Month: January 2026

Categories
Character

Pregnancy Centers Under Fire

Pro Life

Preface

After a series of posts on death, the timing is perfect for me to begin the new year with a post on pro-life issues. Perfect because January 18 is Sanctity of Human Life Sunday and January 23 is the National March for Life. Both events focus on the priceless value of every human life regardless of disability, heritage, or gender. Because the volume of material available is too much to cover in one post, this is the beginning of a pro-life series.

# # # # #

Want to subscribe to receive blog updates sign up today!

Pregnancy Centers Under Fire

Pregnancy centers across America are devoted to protecting the lives of pre-natal and peri-natal babies. The magnitude of their impact in 2024 is shown in a report with data collected from 2,775 pregnancy centers across all 50 states: Pregnancy Centers: Rising to the Occasion with Unwavering Care. Note the following highlights of this data:

  • More than one million new clients were served.
  • Over $452 million in medical care, support and education programs, and material goods was provided, including pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, parenting education, baby supplies and clothes.
  • Needy families received tangible, material support valued at over $116 million.
  • 8 in 10 centers provided free or low-cost medical services, staffed by over 10,000 medical professionals.
  • 29% of centers provided the service of Abortion Pill Reversal (APR)—a protocol designed to counteract the effects of an abortion induced via oral medication.
  • 77% of centers provided post-abortion support.

So with such amazing generosity pouring into communities across the country one could hope centers would be recognized with Community Service Awards. Instead, centers are being targeted for pro abundant life activities based on their biblical beliefs. Opponents who favor abortion seek to put them out of business! If not for Christian nonprofit legal defense ministries like Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), the strikes might have succeeded. The following is a sampling of cases in which ADF and ACLJ involvement was key to putting out fires.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin

First Choice gives women the information and resources they need to make life-affirming decisions for themselves and their unborn children in five New Jersey locations. In November 2023, NJ Attorney General Platkin issued a subpoena to First Choice demanding that it turn over ten years’ worth of documents including its statements on APR, information given to clients and donors, personnel papers, copies of every agency solicitation and advertisement, and information about outside organizations that First Choice works with. All this without any complaint or evidence that First Choice had violated New Jersey law.

ADF attorneys challenged the unlawful subpoena on First Choice’s behalf in December 2023. Among other constitutional grounds, ADF argued that (1) it is constitutionally protected speech for First Choice to advance its pro-life mission; and (2) AG Platkin practiced viewpoint discrimination when he targeted only pro-life groups and none that advocate for abortion.

After two years of litigation, oral argument on the case was heard at the Supreme Court of the United States on December 2, 2025. A decision is not expected until June 2026, but observers are cautiously optimistic that the decision will favor First Choice.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. James

New York Attorney General Letitia James brought suit against 11 pro-life organizations, alleging fraud for promoting APR. Apparently AG James rejected the December 5, 2023 Charlotte Lozier Institute survey findings that 29 of 36 woman who contacted an APR hotline within 72 hours of taking the first abortion pill—mifepristone—successfully reversed its effects by taking a high dose of progesterone.

The NY AG James fraud case against multiple pro-life organizations, prompted NIFLA to hire ADF to file a preemptive lawsuit. On December 1, 2025, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court ruling siding with NIFLA and two pro-life pregnancy centers, Gianna’s House and Options Care Center. The panel ruled that efforts to stop pro-life pregnancy centers in New York from informing patients about APR are unconstitutional. 

Your Options Medical Centers v. Healey, et al

On August 19, 2024, the ACLJ filed a complaint against Massachusetts officials and their allies on behalf of Your Options Medical (YOM), a pregnancy resource center (PRC) and medical clinic which has been licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health since 1999. The suit alleges that MA state officials engaged in overt viewpoint-based discrimination against YOM’s pro-life religious views, including harassment, suppression, selective law enforcement, disproportionate investigations, threats, and accusations of carrying out false and misleading advertising, and other falsehoods.

Despite YOM, being fully compliant with state licensure requirements and having no patient complaints, MA launched a million-dollar anti-pregnancy resource center campaign via billboards, social media, and a dedicated government website, falsely portraying PRCs as dangerous facilities that mislead women and put their health at risk. In contrast, at least eight complaints filed against abortion clinics for serious safety violations—such as failure to use sterile surgical equipment and storing biohazardous material in staff break rooms—did not trigger a negative public campaign against them.

Oral argument on the motions to dismiss by Massachusetts officials will be heard on January 29, 2026 in federal court in Massachusetts.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto

When the State of Illinois passed a law that forced pregnancy centers to promote abortion and its supposed “benefits”—contrary to their deeply held beliefs about protecting unborn life—the ADF challenged the law on behalf of three pro-life pregnancy centers. It was a relief on April 4, 2025 when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the law was unconstitutional, compelled speech. As ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said, “No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions. The government can’t compel medical professionals to choose between violating the law and violating the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.”

However, it was distressing when the court also ruled that pregnancy centers speech and conscience rights are not violated by a provision mandating that they provide women who ask for abortions with a list of providers. Hence the case continues in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals where ADF will argue that “the Referral Requirement” is constitutionally protected speech.

Obria Group and Obria Medical Groups PNW v Ferguson

In May 2022, Washington Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, issued civil investigative demands (CIDs) for two pregnancy centers—Obria Group and Obria Medical Groups Pacific Northwest—to answer questions and produce documents. Without any reference to complaints from patients or evidence of wrongdoing, AG Ferguson premised the investigation on “possible” violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act as a cover for his disagreement with Obria’s pro-life viewpoint, APR advertising, and advocacy for life-affirming solutions.

The massive amount of documentation ordered included sensitive information about contractors, volunteers, and tax preparers; complete agendas and minutes of every board of director’s meeting; donor correspondence; employee compensation and retirement policies; records of payments and in-kind transfers from affiliates; and tax forms dating back 15 years.

Even though Obria provided over 1,500 pages of documents in response to the CIDs, AG Ferguson and his office demanded more documentation and information. With ADF representation, Obria filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma Division alleging, in part, that the AG’s investigative demands were unreasonably burdensome in violation of their constitutionally protected rights and should stop. Six months later, AG Ferguson officially closed his investigation of Obria and stated he would not file litigation.

            For discussion of more pro-life issues, follow this series for discussion of federal and state legislation, and defunding Planned Parenthood. 

For more Angela Muir Van Etten life-affirming blog posts go to:

Resources that informed this post primarily include the following: