ACLJ Files Lawsuit Against Governor of Massachusetts and the Abortion Lobby on Behalf of Christian Pregnancy Center To Stop Vicious Smear Campaign Aimed at Shutting Down Pro-Life Centers and Promoting Abortion

We’ve shared with you our massive campaign on behalf of pro-life pregnancy centers, also known as Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs). We have now also taken legal action and filed a complaint on behalf of one of those PRCs, Your Options Medical (YOM), against Massachusetts officials and their allies. With Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center serving as our local counsel, we have filed a major constitutional lawsuit in federal district court in Massachusetts.

Our lawsuit alleges that the state officials engaged in an overt viewpoint-based discrimination campaign – including harassment, suppression, and threats against YOM and other PRCs. Directed by Governor Maura Healey, this pro-abortion smear campaign involves selective law enforcement prosecution, public threats, and even a state-sponsored advertising campaign with a singular goal – to deprive YOM and their counterparts of their First Amendment rights to voice freely their religious and political viewpoints regarding the sanctity of human life.

The Massachusetts government, colluding with the abortion lobby, has orchestrated a retaliation and selective-enforcement campaign accusing YOM and other pro-life centers of being a public health threat, carrying out false and misleading advertising, and other falsehoods, all while actively urging citizens to report PRCs to state law enforcement. And it does so through public falsehoods and a misleading advertisement campaign splashed across the state. Moreover, the state has partnered with a pro-abortion group called Reproductive Equity Now Foundation (REN) in a campaign to discredit and dismantle every pro-life pregnancy center in the state. There’s an entire section on the state’s official website dedicated to this so-called AVOID Anti-Abortion Centers initiative, a campaign of viewpoint-discriminatory harassment.

As we previously explained:

The government-sponsored campaign uses fearmongering language like “avoid,” “warning,” “anti-abortion centers cause harm,” and “put your health at risk.”

Reproductive Equity Now (REN), Massachusetts’ abortion partner in the campaign, even takes a direct hit at the faith-based foundation of pro-life centers:

“Anti-abortion centers often offer abstinence-only sex education, post-abortion support, spiritual support, or bible study. While some people need and want post-abortion counseling, and may seek it through their faith leaders, there is no scientific evidence that abortion results in adverse mental health outcomes.”

The lawsuit names as defendants Maura Healey, the governor of Massachusetts; Robert Goldstein, the Commissioner of Public Health; and Reproductive Equity Now Foundation, along with its Executive Director, Rebecca Hart Holder. These are claims for violations of constitutional rights. We have advanced three central claims: free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection.

Normally, a private entity like REN cannot be sued for a constitutional violation, but there is an exception: It can be held accountable when it acts on behalf of the state, which is exactly what happened here. REN and Executive Director Holder acted as the trusted partner of the state, with state funding and support, and in explicit partnership with Massachusetts officials to harass PRCs like YOM for their viewpoint. REN receives direct financial support from the state; for example, a budget line item from the state’s 2023 budget provided money to fund its abortion hotline. The state also relies on REN’s conduct and resources and refers to it as “a trusted partner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.”

We brought a free speech claim, arguing that the defendants here have unconstitutionally coerced the speech of YOM by their threats. This claim relied on NRA of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024), where the Supreme Court recently held that New York unconstitutionally threatened the NRA for its speech. We filed an amicus brief in that case, urging the Supreme Court to prevent the government from retaliating against the NRA for its political views. Likewise, here the government has exercised its authority to target the viewpoint of pro-life groups for their pro-life religious views. Governor Healey publicly claimed that PRCs engage in deceptive and dangerous tactics; and as Attorney General, she issued an advisory that falsely accused PRCs of deceptive advertising. Commissioner Goldstein unlawfully exercised his authority to accuse PRCs of wrongdoing, threatening them with legal action and making public statements saying, “As the commissioner of public health, I’m resolute about calling out this deception for what it is: a public health threat.” This conduct violated YOM’s constitutional rights by actively seeking complaints against PRCs in a targeted campaign of harassment, threats, and unequal enforcement based on political and religious viewpoints.

We also filed a claim for religious discrimination under the First Amendment. Government fails to act neutrally, appropriately, and in a generally applicable fashion when it targets practices for their religious nature. The conduct of the defendants is explicitly and facially targeted at the religious activity of PRCs. There are 21 PRC entities in Massachusetts. Of the 21 PRCs, at least 19 are either certainly or likely faith-based, in accordance with the language from their organizational documents and public statements. In other words, more than 90 percent of the entities targeted by the government and the pro-abortion agents are religious. Accordingly, the real operation and effect of the Massachusetts policy is to single out for discriminatory treatment pro-life PRCs, the overwhelming majority of which are faith-based and adhere to religious views about the sanctity of human life – including our client.

Finally, we filed an equal protection claim. The defendants are seeking to selectively enforce regulations against YOM, applying an unequal standard on YOM and imposing unjustified investigations. They have targeted YOM for disproportionate investigation on the basis of its viewpoint. Similarly situated entities that do not share the same viewpoint as YOM, that is, abortion providers, do not receive the same scrutiny. In other words, Massachusetts is disproportionately focusing on the acts of PRCs, engaging in a selective program of enforcement.

All three of our legal claims point to the same thing. The Left is waging a coordinated assault to threaten pro-life pregnancy centers and stifle their views by burying them in complaints, punishments, and disciplines. Such a targeted system of harassment and discrimination is unprecedented and unconstitutional. Their choice of words goes far beyond mere disagreement or criticism; the state has repeatedly accused PRCs of illegal behavior like deception, misrepresentation, and fraud, as you can see for yourself through the exhibits that we provided to the court (here, here, & here). The state has publicly accused YOM of actionable misconduct.

These targeted, false, and baseless accusations established a system of informal censorship designed to suppress the pro-life viewpoint of our client, YOM, with the intent to obstruct, chill, deter, and retaliate against it for its speech. Our client, YOM, is fully compliant with state licensure requirements; it has never had an actual patient complaint and provides its services in full compliance with the law. But these defendants do not care and are accusing it of wrongdoing anyway, solely because of its pro-life position.

Like most PRCs across the country, our client is a Christian organization that believes all human life is sacred and made in the image of God – including preborn children. As such, our client is “committed to aiding women and couples facing unexpected pregnancies by providing ultrasounds, counseling, and meeting the practical and material needs that may otherwise cause them to consider abortion.” As we state in our complaint, “The heart of [our client’s] ministry is to meet the emotional, relational, material, and spiritual needs of mothers and their babies,” and to do that, our client provides its “services for pregnant women . . . free of charge, including pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, and pregnancy options counseling, as well as the provision of baby clothes, diapers, and other supplies to mothers of newborns.”

Moreover, our client is a medical clinic and has been licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health since 1999. In addition to its brick-and-mortar clinics, YOM owns and operates the only pro-life mobile medical unit in the state.

Pro-life centers represent one of the biggest threats to abortionists’ bottom lines – and our client is no exception. Abortionists like Planned Parenthood consider PRCs to be the competition. They will do anything to shut them down, and liberal politicians in Massachusetts have been all too eager to help. But in doing so, they have violated the U.S. Constitution.

Through our lawsuit, we intend to defend our client – and all pro-life centers in Massachusetts and nationwide – and to shut down these unlawful smears, lies, and distortions. Along with taking legal action, we’ll be launching a multipronged media campaign to defend and support pro-life pregnancy centers and enable them to continue their lifesaving work without harassment and/or government interference.