The 3 - December 7, 2025

For some time, pro-life pregnancy resource centers, who number almost 2800 strong in the U.S., according to new research by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, have been on the receiving end of misrepresentation about their work, unjustified criticism, and even vandalism.  In New Jersey, an overzealous Attorney General tried to shut them down or limit their work through excessive regulation.

The Daily Signal reported on a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court last Tuesday, involving a group of pregnancy centers who had filed suit against the New Jersey AG.  It's called First Choice Women's Resource Centers vs. Platkin.  It stated:

In November 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena to First Choice demanding a breathtaking range of inside information. This included everything from videos shown to clients; internal guidance to personnel regarding interactions with clients; 10 years of documents supporting claims about abortion complications, effects, and costs; “documents concerning the development of content for [First Choice’s] website”; and documents that “identify donations made to [First Choice].”

The article noted, "Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, First Choice sued under a federal statute for redressing a violation of constitutional rights. They allege that the subpoena, with its threats of contempt and possible loss of operating licenses, violated the First Amendment’s protection for free speech and association."  A lower court had said that the centers would have to wait for further action from the state.  In the argument, according to the article, the hearing included, "...both conservative and liberal justices probing in different ways whether the language of the subpoena created a 'credible threat of enforcement' that could chill the speech or association of First Choice or its donors..."

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, on its website, is quoted as saying, "The New Jersey Attorney General’s subpoena violates the First Amendment by demanding First Choice Pregnancy Resource Centers break the confidentiality of its donors and associates without any evidence of wrongdoing or any compelling need. Challenges to state investigations where constitutional protections are at issue should not have to wait for state court rulings that may or may not resolve those issues. The government has no business harassing pro-life ministries and its supporters because it disagrees with their pro-life cause.” 

Meanwhile, a group of pro-life pregnancy centers in New York state have been allowed by a federal appeals court to continue to tell women about Abortion Pill Reversal, which can potentially save the life of an unborn baby after a pregnant mother has taken the first pill in the two-pill chemical abortion regimen.   On one of its websites, Alliance Defending Freedom stated:

Last year, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued 11 faith-based, life-affirming pregnancy centers in state court in an effort to silence their speech about counteracting the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone using supplemental progesterone, a treatment commonly known as “abortion-pill reversal.” Her enforcement action alleges—despite contrary evidence—that those centers are spreading “false and misleading” information in violation of state business fraud laws. That speech-intimidation effort triggered the preemptive lawsuit that the two pregnancy centers filed here.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last Monday, according to the website, "ruled...that two nonprofit pro-life pregnancy centers in New York and a nonprofit network of affiliated centers, all represented by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, are free to tell women about the life-saving potential of using progesterone for abortion-pill reversal while their lawsuit continues."  The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, or NIFLA, was one of the plaintiffs, and the court, in its ruling, noted: "The district court correctly determined that the speech at issue is noncommercial because…the speech is religiously and morally motivated, the NIFLA plaintiffs receive no remuneration or other financial benefit for engaging in it, and, as the NIFLA plaintiffs do not provide APR themselves, the speech serves only to provide the public with information about APR and access to third-party providers that can offer APR."

There was another free speech case before the U.S. Supreme Court last week that had religious elements.  This time, according to Worthy News, it involved a man, Gabriel Olivier, who desires to tell people about Jesus in a public setting.

The article related that Olivier "...says the City of Brandon violated his religious liberty and freedom of speech when officers barred him from sharing Christ outside the Brandon Amphitheater. The city forced him into a 'designated protest zone,' and when he refused to stay there, he was cited, fined, and handed a suspended jail sentence."  The article goes on to say, "...instead of protecting his speech, the city used a broad ordinance to push him away from crowds–an action Olivier and his attorneys say amounts to viewpoint discrimination."

Since he didn't serve time in prison, the high court is deciding whether or not Olivier and his attorneys can bring a lawsuit.  First Liberty Institute represents Gabriel, and attorney Nate Kellum is quoted as saying, "This guarantee of religious liberty is meaningless if we don’t have the opportunity to protect those rights in court,” adding, "Under the Fifth Circuit’s view, people like Mr. Olivier must either break the law again or surrender their constitutional rights.”