UPDATE, 8/3/23: Illinois’ law attacking pregnancy centers has been put on hold by a federal judge, according to the Thomas More Society. Peter Breen, the group’s Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation, stated, “Across the nation, pregnancy help ministries are being discriminated against by laws that target their life-affirming work. The injunction granted today sends a strong, clear message to the country that the First Amendment protects pro-life speech.”
8/1/23: The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) filed two lawsuits last week arguing that recently passed bills in Illinois and Vermont violate pregnancy centers’ right to free speech.
Both states had passed legislation disparaging pregnancy centers and accusing them of deceiving women. Each law claims the intent isn’t to prohibit counseling someone not to choose abortion. But NIFLA’s attorneys argue that the bills contain language that is vague, constitutes viewpoint discrimination, and compels certain speech.
Vermont’s law plainly classifies offering abortion pill reversal, which has documented successes, as “unprofessional conduct” that can result in “denial of a license or other disciplinary action.” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing NIFLA in the Vermont suit, accused the state of impeding access to critical services.
“Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should be empowered with life-affirming options, emotional support, and practical resources,” ADF Legal Counsel Julia Payne said in a press release. “Vermont’s law, however, does the opposite — it impedes women’s ability to receive critical services during a difficult time in their lives and suppresses the free-speech rights of faith-based pregnancy centers. Pregnancy centers should be free to serve women and offer the support they need without fear of unjust government punishment.”
The Thomas More Society, which is representing NIFLA in Illinois, said the law is a “blatant attempt to… silence pro-life speech.”
“This law is a blatant attempt to chill and silence pro-life speech under the guise of ‘consumer protection,’” said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation. “Pregnancy help ministries provide real options and assistance to women and families in need, but instead of the praise they deserve, pro-abortion politicians are targeting these ministries with $50,000 fines and injunctions solely because of their pro-life viewpoint.”
The Illinois attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to Live Action News’ request for comment. Neither did Vermont’s. Illinois’ was the office that drafted the state’s legislation and has made statements suggesting that even basic pro-life advocacy (e.g. stating that life begins at conception) could be part of the state’s prosecution under its new law.
As the lawsuit notes, Deputy Attorney General Ashley Hokenson repeatedly declined opportunities to clarify whether particular language by pregnancy centers could be considered misleading:
NIFLA saw previous success in the case of NIFLA v. Becerra, which made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States in 2018 regarding California’s attempt to compel the speech of pregnancy resource centers.
