The Supreme Court delivered a significant First Amendment ruling on Wednesday, and notably, there were no dissenting opinions.
The unanimous decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport reveals a deeper narrative that those in the pro-life movement should grasp: a state attorney general launched an attack on a pregnancy center not due to any complaints or legal violations but simply because it provided women with an alternative to abortion.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers has been supporting pregnant women in New Jersey since 1985, offering counseling, material assistance, and genuine care to those needing help during their pregnancies. Its mission is clear: to let women know they aren’t alone and that their children have value. And that’s precisely why it became a target.
In 2022, Attorney General Matthew Platkin formed a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force,” ostensibly to safeguard the abortion narrative surrounding pregnancy. Despite no public complaints lodged against First Choice, it received a subpoena demanding personal details about many donors over a number of years.
This was not a standard legal action. It felt more like intimidation. The attorney general’s rationale—that he wanted to contact donors to ask if they felt misled regarding First Choice’s services—seemed transparently unfounded.
Platkin found the center’s website, which displays images of parents with infants, potentially misleading. This reaction underscores the ideological basis of the state’s actions.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first incident where government scrutiny has been directed at pro-life pregnancy centers. In the 2018 case NIFLA v. Becerra, California attempted to compel these centers to promote state abortion services to their clients, effectively turning them into advocates for the very services they aim to provide alternatives to.
The Supreme Court put a stop to that, ruling that states cannot force pro-life organizations to support abortion messaging. New Jersey’s tactics may differ, but they share a common goal: to use state power to undermine pro-life pregnancy efforts, whether by compelling centers to promote abortion or by scaring off vital donors.
These donors are everyday individuals contributing with the hope of assisting mothers and children. Their privacy should be respected.
The First Amendment protects people who send small donations to their local pregnancy centers, allowing them to expect that the government won’t target their personal information. Subjecting these donors to state scrutiny, especially in a climate where pro-life supporters are labeled as “extremists,” serves as intimidation, making simple generosity seem risky.
Every donor deserves the protection of the law and the acknowledgment of a society that claims to value personal conscience and the freedom to give.
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court recognized that First Choice experienced real and immediate harm when it received the subpoena. Supporters reported anonymously that the potential exposure made them less inclined to donate. Closing a pregnancy center results in lost options for women. This isn’t just a side effect of intimidation; it’s the intention behind it.
Gorsuch drew parallels with the NAACP v. Alabama case from 1958, where civil rights activists were shielded from a segregationist attorney general’s demand for donor rolls. The strategy remains consistent: target a marginalized group, demand their supporter lists, and watch as those supporters pull back to avoid exposure.
The First Amendment has consistently pushed back against such tactics, and it continues to do so.
A broad coalition supported First Choice, including organizations like the ACLU and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When civil libertarians from across the political spectrum stand together for a pro-life pregnancy center, it’s clear something important is at risk.
The abortion industry has long recognized that pregnancy centers are its most effective adversaries—not through protests or lawsuits, but by providing direct support. They engage with women facing crises, offering resources and hope.
For the women they assist and the children whose lives they impact, this support is invaluable.
