidated.

VICTORY!

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday delivered a significant win for pregnancy centers in NIFLA v. James. The court echoed Life Legal’s arguments that statements about abortion pill reversal (APR) are protected speech, not commercial advertising — meaning the government can’t censor them unless it meets the highest constitutional standard.

New York Attorney General Letitia James tried to silence centers by claiming APR statements were “false and misleading” and subject to government control. The court rejected that argument. As the case moves forward, James will have to prove that New York has a compelling reasonto stop pregnancy centers from sharing information about APR — an extraordinarily difficult burden to meet.

In short: New York can no longer treat life-saving information about APR as a crime.