Parshall Partners

A State of harassment?

         The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month on an important case involving pregnancy help centers.  How they rule will impact these precious safe harbors all across the country.

         The case is called First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin.  The Center is a Christian, pro-life, medical nonprofit that has helped pregnant women for over 40 years.  But the Attorney General of the state of New Jersey has had a bone to pick with the center going back years.

         In November of 2023, Platkin issued an unlawful subpoena demanding that over 10 years of records be turned over to the state.  Records that included statements on the abortion pill reversal, copies of every request First Choice made for donations, videos shown to clients, where and what they advertised for the center, and any information on outside organizations that First Choice had worked with. 

         New Jersey, like a lot of states, has laws that prohibit deceptive practices by companies and charitable organizations.  If a targeted organization refuses to comply with a subpoena, the attorney general may seek a state court order compelling compliance. But as Justice Thomas brilliantly pointed out during oral arguments when questioning the attorney representing the state of New Jersey, there have been no complaints.  No one had raised concerns about First Choice, other than the attorney general himself.  That feels a lot like harassment.

         New Jersey is one of those states that has no gestational limits on abortion, making it the fifth-highest rated for abortion in the country.  Aimee Huber, who is the Executive Director at First Choice has stated, “Since pregnancy centers like ours do not perform or refer for abortion, we are targets for a government that disagrees with our views. If our attorney general can bully us, it can happen in other states that promote abortion.  It is our hope that our efforts will result in protection for other pregnancy centers across the nation.”

         During oral arguments, the justices seemed to question whether the state of New Jersey wasn’t violating the freedom of speech and the free association for First Choice.  Chief Justice Roberts raised the question of whether or not asking for donor information wouldn’t create a negative effect on future donors knowing their private information would be supplied to the state.

         Even liberal Justice Elena Kagan stated that an “ordinary person, one of the funders of this organization or any similar organization, presented with this subpoena… is not going to take that as very reassuring.”

         This case has garnered some interesting support.  Even the ACLU questioned the right of New Jersey to potentially violate both the First and Fourteen Amendment rights of First Choice.

         The High Court has already held a private vote on where it stands on the questions raised by the case but the opinion won’t be handed down until next year.  In the meantime, we pray for wisdom for the court and for protection for these life-saving centers.

         Those are my thoughts.  I’m Janet Parshall.