Millions of women across America are in danger of losing access to the compassionate, community-based support they rely on when facing unexpected pregnancies. At the beginning of December, the Supreme Court heard the pivotal First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin case—a decision that will determine whether abortion-industry allies can weaponize government power against the very nonprofits that offer counseling, material assistance, and medical support to vulnerable women and children—precisely because they do not provide abortion.
First Choice is one of nearly 3,000 pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) serving communities of every size—urban, rural, and suburban. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute's just-released 2025 National Pregnancy Center Report, these centers provided more than $452 million in free medical services, baby supplies, housing support, parenting classes, and other essential resources last year alone, many to women and families at or below the poverty line.
Their mission is simple and widely supported: to surround women with care, respect, and practical help during one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. Recent polling shows overwhelming bipartisan approval for this work—including from 75 percent of Democrats—because Americans instinctively recognize that women deserve more than an abortion referral. They deserve genuine support—not political intimidation or state-sponsored attacks.
That's why the actions taken by New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin stunned Aimee Huber, the director of First Choice, and her team. Without a single complaint, and without evidence of wrongdoing, his office issued a sweeping subpoena demanding confidential donor records and sensitive internal documents. In an instant, a small nonprofit staffed by women who spend their days helping families found themselves facing the full weight of a state government determined to pry into their operations.
They were understandably frightened. Exposing donor information could jeopardize people's safety and chill future support for programs women depend on. And if pregnancy centers cannot protect their supporters, many will be unable to survive.
During oral arguments on December 2, Platkin's office was forced to admit it had no underlying evidence for its demands. Supreme Court Justices—across the ideological spectrum—pressed the state on why a "strike force" had been deployed against peaceful nonprofits providing free services to women in need. Several openly questioned whether the true intent was to intimidate and deter the work of pregnancy centers.
For many of us who have spent decades working alongside these organizations, the motive is unmistakable. In the post-Dobbs era, some activists and officials have adopted a strategy of lawfare—using government power to burden, punish, or dismantle pro-life nonprofits simply because they serve women in ways the abortion industry finds threatening.
The consequences are not abstract. Since May 2022, at least 96 pregnancy centers and pro-life offices have been attacked—firebombed, vandalized, or destroyed. Now, some public officials are attempting to achieve through legal intimidation what violent extremists attempted through destruction.
This is especially tragic because the needs women face are profound.
Research shows that 60 percent of post-abortive women felt pressured into their abortion, and many say they would have chosen to parent had they received meaningful support. For more than 50 years, PRCs have stepped into that gap—helping women escape abusive relationships, overcome addictions, secure housing, continue their education, and build stable families.
I have met countless women across all 50 states whose lives and futures were transformed because a caring volunteer at a local center believed in them. These nonprofits are not political machines; they are lifelines for women in crisis.
That is what makes the Platkin case so dangerous. If the Court allows this kind of state overreach to stand, it will embolden attorneys general in other states to wage similar campaigns against charities they dislike—undermining free speech, donor privacy, and nonprofits' ability to serve the public.
Yet even in the face of this danger, I am deeply encouraged by what I witnessed in the days leading up to the oral arguments.
On the night before the hearing, 3,000 pro-life leaders, advocates, policymakers, pastors, medical experts, elected officials, and women served by pregnancy centers joined a national online forum hosted by the Life Leadership Conference. We convened leaders from across the entire movement—including First Choice, Alliance Defending Freedom (arguing the case), Care Net, Heartbeat International, NIFLA, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Her PLAN, Live Action, AAPLOG, and many others.
Together, we shared the latest data on the collective impact of pregnancy centers, reviewed legal implications, aligned messaging, prayed for the women of First Choice, the attorneys arguing the case, and the Supreme Court Justices, and began coordinating next steps to further strengthen pregnancy help nationwide. What we are seeing is unprecedented unity—leaders and organizations recognizing that supporting women requires collaboration, not competition.
America is standing at a crossroads. We can allow aggressive activists and government officials to dismantle nonprofits and the teams that walk with women through some of life's hardest moments. Or we can stand together—across political, religious, and organizational lines—to ensure women continue receiving the authentic, compassionate support they deserve.
I believe Americans will choose the better path—defending the pregnancy centers that serve women every day. And when we do, women and children across this nation will flourish because of it.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member