ACLJ Defends Pro-Life Centers Against Government Censorship and Intimidation

In what can only be characterized as state-sponsored smears against pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), last year the state of Massachusetts launched a campaign entitled, "Avoid Anti-Abortion Centers,” even though there were zero complaints against PRCs. The state's campaign, which includes billboards, social media, and a dedicated government website, falsely portrays PRCs as dangerous facilities that mislead women and put their health at risk, when in reality, these centers provide legitimate alternatives to abortion services.

Our response was a major lawsuit against the state, and today, the ACLJ filed two comprehensive legal briefs in federal court defending Your Options Medical Centers (YOM) – a Christian PRC. One brief is against the State defendants and one is against Reproductive Equity Now (REN), an abortion lobby group.

Our lawsuit centers on the fact that this government-funded initiative violates the rights of pro-life centers, such as YOM, and is designed to drive women away from these facilities to protect the abortion industry. We are now defending against Motions to Dismiss that seek to deny our client a day in court and continuing our counter campaign.

There is still time to add your voice to this effort. Sign our petition: MASS DECEPTION: Defeat Pro-Abortion Propaganda

A Shocking Government Overreach

What we've uncovered through legal mechanisms is nothing short of breathtaking. Massachusetts’ officials, led by Governor Maura Healey and Health Commissioner Robert Goldstein, have weaponized their regulatory authority to silence religious viewpoints they oppose. Rather than exercising legitimate policy expression, these officials crossed the constitutional line into coercive threats and accusations of criminal wrongdoing designed to chill protected speech.

The evidence shows they orchestrated a coordinated campaign, deploying legal terms of wrongdoing such as "public health threats" and "deceptive advertising" against religious pregnancy resource centers – all while ignoring actual violations by abortion providers.

The Facts Speak for Themselves

The documentation we've gathered reveals a disturbing pattern of viewpoint discrimination:

• Zero complaints: When Massachusetts launched its million-dollar anti-PRC campaign, there were exactly zero patient complaints filed against any pregnancy resource center. Zero.
• Manufactured controversy: The only two complaints filed were by REN, a pro-abortion advocacy group working hand-in-glove with government officials – not by any patients.
• Selective enforcement: During the same period, at least eight complaints were filed against abortion clinics for serious safety violations, including failure to use sterile surgical equipment and storing biohazardous material in staff break rooms. Yet no public campaign was launched against them.

Our client, Your Options Medical, has been licensed by Massachusetts since 1999. It has renewed its medical licensing every two years as required, and has received zero patient complaints. When REN filed its manufactured complaint, the state investigated and cleared YOM, stating that "all deficiencies have been corrected."

Yet even after being officially cleared, YOM continues to be publicly branded as "dangerous" and a "public health threat."

Government Censorship Through Private Proxies

Perhaps most egregiously, Massachusetts officials deliberately used REN as a surrogate to deliver censure they knew they couldn't lawfully issue themselves. One revealing communication from government officials admitted they were using REN to accomplish what they couldn't do directly on government websites: An email noted that using the logos of pregnancy resource centers was “not something we can do on mass.gov” but was “awesome to keep” on REN’s materials, thereby demonstrating coordination to circumvent government limitations on targeting specific organizations.

This constitutes government censorship by proxy – no less constitutionally offensive for being laundered through a third party.

The Supreme Court Standard: NRA v. Vullo

Our legal arguments are grounded in the Supreme Court's landmark 2024 decision in NRA of America v. Vullo, which established that government officials cannot use regulatory power to coerce private parties into suppressing disfavored viewpoints.

Under Vullo's four-factor test for determining unconstitutional coercion, Massachusetts officials' conduct satisfies every element:

1. Word Choice and Tone: Officials repeatedly accused PRCs of illegal behavior, using legal terms of art like "deceptive advertising" and branded them as "public health threats" – language that carries specific regulatory consequences under Massachusetts law.
2. Regulatory Authority: Commissioner Goldstein directly controls YOM's medical license and explicitly threatens license suspension or revocation while also warning of potential prosecution.
3. Perception as Threat: The campaign was understood as threatening – evidenced by the fact that one of YOM's doctors quit rather than risk professional consequences, forcing YOM to turn away patients.
4. Adverse Consequences: Officials created multiple mechanisms to generate complaints, actively solicited reports against PRCs, and enacted a comprehensive targeting system through state-funded materials and websites.

Religious Discrimination at Its Core

This isn't just about free speech – it's about religious liberty. Over 90% of the entities branded as "public health threats" are religious organizations. Internal campaign communications reveal officials explicitly strategizing about how to "tackle/address religious aspects of these places."

Campaign materials urged people to seek "care that's based on what you need—not on someone else's beliefs," specifically targeting PRCs for their religious convictions about the sanctity of human life.

Massachusetts has engaged in exactly the kind of religious discrimination the Constitution forbids – singling out faith-based organizations for hostile treatment while ignoring real issues at secular (abortion) facilities.

Our Commitment Continues

The ACLJ has been at the forefront of defending pro-life pregnancy resource centers for decades. We've successfully represented these vital organizations in countless cases across the country, and we will continue to stand firm against government attempts to silence religious voices in the public square.

YOM's amended complaint clearly establishes valid constitutional claims that deserve their day in court. The evidence of government overreach is overwhelming and undeniable.

What's at Stake

Massachusetts is only the beginning. Other states will follow if Massachusetts is successful. The radical Left is waging a coordinated assault to cancel pro-life pregnancy centers and make unlimited taxpayer-funded abortion the law of the land. This case represents a crucial battleground in defending pro-life centers nationwide from similar government-sponsored smear campaigns that could spread like a virus across the country. PRCs, which often offer services free of charge, represent one of the biggest threats to abortionists' bottom lines. The abortion industry views these life-affirming centers as direct competition and will stop at nothing to shut them down, including manipulating their political allies to weaponize state power against faith-based organizations.

What makes this campaign particularly insidious is its use of fearmongering language and outright lies to portray PRCs as dangerous, when they provide women with real choices and genuine alternatives to the abortion industry's business model. If we allow this coordinated assault to succeed in Massachusetts, we risk inspiring similar campaigns nationwide that not only violate constitutional rights but also put pro-life workers and the women they serve at physical risk.

This case represents far more than one PRC’s struggle – it's about whether government officials can use their power to chill and threaten citizens based on their religious and political views. It's about whether the Constitution still means something when government officials decide they don't like your message.

Our brief against the state explains: “The First Amendment’s central promise is that all Americans—regardless of their views on contentious issues like abortion—may participate equally in public discourse without fear of government retaliation. That promise means nothing if the government can simply launder its censorship through private allies to maintain plausible deniability.”

We will not let that happen. The ACLJ stands ready to take this fight as far as necessary to protect the constitutional rights of pro-life Americans and the pregnancy resource centers that serve women and families across our nation. Join us and sign: MASS DECEPTION: Defeat Pro-Abortion Propaganda