If you knew you would be targeted by hostile government officials for donating to a noble cause, you might think twice before writing a check. Many might decide not to give at all.
Blue-state politicians, such as New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, are aware of this possibility. Platkin has weaponized his position to undermine charitable pregnancy resource centers in his state and the donors who support them, resulting in a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this term.
Platkin is going to extreme lengths to intimidate donors away from giving generously to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a network of PRCs whose mission is to support mothers and their young children through the ups and downs of family life. Before the nation’s highest court, First Choice, along with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, is fighting for the ability to challenge Platkin’s scare tactics in federal court — tactics that threaten the existence of compassionate PRCs that rely on fundraising to keep their doors open.
For years, Platkin has targeted the local network of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers by demanding that they hand over up to 10 years’ worth of sensitive donor information, including donor identities, phone numbers, home addresses, and employers. This unprecedented demand for donor identities threatens not only these centers but the fundamental constitutional principle that citizens can support causes they believe in without fear of government intimidation.
POPE LEO WEIGHS IN ON ABORTION FOR FIRST TIME, RAISES QUESTION ABOUT ‘PRO-LIFE’ POSITIONS
The consequences extend far beyond New Jersey. In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey (D-MA) launched a coordinated attack campaign using taxpayer dollars to discredit local pregnancy centers through public warnings, posters, and advertisements. Both officials have issued consumer alerts against these centers for one simple reason: They don’t provide abortions.
This coordinated assault threatens a network of nearly 3,000 pregnancy resource centers nationwide that serve over 2 million women annually. These centers, strengthened and coordinated through the vital work of organizations such as Heartbeat International, CareNet, NIFLA, and Her PLAN, provide comprehensive support, including free ultrasounds, prenatal care, baby supplies, parenting classes, and emotional counseling. For many women, these services fill critical gaps in healthcare access, offering support that extends well beyond pregnancy to help families thrive.
The legal implications are equally troubling. The Supreme Court has long recognized that forced disclosure of donor information can chill charitable giving and violate First Amendment protections. Environmental groups, civil rights organizations, and religious charities all depend on donors who may prefer privacy for legitimate reasons, including personal safety, employment concerns, or simply a desire for quiet generosity. This protection is especially important in today’s volatile climate of vitriol and political violence intended to silence opposing viewpoints.
Platkin’s actions aren’t about legitimate oversight or safeguarding women — it’s about silencing organizations whose mission these officials despise. Demanding donor identities has nothing to do with protecting consumers and everything to do with political intimidation designed to shut down charitable work that empowers women.
Research from the Charlotte Lozier Institute shows that more than 6 out of 10 women who had abortions reported high levels of pressure to abort, with most saying they would have preferred to give birth if they had received more support. This finding reveals a troubling reality: Most women facing unexpected pregnancies would choose to carry to term with the emotional and financial support they desperately need. And that very support is under attack from blue-state politicians beholden to the abortion industry and its lobbyists.
The women these centers serve come from all backgrounds and circumstances: single mothers pursuing education, women fleeing abusive relationships, teenagers needing guidance and support. When pregnancy centers are forced to close due to government intimidation campaigns, these women lose access to services they desperately need.
Without the existence of community-funded PRCs, mothers such as Audrey Martin, who got connected to a local maternity home in her community using Her PLAN’s online directory of centers, would lack the empowerment needed to embark on the journey of motherhood with confidence. Thanks to her PRC, Audrey received the skills and support she needed to welcome her daughter into the world and pursue her degree in psychology, an accomplishment that will soon allow her to help other women with unexpected pregnancies and in high-risk situations.
TRUMP FDA APPROVES NEW GENERIC ABORTION PILL, ANGERING CONSERVATIVES
Martin’s story reminds us what’s really at stake. She needed support, not judgment; resources, not restrictions; hope, not hostility. Pregnancy centers provided exactly what she needed to build a better life for herself and her daughter. Every woman deserves the same opportunity to access the support that’s right for her circumstances.
The question before us is simple: Will we protect the charitable networks that empower women such as Martin to choose life and pursue their dreams? The answer should transcend party lines and unite all Americans who believe in both women’s welfare and constitutional freedom.
David Bereit is the executive director of the Life Leadership Conference.
