In recent years, certain state attorneys general, including New York’s Letitia James and New Jersey’s Matt Platkin, have initiated aggressive campaigns against pregnancy centers, actions some argue violate constitutional rights.
Just yesterday, a federal appeals court delivered a unanimous preliminary ruling against James and Platkin’s efforts. They had demanded a pregnancy center group disclose its donor information, a move that has now attracted the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, the high court will examine Platkin’s investigation into First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which comprises five faith-based pregnancy centers.
Platkin has been open about his opposition to pregnancy centers. He has criticized organizations that offer free support and information on alternatives to abortion for women facing unexpected pregnancies. Collaborating with Planned Parenthood, Platkin issued a consumer alert advising New Jersey residents to avoid these centers, asserting they “do NOT provide abortion[s].” He also signed a public letter committing to actions against these centers.
True to his word, Platkin initiated an investigation into First Choice without any evidence of misconduct or complaints. He issued a broad subpoena requiring the center to divulge years of sensitive data, including the personal details and employment information of over half its donors.
This demand rests on a dubious premise: that First Choice, a pro-life organization, might have misled donors into believing it offers abortion services. Platkin claims he needs donor information to ensure they weren’t deceived. Critics argue this is merely a fishing expedition by a state official intent on intimidating donors based on their beliefs.
This isn’t the first instance of a state official exploiting investigatory power over ideological differences. In the 1950s, as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) made significant strides against racial discrimination, some officials sought to coerce the organization to reveal its membership lists as part of efforts to push it out of Southern states.
The scheme worked. Fearing harassment and reprisals, members quickly disassociated with the NAACP, and the group’s membership plummeted 50% in Southern states between 1955 and 1957.
In NAACP vs. Alabama, the Supreme Court held the government disclosure demands unlawful and upheld the group’s freedom of association. And for decades since, the court has affirmed the constitutional right to maintain the confidentiality of a group’s donors from government disclosure demands.
Yet the lower court’s decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers vs. Platkin refused to even give First Choice a hearing on its First Amendment claims. That harms victims of abusive government probes by forcing them to litigate their claims in state court, denying them access to federal court. That’s why my firm, Alliance Defending Freedom, is asking the nation’s high court to recognize First Choice’s right to challenge Platkin’s demands in federal court.
Animosity from a state official — whose chief duty is to protect his citizens and uphold the rule of law — not only infringes on First Choice’s protected civil liberties, but it can also put the centers in danger. It wasn’t long ago that pro-abortion groups firebombed, vandalized, and threatened dozens of pregnancy centers following the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, First Choice attested that the nationwide “pattern of violence and intimidation” against pregnancy centers magnified the chilling effect on the faith-based nonprofit, explaining its concern that “if its donors’ identities became public, they may be subjected to similar threats.”
At a time when we are increasingly seeing radical individuals use violence as a method to silence speech and ideas they don’t like, we must ensure organizations of all ideological stripes can associate anonymously and safely.
Federal courts exist to uphold the First Amendment protections for everyone to peacefully express their beliefs. When a state’s top law enforcement official targets and harasses a group just because he disagrees with their message, he should be held accountable for violating their constitutional rights. And like any other civil rights plaintiff, First Choice is entitled to vindicate those fundamental freedoms in federal court.
Pregnancy centers are a force for good in their communities. They serve women and families by offering a plethora of free services, including ultrasounds, STD testing and treatment, parenting support, counseling, and baby supplies like clothing, diapers, and car seats. All Americans have the right to support such good causes without the government breathing down their necks.
Waggoner is CEO, president, and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom.
