Pregnancy resource centers exist solely to help mothers choose life in unexpected or trying circumstances. The reason abortion advocates so frequently target these centers is very simple. Every life saved is money taken away from the abortion industry.
The latest attack on the centers recently made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court — as others have before — and even the abortion rights-friendly legacy media has to admit this one looks like a slam dunk in favor of the centers.
Justices heard arguments earlier this month in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin. The case involves New Jersey’s attempt to grab information on exactly who is donating to the network of help centers.
First Choice wanted to fight the subpoena in federal court on grounds that it represented a violation of its First Amendment rights, but a federal district judge in Trenton ruled that only a state court has the power to enforce or block a subpoena.
Later, a state court directed First Choice to "respond fully" to the state’s demands.
Before landing at the Supreme Court, the case went back to the federal district court and then to a federal appeals court.
One of the points argued before the justices concerned whether potential donors would be scared off, knowing abortion-friendly New Jersey would now know who they are.
"You don’t think," Chief Justice John Roberts asked Sundeep Ilyer, who argued the case for New Jersey, "it might have an effect on future potential donors . . . to know that their name, phone number, address, et cetera could be disclosed?"
It's a radical kind of tyranny to try to do what New Jersey is attempting.
We fully expect a victory in this case but it likely won't be the last time the pregnancy help movement finds itself in the crosshairs.
Anyone who has been paying attention to the anti-abortion movement knows the First Choice case is nothing new.
My organization was involved in a case known as the National Institute for Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) vs. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018) heard by the high court, it centered on what pregnancy centers have to tell clients.
Specifically, a California law mandated that these centers had to tell women where they could get an abortion.
To my mind, that's like requiring Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to provide information on the nearest liquor store.
Ludicrous?
You bet.
NIFLA and the anti-abortion side won the case.
In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Heartbeat International and 11 pregnancy centers in state court to try to prevent them from telling women about the abortion pill reversal process that can possibly save their babies even after they have taken the first drug in a chemical abortion.
"Abortions cannot be reversed," James argued.
Tell that to the thousands of babies who have been saved by this medically-based technique that uses progesterone to counteract the mifepristone.
That case is ongoing.
In the meantime, NIFLA went to court to on behalf of two other pregnancy centers to stop James from illegally silencing them on abortion pill reversal.
On Dec. 1, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the First Amendment and the pregnancy centers.
What links all of these cases is that they are not about whether or not abortion should be legal, or any kind of ban on abortion; they are about the First Amendment rights guaranteed to every American to try to save lives, speak up for the unborn, and associate freely with others trying to do the same.
Although the legacy media never misses a chance to say that President Trump hasn't seemed as tough on abortion as he did during his first term in the White House, what they neglect to mention is that his focus on the First Amendment actually gives us the tools we need to reduce — and ultimately, end — abortion.
The president has consistently argued that the federal government should not pressure or coordinate with private technology companies to suppress lawful speech; has taken action to stop the government from pressuring social media companies to censor content, and has reined in both secular universities and Fake News from their well-known biases.
For religious institutions, he expanded exemptions allowing religious organizations to operate according to their beliefs, opposed regulations that required religious employers to act against their moral or doctrinal convictions, and stopped enforcement of the Johnson amendment to allow clergy to talk more freely about election issues.
We also can't overlook the fact that President Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices during his first term, giving the Court an ideological balance tipped in favor of life, and of our Constitution.
A victory in the First Choice case will uphold both the right to life and the freedom to speak our minds — and will be yet another gift from the greatest president in our lifetimes.
Frank Pavone is an anti-abortion leader and national director of Priests for Life. Read Frank Pavone Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.