Massachusetts Teams Up With Abortion Industry To “Tackle . . . Religious Aspects” of Pro-Life Centers – ACLJ Takes Case to Federal Appeals Court To Stop the Unlawful Anti-Christian Targeting

The latest battle in the Left’s war against the unborn heads to federal appeals court, as the ACLJ takes on Massachusetts’ unlawful smear campaign aimed at propping up the abortion industry and putting pro-life centers out of business.

We just filed our opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on behalf of A Woman’s Concern, Inc., d/b/a Your Options Medical Centers (“YOM”). This appeal continues our vigorous defense of pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs) against government censorship and intimidation – a fight we highlighted when we exposed Massachusetts’ “Avoid Anti-Abortion Centers” smear campaign.

For over 25 years, YOM has faithfully served women and families in Massachusetts with free, compassionate care: ultrasounds, pregnancy options counseling, material support like diapers and baby clothes, and truthful information rooted in its Christian belief that every human life is sacred and made in the image of God. Licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health since 1999, YOM has maintained a spotless record – zero patient complaints in a quarter century of operation.

Yet after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, Massachusetts officials launched a coordinated, taxpayer-funded assault on centers like YOM simply because they refuse to refer for or promote abortion and, instead, promote life.

Take action with the ACLJ. Sign our petition: Stop the Abortion Industry’s War on Babies.

This Was No Ordinary “Public Awareness” Campaign

As we’ve detailed previously, Massachusetts appropriated over $1 million for a campaign branding pro-life centers as “dangerous,” “deceptive,” and a “public health threat.” Officials partnered with Reproductive Equity Now (REN), a pro-abortion advocacy group they called their “trusted partner,” to solicit complaints, issue regulatory guidance explicitly designed to “put anti-abortion centers on notice,” and link official government webpages to materials naming YOM specifically – complete with photos of its Revere clinic.

The results were predictable and devastating: A physician resigned rather than risk professional repercussions under the state’s threats. YOM turned away patients. Client numbers dropped. And YOM’s medical director has endured a prolonged Board of Registration in Medicine investigation – triggered by a complaint from the state’s own campaign partner – now stretching beyond two years with no finding of wrongdoing.

This is not government speech. This is government coercion aimed at silencing a disfavored religious viewpoint.

The District Court Erred by Missing the Big Picture

The lower court dismissed our case by looking at each part of the state’s campaign separately, rather than seeing the full coordinated effort for what it was. But that approach is wrong. The Supreme Court has made clear that courts must look at the whole picture together – especially in cases like this at the early pleading stage.

Our opening brief shows that, when you view the facts as a whole and give YOM the benefit of all reasonable inferences (as the law requires), the amended complaint states strong claims under the First Amendment – protecting both free speech and the free exercise of religion – as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Specifically, the state’s actions amount to unconstitutional coercion. Government officials used threatening language – calling centers “deceptive” and a “public health threat” (terms that carry serious legal weight in the medical licensing world). These warnings came from the very officials who control YOM’s medical license. YOM reasonably understood these statements as a threat, and the campaign produced real harm: a doctor quitting, fewer women receiving help, serious reputational damage, and an ongoing investigation.

We also highlight the clear hostility toward religion. Internal government planning documents literally asked, “How do we want to tackle/address religious aspects of these places?” And the unequal treatment is obvious: Pro-life centers with zero complaints faced a million-dollar public smear campaign, while abortion clinics with documented serious safety violations – things like non-sterile equipment and biohazard storage issues – received no similar public condemnation or pressure.

We Will Not Back Down

Just as we stood with YOM when we filed suit to stop this vicious smear campaign, we continue fighting today in the First Circuit. The First Amendment protects the right of religious ministries like YOM to offer life-affirming care and counsel without fear of government retaliation. The government cannot weaponize its regulatory power to drive women away from pro-life centers and prop up the abortion industry.

This case is about more than one center in Massachusetts – it’s about whether states can orchestrate coordinated campaigns to suppress pro-life speech nationwide. The ACLJ remains committed to defending the constitutional rights of Pregnancy Resource Centers across the country.

We ask you to stand with us. Sign our petition, share this story, and pray for victory in the First Circuit as we defend the freedom to speak truth and serve women in need.