Latest news with #crisisPregnancyCenters
New York Times
9 hours ago
- Health
- New York Times
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Subpoena to Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers
Concerned that faith-based 'crisis pregnancy centers' in New Jersey were misleading women, the state's attorney general in 2023 issued a subpoena seeking information from them, including the identities of their donors. The centers sought to challenge the subpoenas in federal court on First Amendment grounds, relying on a 2021 Supreme Court decision that said California could not require all charities soliciting contributions in the state to report the identities of their major donors while leaving open the possibility of targeted subpoenas. On Monday, the court agreed to hear a challenge from the New Jersey centers that may help clarify the scope of that exception. Crisis pregnancy centers have been flash points in the abortion rights debate. Often operated by faith-based groups opposed to abortion, they offer counseling and other services to pregnant women, generally with a goal of persuading them to decide against an abortion. In his Supreme Court brief urging the justices to deny review, Matthew Platkin, the state's attorney general, said his subpoena was meant to gather information on whether the centers had 'misled donors and potential clients, among others, into believing that' they were 'providing certain reproductive health care services.' The subpoena sought copies of ads and donor solicitations, substantiation for claims in them, and the identities of medical personnel at the centers and of donors who contributed using one of two websites. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Reuters
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to hear dispute involving anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center
June 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider reviving a New Jersey crisis pregnancy center operator's bid to block the Democratic-led state's attorney general from investigating whether it deceived women into believing it offered abortions. The justices took up an appeal by First Choice Women's Resource Center of a lower court's ruling that the crisis pregnancy center must first contest Attorney General Matthew Platkin's subpoena in state court before bringing a federal lawsuit challenging it. The justices are expected to hear the case in their next term, which begins in October. Crisis pregnancy centers provide services to pregnant women with the goal of preventing them from having abortions. Such centers do not advertise their anti-abortion stance, and abortion rights advocates have called them deceptive. The case provides a test of the ability of state authorities to regulate these businesses. First Choice, which has five locations in New Jersey, has argued that it has a right to bring its case in federal court because it was alleging a violation of its federal rights to free speech and free association under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. First Choice is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has brought other cases on behalf of anti-abortion plaintiffs including an effort to restrict distribution of the abortion pill that has since been taken over by Republican states. First Choice sued Platkin in New Jersey federal court in 2023 after the attorney general issued a subpoena seeking internal records including the names of its doctors and donors as part of an investigation into potentially unlawful practices. First Choice argued that there was no good cause for the subpoena, which it said chilled its First Amendment rights. Platkin moved to enforce the subpoena in state court. Essex County Superior Court Judge Lisa Adubato granted that motion, finding that First Choice had not shown that the subpoena should be quashed at the outset of the investigation, but ordered the parties to negotiate a narrower subpoena and said that the constitutional issues could be litigated further going forward. U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp then dismissed the federal case, finding that First Choice's federal claim was not ripe because it could continue to make its constitutional claims in the state court and did not face any immediate threat of contempt. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling in December 2024 upheld Shipp's ruling, prompting First Choice to appeal to the justices. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, First Choice argued that federal civil rights law is intended to guarantee parties a federal forum to assert their constitutional rights. It said that forcing it to litigate in state court would effectively deny it that forum, since the constitutional claims would be decided before a federal court could ever hear them. Crisis pregnancy centers have also drawn the attention of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who in 2024 sued 11 centers for advertising abortion pill reversal, a treatment whose safety and effectiveness is unproven. That case remains pending. Several New York crisis pregnancy centers sued James and in August won an order allowing them to continue touting abortion pill reversal.
CNN
12 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court to hear arguments over whether states may subpoena faith-based pregnancy centers
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up a First Amendment appeal from a faith-based nonprofit that runs five 'crisis pregnancy centers' in New Jersey and that is fighting a subpoena from the state's Democratic attorney general. First Choice Women's Resources Centers had urged the conservative court to throw out a decision from the Philadelphia-based 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals siding with the state. That decision required the nonprofit to continue litigating its objections to the subpoena in state court. New Jersey officials subpoenaed the center in 2023 as part of investigation into whether the organization violated consumer fraud laws. Pregnancy centers are opposed to abortion, but New Jersey officials said their marketing may have left some patients with the impression that they could receive abortions at the facilities. The subpoena was aimed at evaluating whether the center 'or its staff engaged in misrepresentations and other prohibited conduct,' according to the state. It sought advertisements, donor solicitations, and the identification of licensed medical personnel. The center framed the subpoena as a demand for donor names. If that view of the subpoena prevails, then New Jersey's actions may be in conflict with a 2021 Supreme Court decision in which a majority found unconstitutional a California law requiring the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation to disclose its donors. A divided 3rd Circuit ruled in December that the center's claims were not yet ripe because state courts had not yet enforced the subpoena against them.
CNN
12 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court to hear arguments over whether states may subpoena faith-based pregnancy centers
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up a First Amendment appeal from a faith-based nonprofit that runs five 'crisis pregnancy centers' in New Jersey and that is fighting a subpoena from the state's Democratic attorney general. First Choice Women's Resources Centers had urged the conservative court to throw out a decision from the Philadelphia-based 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals siding with the state. That decision required the nonprofit to continue litigating its objections to the subpoena in state court. New Jersey officials subpoenaed the center in 2023 as part of investigation into whether the organization violated consumer fraud laws. Pregnancy centers are opposed to abortion, but New Jersey officials said their marketing may have left some patients with the impression that they could receive abortions at the facilities. The subpoena was aimed at evaluating whether the center 'or its staff engaged in misrepresentations and other prohibited conduct,' according to the state. It sought advertisements, donor solicitations, and the identification of licensed medical personnel. The center framed the subpoena as a demand for donor names. If that view of the subpoena prevails, then New Jersey's actions may be in conflict with a 2021 Supreme Court decision in which a majority found unconstitutional a California law requiring the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation to disclose its donors. A divided 3rd Circuit ruled in December that the center's claims were not yet ripe because state courts had not yet enforced the subpoena against them.
