ACLJ Files Amicus Brief To Stop New York From Censoring How Pro-Life Pregnancy Resources Can Talk About Abortion

Recently, we filed an amicus curiae brief in NIFLA v. James, a case with significant implications for the ability of Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs) to provide essential services to women in need. Our brief, submitted on behalf of our supporters, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and Pennsylvania Pregnancy Wellness Collaborative, aims to provide the court with additional insight into PRCs – who they are, what they do, and why they are indispensable to the communities they serve.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. James

New York Attorney General Letitia James is pursuing legal action against pro-life pregnancy centers to prevent them from sharing truthful information with women about abortion pill reversal (APR) treatments. APR involves administering progesterone to counteract the effects of mifepristone, the first drug in a chemical abortion regimen, thereby allowing women to continue their pregnancies after initiating a chemical abortion.

The AG argues that abortion drugs are irreversible (contrary to scientific evidence) and seeks to prohibit these centers from providing information on APR. But this is far from the first time that PRCs have been targeted for their pro-life speech, rooted in religious and moral beliefs. It is another attempt on the part of pro-abortionists to silence PRCs and prevent them from providing life-affirming support to women and families.

The Importance of Pregnancy Resource Centers

PRCs play a crucial role in supporting women facing unplanned pregnancies by offering a range of free services, including medical consultations, ultrasounds, prenatal education, material assistance, and emotional support. These centers empower women with information about all their options, including parenting and adoption, ensuring they can make informed decisions based on their personal circumstances. PRCs operate on a model of compassionate care, providing a non-judgmental environment where women can find the resources and support they need.

Key Arguments Presented in the Amicus Brief

In our brief, we outlined several key arguments:

1. PRCs Provide Critical Services to Women and Families – PRCs offer a wide array of free services, including medical support, counseling, parenting classes, and essential supplies such as diapers, formula, and baby clothing. These services address both the immediate and long-term needs of women and their families.
2. Pregnancy Support Centers Are Community Pillars – PRCs are often supported by medical professionals, volunteers, and community donors, demonstrating a grassroots commitment to assisting women in difficult circumstances.
3. Information Provided by PRCs Is Valuable and Evidence-Based – PRCs ensure that women receive accurate and science-backed information about pregnancy, fetal development, and abortion alternatives, including APR, which offers a second chance for those who change their minds after beginning a chemical abortion.

Why Our Brief Matters

As organizations dedicated to protecting life and supporting women, we understand the essential role that PRCs play in communities nationwide. They provide a lifeline to thousands of women who may have nowhere else to turn. Our amicus brief provides background information for judges who may otherwise not be aware of PRCs and what they do, and it highlights for the court the invaluable contributions of PRCs and the need to ensure that they can continue their work without undue governmental interference.

Potential Implications of the Case

A ruling against PRCs could have far-reaching consequences, including:

• Reduced Access to Support Services – Women in crisis pregnancies may lose access to free, community-based assistance that helps them navigate their situations with support and confidence. This is especially important because, as we state in our brief, women are often coerced into abortion, and “60% [of women] indicated they would have preferred to give birth if they had more emotional support or financial security.”
• Undermining Informed Decision-Making – Limiting the ability of PRCs to share factual information about pregnancy and abortion alternatives would deprive women of the ability to consider all options before making a decision.
• Impact on Future Support Networks – If PRCs are restricted in their ability to operate, fewer organizations may be willing to provide similar services in the future, leaving a significant gap in community-based care and women with no choice but to visit abortion clinics that profit from abortion and provide no alternatives.

Conclusion

Our amicus brief in NIFLA v. James underscores the critical importance of PRCs and the life-affirming services they provide. These centers stand as beacons of hope for women who seek guidance, support, and practical assistance in times of need. Ensuring their ability to continue operating without undue restriction is vital for preserving compassionate, life-affirming, and community-driven care for expectant mothers and their families.

We will continue to monitor this case closely and advocate for the essential role of PRCs in supporting women and strengthening families.