- Attorney Erin Hawley argues that New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin is targeting a pro-life pregnancy center, First Choice, with an overreaching subpoena that demands confidential records.
- Hawley called Platkin’s actions “politically motivated retaliation” that violates First Amendment associational privacy and could chill support for pro-life groups.
- She argues the Supreme Court’s ruling will set a major national precedent because other states, such as California and New York, have also targeted pro-life organizations.
- Hawley urges the court to allow First Choice to challenge the subpoena in federal court.
An upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a dispute between New Jersey’s attorney general and a crisis pregnancy center will set an important precedent for how state leaders across the country treat pro-life organizations, an attorney representing the center wrote in an op-ed for USA Today.
Erin Hawley wrote that Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s actions against First Choice Women’s Resource Centers — demanding confidential information — constitute “politically motivated retaliation” because the group holds pro-life beliefs and does not provide or refer for abortions. She added that targeting pro-life organizations only limits pregnant women’s choices, rather than offering them more freedom.
“This case will set a crucial precedent for pregnancy centers nationwide facing similar harassment and intimidation by state officials,” she wrote, highlighting California and New York as examples of states in which officials have targeted pro-life organizations for offering abortion pill reversal.
“Not long after the Supreme Court reversed Roe, pregnancy centers in multiple states were vandalized and firebombed. Many of them are still awaiting justice,” Hawley continued. “Pregnancy centers should be free to serve women and offer the support they need without fear of unjust government retaliation. Women facing unplanned pregnancies should be able to access the support and services they deserve to make informed decisions about their pregnancies.”
Platkin, a Democrat, subpoenaed First Choice in 2023 and demanded that the group “disclose up to one decade of internal records and reveal the names of donors behind roughly 5,000 contributions,” CatholicVote previously reported.
Hawley wrote that the subpoena unconstitutionally violates the donors’ First Amendment “right to associate and to do so privately,” noting that any person whose personal information would be disclosed to a pro-abortion state leader would be uncomfortable with donating to and associating themselves with a pro-life organization.
First Choice filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the subpoena, but the suit was thrown out in a lower court. According to Hawley, Platkin’s attorneys argued before the Supreme Court that “subpoenas generally may not be challenged in federal court until a state court first enforces them.” She disagreed, writing, “But when that happens, other judicial doctrines would effectively close the federal courthouse door,” which she said would violate the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
Hawley later concluded, “The Supreme Court has a chance to safeguard First Choice’s right to challenge Platkin’s unconstitutional actions in federal court and to discourage other state actors from making the same mistakes. Let’s allow First Choice to get back to doing what it does best: Serving women.”
CatholicVote previously reported that the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Dec. 2, and justices seemed to be sympathetic toward First Choice.
The post USA Today op-ed: Supreme Court’s decision on New Jersey pregnancy center case sets precedent appeared first on CatholicVote org.