Two recent federal court rulings in Delaware and Illinois upheld pregnancy centers’ right to free speech.
Delaware’s Senate Bill 300, which was set to go into effect in March, required pregnancy centers to post disclaimers within their facilities and on all advertising materials that state that they do not have a licensed medical provider on staff directly supervising the provision of services.
However, one month after a pregnancy center and a nonprofit network of affiliated centers sued the Delaware attorney general over what they deemed as unconstitutional legislation, state officials agreed to a court order prohibiting them from enforcing the law for the duration of the case.
In February, attorneys with Simms Showers and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and one of its four member facilities in Delaware, A Door of Hope Pregnancy Center in Wilmington. A Door of Hope is also a member of Care Net’s network of 1,200 pregnancy centers.
In the lawsuit, the attorneys explained how forcing the pregnancy centers to post “government-compelled speech” in disclaimers would be burdensome, misleading, and would limit the centers’ digital advertising options, thus impeding their freedom of speech.
On its website, ADF explained that A Door of Hope provides both medical and nonmedical pro-life information and services for no charge to women facing pregnancy decisions. A Door of Hope’s registered nurses provide pregnancy tests and limited obstetrical ultrasounds. Its medical team consists of a volunteer medical doctor who serves as its medical director, a volunteer radiologist, and several RNs who provide its medical services.
“We’re pleased Delaware officials won’t enforce their unconstitutional law against the pregnancy centers we represent as this case continues,” said Simms Showers Senior Associate William R. Thetford, lead counsel. “Pregnancy centers are a force for good in Wilmington and the surrounding community, offering families true, life-affirming care and resources during unplanned or unsupported pregnancies.”
“We applaud Delaware officials for allowing NIFLA and A Door of Hope to serve women and families free from government punishment as this case moves forward,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “We’ve seen too many state attorneys general ramp up their efforts to silence, censor, and shut down pregnancy care centers across the country. We are urging the court to follow the Supreme Court’s guidance and respect pregnancy centers’ freedom to continue their life-saving service in their communities.”
In Illinois, a federal district court permanently blocked a state law that forced pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion. The action would have been “in violation of their deeply held beliefs about protecting unborn life,” according to Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three pro-life pregnancy centers in a seven-year-old lawsuit against the state of Illinois.
In its decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that a provision of the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (HCRCA) compelling the centers to promote abortion and its supposed “benefits”—regardless of their ethical, medical, or moral views—violated their freedom of speech.
“No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions. The court was right to protect pregnancy centers’ freedom to advocate that life is a human right,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot, who argued before the court in September 2023. “The government can’t compel medical professionals to choose between violating the law and violating the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.”
While the decision provided relief for Illinois pregnancy centers regarding the requirement to promote abortion, the ruling was hailed as a spilt decision, especially regarding matters of conscience for pro-life physicians.
According to the Thomas More Society, the Court upheld a separate amendment to the HCRCA, “which had gutted conscience protections for pro-life physicians and pregnancy centers and required them to refer for abortion.” The provision requires healthcare providers to refer patients to other providers for services they object to, including abortions. The court viewed this as regulating professional conduct rather than compelling speech, and thus did not find it unconstitutional, according to Catholic News Agency.
In the case, Thomas More Society attorneys represented Illinois physician Dr. Ronald Schroeder and 1st Way Pregnancy Support Services and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs, which are both affiliates in Care Net’s network of 1,200 pregnancy centers.
“We welcome the court’s ruling striking down Illinois’ attempts to force our pro-life physicians and pregnancy centers to parrot pro-abortion talking points, in violation of their First Amendment rights—a victory we’ve fought for since this case began nearly a decade ago. But we are greatly concerned that the court did not fully protect conscience rights, leaving our clients forced to compromise their deepest beliefs. We look forward to continuing this fight against the State of Illinois in the Seventh Circuit.”