The relatives will be here soon, and you have almost all of the Christmas meal planning done, but you realize that you forgot the cranberry sauce and need to make a grocery run. At the store, you see a familiar sight: the cheerful face of a person donning a red apron, ringing a bell, asking for donations to the Salvation Army kettle. Feeling particularly generous, you drop a few dollars in the kettle, exchange a “Merry Christmas,” and head for the cranberries.
A few days later, you get a call from a man who says he’s the attorney general. He asks you about your donation and whether you were aware that you had given to a religious organization. He says he wants to keep in touch for “consumer safety.”
If you had to go through this intrusive inquiry, how inclined would you feel to drop a few more dollars into the kettle the next time you’re at the grocery store? How much less inclined would you feel if you knew the attorney general had a beef with the Salvation Army?
CLARENCE THOMAS QUESTIONS BASIS FOR NEW JERSEY SUBPOENA OF PREGNANCY CENTER DONORS
As ridiculous as this scenario sounds, the reality is much worse, as the people at First Choice Women’s Resource Centers in New Jersey know. Their case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.
First Choice is a faith-based pregnancy center with five locations in the state. It serves women and families facing unplanned pregnancies and provides them with material needs such as baby and maternity clothes, food, and educational resources to support them through pregnancy and beyond.
A Charlotte Lozier Institute report published in November found that 2,775 pregnancy centers nationwide provided more than $450 million worth of medical care, support, educational resources, and material goods to women and families in 2024. First Choice contributes to that astounding number without charging its clients a dime. Rather, the organization relies on the charity of its donors.
First Choice is pro-life, which means it does not perform or refer for abortions. And First Choice is explicit about its mission to provide life-affirming care to mothers and their babies, so it’s pretty clear that this is why their donors support them. To access First Choice’s donation page on its client website, a visitor must first visit the “About” page, where First Choice states that it “is an abortion clinic alternative that does not perform or refer for termination services.” That tab also includes an FAQ that answers the question “Do you do abortions?” with “No.”
Donors who do not opt out of mailings receive monthly follow-ups and a newsletter highlighting First Choice’s pro-life mission. Some donors give in person at First Choice’s benefit dinners or through church baby-bottle campaigns. With the support of its donors, First Choice has had a vital impact on its community.
But that is a problem for New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin. An outspoken ally of the abortion industry, Platkin established a “Strike Force” in 2022 to pursue “civil and criminal enforcement actions” in the name of abortion access. The strike force produced a statewide “consumer alert” warning New Jerseyans that pro-life pregnancy centers — shockingly — don’t perform abortions. And it cautioned that pregnancy centers offer free services such as pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and adoption coordination. How terrible.
But rather than allow women to face these supposed horrors, the alert directed them to Planned Parenthood: the abortion business that Platkin enlisted to preview and edit the alert. He even thanked them for their “partnership.”
Platkin also coauthored an open letter with other attorneys general pledging to take “numerous actions” against pregnancy centers.
And that he did. In 2023, Platkin targeted First Choice with a burdensome subpoena that demanded up to 10 years’ worth of sensitive documentation, including the full names, phone numbers, addresses, and present or last known place of employment of its donors. He did not identify a single complaint against First Choice or any evidence of wrongdoing. His reason? First Choice’s donors may not have realized that they had given to a pro-life organization… and he needed to contact them to find out.
To be serious now, this is ideological harassment disguised as law enforcement. First Choice’s donors — and all donors for that matter — should be free to support causes they believe in peacefully and without fear of government harassment or intimidation. If New Jersey can target First Choice today, other state officials could target other groups tomorrow, no matter where they stand on the ideological spectrum. That’s unacceptable.
SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH WHETHER STATES CAN TARGET DONOR LISTS
For that reason, First Choice challenged this unlawful investigation, and its lawsuit made its way to the Supreme Court, where Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the nonprofit group will stand up for its First Amendment rights and those of all mission-centered organizations. Even the American Civil Liberties Union agrees that when state officials target and harass groups over ideological disagreements, they should be held accountable in federal court for violating constitutional rights.
The court has already taken a firm stance on donor privacy and has the chance to do so again. No government official should be allowed to weaponize their power to punish those with whom they disagree.
Gabriella McIntyre is legal counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Center for Life.
