Supreme Court, end harassment of pro-life pregnancy centers

By: Erin Hawley, Opinion Contributor, originally published December 2, 2025, USA Today

The mantra from pro-abortion politicians used to be that abortion should be  safe, legal and rare.  Now, many of those same politicians say that women should  “shout their abortions.”

They wrap their pro-abortion agenda in pretty packaging with words like “choice” and “reproductive health care,” but the sad reality is that many of those preaching “choice” are doing all they can to limit women’s choices.

Since the  U.S. Supreme Court   overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, numerous state attorneys general have engaged in a concerted effort to punish  pro-life pregnancy centers  simply because they do not perform abortions.

One example of such lawfare against pregnancy centers is happening thanks to New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, and it got the  Supreme Court’s  attention. Oral arguments in the case are  scheduled for Dec. 2.

Pregnancy resource centers assist mothers in choosing life

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers  is a faith-based group that provides parenting classes, ultrasounds, baby clothes and more to its community – free of charge. Pregnancy centers like First Choice provide free, compassionate care to women facing unplanned pregnancies, but they do not provide or refer for abortions.

For this act of defiance,  Platkin assembled  a “strike force” that issued a statewide “consumer alert” against pregnancy centers – all because they value the life of the mother and child.

The New Jersey attorney general’s office even asked Planned Parenthood,  which profits  from abortions, to help him draft the consumer alert and then  thanked the organization  for its “partnership,” as shown in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin.

Unsatisfied, Platkin issued a sweeping subpoena to First Choice, demanding that it produce  “over a decade’s worth” of documentation, including the identities, phone numbers and personal addresses of nearly 5,000 of its donors. All this despite the fact that the attorney general has not identified a  single complaint  against First Choice.

We believe that these demands are politically motivated retaliation for First Choice’s pro-life viewpoint. And they rob New Jersey women of the practical help and support that First Choice provides.

Disclosure would create a chilling effect for donors

Platkin’s subpoena also violates the Constitution. The  First Amendment  protects the right to associate and to do so privately.

Because revealing one’s membership or support for an advocacy group tells the world about a person’s most deeply held beliefs, the Supreme Court has held that donors have a constitutional right to  anonymously support causes.

It stands to reason that donors to First Choice would be unlikely to donate knowing their information could be exposed to a state official who has a history of hostility toward pro-life viewpoints.

Because Platkin’s subpoena squelches the First Amendment rights of First Choice and its donors, the pregnancy center filed a federal lawsuit urging the courts to protect those freedoms. The lower courts  dismissed  the lawsuit without even reviewing the First Amendment issues.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court, New Jersey’s attorney general is arguing that subpoenas generally may not be challenged in federal court  until a state court first enforces them. But when that happens, other judicial doctrines would effectively close the federal courthouse door.

That violates the promise of the  Civil Rights Act of 1871  – that victims of unconstitutional treatment by state officials are entitled to seek relief in federal court, rather than be relegated to state court. We at Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents First Choice, are asking the Supreme Court to affirm our client’s right to its day in federal court.

Harassment shouldn’t be tolerated

This case will set a crucial precedent for pregnancy centers nationwide facing similar harassment and intimidation by state officials. Take, for example,  California  and  New York, where attorneys general have attempted to censor pro-life pregnancy centers that tell women it  might be possible to reverse  the life-ending effects of the abortion drug mifepristone.

Not long after the Supreme Court reversed Roe, pregnancy centers in multiple states  were vandalized  and  firebombed. Many of them are still  awaiting justice.

Pregnancy centers should be free to serve women and offer the support they need without fear of unjust government retaliation. Women facing unplanned pregnancies should be able to access the support and services they deserve to make informed decisions about their pregnancies.

The Supreme Court has a chance to safeguard First Choice’s right to challenge Platkin’s unconstitutional actions in federal court and to discourage other state actors from making the same mistakes. Let’s allow First Choice to get back to doing what it does best: Serving women.

Erin Hawley is senior counsel and vice president of the Center for Life and regulatory practice with  Alliance Defending Freedom  ( @ADFLegal), which represents First Choice Women’s Resource Centers.

The post Supreme Court, end harassment of pro-life pregnancy centers appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.