Abortion opponents challenge state investigation in Supreme Court

A religious pregnancy center is set to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to contest a probe into allegations that it misinformed women to dissuade them from obtaining abortions. These centers, commonly referred to as crisis pregnancy centers, have expanded across the country, particularly following the Supreme Court's 2022 decision that eliminated abortion as a nationwide right.

Since the ruling, most Republican-led states have implemented abortion restrictions or outright bans, with some directing public funds to support such centers. These facilities typically offer prenatal care and counsel women to continue their pregnancies. In contrast, several Democratic-led states have sought to preserve abortion access and launched inquiries into whether some pregnancy centers misrepresent themselves as providers of abortion services.

In New Jersey, Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena to First Choice Womens Resource Centers, requesting donor information. First Choice challenged the subpoena, claiming the investigation was unfounded and that disclosing donor lists would infringe on their First Amendment rights. The group first attempted to contest the subpoena in federal court, but a judge ruled that the case was not sufficiently developed. An appellate court upheld that decision, prompting First Choice to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.

Executive Director Aimee Huber expressed hope that the Supreme Court will rule in their favor, setting a precedent to protect similar organizations. I would hope that other attorneys general who have prosecuted or harassed pregnancy centers, or are contemplating it, would reconsider in light of our legal challenge, she stated.

New Jersey maintains that First Choice is seeking preferential treatment, noting that no records have yet been required as the presiding judge has not mandated compliance. State attorneys emphasized in court filings that The subpoena itself does not require Petitioner to do anything, and compliance is entirely voluntary. They warned that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of First Choice could invite a surge of federal litigation challenging numerous state and local subpoenas.

First Choice argues that federal court access is vital when government investigators are accused of abusing their authority. The American Civil Liberties Union has joined the case, supporting First Choice's free speech claims. Erin Hawley, an attorney with the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, remarked that subpoenas can negatively impact advocacy organizations expressing unpopular viewpoints. It is a broad non-ideological issue that really transcends political boundaries, she added.

Author: Sophia Brooks